Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 04:17, 10 April 2015 (→General RFC discussion: improperly crafted RfC). 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 March 10, 2015 Articles for deletion No consensus

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.

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)
• Agree with MrBill3, it should be yes, yes and no. Yes to 1 & 2, because the sources are good. No to 3, because the sources are not talking about using amygdalin to cure cancer, which is the issue here. Darx9url (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

General RFC discussion

For the avoidance of doubt my views are:

1. Yes. 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. Yes. 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. No. 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)

Hello Guy, is the laetrile claim of curing cancer something that the John Birch Society first came up with? You said "The reasons behind the John Birch Society promoting this fraud are political, not medical." I see it says in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91/pdf John Birch members supported it in 1972. John Birch Society is all about being against communism and for limited govt. Do they just want americans "to have right to choose laetrile for themselves"? Or is it a hoax they themselves are pushing? I see you mention other non laetrile things that Griffen is connected to like AIDS, Jewish NWO, etc. Why? Atsme's lede in the sandbox said Griffen is a conspiracy theorist, are you worried someone might be reading wikipedia and think laetrile is a proven cancer cure by looking at that? Popish Plot (talk) 15:21, 9 April 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)

• Comment Why do you have a special section for uninvolved editor comment? Anyway, Question 1, Yes. Question 2 in a nutshell yes, but the concerns priorly mentioned can be addressed, shouldn't be completely written off, in the end it's all about presentation. Question 3, no. Alternative question 1 A very cautious yes. Alternative question 2 No it's not reasonable as this is a bio about Griffin and not amygdalin, and this would only stand to unduly validate Griffins positions (he can due so himself) while ignoring numerous wikipedia policies and guidelines (that have already been pointed out) without a common sense justification to WP:IAR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - summoned by bot. tl;dr. Maybe I'm not understanding the issue, but I would suggest that even if his arguments are ridiculous and a huge scam, the critique of his arguments should be presented professionally. Using words like "quackery" seems lacking; surely there are more professional terms and analysis to use. —Мандичка 😜 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The professional analysis - as published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians, impact factor 162.5, the highest ranked peer-reviewed cancer journal in the world - is precisely that it is quackery: Laetrile: A Lesson in CancerQuackery. It is a truly remarkable fact that the laetrile scam - regarded as possibly the most lucrative fraud in US medical history - is described forthrightly and unambiguously in these terms. To get a slapdown of that magnitude in the scientific literature indicates wrongness on a truly epic scale. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the date, Guy? That paper is dated 1981. The terminology went out of style with bell bottoms and sheepskin vests. Terms like quackery and snake oil belong in the Ntl Enquirer not in an encyclopedia where we should be using terms like scientifically unsupported. Atsme☯ 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to whitewash the article. However, there does seem to be a reasonable basis to discuss and review the language used. Specifically the word "Quackery". To be clear, discuss and review, that would be with both the possibility that it be changed and the possibility that it stay the same. I'd ask specifically is this more of an attack on Griffin or a reasonable criticism. More importantly, is it clear that his views on vitamin b12 (or what ever) are complete bunk, garbage, fringe views that aren't supported by medical science, or ect? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points, SJP. Atsme☯ 03:29, 10 April 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)

Hello MrBill3, I'm not sure what this means: " Evaluation of the reliability of a source is relative to specific content." Is this like saying it depends on context? Popish Plot (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• From a quick glance, I fail to see how Forbes or RT could be rejected as sources. There has been ample discussion about using RT as a source, and I believe the general consensus was that it qualifies for all but Russia-related issues, at which point more discussion is needed. As a side note, I wonder about the option of taking these sources individually to the RS noticeboard rather than dealing with them here. It would make the task easier for uninvolved editors who have no experience with this article. petrarchan47tc 23:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review this page and the archives. There's ample explanation, which need not be repeated, as to why e.g. a blog post from a non-notable commentator on Forbes is not RS for the claims being made. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with SPECIFICO'S assumption that Forbes is not a RS for the following two reasons:

1. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. Even the RS noticeboard cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. It is the greater context of the article that matters.
2. According to WP:RS - Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. The latter applies to Forbes and the journalist credited as author. I already made this point very clear in other posts. Atsme☯ 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Specifico's claims are not in alignment with WP:RS. In fact even non-notable blogs can be used as a source in certain circumstances. If taken to the RS NB, the Forbes source and content, for example, can be reviewed by less-entrenched editors with perhaps a more neutral stance. petrarchan47tc 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're calling me "entrenched" because I have graciously responded to many repetitions of the same nonsense here, I consider that a personal attack and I ask you to remove it. It is disruptive to cast aspersions on unnamed "entrenched" editors, whoever you intend to characterize in that manner, instead of responding to the content and policy-based statements they make here. Please strike your remark and comment in the future on content, not contributors. Several Admins are watching this page, which falls under Arbcom sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Specifico, I was speaking in generalities, as this has been a long dispute involving several people. This wasn't meant to be a comment about you, it was a recommendation to Atsme. petrarchan47tc 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a PA, SPECIFICO. Why would you make such an assumption? It appears maybe you may have been premature to make such an allegation. From where I sit, less-entrenched meant the depth of one's involvement, or is there a policy I've overlooked that considers "entrenched" to be derogatory? If my memory serves, you and I and several others who have tried to improve this BLP have been involved for quite some time. I don't see that as a PA, or a bad thing, either. I find it commendable that we have devoted as much time to trying to improve the article as we have. Sometimes I feel like I've grown roots so in an effort to be less involved (or entrenched whatever the case may be), I've been spending more time copy editing and working on other articles. I highly recommend it. Atsme☯ 00:34, 10 April 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)

This is still open. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN the editor has the burden to explain why sources are good and we should assume good faith. I see atsme has done that. You say you oppose the sources, Atsme asked why, you said you already did I believe? Could you give a link so I can see? I have searched thru archives but might be missing something. Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of this talk page shows that Atsme's view has been rejected. The burden is not to state an incorrect view, it's to establish that article text is supported by WP:RS references. The consensus of editors is that no RS have been provided, only a collection of blogs and other invalid sources for these claims. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think I'm asking an unfair request. Popish Plot (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a fair request if Atsme had explained why the sources are relevant for some material to be added, and if the sources had not been previously rejected as not reliable for much of anything. Both false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is incorrect in his statement that the history shows my view has been rejected. In fact, the opposite has been true including the results of the AfD regarding notability, and the RfC regarding compliance with NPOV as it effects BLP and reliable sources. It's easy to say an editor's views are wrong without any diffs to support such a statement. If one will simply take the time to review policy, RfC results, BLPN and RSN noticeboard results it becomes quite apparent that WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies prevail and that is the only view I hold in this regard. Read the policies first, then make a decision. Atsme☯ 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you're going off-topic. This thread is neither about the AfD -- in which I had no opinion -- nor is it about the RfC concerning the lede. It's important to stick to the topic under discussion. Otherwise there is no chance of progress here and the article will stay as is for eternity or longer. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill3 - it is an improperly crafted RfC. Close it and focus on the poorly sourced contentious material in the lede or remove it. Finding RS to cite what is already written will prove far more productive than debating RS for passages that haven't been written, yet. Atsme☯ 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I take it all back

• 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