Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Please comment on the admissibility of these sources:

1. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What I mean is if you propose a source, you need to specify what content in the article you feel that source would support. I don't see proposed content or a reference to specific existing content. In other words the question would need to be, is source "A" a reliable source for proposed/existing content "X". Then the reliability of the source for that content could be evaluated. I hope this has clarified adequately. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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☯^Consult 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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☯^Consult 00:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All of these sources fail rs as secondary sources. 1. GoldSilver.com is a site selling gold and silver, hence not rs. 2. The Casey Report is an investment newsletter, also not rs. 3. Financial Sense - same as 2. 4. Contains an interview with Griffin. Probably meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. 5. While Forbes articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs. 6. While RT articles are rs, this is an opinion piece, hence not rs as a secondary source. But since it is by Griffin, it meets rs as a primary source, hence not useful. TFD (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - TFD, thank you for your input, but please see the following per WP:RS guidelines: (my bold for emphasis)

1. Self-published: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves;
2. Opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.
3. Blogs: 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.
4. Primary sources: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.
5. E-commerce sources - inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages, just not as external links. Atsme☯^Consult 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly true. However, you need establish weight for opinions and balancing aspects for facts, which can only be done by showing that the specific opinions and facts you want to present are reported in reliable secondary sources. You need to stretch the rules to include these sources. Note for example that the section in rs about e-commerce refers to such things as running times of albums, certainly not details that come under biographies of living persons. Also note that opinion pieces are not rs for facts. So we cannot use for example an opinion piece in Forbes to explain why Griffith named his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. TFD (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, I realize this RfC was improperly crafted which makes it difficult for participants to respond without having to invest a great deal more time analyzing than should be necessary, but if I may please demonstrate one example for your consideration? The passage that cites Casey Research, [7], references a summit held by Casey Research, a reputable company with a reputable team of experts where Griffin was featured as guest speaker. They published the video recorded interview of Griffin with interviewer Louis James, an expert in his field who has been interviewed himself by RS, [8]. It appears to me to fit the requirement of a RS as it relates to the passage and overall context of the article. Atsme☯^Consult 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, an interview is rs for what Griffith said, and agree to keeping a link to it. But what Griffin says needs to be reported in rs and I do not think Casey Research or any investment analysts meet that level, except when they write news articles. Usually though when analysts write for newspapers, it is opinion pieces, which do not meet rs. So why would something they write for their company's website have greater reliability? I agree btw that these RfCs are poorly written and the article is biased. The lead contains the words "conspiracy" three times and "denialist" and "quackery." Ironically, the amateurish agitprop style by being over the top creates doubt about whether Griffin might be right, since "the lady doth protest too much." TFD (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• admissibility is dependent upon what content they are supposed to be supporting although in general, the answer to most is clearly no for any content in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC needs to be deleted as it is based on supposition of passages not currently included in the article. The results of this RfC will only create disruption in the future because whatever passage is actually added citing one of those sources will be automatically reverted using this RfC as consensus to not include the passage, even if the added passages has nothing to do with the examples used or the application of the source. That is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

• On the contrary -- since you keep bringing them up, we need some closure about it. Or you could simply stop... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• They don't apply to anything that is written in the article. It's vapor source. Please do not talk about me as though I'm the only one who has attempted to fix the issues here. Focus on the unreliably sourced material currently in the article because as soon as this RfC is over, I'm taking it to RSN, or perhaps to BLPN. I haven't decided which one, yet. Atsme☯^Consult 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid RfC Sources can only be classified reliable in the context of specific text they're supposed to support. Without that text, it is not possible to determine whether or not these sources are reliable. That said, aside from the Forbes blog, which only contains a passing mention of the fact that Griffin wrote the Jekyll book (and thus can only be used to support that fact), all the sources listed are interviews with Griffin. I suspect, although I'm not certain, that such interviews are
  WP:RSN (along with the text the interviews are supposed to support). Ca2james (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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☯^Consult 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

• All of those sources are inappropriate for use on this BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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☯^Consult 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia policy." Atsme☯^Consult 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guy, it appears we are reading different RfC summaries. Per RfC close (excerpt): Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (See Archive 7 here) It doesn't say only the first sentence of the lead. Admin Nyttend took it further as well he should have because of noncompliance with NPOV. Furthermore, he deleted the following from the lead: [9] Review of that close by another admin (excerpt): Second, it's hard to find fault with the close, but just as hard to be at peace with it: it could have come down either way. It also states: Whether it's a BLP violation to state "x is a conspiracy theorist" when there is overwhelming evidence that they are (I think the RfC supports the latter point) is an interesting question, and probably one that ArbCom, as our Supreme Authority, should decide on. That it's "essentially not-neutral" is still an open question, as far as I'm concerned, and that's where our BLP and fringe policies may bump into each other. Guy, the closings are not at all what you surmised. Further substantiate is the following from yet another admin's summary: However, I'm not of the opinion that the RfC prevents 'conspiracy theory' (or worded in a different way) being used to describe his theory or a theory he supports as long as it is supported by consensus, nor do I believe that doing so would be a BLP issue if it's properly sourced (though it does depend how it's worded and what it describes). The only factually accurate way to summarize it would be that It is still in question and it appears perhaps that an ARBCOM may be our only recourse. It is not productive for you to discredit me based on your misapprehension of the closings. Atsme☯^Consult 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does seem as if you are reading a different RfC summary fomr the rest of us. You should be well aware by now that your interpretation has been explicitly rejected by several others before now. The RfC consensus is narrowly restricted to whether we call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Just that, nothing more. Obviously you want to imply a payload of additional restriction favouring your view that this article should not portray Griffin as a crank. In this, you have consistently failed to persuade.

Good luck with asking ArbCom to rule on a content issue. They don't do that. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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:BLP policies prevail and that is the only view I hold in this regard. Read the policies first, then make a decision. Atsme☯^Consult 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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☯^Consult 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do, because you want to include these junk sources and won't accept the consensus that keeps going against you, and have no interest in closing off that avenue of debate. I think the rest of us have had enough of your obduracy though, and some of us at least would like to see some of your perennially-rejected requests kicked into touch once and for all. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From reading this talk page, and the archives, one may come to believe that achieving GA status for this article means that it must be whitewashed of the facts concerning Griffin. Is this really the case? I cannot believe that PAG would insist on this, but clearly, there are editors who believe this? For clarity, should this be discussed here so that we are all reading from the same (fundie) hymn sheet? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to discuss honestly. Here's the GA criteria

WP:WIAGA. That's really the only hymm sheet that matters in regards to GA's.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Just curious, Serialjoepsycho - how many GA reviews have you been through as a collaborator or nominator? What about FA reviews? DYK reviews? Did you by chance happen to look at the sources cited in the article now, or has your focus been on the vapor sources in this poorly formatted RfC? If you haven't checked those sources, would you mind very much looking at them? I'd like to hear your views regarding whether or not they support the contentious material stated in Wiki voice in the lead. Oh, and if you don't mind, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion regarding adherence of those sources to MEDRS as it relates to laetrile, amygdalin and/or B17, if you don't mind. Atsme☯^Consult 21:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for the non-notability of the subject, and a very poor case for sanitising the reality in order to make a Nice Articled. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think GA status depends upon neutrality - so we're talking about shades of grey rather than all-or-nothing. The article shouldn't be "sanitized", nor should an editor's judgement of the perceived atrocities committed by the subject be forced down the reader's throat. The introduction is six sentences, only one of them neutral. The five remaining cover his conspiracy theories. So over 80% of the intro is about controversy, or negative, whilst the article itself is only a little more than 1/2 negative. This reads like a hit piece, not a proper WP article following WP:LEDE. I realize some editors have very negative emotions about the subject, because that has been expressed here on the talk page. Obviously, if a neutral article is the goal, it would help to bring in editors who have no feelings about him one way or the other. If this article is being used to smear a living person, as it does appear to be, then the problem clearly does not lie with Atsme, as is being asserted on various forums. Take a look at Charles Manson, famous murderer and psychopath. His intro is far less negative than Griffin's in terms of the percentage of space dedicated to his evil doings. Personally, I would sue the living F out of WP if it hosted a bio like this about me. petrarchan47คุก 00:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the lede doesn't reflect the body is that even more "negative", sourced, statements are being removed or kept out from the body, even though it really is what he's known for. The article fails to note that Griffin promotes

Laetrile (or amygdalin), "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history." (Quote from our article on amygdalin.) We cannot say that in the article, because there doesn't appear to be a single source which says that Griffin promotes Laetrile, and that it is the canonical quack cancer "cure". We can and should use that fact to discard anything favorable about Griffin's promotion of Laetrile. The difficulty in "balance" is finding a reliable source which says something favorable about Griffin. Perhaps Griffin is insufficiently notable to have a Good Article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

There probably is too little about him for a GA. I suggest turning into a stub or better still deleting. There is no way we can pull together various articles that mention different aspects of Griffin's life and create a neutral article. The same applies to most of the articles about "libertarians", with a very few exceptions. TFD (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of grey? He is known primarily for promoting the hard money fetishist view of the Federal Reserve, in a book that leads witht he antisemitic New World Order conspiracy theory; he also wrote a paean to cancer quackery in support of a fellow John Birch Society member who was prosecuted for medical fraud, he is a Truther, he promotes the chemtrail conspiracy theory, most of his work is self-published. He is an absolutely standard libertarian extremist crank. There's no grey here. Everything he says and writes, is in service of an extreme libertarian agenda. The man is practically a caricature of himself! Guy (Help!) 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Atsme, Do you have ant relevant questions to ask? Any that are kind of, sort of, or even at a minimum of relevancy? I am absolutely sure that this article will be completed by its deadline. You are trying to to use the GA as a gambit in pushing for your changes. The problem however with your argument: 1)There is no urgency with GA. 2) The changes that you have promoted would make this article fail GA criteria. Alot of the rest of your response is a waste of time to respond to. But why not. I'm not going to answer those question but point out why they are completely irrelevant. Above I did not say or suggest this article currently meets GA criteria. It doesn't. The changes that you have proposed and failed to receive consensus for multiple times do nothing to change this. It actually makes it worse. MEDRS, you need another explanation? If I recall Guy and numerous other people have not only explained them but have also explained their application to this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Manson bio. Contrary to what it says above about the lead, our Griffin lead is not far more negative than our Manson intro. The repetitive voices of whitewashers and their IDHT behaviour is tedious here, so perhaps we can now put to bed finally that in order to reach this artificial status we do not have to whitewash the article. I'm not sure that Griffin is notable enough for the effort to be worthwhile though, as any notability he has seems to be directly driven by his conspiracy theories. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's been well described here as a notable crank.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) means "have received significant coverage in multiple published [reliable] secondary sources." But Griffin is generally only mentioned in sources in passing. See for example the SPLC website.[22] His name appears seven times, but only in passing. There is not even a thumbnail sketch. Even if we were to put all the mentions together, we would have no more than several paragraphs. TFD (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my memory is failing, but didn't we recently do an AfD? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it was no-consensus. The problem is that some people want an article but don't want the negative material that is inevitable if you rely on reliable independent sources. I still don't think Griffin is notable, I do think Creature is notable within the walled garden of hard-money crank literature, and we have plenty of sources for that, but mentions of Griffin are almost exclusively within articles on Creature.

WP:RM might be a better way forward. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps a proposal to convert this article over to being about that book is in order?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight - what I'm reading in the comments above is that because there is nothing substantially negative written about Griffin in RS, he is not notable? Hmmm, so in order for a BLP to be notable something negative has to be mentioned, not just good things because then it's whitewashed and must be deleted? Atsme☯^Consult 04:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually above, like in the AfD, it has been suggested that Griffin himself isn't notable but it's his book that is, or rather that his book is more notable than he and most information should be about the book, with a minimum token effort write about the author. And the position has never been that good stuff shouldn't be written about the guy. The position has been that the poorly sourced positive information that is poorly sourced and seemingly amounts to white washing and should be excluded. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I think you are doing yourself a great disservice if you are genuinely implying that this is the argument being forwarded by others above. Because I just read through those comments and I don't see anything in the opinions supplied that even remotely matches that claim, and that kind of hyperbolic strawman argument is not going to win people over to seeing your view as objective. I'd summarize the actual opinions expressed above as such: some feel Griffin as a topic does not meet the minimum standards of notability for an article while others feel he does. But most all members of both camps agree that to the extent he is covered in sources, they largely regard him as a conspiracy theorist and a quack whose views are unsupported by any scientific evidence at best, if they are not in fact outright nonsensical gibberish. Now, I'm not saying that assessment of sources is correct, I'm just saying that this is the position being forwarded above, not "Sources are only valuable if they are negative", as you have suggested.

My personal take on the sources (having taken a closer look at them as a result of this discussion) is that they are utterly atrocious and for the most part untenable for reference purposes, be they used to support positive or negative claims (and honestly the degree of "negative" and "positive" discussion here has been rather missing the point; as editors, we shouldn't have any attachment to effect any claims we include have on the man's image and how he is received -- we should only be concerned with whether they accurately reflect the sources, without the influence of editorial interpretation). The truth is that the majority of the sources in this article fail to even approach

WP:COATRACK

issues. This issue cuts two ways. On the one hand and in a roundabout way, it validates your suggestion of synthesis, because the recurrent formula seems to be "Griffin supports X" and "X is known to be quackery, as overwhelmingly supported by our sources"; Ergo "Griffin is a quack". Which may be a perfectly logical conclusion if you trust said sources, but that's just not the way we are meant to use sources on Wikipedia. We don't say a source supports a claim unless they directly validate that claim, without the need for editorial interpretation in the form of connecting the dots.

I think the reason this state of affairs has persisted here is two-fold. First, the synthesis is not overt. Instead, both parts of the argument for equating Griffin to a quack are presented and the conclusion that results is just kind of left there, implied but unsaid, such that policy on synthesis is not directly being broken in most cases. Some would say that's just a matter of presenting the relevant information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, but in a number of cases here, I believe there is a bit of "leading" involved. On the other hand, those who might want to reign in this activity but who want to preserve an article on Griffin are faced with a quandary; removing these sources and the claims they support would pretty much leave this article unsourced and obviously failing notability. And frankly, I think the topic just does fail notability guidelines. If this were and AfD discussion, I'm pretty certain I'd be !voting delete based on the present sources and the content that they are currently being used to support. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say Griffin is a quack. It says that laetrile as a "cancer cure" is quackery. Big difference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...and that's a fundamental principle of my own observations, so I'm wondering if you entirely understood the distinction I was making. We have an article to discuss laetrile's status as quackery -- it's

WP:synth manner or do not directly reference Griffin; they may be excellent sources for our laetrile article, but are less useful here. And this is all true whether the facts about laetrile are seen to exonerate Griffin or to definitively establish him as a quack, in the view of this or that editor. The question isn't whether our sources say laetrile is quackery (the judgement is most definitely in as a deafening "Yes"), it's whether this is the place to discuss that. With the sourcing we have, I say no. That's not an effort to whitewash anything -- I just think it's possible we don't have significant independent, secondary sourcing in the form of WP:reliable sources to be discussing the man in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:IAR was a policy made for a situation like this. Policy and guideline are not strong nor weak in themselves, they are strong or weak based on their application. Application requires the use of common sense. You have to use common sense in how to apply them, when to apply them, and when not to apply them. These beliefs of Griffin in regards to Laetrile are fringe. They do have a place here. The question would be about weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, Snow Rise for your eloquent elucidation. It was a refreshing read, indeed. Of course, I am not surprised by the suggestion that followed which attempts to justify all that is wrong with this BLP by claiming IAR to support the negativity of course which again brings up the issue of noncompliance with NPOV vs IAR. Hmmm. It has been with incredulousness that I've read some of the responses that justify the contentious material in Griffin, beginning back in December 2014. The non-neutral way some of the RfC's have been framed is another matter but despite it all we must live with consensus, and I will honor that decision by not editing this BLP. I prefer to not have my name attached to it as an example of my work. Instead, I'll use it as an example for what it actually represents. Regarding your thoughts on the notability of Griffin, a recent AfD resulted in a 15 to 5 response (approx count) that he was notable but the closer decided no consensus had been reached. [23]. I was going to challenge the close but decided to just leave it alone. WP has thousands of editors and thousands of different perspectives and I felt it best to just let the cards fall where they may. FWIW, I am of the mind that Griffin is indisputably a notable author who is widely cited by peers, and has created a significant well-known work or collective body of work (books and DVDs). I have read enough of his work to form the basis of biographical content which is what I thought BLPs were supposed to reflect. Instead, the RS sources I attempted to cite for the reception of his works were criticized as being too closely associated to the subject (his peers) or discredited because of political affiliation (libertarianism, tea party, JBS, etc) and the like including mention in Forbes, in radio interviews, at conferences and so on. However, the sources used to discredit this BLP in Wiki voice, including Popular Paranoia and Media Matters are supported by community consensus so there you have it. I just wanted to improve the article, and take it in the direction of a GA which is what its original collaborators had envisioned per the edit history. Bygones. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, IAR is not being used to support negativity. But if it was that would give you something to talk about. It's instead being used to support the use of common sense. I'm sorry my obvious statement has confused you, Atsme.

WP:FRINGEBLP is pretty clear, "WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." We don't need a source that says Griffin views are fringe. We need a source to show what Griffins views are and a source that suggests that those views are fringe. Fringe in this case is being denoted by the use of the word Quackery.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]