Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 23 March 2015 (→Proposal for lead: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 7 days

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.

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.

Contentious edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Arthur Norton reverted my removal of a cite to Natural News, which is not a reliable source, removed the much discussed text about world without cancer, and added another unreliable source, Freedom Force International. I think those edits need reverting. As does the addition of a cite to whale.to, probably the single most unreliable source on the entire internet.

There are a lot of edits in quick succession. Here's my view on them:

1. references IMDB, a user-edited site and not a WP:RS.
2. is a useful edit establishing the conspiracist nature of Griffin's ideas.
3. adds text to something sourced to Reality Zone, when in fact the source cshould simply be removed as it is unreliable.
4. adds more text to a source that should be treated with extreme caution, as it's a fringe political group.
5. seems unproblematic.
6. adds Category:AIDS denialists. This is an NPOV issue since although he has promoted AIDS denialism, he is not a notable AIDS denialist (nowhere near the likes of Peter Duesberg, for example).
7. seems unproblematic.
8. risks giving undue weight to a side-issue. Griffin has promoted AIDS denialism, but to call it out in a section? I don't know.
9. Removes the entirely WP:MEDRS source the American cancer Society, as a supporting source for the unscientific nature of the "vitamin B17" claim, and replaces it with Media Matters. Media matters may be a supporting source, but the ACS source is clearly both reliable and on point. That source needs to go back in.
10. improves sourcing but removes the fact that Griffin asserts a conspiracy to suppress laetrile, which is why his laetrile advocacy is conspiracist claptrap and not just claptrap. Needless to say I have a problem with removing this fact.
11. is obviously valid.
12. removes his promotion of the quack cancer cure. That has to go back in, since it's been extensively discussed on this page with broad support for inclusion. This edit also removes another WPRS and WP:MEDRS compliant source.
13. removes "Starting as a child actor for radio, he became an announcer and assistant station director. In the 1960s he began producing books and documentary-style films promulgating conspiracy theories related to a range of subjects including cancer, the historicity of Noah's Ark, and the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. He was also a member and officer of the John Birch Society." Why? This is a straightforward summary of his career.
14. demotes from the lede a description of his views on the ark and the Fed and replaces it with a bald statement that he believes the ark is at Durupinar, which if excessively bland given that he's produced a book and a film promoting this false idea.
15. is accurate but there may be a WP:UNDUE problem.
16. adds Category 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Accurate, but is it undue weight?
17. sharpens a link, no problem.
18. adds Category:John F. Kennedy conspiracy theorists. He is, but is is an originator or leading proponent of these? Possible WP:UNDUE.
19. moves a section. No substantive change to content.
20. replaces the fact that he promotes this false idea with a simple statement that he believes it. Belief is not a strong enough word. He wrote the book, that goes beyond mere belief. And while Atsme will undoubtedly be delighted to lose the fact that the "vitamin B17" idea is scientifically unsupported, I'm not.
21. introduces "Freedom Force International" as a source. This is one of Griffin's crank websites, it is not a reliable source for his having been an officer of the John Birch Society because it could be resume-padding. You need an independent source for that, or at a pinch the canonical authority, the JBS itself.
22. As above. Repeats Griffin's claims as if they are fact, without referencing an authoritative or fact-checked source.
23. Adds aa reference to an existing source.
24. Adds a reference to "The Cancer Cure Foundation", which is Griffin's own creation and of course not actually a cancer cure foundation but a propaganda site promoting alternative cancer cures. It is not a WP:RS for the content. In fact the entire paragraph should probably go as it has no reliable independent sources and repeats Griffin's claims uncritically.
25. Null edit
26. Legitimate removal of part of the para on the "cure foundation".
27. Removes "promotion" fomr seciton title "pseudoscience promotion and conspiracy theories". No obvious problem with this.
28. Adds the "cure foundation" for a source to things that are not about itself, the only limited context in which it might be argued as reliable. This site is not an acceptable source for the content it is now being stated as supporting.
29. adds summary to a source and makes some edits to a section about the Jekyll Island crankfest. No real opinion on this.
30. Null edit.
31. Adds good summary to a good source.
32. Adds a ref to an existing source.
33. Adds a reference to whale.to. Sorry, but just no. Being on whale is an extremely storng indication that something is conspiracist bullshit, but to use inclusion as a source for that is WP:OR and that is literally the only thing we could possibly use it for, since the site has no fact-checking (other than to studiously remove facts fomr most of its articles, I guess) and the editorial policy is so badly broken that it promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual.
34. Adds a summary to an existing source.
35. Formatting edit.
36. is a sound edit, clarifying that he supports these conspiracy movements without asserting that he is a member of them.
37. adds a ref to an existing source.
38. changes "pseudoscience and conspiracy theories" to "writings". As long as we're clear that his writings are pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, I guess this is fine.
39. changes writigns to works.
40. Removes the heading altogether and moves the rest up a level.
41. removes the fact that Jekyll Island promotes conspiracy theories, extensively discussed above and having broad support, so needs to go back in.
42. Removes the NPOV tag, which Atsme probably won't like as the article is still written fomr the reality-based perspective.
43. Adds a summary of a source.
44. Minor edit, no substantive change.
45. more accurately represents Griffin's response (and repeats his grammatical error verbatim).
46. formatting edit.
47. formatting edit.
48. reverts formatting edits.
49. removes reference to Rough.
50. removes an unreliable statement from the summary of the unreliable source whale.to.
51. says he is president of American media. He is not "president" of American Media, he is American Media. The source is horribly unreliable.
52. cites WorldCat. That's suspiciously WP:OR. Link worldcat int he refs at the bottom, not in the article.
53. reverts removal of canonical unreliable medical source Natural News. This is currently the only article other than that on the site itself, which references Natural News.
54. formatting edit.
55. moves a paragraph but leaves the unreliable source.

In summary I would say:

• Whale.to must go. It is simply not an acceptable source for anything.
• Natural News must go. It is a crank website whose views on health matters are simply not compliant with Misplaced Pages policy.
• ACS should come back, along with the text on the scientifically unsupported nature of "world without cancer", as this is the core of the problem with that book. Atsme has already demonstrated how it is possible to get terribly confused by the difference between whether amygdalin might have therapeutic purposes, and the refuted claim that it is a vitamin whose absence causes cancer and that the medical-industrial complex is conspiring to hush this up.
• The references to freedom force international should go per WP:SEFLPUB. It's not his official website so not a WP:RS for facts about him and the claims he makes there are not independently validated.
• The references to the "cancer cure foundation" should go as they are being used to support statements well beyond the narrow bounds of what's permissible in WP:SELFPUB.
• Long-debated content in the lede should be restored pending discussion here.

Removing Natural News and whale is an obvious and urgent matter. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a given that Whale.to and Natural News should not be used as sources for anything - to use them here is quite ridiculous. The other comments by Guy are apropos, the vast changes overnight (for me) need reverting, and Guys assessment above used for discussion on a point by point basis. I move for a mass revert. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done some of it. I don't mind if there's a mass revert taking it further -- but I did some piecemeal editing to allow for the possibility that there were some useful edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sure that the edits were in the main constructive, Richard and I obviously don't see eye to eye on the appropriateness of whale and Natural News but I don't recall any times we've disputed the overall thrust of an article on a fringe topic, and a good faith effort by someone fresh to this article can only be welcomed. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You have not provided any information that substantiates any of the comments above are factually accurate. At this point in time, they are nothing more than POV. It is highly inappropriate to make such decisions based on one's own opinion. What is a crank website anyway? Where is the consensus determination from RSN that declared it an unreliable source for the information it was used to cite? Please explain why, in your opinion, it is a crank website. Atsme☯ 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the removal of sources

I have no dog in this fight to have the article deleted. I came through AFD. The lede was changed because of concerns for a WP:BLP --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whale.to must go. It is simply not an acceptable source for anything. Whale was blacklisted for spamming, not for having unreliable material. The link is a transcript of his biographical blurb read before a lecture.
• Natural News must go. It is a crank website whose views on health matters are simply not compliant with Misplaced Pages policy. Fringy websites to support fringy biographies are fine. Just like with articles on religion we use religious sources, even if they believe in talking snakes and floods that covered the Earth, and virgin births.

I have removed it as an external link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• ACS should come back, along with the text on the scientifically unsupported nature of "world without cancer", as this is the core of the problem with that book. Atsme has already demonstrated how it is possible to get terribly confused by the difference between whether amygdalin might have therapeutic purposes, and the refuted claim that it is a vitamin whose absence causes cancer and that the medical-industrial complex is conspiring to hush this up. People can click to the article, we do not have to spoon feed people what will be found when they can click to find what something is

I have addressed this by adding in the negative finding by the FDA in the 1977 report on laetrile form the laetrile page. I have also added the reference from that page.

• The references to freedom force international should go per WP:SELFPUB. It's not his official website so not a WP:RS for facts about him and the claims he makes there are not independently validated. Of course the website can be used to to support the fact "Freedom Force came into existence at a meeting on December 12, 2002, in the Dominican Republic where G. Edward Griffin was a speaker at an off-shore investment conference" WP:SELFPUB reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities"
• The references to the "cancer cure foundation" should go as they are being used to support statements well beyond the narrow bounds of what's permissible in WP:SELFPUB. Of course his website should be used to as a reference for his website. WP:SEFLPUB reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities"
• Long-debated content in the lede should be restored pending discussion here. NPOV for a BLP MUST be removed. BLP concerns override consensus for disparaging ledes. There is no need to call him a conspiracy theorist in the lede, when the body of the article explains his theories. When he dies you can call him a conspiracy theorist. He doesn't describe himself as one. His book on the reserve has been reviewed by many and the reviews range fringy to inciteful. As soon as people read the titles of his other books and the topics they will get the idea he is fringy and conspiracy without disparaging a living person by calling him fringy or conspiracy.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." (emphasis Misplaced Pages)

• The categories are fine, no one argues that they have to have a new theory to be included, but they can write supporting existing theory. While Dusenberg has his own theory most of the others are followers of his theory, like the president of South Africa who is in the category, and clearly belongs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Your edit today is a violation of the 1RR per week restriction on this article. I suggest doing a self-reversion asap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You will have to point me to debate where such restrictions are posted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? It's just up at the top of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you post it here in quotations for me please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I see no reason for spoon-feeding -- just look at the first section of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies -- that restriction lasted for one month. In which case: I am reverted your edits, and now per WP:BRD you can gain consensus here on the talk page before repeating them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." There is no mention of 1RR, again, instead of hand waving and concerns about spoon-feeding, if you know where this is discussed, now would be the time to show me. That would be much better than threatening me that it secretly exists and I must obey this hidden rule. I have no dog in this fight, I am not a fringe supporter, I am a medicinal chemist and a supporter of orthodox scientific principles. I am here through the AFD addressing concerns about the quality of the sourcing raised in the AFD, and by the NPOV tag added to this BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you were unable to find this. But here it is: "I have imposed a one revert per seven days restriction on this article as an arbitration enforcement action for one month in the hope that it will at least slow down edit wars. I will also note that tag team edit warring is disruptive and may result in the editors involved being further restricted (such as with 0RR or an article ban). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" (If you still don't see it above, a text string search will sort you out.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• If it was active it would be in the Admin Banner which only reads "Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." It also reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you've restored your edits without noting the comments above that support the revert, that was not a good idea.

Whale is a classic WP:ELNEVER. If there is no better source for that information then it is not significant information and should not be included at all.

The "BLP concerns" have been debated here ad nauseam and your belief is at odds with the consensus view on this talk page; you are implementing in some cases changes that have been rejected after extended debate.

Dozens of people have looked at it, including numerous admins, and the consensus has been that the text you removed does not violate WP:BLP. Atsme thinks it does, but then Atsme also thinks that his ideas on laetrile are now vindicated, Creature From The Black Lagoon is a mainstream work of scholarship, and that the assertion in world without cancer that the role of "vitamin B17" in the cause and cure of cancer is being suppressed by Big Pharma is somehow not a conspiracy theory.

Natural News is also a classic WP:ELNEVER. It is a site with a long history of inaccuracy and even outright deception, if the information is not available from a more reliable source then the information should be removed. The argument that crank websites are fine for crank ideas is simply wrong. WP:RS makes no exception for information that is not available in any reliable sources, the way to deal with information not available in reliable sources is to remove it.

His own websites (of which he has several) are reliable only about themselves, not about other people or about claims which they support but which are contradicted by the evidence. Nothiong Grififn claims can be taken at face value. For example, if he is the only source of the claim that he was an officer of the John Birch Society, then we should not include it because we need independent corroboration. The most we can say is that he claims to have been a spokesman and officer.

There is a 1RR restriction on this article. You've reverted at least one edit more than once. That wasn't a good idea either. I understand your motives are sound, but you need to seek consensus especially in respect of the incredibly unreliable sources you are proposing. This would be, I think, the only article on the entire English Misplaced Pages to cite either Natural News or Whale. And you want both. In a controversial biography of a man who at least one editor refuses to acknowledge is a crank. You might be going a bit too far there. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have read anything I wrote. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." (emphasis mine) Calling him "a c...k" even on a talk page is potentially libelous for a BLP. WP:ELNEVER, the external link was removed many edits ago, so you are commenting without even looking at the current state of the article. "Whale is a classic WP:ELNEVER." Whale is an internal reference, not in the external link section. His own words describing his work is fine per WP:SELFPUB, which reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (my emphasis added) I would agree if an even more reliable source countered that claim. Lets say the JBS posts that he never appeared in their membership records or was never an "official spokesman". Fringe sources to document fringe thought is fine, just as we use religious sources to document religious issues, no matter how much they defy physics, chemistry, and biology. As I said before, I am a scientist and have no dog in this fight. I am here through the AFD and am addressing BLP issues raised by the NPOV tag. Misplaced Pages rules demand they be "be removed immediately". You cannot override BLP rules with consensus to add potentially libelous labels. The readers can decide for themselves based on his writing. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The most we can say is that he claims to have been a spokesman and officer." We cannot use the word "claimed" because it is potentially libelous for a BLP. "Claimed" is implying that he is lying. We can say someone "claims" they won the Medal of Honor if the official website for the Medal of Honor does not list them. JBS or another more reliable source would have to write on their website that his claims are false, if we are going to imply they are false. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories", but if we say it, it is potentially libelous. If we use the Media Matters quote in the lede we then come under WP:UNDUE. For BLPs we ALWAYS side on caution in wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes blog piece is not RS for a statement about US history or monetary institutions. It's an opinion piece by a investment fund manager. There are, however well-sourced RS (Flaherty) statements in the article body which establish that Griffin's narrative concerning the Fed etc. is conspiracy theory stuff. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What Forbes blog opinion piece are you referring to, I do not see one in the article. If it is there, yes, it is an opinion piece. It is referencing his opinion on the book, just like the other opinions expressed about the book in that section. I add the New York Times opinion pieces all the time, add I add the The Economist opinion pieces all the time. Every movie review and every book review is an opinion. Movie reviewers are not filmmakers, although Roger Ebert wrote a movie script that was made into a film ... yet they review movies. Can you point to the rule demanding opinion pieces be removed. Also show me where in the article this reference appears, I only know it from the AFD debate. I get the feeling you are recycling old arguments without actually reading the current state of the article. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for editors to share our feelings. Please remain focused on content not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Forbes blog entry is not in the biography, so I will say as a fact that you are not discussing the current version of the article and are recycling old arguments for no reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I refer to the discussion of that Forbes source on this page, above. Moreover the second reference in the current version of the article (USADaily) is not RS for the statement attributed to it in the note. P.S. Please don't comment on others' motives -- "...no reason." Please don't make personal remarks here. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will put it this way: I have no idea why we are discussing the issue of a Forbes reference that does not appear in the article. And I do not know why we are still discussing it now, and I do not know why we will still be discussing it later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Richard, I know you are trying to help, I really do, but it is very clear that your edits do not enjoy consensus. Please discuss them first and actually listen to others instead of simply stating that your interpretation is the only valid one. Atsme's being doing that for months and so have I, I suppose, and it's irritating everyone. More voices in the discussion would be most welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoring the word "quackery" to a biography of living person is libelous and should be removed immediately. My neutral scientific wording was fine that it was found ineffective by the FDA. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." If there is contention over libelous wording it cannot stay, even if a group of people through consensus decide it is ok to libel someone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave the legal analysis to actual lawyers, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawyers merely represent the aggrieved in court and make the oral argument to the judge. The decision of libel/not libel is made by 9 non-lawyers of the jury. We don't need lawyers, we just have to follow the Misplaced Pages rule: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll be at the back of a long line starting with the editors of this journal. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard, numerous cases have established that this is not the case. And that's in isolation fomr the fact that laetrile is not merely quackery, it is a fraud that has been repeatedly prosecuted and is stated to be so in numerous reliable sources. Misplaced Pages policy does not prevent the use of factual terms, even if they are considered pejorative by believers in fringe and pseudoscientific ideas. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Laetrile is not a living person subject to libel laws, you can say that at the article on Laetrile and I would not be bothered. Libel only applies to people. Recently there have been test cases trying to expand libel to commercial products and corporations as the Oprah beef case. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Laetrile does not cease to be quackery just because a living person is advocating it. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can you show me where the word "quack" or "quackery" is used in another living person biography? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We have several articles on notable quacks that use the term, and of direct relevance is Ernie Baron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where we describe another person dismissed as promoting quackery. Also relevant are articles like Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where we are entirely forthright in noting that fraudulent claims are fraudulent. Use of the term quack is protected speech under US law anyway, but we don't call him a quack, we merely note, entirely correctly and with references, that he promotes a form of quackery. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ernesto Baron (August 15, 1940 – January 23, 2006)> He is dead, Jed. You can't libel a dead person. It is also unreferenced and poorly written. "irked medical professionals and then dismissed him as promoter of quack medicine." Did the medical professionals dismiss his ideas or did the television station dismiss him from his job? He sounds like the Filipino Mehmet Oz. Can we say Mehmet Oz is a quack. You also have no understanding of free speech. Libel is not free speech ... slander is speech, libel is printed slander. US law doesn't matter, it violates Misplaced Pages policy for WP:BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not violate Misplaced Pages policy. He was promoting Laetrile, Laetrile is a dangerous quack remedy. These facts are both established with robust sources. No policy is violated by saying so. You could see Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example of forthright coverage of fraudulent medical claims. Griffin is a crank, not a quack, but he is a crank who has promoted one of the most repugnant medical frauds in history. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Has someone called an RfC that I've missed? I keep reading references to consensus, and would like to read the initiating statement that called for comments. I'd also like to read the survey results and closer's statement. As far as I can tell, we've only had one RfC, so who is determining consensus in the absence of an actual survey? Atsme☯ 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In regard quackery: Need I refer you to the article I referred to on Talk:Quackery. "Quack" is not necessarily libel; and has adequate sources already in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages WP:BLP policy is not determined on talk pages of articles, it is set by the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But the policy is applied on the talk pages of articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here that "quack" is a BLP violation. If anyone feels this is wrong, I suggest posting on BLPN and soliciting guidance there. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material from biographies. Most fo the problem with this article is that there are vanishingly few proper sources about Griffin at all, only about his work, which is in the main self-published and entirely ignored by reality-based media (though undoubtedly popular on conspiracist websites like Whale and Natural News, as you've shown earlier).

WP:BLP does not mandate the removal of all negative material. We have many biographies on cranks, charlatans and promoters of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories which are entirely accurate in noting these facts. Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for example. The fact that laetrile is quackery, is unambiguously established form entirely reliable sources. The fact that "World Without Cancer" promotes the fraudulent claim that amygdalin is a vitamin, a claim introduced by proponent Ernst T. Krebs in order to evade regulations, is also well established, and it is this claim in particular which is most associated with quackery. One or two of us on this talk page are very familiar with this subject area.

And one of the long-standing problems with this article is people asserting that their interpretation of policy is the only valid one. On this matter, the relevance to BLP of the fact that Griffin advocated a quack cancer cure, it is very obvious that reasonable people can and do disagree. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources that validate Richard's concerns

In an effort to be helpful, following are RS to substantiate what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) explained above: In May 1999 the Amsterdam Court of Justice decided that a retired internist and propagandist of his own alternative cancer therapy, could rightfully be called a quack by his critics. Recently this judgment was reversed on appeal. The first court used the medical definition of quackery: a treatment of which the supposed benefits are unsubstantiated. The court of appeal, however, took into consideration that to the general public calling someone a quack is an indication that this person is a swindler and practises medicine unlawfully. This definition is supported by the most authoritative Dutch dictionary. And then we also have the following situation that occurred in late 2013: . I think a thorough review of BLP policy may be in order. Atsme☯ 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these is relevant to the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the irrelevance of my statement be substantiated by something other than opinion? I would think that since we are obligated to strictly adhere to BLP policy the information I provided actually would be relevant, at the very least based on the common sense reasoning provided above. The terminology has been challenged by more than a few editors who have suggested on more than one occasion that the same point can be made without using contentious terminology. It is far more encyclopedic and less tabloid style to described it as an unsound medical therapeutic that is not FDA approved, or scientifically supported as a treatment for cancer. The way the lead is written has been challenged by more than a few editors who are proficient writers of biographies on WP. Atsme☯ 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, that is an argument_from_authority and is also irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I could actually use the same argument_from_authority in response to your position, but doing so doesn't resolve the issue either way. What this article needs is NPOV in compliance with BLP, and closer fact-checking for accuracy and making sure the stated material is actually contained in the source per V. In order to achieve that goal, discussions on this TP should be void of opinion based arguments, and unsubstantiated claims. I and others have provided links, diffs, and substantive arguments for why certain terminology should not be used in a BLP. The recent RfC consensus determined same. It appears certain passages in this article are going to require another RfC for consensus because it is obvious the editors here are not going to agree on what is or isn't a policy violation. I am reviewing the various options available to us now because going back and forth to various noticeboards for every disputed sentence is laborious. Atsme☯ 18:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the RfC concerned the wording of a sentence in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Recently this judgment was reversed on appeal. It's not "recent". One of the Netherlands' highest courts voided (not just vacated) the appelate decision.

References

1. Willem Betz (March–April 2015). "The Case of Gorter v. SKEPP". Skeptical Inquirer. 39 (2): 19–21.

Looks like we are reading two different cases. The case to which I referred was in Holland, and it was physician Sickesz being called a quack by Renckens. In December 2003 an attorney for Sickest directed Renckens to stop calling her a quack. She filed suit on August 4, 2005, and the lower court ruled against her. "The court accepted the explanation of the VtdK of the term 'kwakzalver' or curer, namely that it didn't imply the intent to deceive." Sickesz appealed on May 31, 2007, and won the appeal. The use of the term is libelous in Holland.

The case you're talking about is a different case in Belgium. It was Gorter vs Skepp & Betz. Gorter lost in the lower court, appealed and won most of his argument but not all. The court ruled that use of the terms quack and quackery were libelous. Gorter is protected by the law, not because he appeals to (generally accepted Western) science but because it relies heavily on alternative 'medicine' (anthroposophy, acupuncture, homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine) and his "experience" as a cancer patient. Because he himself believes in him is no 'ill will' or cunning to charge. They used the Sickesz ruling as caselaw. They can say his treatments don't work, are not supported by science, etc. which is basically what we've been arguing for 3 months to modify in Griffin. There is no need to use contentious material because it reflects badly on our professionalism and lowers the quality of information we provide to readers. For example, scientifically unsupported, and not FDA approved is factual, dispassionate, and accurately described, and it sounds so much better than quackery. Atsme☯ 01:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, "contentious" does not refer to you contesting the material on the WP talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on article content. Atsme☯ 04:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was doing. Let me be more clear. You are misrepresenting the substance of the policy which refers to "contentious material..." in article content. SPECIFICO talk 04:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket, please just quote the relevant part you think I am misrepresenting so I'll know what you're talking about. I can just as easily say you are one who is misrepresenting it and that will just put us back to square one. No resolution when there is no understanding. Atsme☯ 05:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is governed by US law. To describe laetrile as quackery, is protected speech under the First Amendment. Precedents relating to people calling registered medical doctors quacks are not relevant, though even there the US courts have upheld that this is protected speech. We are not saying Griffin is a quack. We are saying that his book advocates a form of quackery, and we are doing soon the basis of an accurate reflection of robust sources. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme's statement as follows absolutely sums up and clarify's the entire argument over Griffin these last many months. "There is no need to use contentious material because it reflects badly on our professionalism and lowers the quality of information we provide to readers." He continues, "For example, scientifically unsupported, and not FDA approved is factual, dispassionate, and accurately described, and it sounds so much better than quackery." I urge the editors of the Griffin BLP to accept Atsme's concept in going forward with this article. It is so clear to me that Atsme has reflected the appropriate verbal posture for professional encyclopedic Misplaced Pages editing.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds better. But it's less accurate. Laetrile is not merely scientifically unsupported, it is identified as one of the worst medical frauds in American history. That's not a small matter. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Article sanctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm trying a different approach to working out what to do with the article and discussions now. The 1RR/week, though very strict, seemed to calm down the article quite a bit and actually get people to talk about issues rather than reverting. Rather than impose another article sanction by fiat I thought I might take this approach and ask what people thought will help. Could you please indicate which of the following you think would work best (I'm just after comments, I'll make the final decision)?

Nothing

This is the correct approach imho. I'll send you a doggy biscuit if you impose this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR per 24 hours

Longtime editors are much more used to this sort of restriction. 1RR per week is hard to keep track of via timestamps. jps (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR per 72 hours

1RR per 7 days

Full protection

To provide an opportunity for the RfCs that need to be initiated. It will also insure that before an edit is made, it will have consensus. Atsme☯ 05:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've decided to full protect it. I don't think that 1RR/24hrs will be enough to present issues, and given jps's reasonable concerns with 1RR/week I've gone with a month of full protection, after which I might go with a long term 1RR to hopefully keep it calm. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

FFI

Atsme reinserted the para on Freedom Force International, describing it in Misplaced Pages's voice in terms lifted from its own mission statement. The problem here is that while Griffin may believe it's an international group committed to personal freedom, few independent observers would be likely to view it in such rosy terms. Without reliable independent sources we have no idea of its importance and no way of discussing it neutrally, since fringe views may not be accepted at face value. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but can't we simply delete the para, as it is obviously not acceptable in this BLP? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, it would be considered noncompliant with NPOV to suppress the views of the subject in his biography. I cited the source for that information with an inline text attribution, and it is perfectly acceptable as a RS to include information from self-published sources about themselves. It is not our job to determine what/how independent observers will view or think about the subject. We simply write the material, and the readers form their own conclusions. What you are proposing is censorship of information based on an argument that is noncompliant with NPOV. It is not necessary or required to include an opposing view for every sentence we include in a BLP. If you have an opposing view, add it to the paragraph but please do not delete my work based on your presumptions. This is a BLP, and in a BLP we write about the person and that person's views - not what we think others will think about it. They are his views, and this is his biography. Atsme☯ 12:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we've now reached the root of the misunderstandings you have about this article. It is not "his biography" -- it is a biography of him. There's a difference, something most editors active here understand quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're correct in that we have reached the root of misunderstandings, but it has nothing to do with me. My cortical responses to lexical and syntactic processing for reading comprehension function quite well, thank you. (1) it is his biography, (2) it is Griffin's biography, (3) the biography we are writing about Griffin (4) we are writing his biography. A biography is an account of someone's life written by someone else therefore to say it is a biography of him is to say it is an account someone wrote of his life of him which is redundant to say the least. A biography is an account of a person. Now, please try to focus on article content instead of trying to blame me for things you don't understand. Atsme☯ 04:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If any other editor thinks they understand what Atsme is getting at here and wants to try to translate, I'd be grateful... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation is that Atsme's statement above fundamentally misrepresents core WP policy with respect to BLP, V, and RS. Not in a manner which could be attributed to differences in application or interpretation, but rather that the statement is false. Policy does not prescribe that we present a primary-sourced mirror of the subject's self-description and let the reader sort it out. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between "his biography" and "a biography of a living person" is subtle, but important. If anyone goes out and write a book on Griffin, they can call it "his biography" and put in whatever you want. But because this is a collaborative effort that relies on secondary sources, is a summary style piece, is limited by various guidelines and policies, and is subject to a changing consensus, we cannot put whatever we want into the article. But let's get back to the topic of this thread – FFI. It is listed in the infobox, but it is not really "his" website. He is simply a founder of FFI. So it should be removed from that location. Instead, it ought to go into the External links section with a short description. (Something like "A politically oriented networking organization for individuals founded by Griffin in 20xx.") – S. Rich (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, not what you incorrectly think is my interpretation. Quite frankly, Murray_Rothbard is my interpretation of how this biography should look, so whenever you have any doubt about my work or intentions, give that article a quick review instead of trying to sway discussion into a debate over semantics. It isn't going to happen. Atsme☯ 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? I think you are taking the rules for article creation and trying to force them on descriptions of mission statements by organizations. Of course you use the organizations mission statement as a reference and describe the mission statement in an article. This is just silly. His biography vs. autobiography vs. biography of him is another silly waste of time argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Only trouble is, this isn't an article on an organisation... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin identified as Conspiracy Theorist /Conspiracy Author in Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads: "Griffin's writings promote conspiracy theories about the political and health care systems."

I was curious what LexisNexis would produce in terms of WP:SECONDARY independent sources that confirm the point that G. Edward Griffin is identified as a "conspiracy theorist." These are some of the results.

1. Skyjacker of the Day; Anthony Bryant took a plane to Cuba to buy bazookas for the Black Panthers. Fidel Castro wasn't happy to see him.

Slate Magazine, June 7, 2013 Friday 11:15 AM GMT, HISTORY; Life, 605 words, Brendan I. Koerner
... Watch his conversation with noted conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin.) Bryant also became a ...
2. Controversial American Political Pundit Invited to Speak to Knesset in July
Palestine News Network (PNN) - English, June 28, 2011 Tuesday, 291 words
... hosted on his show, G. Edward Griffin, a conspiracy theorist who believes that the widely ...
3. New Documentary Film The Truth is Out There Starring Former X-Files Actor Dean Haglund Chronicles the Conspiracy Obsessed; Premiering in London on April 30, this epic of comedy, consciousness, and conspiracy is destined to become a legend says SLIDETV® Studios.
PR Newswire, April 25, 2011 Monday 7:11 AM EST, 851 words
... insider' status, to interview conspiracy theorists, researchers, authors, journalists, ...
... Rob Simone; authors G. Edward Griffin, Tucker Smallwood, and David ...
4. Fox is dropping Beck. (It's probably a conspiracy.)
The Washington Post, April 7, 2011 Thursday, A-SECTION; Pg. A02, 785 words, Dana Milbank
... case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the ...
5. AIG A GOLD STANDARD FOR FIASCOES
Palm Beach Post (Florida), March 20, 2009 Friday, OPINION; Pg. 18A, 661 words, Rhonda Swan
... consideration to the so-called conspiracy theorists.My frie nd ...
... mess.Are Mr. Russo, G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll ...
6. Choose your friends wisely
Jerusalem Post, September 12, 2011 Monday, OPINION; Pg. 15, 921 words, ROBERT HORENSTEIN
... turned to conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin, whose website promotes anti- ...

... feminism, even insisting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were God's ...

There's actually more than this, but this is a sample. Some WP:SECONDARY sources have been mentioned in the article. Some haven't. There are quite a few opinion pieces that could be properly attributed and cited. Quite a few op-eds have been written about Griffin in reliable sources that discuss Griffin's activities and what they consider to be conspiracy theories. If we follow WP:LEAD, it probably doesn't need to be sourced if it's just summarizing the body text. But I'd like to know what others think. There's also not much of anything in the article about the 9/11 Truth Movement and Griffin's support of it, but it's mentioned in the lead. This could probably be expanded further in the body text. Otherwise, I'm not sure it should be there. Oddexit (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a contentious label. See the section above titled, RfC Close results - Please do not archive. In the list of sources you mentioned, #1 is nothing more than parenthetical mention that mirrors WP which makes it unreliable, and further explains why such a contentious label does not belong in the lead. The remainder of the sources are either partisan, or passing mention which do not pass the smell test for including such a contentious label in the lead, and if used in the body of the article, must contain inline text attribution. I have no problem using "conspiracy author" or "conspiratorial view" in the body of the article, as they are NPOV. The same applies to references of quackery and the like considering that terminology has been determined to be libelous in the U.S., Holland and Belgium as was pointed out in recent discussions. Following are a few more links demonstrating what most RS write about Griffin and his literary works. There are many others that I posted at the AfD, and in the TP archives here which include in-depth discussions about this very topic. Editors who have written 50 or so WP biographies such as Carrite, Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_), and ChrisGualtieri have provided insightful input with regards to the contentious labeling. Having been a RL author of biographies, including bios of competitors in magazines, and a few intro bios on famous celebrities I've worked with over the years, including William Shatner, Jimmy Dean, Larry Hagman and others, one could say my experience in the area of potential and neutrality is rather extensive. I certainly respect the advice of authorities in the field of medicine, science, technology, etc., but I also respect the advice of editors who have expertise as professional writers, particularly writers of biographical content on WP which is why I mentioned the editors above. Passing mention that simply hangs a contentious label on a BLP will carry little weight in a determination for consensus vs RS that include brief bios preceding actual interviews with the man.

1. GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). "G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System." ...
   
2. , Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa) "G. Edward Griffin works tirelessly to dispel the notion that the Fed has been a failure. His latest effort was at the just-concluded Casey Research/Sprott Inc. investor summit on Navigating the Politicized Economy, where he told a packed hall that the Fed has been wildly successful at its true mission – to protect the banking system at all costs. According to Griffin, the problem is the American people are footing the bill for these costs through stealth taxation, thanks to the coordinated actions of the Fed and US government." ...
   
3. Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island." ...
   
4. Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) "On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act we talk to G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about America’s central bank."...
5. Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - "This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island. ..."
   
6. RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act...
   Atsme☯ 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You complain about "partisan" sources, and then propose "goldsilver.com" and RT -- have I got that right? In any event, the fact that some sources don't use the "conspiracy" motif takes nothing away from the fact that a good number of sources do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you're repeating an assertion, including the list of non-RS putative references, which has recently been rejected on this talk page. That is WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion. There has not been an RfC consensus rejecting any of my sources. The repetition of my assertions is necessary for responding to the repeated denial of them. Atsme☯ 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you'll give a careful look at the linked policies I cited above. It's not my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On your talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not respond to content questions on my TP. I reposted your comment here because this is where it belongs.

Atsme, you're repeating an assertion, including the list of non-RS putative references, which has recently been rejected on this talk page. That is WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that you are stating your opinion which includes your interpretation of the policies you believe apply. My response was to Oddexit whose recent arrival I welcome. I simply brought him up-to-date with a brief summary of past discussions which he was kind enough to thank me for doing. I also don't consider the RfC close and the review of that close as falling under either of the policies you mentioned because it serves as a reminder and helpful bit of information for new arrivals who want to collaborate here, and help prepare Griffin for GA review. Atsme☯ 14:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If I could offer another observation about contentious BLP descriptions in the lead, I follow religiously the BLP Noticeboard and the improvement of BLPs related to fringe theorists, fringe political actors, etc because it's useful in understanding how Misplaced Pages policy is being implemented. I do this because it's educational and because my intent is to help to write poliy-compliant articles of lesser known figures and consequently contribute better to the project. What I've noticed is that part of the problem is an inconsistent interpretation of policy for improving articles like Griffin, probably because there's a lack of absolute policy clarity on what to do with negative labels. Everyone agrees that we are supposed to rely mostly (there are limited exceptions per WP:SELFPUB) on verifiable (WP:V), reliable {WP:RS), secondary (WP:SECONDARY) sources written in a neutral/dispassionate tone. This does not mean that we're not allowed to document what the secondary sources have to say about a subject if it is also critical of the subject. If that were true, David Irving would still be called a "historian" on Misplaced Pages and not just a "historical writer" or "Holocaust deniar" (something he vigorously denies). I happen to think the most objective way to go about determining whether a negative label should be attached to a subject is simply counting the number of times the negative label appears in the reliable secondary sources versus a rival label. It's the only way to avoid accusations of bias per WP:DUE, but I realize that my proposal might not be popular to some here. Does anyone have an opinion on this suggestion? Oddexit (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddexit, I appreciate your observation and your intentions. If I may suggest a little closer review of the following policies in an effort to help bring clarity with regards to contentious labels (my bold): WP:BLP requires that we must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. 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. It also states we must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies - WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. With the latter in mind, the following demonstrates how the 3 core content policies apply, beginning with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#cite_note-COI_SOURCES-8 which clearly differentiates what are considered RS, and how/why a RS can become a "questionable source". The policy notes: It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood.. A think-tank, a paid scholar who promotes or is a proponent of a particular POV, a blog, opinion column, websites with goals and mission statements such as Media Matters, etc. that use pejorative terminology and contentious labels against a competitor, or an individual with opposing political views is considered to have a COI, which makes a RS a questionable source for adding contentious material. WP:NPOV clearly states 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. I repeat, reliable sources. Just because an editor doesn't agree with a particular source doesn't make it unreliable. A questionable source is not a reliable source. Refer back to WP:BLP. Also, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI are content guidelines not policy. Policy takes precedence over guidelines. Also see MOS guideline topics, WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL. Happy editing. (imaginary smiley) Atsme☯ 18:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This post is pretty silly. In essence: if someone criticises someone else, that means they are a "questionable source". No-one is going to take this seriously, Atsme. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, it's disruptive to repeat this view, which is incorrect and which has previously been rejected here. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The David Irving analogy is illustrative. To call someone a Holocaust denier is to disparage him. However, that doesn't mean the label is inaccurate; on the contrary, the label is abundantly supported by reliable sources who have discussed Irving's work. Similarly, attaching "conspiracy theorist" to Griffin acts to disparage him; but that doesn't mean the label isn't accurate. It is amply supported by various RS. The admin who said we can't label Griffin a CT was simply mistaken. Steeletrap (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Which admin said we can't call him a conspiracy theorist? The RfC was only about calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence (which appears in Google snippets so is especially sensitive). There's absolutely no reason at all why we cannot reference the fact that he is known for promotion of conspiracy theories, in fact to fail to do so would be a gross failure of WP:NPOV, since that is what he is primarily known for and is the sole source of what popularity he might have (albeit that this is not reflected in substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources, so we have to tease a biography out of passing mentions). The RfC doesn't even stop us saying "known for the promotion of conspiracy theories" in the first sentence, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

How to portray the views of "the medical community"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit, an editor takes the view that we should attribute a judgment about a medical matter to "the medical community". That perspective implies that there might be a different judgment made by a different "community" that we should perhaps pay attention to. The edit summary even offers the fanciful speculation that "The medical community could be wrong and an online quack right about something" -- a counterfactual speculation in the present context, and one that ought not to concern us here. In my view, the judgment of the "medical community" (in reality, scientific research) should tell us what something is, not what "the medical community" regards it as. I'd be interested to hear other editors' views, and I'll hope to see that edit reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition of medical community: the body of individuals who are qualified to practice medicine. That also includes CAM which is a growing part of the medical community. Mayo Clinic states the following "Complementary and alternative medicine has never been more popular. Nearly 40 percent of adults report using complementary and alternative medicine, also called CAM for short. Doctors are embracing CAM therapies, too, often combining them with mainstream medical therapies — spawning the term "integrative medicine." Exactly what's considered alternative medicine changes constantly as treatments undergo testing and move into the mainstream." Any attempt to suppress without question CAM treatments, fringe and/or minority views is censorship. On WP, we have policies which we are expected to adhere to, and in the case of BLPs, strictly adhere to, and guidelines which have been suggested, such as using MEDRS for finding the best sources - not the only sources. As editors, we should be acting in the spirit of free thought, considering our options, prioritizing policy, and reviewing guidelines when we write the passages and edit what we feel is appropriate. With the exception of the pejorative term "quackery", I am ok with such an edit. Atsme☯ 02:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the competence to determine with certitude whether Griffin--a charlatan and a quack--or the medical community is right about this subject. My belief that the latter is correct is rooted in a appeal to authority, which is grounded in my respect for the scientific method and the process of peer review. I am virtually (99.9999999%) certain Griffin is wrong. But my belief in that regard is--in contrast to my absolute/verified belief that I live in an apartment building or that I have spaghetti in my fridge--tentative, based as it is on an appeal to authority. I imagine that everyone else here is in the same boat as me: they disbelief Griffin because of an appeal to authority, not because they have personally verified or falsified Griffin's claims. Appeals to authority can be strong arguments, but they are at best probabilistic. Steeletrap (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Complementary and alternative medicine has never been more popular" is not the equivalent of testifying to its clinical efficacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is not. Atsme is committed to mischaracterizing Griffin's fringe views as mainstream, which is disruptive to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I quoted Mayo Clinic - their words, not mine. I did not imply their views were the equivalent of testifying to its clinical efficacy, although I'm not sure what you meant by "its clinical efficacy". For example, doctors and hospitals often prescribe a sits bath for their patients using Epsom Salt, so does that make it CAM since the FDA has not approved all of its uses, and is considered by some in the medical community to be nothing more than a placebo? What do you consider to be the equivalent of testifying to its clinical efficacy? I simply posted what Mayo described to be the "medical community", and then added (my bold), "Any attempt to suppress without question CAM treatments, fringe and/or minority views is censorship." Guidelines actually allow for it, but in the case of a biography of a living person, WP:FRINGEBLP takes precedence. Are you suggesting that treatments which are actually in practice by the Mayo Clinic, a multitude of doctors, and renowned clinics around the world should not be included in a WP article unless there is testimony to its clinical efficacy, and if so, where do you propose we acquire such testimony? Perhaps if editors wanted to do an extensive search for testimony to the clinical efficacy of a sits bath it could be done, but I bet the results will bring up websites like Natural News. Question for you - who makes the determination and at what moment in time is it decided that a CAM treatment becomes mainstream if it's not those in the medical community? Do we ignore what mainstream has acknowledged and accepted as CAM treatments and integrative medicine? The NIH has acknowledged CAM, as have renowned clinics around the world. Not all treatments come in a prescription bottle that were approved by the FDA, so do we ignore them? Our job is to provide information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, so if RSes are writing about a particular CAM treatment, and we include that information according to WP:PAG, then I see no reason to be concerned. Atsme☯ 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a (rather elaborate) straw man argument. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic article cited above doesn't mention Laetrile, so cannot be used to source any statement about it. Brunton (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Brunton I didn't include the Mayo definition to be used as a RS for laetrile. I included it to define a significant member of the medical community's view of "medical community". The word laetrile often incorrectly refers to amygdalin or the non-vitamin B17 because some editors may not understand the difference, or fully understand what Griffin actually wrote about in his book regarding amygdalin (B17) for which he advocates further research, but that is another issue. See the following for a more in-depth explanation: . Here is a brief excerpt: Although the names laetrile, Laetrile, and amygdalin are often used interchangeably, they are not the same product. The chemical composition of U.S.-patented Laetrile (mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronide), a semisynthetic derivative of amygdalin, is different from the laetrile/amygdalin produced in Mexico (mandelonitrile beta-D-gentiobioside), which is made from crushed apricot pits. Mandelonitrile, which contains cyanide, is a structural component of both products. It has been proposed that cyanide is the active cancer-killing ingredient in laetrile, but two other breakdown products of amygdalin—prunasin (which is similar in structure to Laetrile) and benzaldehyde —may also be cancer cell inhibitors. The studies discussed in this summary used either Mexican laetrile/amygdalin or the patented form. In most instances, the generic term “laetrile” will be used in this summary; however, a distinction will be made between the products when necessary. Atsme☯ 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, it's a straw man to discuss one thing and apply the conclusion (right or wrong) to another thing. Your argument does not justify its conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please stop your groundless criticisms of my posts because they are clearly based on your POV, and have nothing to do with improving article content. Atsme☯ 19:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

i'm not sure how the alleged inability of some editors to understand the difference between Laetrile and amygdalin is relevant here, because the Mayo article doesn't mention amygdalin either. Or "vitamin B17". You seem to be arguing that the Mayo article shows that CAM is accepted as mainstream, but since it doesn't mention the particular therapies Griffin advocates (and, indeed, says that what is accepted "changes constantly"), it can't be used here without indulging in WP:SYN. You seem to be unsure about where we should "acquire ... testimony" about whether therapies are effective. WP:MEDRS makes this clear; we use the medical literature, and in particular secondary sources such as systematic reviews like this one. Brunton (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary is flat wrong, because the claim Griffin makes is not that amygdalin may be a therapeutically useful substance, but that it is a vitamin (specifically vitamin B17), a deficiency in which is the cause of cancer, which can therefore be cured by supplementation. This claim is fraudulent. Amygdalin is not a vitamin, Krebs branded it a vitamin, as far as can be ascertained, in order to evade Federal food and drug regulations, which, thanks to special pleading by the supplement industry, effectively exempt supplements from regulatory oversight. Even if amygdalin were shown to be a therapeutically useful agent (and that is absolutely not the case at this time), Griffin's claims would still be a part of the fraudulent promotion by Krebs and not a part of the reality-based medical world. Laetrile, as promoted by Griffin, is unambiguously fraudulent, and there are numerous successful prosecutions to prove it.

Atsme's refusal to drop the WP:STICK is, by now, willful disruption. Atsme is well aware that the arguments she makes are wrong, and why, but continues to make them anyway. How many times is it going to be necessary to reject these claims before Atsme either shuts up about them, or gets topic-banned? Guy (Help!) 11:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanec: Could you please review recent talk page developments here? There's no reason for editors to continue work in the current environment. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am not making any claims, so please stop trying to make it appear that I am. I am quoting Mayo Clinic, and Cancer.gov, for Pete's sake. How is that making claims? They made the claims - their words, not mine. I am growing very weary of your POV disruptions that are nothing more than casting aspersions against me to make it appear as though I am doing something I'm not. Please stop. Atsme☯ 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Edit request for small change. Can wait till PP is lifted.. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Footnote 19 now reads "Best-selling business books, April 14". Rocky Mountain News. 2007-04-14. Archived from the original on 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-02-29. "10. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin. American Media. $24.50. ..." Request: remove '$24.50. ...' as unneeded, unhelpful – S. Rich (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) There's a worse problem with this reference. The article text states the book is a best-seller, which most readers will take to mean on a notable national or international list such as NY Times bestsellers. Either the text needs to be attributed to this meaningless local list or a better source should be found. This issue should be resolved before any changes are made. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Srich32977 here are some sources to choose from: Atsme☯ 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks. But my request was purely one of citation style. I am not interested in debating the RS'ness of RMN. – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Atsme is the issue that his book is a best seller, but the wiki article here doesn't say according to who? With that link it says it's according to amazon which is a relaible source in terms of book sales. And also according to denver post which is like a secondary source for this. I think that is what SPECIFICO's concern was. Popish Plot (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for responding Popish Plot, but this thread originated as an edit request by Srich to remove a price tag, and I was just trying to be helpful in the event there was an issue about RS. Atsme☯ 22:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) So just regarding the price, are we happy for me to remove the price from the reference? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think that's a good idea. There will be plenty of time to clean things up after the editing environment improves. I think it's a waste of Admin time to deal with trivia and I hope you'll only be summoned in the future when the editors here agree that consensus has been reached on significant content edits. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Well I vote take out the price, is that really needed for an encyclopedia, no. Popish Plot (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on sources

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please comment on the admissibility of these sources:

1. GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). "G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System." ...
   
2. , Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa) "G. Edward Griffin works tirelessly to dispel the notion that the Fed has been a failure. His latest effort was at the just-concluded Casey Research/Sprott Inc. investor summit on Navigating the Politicized Economy, where he told a packed hall that the Fed has been wildly successful at its true mission – to protect the banking system at all costs. According to Griffin, the problem is the American people are footing the bill for these costs through stealth taxation, thanks to the coordinated actions of the Fed and US government." ...
   
3. Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island." ...
   
4. Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) "On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act we talk to G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, about America’s central bank."...
5. Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - "This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island. ..."
   
6. RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act...
   

Uninvolved editor comments

• Comments by editors previously uninvolved go in this section.
• Improperly crafted RfC. Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content. Propose content with sources and seek consensus on the content and the reliability of the source(s) for that content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the record, I oppose Atsme's interpretation of all of them, and I oppose the inclusion of any of them because only one meets WP:RS and that is merely a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may ask (for the record) on what grounds do you oppose them, Guy? A very useful analysis of RS was posted by TenOfAllTrades at RSN regarding a common misconception (my bold): that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.). What part of the aforementioned analysis do you believe supports your argument? Atsme☯ 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons stated by several others above, several times. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• All of those sources are inappropriate for use on this BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: RfC as posed is not answerable - there are few sources that one can very broadly say are RS or not RS for use in WP. It depends on what you want to use them for and the RfC doesn't make that clear. Seems more a matter for RSN in any case. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is at least the third recent time that these citations have been advocated against consensus. None of them is RS for the associated article content that's being advocated. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - the sources are perfectly acceptable for how they are being used. It is not about whether or not you "like" or "agree" with a source, but whether that source supports the material that was added in a BLP. Atsme☯ 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Did you notice how nobody else agrees? Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfC proved differently and so did the AfD. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." Atsme☯ 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, they did not. The RfC "proved" only that to call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence is inappropriate - it does not even prevent us saying, in the first sentence, that he is known for advocacy of conspiracy theories, and it certainly does not prevent us noting throughout the article that most of what he writes is conspiracist claptrap. The scope was very narrow. You have of course tried many times to imply a vastly greater scope and breadth to that consensus, but every time you have tried this, you have failed. The AfD similarly did not in any way validate the crap sources you keep proposing. Importantly, neither shoed any consensus at all in favour of inclusion of these sources. That's your precise argument here: that the RfC and AfD "prove differently", i.e. that they show unambiguous consensus that the sources you propose are valid. That claim is simply false. To pretend otherwise is disruptive, kindly stop. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on laetrile

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please comment on sources and content regarding the use of amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy in cancer that may validate Griffin's claims.

Griffin's claims are, as far as I understand it:

• That amygdalin is a vitamin, specifically vitamin B17.
• That deficiency of vitamin B17 is a cause of cancer.
• That supplementation of vitamin B17 can cure cancer.
• That the medical establishment conspires to suppress this.

The questions at issue are:

1. Is it reasonable to describe Griffin's thesis in respect of amygdalin as scientifically unsupported (per , , and even , a well-known proponent of numerous quesitonable supplement claims)?
2. Is it reasonable to characterise the vitamin B17 / laetrile scam, as quackery, in Misplaced Pages's voice (per especially - "All prior forms of cancer quackery, however, pale in comparison with the laetrile crusade, unquestionably the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history"), or must it be attributed to "the medical community", or, more accurately, the medical and scientific communities?
3. Does recent research suggesting a possible therapeutic benefit for amygdalin as an adjuvant therapy, cast sufficient doubt on the consensus . Missed form original, added after Nomoskedasticity's comments below

Please address each separately.

Alternative questions

(please specify if your responses pertain to the Alternative question)

1. Is it reasonable to include Griffin's views as biographical content regarding why he wrote his book, World Without Cancer, as long as his views are not given WP:UNDUE, provided the current views of the medical community are properly presented including not only the research that is 30+ years old, but also the most recent research on amygdalin in 2013 - 2015?

Note: Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, includes documented evidence regarding clinical trials of various physicians , and the results of various physicians and scientific researchers of that time period (30+ years ago) who used the drug Laetrile, a chemically modified version of amygdalin, a natural substance found in apricots, almonds and various other fruits and nuts. . Scientist Krebbs called amygdalin (B17) a vitamin, but it was never officially recorded as such. Griffin's book marshals evidence provided by physicians and researchers of that time period, much of which still applies today with regards to the natural substance, amygdalin, . There are books written by whistle blowers from Memorial Sloan Kettering that exposes the fraudulent results of the 30 year old research: . Griffin's book advocates for further research of amygdalin as a potential treatment for cancer but more so for the freedom of choice.

2. Is it reasonable to include brief mention of ongoing scientific research as indicated most recently by Memorial Sloan Kettering, who finally admitted to "the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms" , as well as what is published in peer reviewed journals as long as those views are presented as ongoing research per WP:FRINGE guidelines?

Uninvolved editor comments

• Editors previously uninvolved in this issue comment in this section.

• yes, yes and no. This is all supported by high quality RS. Any recent research should only be considered once reviewed by MEDRS quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the avoidance of doubt my views are:

1. There is no such thing as vitamin B17, there is no evidence that cancer is caused by a deficiency of the non-existent vitamin, or of amygdalin, whether or not it is a vitamin, there is no evidence that amygdalin is a cure for cancer as it is promoted by laetrile quacks, and there has never been any evidence whatsoever of a concerted cover up by the immense group of doctors, medical scientists, regulators, drug company employees and charity workers who would have to be party to any conspiracy of silence. It is therefore correct, both technically and in terms of WP:NPOV, to describe Griffin's view as scientifically unsupported.
2. Laetrile is a fraud. Numerous prosecutions (e.g. ) attest to this. It is correct to characterise it as quackery and/or fraud and there is no need to qualify this as it is a view that has no significant dissent among the relevant scientific community. Even those investigating amygdalin as a potential therapy, do not subscribe to the laetrile narrative of cancer as a disease caused by deficiency of amygdalin.
3. Recent research is irrelevant to Griffin's claims as it does not touch at any point on the narrative of laetrile: it does not demonstrate that amygdalin is a vitamin, does not support the idea that cancer as a deficiency disease, does not show that amygdalin cures cancer when administered as Griffin and other laetrile promoters claim, and if anything weakens the claims of the laetrile underground by providing a plausible explanation for the positive results found by Sugiura at MSKCC, one which refutes the narrative spun by the likes of Ralph W. Moss and other laetrile believers. Thus it is not relevant in this article and to include it would be a red herring, a novel synthesis and a failure of WP:NPOV.

(addendum:) In respect of the alternative questions posed presumably by Atsme: the 2013-2015 research is irrelevant to world without cancer so the question is moot. WWC claims that amygdalin is a vitamin. It isn't and the new research does not change that. WWC posits that amygdalin is a cure for cancer generally, that claim is fraudulent and illegal and will remain so even if the 2013-2015 research shows it to be a valid adjuvant therapy for specific cancers. The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support the thesis in WWC, and cherry-picking through it looking for statements that are only arguably wrong, rather than definitively wrong as is the case for the book's overall argument, is impermissible per NPOV and SYN. No reliable sources establish that WWC is a valid view of dancer or if Laetrile.

Sorry to raise this issue yet again but it's clear that we need to establish an unambiguous answer to these questions so that we can break the endless circular argument. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an RfC is in order, but the way you are wording it is not neutral. Furthermore, you have provided attributions to OR that dates back over 30 years (most of which is represented in a recent compilation), and doesn't include any attributions whatsoever to substantiate your allegations of what Griffin claims. WP is not interested in your POV. Policy requires inline citations with inline text attribution and that includes adherence to NPOV and Verifiability. Let's discuss how the RfC will be worded, or have you already called for one, because if you have, I need to add an alternative question. Atsme☯ 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of times you have to be told why the literature dates back 30 years, and why no IRB would sanction new research on this? If one more time will get you to finally drop it, I will do so, but otherwise I won't waste time repeating what you have already been told numerous times. As to the wording, you have had ample opportunity to start this RfC yourself, and you haven't. Somebody has to, it's me, and I am going to phrase it as I see fit. We've already established that I am substantially better informed about this scam (and indeed health scams generally ) than you are, so perhaps you might like to consider the possibility that I do actually know what I;m talking about here. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No. All answers are based in a proper reading of the sources: if we use the best sources on this topic, we find a high degree of consensus regarding these answers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I just wanted to add that I have never opposed the inclusion of scientific facts or the position of the medical community with regards to the drug, Laetrile, or its efficacy as a treatment for cancer. My objection is the use of contentious material to present those views, their relevance to this author's book, and the fact that you are trying to suppress the reasons Griffin wrote the book. The latter is biographical material that should be presented with strict adherence to NPOV, and with proper WEIGHT regarding the views of the medical community. Your position has been to suppress all mention of those views based on your interpretation of suggested PSCI guidelines, and that is my objection because by doing so, it appears to be an inadvertent violation of our 3 core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. The following two links are examples for his views on the topic which we are obligated to include in this BLP per WP:PAG: because they qualify as RS that support the author's views. The medical community doesn't support the use of the drug Laetrile in the treatment of cancer. The FDA has banned its use, and we will clearly demonstrate that view, making absolutely sure we don't give WP:UNDUE to the drug. What I also believe should be stressed is accuracy. I have read claims that it kills, it's harmful, etc. which are actually claims that over and above what the American Cancer Society has published on its website: This substance has not been thoroughly tested to find out how it interacts with medicines, foods, herbs, or dietary supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete. Accuracy is essential - it is not our job to sensationalize, or use contentious material that is not included in the sources, therefore cannot be cited with inline text attribution. While Griffin believes amygdalin merits further research (which you know full well is ongoing) based on what he considered to be "documented evidence", his primary advocacy is a person's freedom to choose. You may or may not be of the opinion that people are too stupid to make such decisions for themselves, and I may or may not agree with you, but either way, our opinions do not count here. You are making this debate focus on the chemically modified form of amygdalin which is known as Laetrile. You and others have also been misrepresenting my position, and I am growing weary of it. I have you to repeatedly to please stop. I simply want the article to be right, and that means factual accuracy void of POV. We are basically saying the same thing, only from different perspectives. I want to write GAs which is how you should gage my perspective. You are a self-professed quack buster which is how I gage yours. I am concerned that your advocacy may be contributing to the disputes over noncompliance with NPOV and BLP policy, but will AGF, and remain hopeful that we will soon meet on neutral ground to improve this article and make it a real biography of a living person. I want it ready to pass a GA review, possibly even FA which means it cannot remain as a WP:COATRACK. Atsme☯ 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You have said this before, but your version of what has to be done to make it pass GA is to remove any reference to the crazy nature of his beliefs, and while that may make a nice article, it is not a good article by any meaningful definition. I do not care if it meets GA criteria or not. The page on homeopathy has been kicked out of GA primarily because the quackery apologists hate it so much that they spend endless hours trying to water it down (irony unintentional), and it gets longer and longer as each new bullshit rationale for magic sugar is debunked. Whether it's GA or not is entirely immaterial: it is an exceptionally solidly referenced article and a model of reality-based analysis of a fraudulent "medical" practice that is in effect a religious cult not a form of medicine at all. I'm not interested int he rationale behind your special pleading, I am only interested in ensuring that this article accurately reflects the fact that Griffin is a promoter of conspiracy theories, that he is referenced almost exclusively by cranks and loons, and that his ideas have no objective merit as established by reliable independent sources. The Fed is a perfectly normal central bank. Laetrile is a fraud. Chemtrails don't exist. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus. The twin towers fell as a result of fires caused by impact of aircraft hijacked by terrorists. There is no Jewish New World Order conspiracy. These are facts, and Griffin claims otherwise. We have to be honest about that. And to be fair I have absolutely no idea why you would want to promote to GA status, an article on a crank who is ignored by virtually the entirety of the reality-based media, being promoted only by certifiable kooks like Glenn Beck.

Neutrality does not lie somewhere between the scientific consensus and whacknuts. The scientific consensus is inherently neutral. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and no per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI. This is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Irrelevant, Irrelevant, and Irrelevant per the passages proposed for inclusion in the article to make it ready for a GA review. See current proposal User:Atsme/sandbox2, and a prior attempt which was reverted without justification ]

1. Is it correct to cite RS and/or questionable sources to justify inclusion of contentious material that defames/discredits a BLP if the cited source does not support the statement, or are only passing mention?
2. Is it correct to include pejorative terminology to describe an author such as "charlatan, quackery, and/or fraud" in the lead when the author has written many books on various topics, but only one of which covers a medical topic?
3. Is it correct to exclude updated scientific research regarding the primary topic (amygdalin) of this author's book in a section about his literary works which includes a segment on his views/motivations for authoring a particular book?

I wanted to also bring the following information to light because of the requirements for NPOV, V, NOR, and strict adherence to US Laws in BLP policy regarding the inclusion of pejorative terminology as mentioned above: . If you don't think it should be a consideration, then simply ignore it. The arguments presented above have little relevance to what is actually written in Griffin's book, but even if they were relevant, the passages being proposed would be written from a biographical perspective relating only to the author's views, not from a medical perspective. WP already has an article about Laetrile. This is a BLP about an author who wrote one book about amygdalin. That book doesn't even have to be mentioned in the lead. There is much ado about nothing. More importantly are the concerns over noncompliance with NPOV, V, OR, and BLP (including FRINGEBLP) which supersedes the guidelines suggested in WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Atsme☯ 04:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted before, BLP is not a magic talisman to ward off criticism, and ideas are not people anyway. BLP gives no reason at all not to identify when somebody advocates ideas that are wrong. Three long-standing editors have Al lready rejected your claim in this RFC, and others have rejected it in the history of this talk page. So, your opinion is noted, but it is only your opinion and I for one reject it for reasons given many times now. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Everyone here needs to stop talking about other editors and focus strictly on the editorial content of this article. If you want to discuss the behavior of other editors, do it per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

How to portray the views of "the medical community", take 2

This edit is premised on the view that we should attribute a judgment about a medical matter to "the medical community". That perspective implies that there might be a different judgment made by a different "community" that we should perhaps pay attention to. The edit summary even offers the fanciful speculation that "The medical community could be wrong and an online quack right about something" -- a counterfactual speculation in the present context, and one that ought not to concern us here. In my view, the judgment of the "medical community" (in reality, scientific research) should tell us what something is, not what "the medical community" regards it as. I'd therefore propose that the previous wording be restored -- thus this edit be reinstated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? Atsme☯ 01:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

In an effort to not give Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, UNDUE according to WP:FRINGE, I composed the following lead: User:Atsme/sandbox2 I am looking forward to your responses in the spirit of GF collaboration. Atsme☯ 03:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That draft is vastly different from any previous version of this article, and it differs in a variety of respects which go far beyond its treatment of "World Without Cancer." Worse, the sandbox draft runs contrary to consensus reached in many recent and current discussions on this talk page. None of it is usable. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reject, as an abject failure of NPOV which also assumes an outcome to the ongoing RFCs that has already been rejected by everyone who has commented to date with the sole exception of the OP. (Redacted) Guy (Help!) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposed lead is not an improvement over the current version -- on the contrary, it is significantly worse. In particular, it conveys a false sense of "neutrality", thus failing to convey these matters as they are portrayed in the best reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It is a description of the room which omits to mention the fact that it has a large elephant sitting in one corner and several 800lb gorillas in another. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you guys be specific on what the problem is with that sandbox version? My problem with it is it's too short, atsme seems to have taken a lot of things out that are in the current article, things with reliable sources. But you guys appear to be getting angry and I think I am missing something. Hopefully it's not a silly personal vendetta not related to this article. Popish Plot (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It omits key things that readers would have reason to know about Griffin. If we say simply that he's an author, filmmaker, etc, we don't say much -- indeed, we say much less than is known about him. We should write about him what is written about him in high-quality reliable sources. The sandbox version doesn't do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It owuld be a gross violation of WP:NPOV to note that he wrote World Without Cancer and not note that it is claptrap. Ditto Creature from Jekyll Island, which, contrary to the impression given by Atsmne's draft, has pretty much zero credibility in the relevant professional community (a community of which he is not, despite attempts to establish the contrary by reference to an irrelevant credential, a member). His books are considered influential and valuable by cranks, not by the reality-based community, and Atsme's draft seems ot me to work very hard to obscure that well-established fact. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Again please be specific. This sandbox has a reliable source quoting : "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."" So what's the problem? What is it, specifically, you feel should be taken out, or put in, that sandbox article, or do you think the article is perfect as it is right now? Please help me understand. Popish Plot (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It does not point out that his theories on the Fed invoke the New World Order conspiracy theory, it falsely implies that he has relevant credentials in economics (he doesn't), it fails to note that most of his books are self-published as are most of not all his films, the majority of which are not films at all but direct-to-video or direct-to-internet, it claims the Fed has been "long embroiled in controversy", whihc is simply false, the Fed is a perfectly normal central bank and no more embroiled in controversy than the Bundesbank or the Bank of England, it pimps Jekyll Island, a work of fantasy, it references two fringe sources as if they were mainstream, it calls Jekyll Island a "business best seller" as if it were a legitimate business book instead of a heap of twaddle, it discusses his writing on Noah's Ark and cancer without noting that his theories on these things are entirely without foundation, it omits to mention that he's a Truther, a chemtrailer and a believer in sundry other conspiracist twaddle - in fact, in every case where it differs from the existing lede, it is substantially worse. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok but Atsme was making a draft for the "lead" aka first section of the article (correct me if I'm wrong). This would be as opposed to current lead which is: G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.

Griffin's writings promote conspiracy theories about the political and health care systems. He argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community. He is a HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. He believes Noah's Ark is located in Turkey at the Durupınar site.

So you, JzG, are saying the lead should feature more? Keep in mind it is a birography of a living person so it shouldn't say insulting language like claptrap or sundry or twaddle unless a reliable source says that. But I do think it should mention his keyl island book among the first things. And it's true the fed reserve was planned there, check the article on history https://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System and it's true there has been controversy involved in the fed. He's less known for other things like noah's ark, JFK, 9/11, chemtrails etc. I don't know if those all need to be in the lead but can be in the article itself under the lead. As it is currently. I think Atsme was saying having that all in the lead gives them undue weight. Popish Plot (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying Atsme's proposal makes the lede less accurate by obfuscating important facts and pretending validity that does not, in fact, exist. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP and OR

Be sure to strictly follow the sources and not stray into the territory of WP:OR; I removed what appeared to be a violation of WP:SYNTH from this talk page that seemed to connect unrelated people to the subject of this article. This kind of thing can violate WP:BLP. Be careful. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 23 March 2015 (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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment