Talk:G. Edward Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] remove images?

First of all: Great job, John J. Bulten! Thank you for putting together this very improved article!

I think the images are not really necessary. They are not directly related to the text in a way of contributing helpful information. Maybe the chart with the US dollar is kind of helpful, but it's also misleading, since some people could think that he created the chart. As far as I know, he doesn't even show it in his book. I didn't delete them right away, because maybe there are also good reasons for keeping them. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Warm thanks! Of course the images are just placeholders until the Wikilawyers sort out the copyrighted ones. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's still boggling me. Personally, I'd rather go without a picture than with the two we currently have. Since I've no experience whatsoever with uploading images on WP, or the copyright stuff associated with it, I don't really know how to deal with it best. But to me it looks like there would be no conflict with the 10 basic criteria of the WP:NFC content guideline if we simply took the image provided on Griffin's page [1]. However, I couldn't find an appropriate copyright tag for it. Does anybody here have some experience with that? If it's necessary to ask these "wikilawyers" (?), I'd be glad about any clue. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"When in doubt, avoid it"--that's my motto. It saves everyone time and energy. Uploading images that potentially infringe on copyright is a huge hassle on Wikipedia. Should you care to contact G. Edward Griffin for a free image (emphasis on the legal word "free"), please be sure to send to him the form found here. It outlines exactly what is required. Personally, I like the images currently being used, but if we're going to add any other content, we need to be mindful of the legal pitfalls. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for that link! I just sent him an email asking him to consider doing exactly this. Let's see what happens... I think including a photo would be very healthy for the article, since the article is about him, and a photo can convey some information as well ("One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words"). BTW, how do we know if he indeed submitted a picture? Where would we find it then? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(Addendum) Just so that we are all operating on the same page, I'm linking to Wikipedia's content guideline on this issue found here. I haven't had the chance to study the page in detail, but one criterion stands out and is need of discussion. It reads "The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy:...A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." What is unclear to me is the phrase "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion"...in other words, not the book, but the cover is the subject? In which case, if my understanding is correct, what John uploaded is inappropriate for the page. However, what do others think of that sentence? Perhaps we should consult with the noticeboard on that issue? I'm not sure, actually. J Readings (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me first respond to that "magazine cover" thing. I think it means: If a photo of Griffin was on the cover page of the playboy - just imagine ;-) - we may not use it because the copyright belongs to the playboy. However, if there was a WP article exclusively about "Griffin's appearance in the playboy", then we could use it. I hope this interpretation is correct.
I think the way how John uploaded the picture of the book cover and how he dealt with the copyright issues is perfectly fine. I really appreciate that! I'm just torn between regarding it as unnecessary advertisement, or as useful / "significant" information (criterion #8). But personally I don't mind it, and I can also think of a good (?) argument to support its significance (it would take me a bit long to explain right now, but if anybody is interested in hearing it, please let me know before outright deleting the image). Well, maybe someone can come up with a strong argument for deleting it at once, but as long as this doesn't happen, we might as well leave it in.
As to the other picture we have (the "laetrile" molecule), I really don't see the importance or factual relation of that one at all. I would vote for deleting it, and I don't see the necessity to have a picture at all in this section. BTW, I think there is some confusion about which molecule is actually meant by Griffin (according to some references he appears to mix up vitamin B17, laetrile, and amygdalin, though there are differences(?)). I haven't looked into it in detail yet, but fact is that the picture suggests that this molecule is exactly the substance he's talking about, and I haven't seen proof for that so far. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is totally correct, though I admit also being a bit foggy about this. I believe the book cover would be okay in an article about the book but not here for copyright reasons. But since we are none of us that sure I will be asking a question at the relevant noticeboard. A picture of Griffin would be great. He could upload a photo to commons.wikimedia.org or follow the instructions here [2] (JR's link didn't work for me, for some reason).Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Question asked here [3] Slp1 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Book covers are allowed under fair use for use in the article discussing the book, not the author. See {{Non-free book cover}}. Lara❤Love 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To me the rule says something else. Does it say "not the author"? Please see noticeboard again and judge again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I wasn't precise about that. Here's the text of the email which I sent to info @ freedom-force.org:

Dear Mr. Griffin,
as you have noticed, there are many editors at wikipedia working on the extension and improvement of the article about you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
Since a photograph of a person can convey useful information („One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words“), we would be very happy to include a picture of you in the article. But copyright is taken very seriously on wikipedia and so far prevented the legal use of an image (such as the one that can be found on the reality zone page). If you like to help us improving the article further, please consider emailing an image (which you hold the copyright of) to wikipedia, according to instructions that can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission
We would truly appreciate your help.
Thank you very much for considering this.
[Initial&Name]

Hope that's ok for everyone. I'm kind of excited about what will happen... FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew it would be a can of worms! So far we've got (1) if it's fair-use, some differences over whether that may include a section about the book instead of an article about the book; (2) some indications toward consensus that such images may be uncopyrightables and thus free-use; (3) some differences over whether the image improves the article. Plus some confusion over magazine covers and personal photos. I read all the book-cover use info in good faith. May I submit that even if it's fair-use, it is clearly described at WP:FAIRUSE as "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item", that identifiability of the critically discussed work does improve the article, and that the free-use likelihood removes virtually any reason to delete? I'd appreciate it if another editor would restore the picture. JJB 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think if you want to discuss whether and why it is fairuse or not maybe you should post here [4] and discuss with those in the know. I think it is clear from Hus' comments that the "critical commentary of that item" refers to controversy about the cover itself, which is how I have always understood it. But by all means clarify things at the noticeboard if you are still not sure. I think the discussion here should be limited to whether we actually want the cover included, assuming it is okay from a copyright perspective (which appears to be the current opinion). I myself tend to agree with Hux that it doesn't add any useful information to the article, and so would vote not to readd it. But I understand that I may be outvoted by other editors. --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I could absolutely live without the book cover picture, but even more I would like to see the other picture removed which we currently have there instead. I still think it's a bit misleading since we relate the chart to Griffin's book, but the chart actually cannot be found in the book. The laetrile molecule picture is misleading in the same way (as if Griffin had anything to do with the chemical structure of the substance). I have a much bigger problem with these issues. In case of the book cover, I wouldn't really mind it, because at least it's not misleading and I think it's possible that the fact that Griffin placed the Great Seal on the cover might provide some further insight into Griffin's attitude for the critical reader. So I think this piece of information (which would be effectively presented by the image) is not really important, but not necessarily redundant. I'd love to see some more comments on whether we actually need any of the two pictures that we currently have. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, I've never seen a single article of an author which included the book cover of one of his or her books. And I've looked. That's not to say that they don't exist (they might), but as a general rule, book covers--like movie posters--are generally used for the purpose of articles devoted to either the book or the film, not the author. But please take a look around to see if there are G-rated, A-rated, or FA-rated articles that contradict that impression. J Readings (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea to look a bit around! I've looked at about 15 authors and on three of the pages they used book covers, in one of the cases a featured article (about Tolkien): Stephen King, J. R. R. Tolkien, Jules Verne. So it's not a total no-no, but actually many articles only have a single picture (the one of the author himself), and some don't even have that. Personally, I really don't care if we show the book cover or not, but I think your argument is a strong one against the two other pictures that we currently have, because I'd say those would be highly untypical, because they are even less related to the person. Ok, I've mainly looked at authors of fiction, so maybe I'm wrong about that. Is none of you having any problem with those two pictures? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care particularly for the current images myself and wouldn't mind seeing both of them gone, since I don't believe they add anything much to the article. I am also concerned that the dollar picture and the caption are POV. I think a photo of Griffin would be great. Good luck with your email Feelfree. Hopefully he will send you one.Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since nobody here really seems to care much for the other two pictures, I removed them from the article. Hope that's also ok for Mr. Readings and Bulten. If not, please revert and explain to me how they contribute to the article. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything from Griffin so far :-( But I created an infobox instead, hoping that the dummy picture will be replaced at some point in the future. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

I changed a couple of details for the sake of WP:NPOV, which I hope are uncontroversial. But I still have a problem with the sentence "Griffin's dreams of a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to create such a system in 1998", or rather, with the word "caused". I haven't found proof that NotHaus was influenced by Griffin before establishing his own idea, I only found that Griffin influenced him after that and assisted him in turning their common "dream" into reality: [5]. Maybe there is more information in the reference already provided in this paragraph (Chevreau, Jonathan. "Paper notes need 'real' backing", National Post, 1999-11-11). But I cannot access it, so could someone please look into this who has access? THanks. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

From the cited article: "Economist Bernard von NotHaus read Mr. Griffin's book and took him up on the challenge, creating Norfed." I take that to mean that Griffin's book influenced NotHaus' decision to create Norfed. J Readings (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it up. Which book is meant? If it's "The Creature of Jekyll Island", then the book is from 1994. But according to the history of the liberty dollar, NotHaus started to work on his idea since 1974. Maybe the statement is true for creating Norfed, but I think at the moment the sentence is still misleading. Or does it refer to a different book earlier than 1974? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
OOps, just spotted that the year 1998 is mentioned in the sentence. Sorry for the confusion in my last entry, now everything's fine for me. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G. Edward Griffin is Noteworthy!

I don't know who decided that G. Edward Griffin didn't warrant his own Wikipedia entry, but the deletion threats being levied here are absurd. Ed Griffin is the founder of Freedom Force International, a libertarian activist network, and is no less worthy of mention than Michael Badnarik or Aaron Russo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy-Rey (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The mere statement that "he is noteworthy" doesn't really help. However, if you think you could do it in a sensible manner, you should think about adding a section about current activism (or something like that), including freedom force international (and others?). But be cautious: Especially at this stage, any uncited statements or lack of neutral point of view will be food for "deleters". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Who as reliable source

I don't approve Orangemike's deletion of all the Who's Who citations. I have seen a lot of information around indicating that Who's Who has a relatively low bar of entry in some cases, but I haven't found any evidence that the accuracy of the information is generally questionable. I think, the fact that reputable libraries use Who's Who to provide easy access biographical information, shows that information extracted from Who's Who is generally treated as reliable. Please discuss this first before deleting the Who's Who reference again, since it's not obvious for others (including me) that "Who's Who is a notoriously non-reliable source". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion at Talk:Marquis Who's Who for my basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (who has been in Who's Who himself; whoopee)
I did read this very page and took it as basis for my arguments as well. The basic conclusion from this discussion is that Who's Who should not be used as single reference to establish notability. The general accuracy of the provided facts is not in question. There seem to be some cases in which entries are not accurate, but these kind of inaccuracies can be found in ANY source, even the most "reliable" and reputated one. The questions about notability and about reliable sources are entirely different ones and should not be mixed up. Please tell me if I overlooked a statement in Talk:Marquis Who's Who which appears to be consensus and significant for your point. Some days ago I placed this question on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and still I fail to find reasonable arguments that Who's Who cannot be cited at all. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in Who's Who in America, myself. The entry contains exactly what I sent them, edited only for form. It's all accurate, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how this argument can be a justification to delete the reference again. Even if this was true for EVERY SINGLE entry in Who's Who, it just would be first-hand information from Griffin himself. Whether this is self-published or not does not even play a role, it can still be used as reference. I think it is even as a reliable one, since people in Who's Who would do themselves a disservice in submitting wrong information because of the consequences if somebody finds out. Or why did you yourself submit accurate information? You could have made yourself a super-star (if you aren't already one) ;-)
If you are concerned that readers will be misguided by the Who's Who reference by being too much impressed by it, you could add a remark in the footnote which contains the reference, something like: "Note that the reliability of Who's Who has been disputed: Reliable source". Don't forget the reliable source. If you have published your own experience with Who's Who somewhere, you could even cite yourself - think about it. I will not include such a remark, because I don't think it's really necessary. But deleting the reference completely is even less necessary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, it qualifies under WP:SELFPUB only. I didn't check in detail, but you seem to be claiming that the publication is generally "reliable". Some of the instances qualify under that guideline, but some don't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the WP article Marquis Who's Who you even get an entry as a notable person if you decline to submit any information. I fail to see how your own experience proofs that the source is not reliable. It is naive to assume that there are sources which are 100% reliable and others which are 0% reliable. Even in the most reputable peer-reviewed journals you can find fraud, take for example the cloning scandal in the top-journal SCIENCE. I found the Who's Who volumes in a university library and it is used by the US Embassy librariesand also by respected universities such as Northwestern and Harvard's Biography Resource Center. This shows that it's commonly treated as reliable source, even if the occasional case of fraud has occured (for which I have no proof). If you don't want to delete ALL references in ALL WP articles, please don't delete this one again. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
However, the subject has editorial review of the entry. (OR, but...) it looked to me more as if I could edit my entry, rather than "suggest corrections", as would be implied by your phrase "editorial review". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I never used the phrase "editorial review". How it looked to you doesn't mean that everybody has to agree with you. Arthur Robin, your behaviour (tagging and accusing me of edit warring) is embarrassing for you. Your view does NOT reflect consensus of the discussions you refer to. There is NO evidence (or even serious doubt) that the information from Who's Who is inaccurate. THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A 100% RELIABLE SOURCE (except for definitions). I take you accusing me of edit warring as an attempt to discourage any further considerations in this matter. But when looking again at the arguments in our discussion, I find that you do not at all address many of my strongest arguments. I sincerely hope that independent people will look at this discussion and decide for themselves, who is engaging in edit war here. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You used "editiorial review" on WP:RSN, and the consensus there, except for your comments, is that it's WP:SELFPUB. However, in all but three instances in this article, that's acceptable. The reference in the lead is unnecessary, and the reference to book publications should be replaced by reliable sources, such as the publisher. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't find the passage in which I used "editorial review" (whether editorial review exists in the case of Who's Who or not). The fact(?) that you keep misquoting me, and the fact that you don't bother addressing my arguments at all, indicates that you either didn't properly read those discussions and my arguments, or that you close your mind against other views. In both cases, there is not really much I can do for you and there is no sense for me to discuss anything with you. I just read WP:RSN open-mindedly for the third time, and although I realize(d from the beginning) that most users don't exactly share all of my views, I fail to see any contradictions between their "consensus" and what I've said here. I have no objections whatsoever against replacing some of the Who's Who citations, but I firmly resist the complete removal of this reference, because - even if it cannot be used as a single reference to establish notability (according to most users) - it still makes some kind of a contribution to the required notability (the amount of which is for sure negotiable, but nevertheless existent). I am glad that other editors have sorted this out in the meantime. In the (unlikely?) case that you take your time to look again at all the arguments and come to the conclusion that my reaction to your editing was at least a little bit justified, the least you could do would be to remove this ridiculous message from my talk page. Thank you. It's just difficult for me to assume good faith in your action to place a message like "Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors" on my page while violating this advice yourself at the same time. Don't take this as a general objection against your contribution to this article - every critical concern can only lead to the improvment of the article. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I generally agree that virtually everything from Marquis is noncontroversial; so I'm wondering why you think a tag necessary for the Jekyll line. Is there any doubt that he became a CFP or wrote the book or that it describes the U.S. money system? Or do you think it generally necessary to tag Marquis because people might not think it's self-published? If the latter, there still would not be a tag necessary, because we are only using it as proper for self-published sources, and such a notification is not germane to this article, but to the Marquis Who's Who article, linked by the footnote. Instead of tagging, since this is an article with a lot of heat, please indicate what the correct phrasing and sourcing should be IYHO. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Whoa! "Vandalism"? Wazzup? John J. Bulten (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, Arthur, since you declined to answer while making other edits, since your only defense for this tag has been "the reference to book publications should be replaced by reliable sources, such as the publisher", since (arguendo) the publisher is at least as much WP:SPS as Who's Who, since there are several other reliable sources for the reference to book publications of Jekyll, and since the criteria of WP:SELFPUB are met, I am deleting the double-tag questioning the publication of Jekyll. I'm confident you will accompany any future tags with more complete rationale, thanks in advance. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] considered deletion

Taking Mr. Edward Griffin's page off Wikipedia based on conspiracy theorist allegations or lack of 'weight' would have been a great contribution to ignorance. Should we consider the same for Linus Pauling; a name on every periodic chart and the only man -I am aware of- ever to receive a Nobel twice on his own, simply because he advocated the possibility for cold and cardiovascular disease prevention through megadoses of Vitamin-C and the use of the free form amino-acid L-Lysine. As explained here on Wikipedia some of Pauling's work was subject to claims of quackery by rivals. Mr. Griffin has contributed to the enlightenment of all types of people on the subjects of economy and history of banking, including myself and at least one very successful person I know in finance. Wikipedians deserve to know.

Alain O. B.Ps., MSc., RCEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4maelstrom (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alain,
Can I ask if you actually read the deletion discussions, here [6] here [7], or here [8]?
Do you see anybody arguing that the article should be deleted because he is a conspiracy theorist? Was that part of the administrators' rationale when making their decisions (see the top). The answers of course are 'No'.
I realize that external websites (including Griffin himself) [9] are claiming otherwise (and imagining conspiracy theories about why) [10]. Frankly, these poorly researched claims don't give one any confidence in Griffin, his investigative abilities or those of his supporters. But then I doubt he and I have any common views on any subject, with one exception. I agree that he is notable and his activities verifiable, which are the criteria used to determine inclusion here. --Slp1 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The New American as reliable source.

I don't see how the biweekly report by the John Birch Society can be considered reliable, without more research. We'd need to see the editorial policy, which I don't think actually exists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources and rephrased so as to make New American only a backup source. BTW, thanks for your reviewing this so carefully. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You have a sound reputation as an editor here, John: we can take something you've created seriously, unlike the previously deleted piece of partisan junk which the conspiracy-theory crybabies are whining about. But please continue to upgrade and solidify those references. Whatever I think of the guy (and it ain't much), I'd like this article to be bulletproof, just to prove that we can give a reactionary and advocate of scientific heresies a fair shake. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Mike! I'll keep my eyes peeled and keep the page patrolled for the crybaby wing of the conspiracy theorist conspiracy. Remember, the conspiracy theorists are conspiring to control your mind and waste your time-- pass it on. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] section for discussing missing or mis-placed citations

  • I'm unable to verify this statement: His website refers visitors to laetrile sellers[4] and doctors and clinics that use laetrile. All which is needed to sustain that claim would be to reference Griffin's page where he actually refers to laetrile sellers and doctors/clinics that use laectrile. I'm unable to find that page, so if nobody can come up with it, the whole sentence should be removed. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, found it. Would be glad if somebody could check if that sentence is sourced well now. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Free, I'm of two minds. The winning faction is currently that self-published is "acceptable use of questionable source" here because the statement is noncontroversial enough and not disputed. It's arguably not unduly self-serving, and the doctors are probably unlikely to sue him for claiming they're laetrile clinics. The WSJ is the source for "laetrile sellers" but not for the expanded statement, which is WP:SELFPUB. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Source

Can someone list the things required Reliable Source!! About Mr. G. Edward Griffin Article?(LakeOswego (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Can you clarify please? I am not sure what you mean --Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Sure, eveyone has a problem with Mr. G. Edward Griffin Article and wants to delete it, keep saying Reliable Source, so I would like someone to list things that need Reliable Source in the Article (LakeOswego (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the clarification, LakeO. Everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. See WP:V and here WP:RS for details about policy and guidelines about this. At the moment, the article is quite well sourced, IMHO. In fact, the problem about Mr. G. Edward Griffin is really whether he is notable: ie do people really know or care about him or his opinions? And can we prove that this is the case from reliable sources, not just personal opinion, what we call original research or internet noise? For this we also need reliable sources about his notability.--Slp1 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find how to consider someone as notable, but unfortunately they (Wikipedia) are only explaining how you can consider someone as not-notable. (Correct me if I am wrong) Thanks (LakeOswego (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
Try clicking the word notability in my paragraph above, and you will find the inclusion criteria for people.Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
@LakeOswego: actually it's quite the other way around: According to WP:N "Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof." But I would admit that the term notability is to some extend strechable and negotiable (since WP:N is a guideline and cannot provide a fool-proof check if something is notable or not; and since WP:N uses itself a lot of strechable or negotiable terms and every WP editor has his own judgement about how "reliable", "objective", "substantive", "verifiable", "neutral", "credible", "sufficient", "comprehensive", "independent", ... a specific source is). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
@Slp1: are you saying that there is still serious doubt about the notability? In this case we should indeed make some kind of a list to decide which kind of proof for notability is missing. In the AfD discussion you list a couple of newspaper articles from around the world. Maybe it's worth to include some? I just have a bad feeling about including them myself, since I don't know their content. As additional "mentioning of Griffin by a reliable source" I only found this short listing of Griffin as an actor of "himself" by the NY Times. I don't think that these tiny appearances of Griffin's name should really be included into the article, but if it's the only way to establish the required notability, then so be it. Therefore I first like to know: Is there still need to proof notability? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I myself think he meets the notability requirements, but the AFD is still open, and some editors there are still unconvinced, so make of that what you will. The point of my listing the articles at the AFD was to show that there are multiple independent refs to him so that he meets the notability criteria, but I agree with you that mentions of him or quotes of him wouldn't add much to the article and are not required, though I may add a few as additional citations for a few things.Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Free, thanks, I added that. Appearance in AFTF definitely contributes to notability. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How do you figure that, John? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laetrile

As I tried to indicate (obviously not clearly enough) in my edit summary, I have the full article, which I can send you if you send me an email.

It says:

"In conclusion, there is no reliable evidence for the effectiveness of laetrile, and considerable doubt about its safety exists. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile as a treatment for cancer is therefore negative."

Perhaps another time it might be worth asking for the source first, rather than just reverting?--Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed the most efficient way. I'll be happy to take your word for it, but keep steady when others harp on you for those pay sources. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Efficient perhaps, but an inquiry on the talkpage might be more in keeping with assuming good faith, no? Anyway, no worries, just a suggestion. I am always happy to clarify these things, and to send on articles that people may not have access to. BTW I have taken out the quotes, which I really don't think are necessary and have the unfortunate effect of scare quotes, IMHO.--Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Slp1, maybe a stupid question, but: Where do I find your email address? I would really like to read this article. BTW both @ Slp1 and John: I can't help admiring the fast progress you make with this article and consider myself lucky to witness such an example of professional editing during my first weeks in WP (FeelFreeToDelete this if too slimy ;-) ). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a stupid question at all. Go to my user page and click the "email this user" link on the left hand side. Not everybody has it enabled, though. I will be happy to send you the article when I have your email address.--Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
PS not slimy at all, but not sure that deserved given that I managed to claim Griffin wrote a biography on totally the wrong person!! Thanks John for fixing that one.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info - just found in the meantime that I actually have access to the article myself over some detours :-) Anyway, thanks for the offer. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Also remember, FeelFree, that a cite does not have to be online to be a reliable source; although obviously it does make verifiability easier. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{like-resume}}

It's still like a resume. Almost all the material is from Griffin, himself, and things he's written, with only a little critical material from other sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, it's not like-resume, but unbalanced. However, the content does reflect the discussion in the available reliable sources. We have several scientists ganging up on him on cancer. If there are any sources that beat him up on the Fed, that would be appropriate. Would you mind looking with me? John J. Bulten (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Financial section is sadly lacking in balance, given the controversial (shall we say) nature of his views. Here are some to get you started:[11].[12][13]

One thing I would like to see changed is that the article currently implies that his ideas about the Fed developed in the 1990s (after taking a course) when the Sayres book makes it clear that he has been propounding these views since the early 1970s.--Slp1 (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I was also very interested in finding some scientific "sources that beat him up on the Fed", and I'm happy that I finally found something. I wonder if anyone else here has already considered that source, because the Slashdot article (I think it was Slashdot) contained an ominous statement that Edward Flaherty (PHD in economics) had reviewed Griffin's book on the Fed. Though it's not a review, he does address ("debunk") a lot of "conspiracy theories" and he even mentions Griffin and his book (I had overlooked the latter for quite a while, otherwise I would have brought this up earlier). However, Griffin obviously took it as a review on his book and replied to Flaherty's analysis of the subject on his website. Stunningly, Flaherty also mentions: "Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre". Though I haven't found out who this Gerry Rough is (so far he looks more like a blogger to me), it might be worth to follow this hint. But so far I only find an archived (?) website and many of the links are dead. I'd be happy if somebody helped following the rainbow - maybe we'll find a treasure at its end! :-) I think since Flaherty is a professional and has a PHD in economics, we can safely cite him. I'd also like to include that Griffin replied. Does anybody have objections? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Feelfree, looks like a great find! See also this [14] Per WP:SPS, Edward Flaherty's website posts are probably quoteable if we can prove that he has prove that he is an established expert in the field, and has other work in the same field published other reliable sources. The PhD and the economist part sure helps with this, but with both him and Gerry Rough ideally we will find journal articles and books written by them. I note this mention of him and his ideas of the Fed in a book. [15], though not sure to what extent the book is a highly reliable source. Flaherty's website is also listed here in a scholarly bibliography, [16], but it would be good to find more and better evidence that he actually is a expert in the field. I haven't time to search further at present, but perhaps other can. --Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
These link here are probably a good starting point to find out more about Flaherty: [17]. I found no published paper through web of science, but here some information, that he has published something: [18][19]. Haven't looked at it into great detail yet, 'cause I have the same problem (time + upcoming vacation). Fortunately, now that the AfD is closed, we can work on this stuff at a more humane pace. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This paper [20] "FED CONSPIRACY USED IN TEACHING MONEY AND BANKING", Robert Tokle, 2007, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11; 1 p. 43-51 (a peer reviewed journal), recommends Flaherty's paper also.--Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, finally I'm doing something about it. I just included a paragraph mentioning Edward Flaherty, because I think from the information we have here (let me just add these two links: [21][22]) we can believe that Flaherty and his degrees are genuine. It seems he's worked only very shortly as assistant prof. in charleston, that's why there's not much information out there about it anymore. I think it would be a bit hypercritical to question that he's an expert on economy. I think he doesn't need to be specialized on the Fed in order to include him here. At least he's way better than this other guy ("internet investigative reporter David Marchant") - in fact I'm thinking about deleting that one, because the quality of the reference doesn't really convince me, and it's not obvious to me which arguments he has for making his devaluing statement about Griffin's book. Ok, the paragraph I added is not perfect (maybe there's also a weasel word issue), but I'm sure other editors will find good ways to deal with it, so I just wanted to put it out there first. Slp1, could you please check if the paper from 2007 (Academy of Educational Leadership Journal) is identical with the one from 2004 (online)? Because I just included the url of the latter into the reference of the first. Not quite accurate, but I thought if both are identical (that's how it looks like to me without accessing the paper) it's more friendly for readers to provide the free source as well. Then there's one reference which is just a cached page. I hope it's ok. I checked out the current page of the company. It looks pretty similar, just that Flaherty isn't working there anymore.
BTW, when is my user name going to turn blue again? :-( FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, got the reason for the last one. don't bother... FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories

OK, so it shouldn't be in the first sentence. However, he does state, in various places, that his views are being suppessed by government or corporate conspiracies, so his being a conspiracy theorist should be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

These might be useful sources for unpacking some of this. [23] [24] [25]--Slp1 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, negative descriptions should not be placed in the lead unless self-adopted. It would be appropriate, based on the current text, for something like "he sees conspiracies in world affairs", which he admits; but absent proof of his calling himself a "conspiracy theorist" it would be WP:OR to give him that title. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It would be inappropriate not to have him described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. It's probably what he's best known for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Griffin himself rejects to be called a conspiracy theorist. Since the term is negatively loaded we should respect WP:LIVING (see do-no-harm and basic-human-dignity) and not call him like that either. The term conspiracy theorist might appear to be objective on the first look, but, in reality, it's not: People who disapprove his views would call him conspiracy theorist and his views conspiracy theories, but people who accept the theories to be true would call him a whistle-blower, and the theories would turn into a scandal. We have to keep WP:NPOV and cannot decide if he's right or wrong. Therefore we should avoid both terminologies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the "conspiracy theory" sentence in the section "health advocacy". The edit summary field was too short, so I post my 3 reasons for this here:

1.) the sentence is related to the previous one, which was obscured by placing the mentioning of the review in between.
2.) "the review found that his view is a conspiracy theory" was misleading by implying (even if subconsciously) that arguments against this conspiracy theory are given in the review.
3.) it implied that the given quote is the main conclusion of the review. Instead, I included this conclusion now.

FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, G. Edward Griffin is identified as either a conspiracy theorist or someone who writes about conspiracies in the third-party literature. Whether or not it is positive or negative is a matter of opinion. Get enough of those citations and, according to WP:LEAD guidelines, it's acceptable to place the label in the lead section.
I just noticed, for example, that A. Ralph Epperson discusses Griffin in his book The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History (Publius Press, 1985). From the point of view of Epperson, Griffin's views are positive because they link to his own conspiracy theories.
Another example is by journalist Chris Thompson writing in the News Section of East Bay Express (California) entitled "Dirty Deeds; The Dorean Group promised hundreds of homeowners that their mortgages would go away. Guess what? They didn't" (April 5, 2006):

Sometime in the last few years Johnson and Heineman began reading about mortgage elimination programs on the Internet. Such schemes aren't just a way to make money; they're a longtime staple for conspiracy theorists who claim the American monetary system is based on a massive fraud perpetrated by a cabal of bankers. The godfather of this movement is G. Edward Griffin, the founder of American Media, a Southern California company that distributes books and videos about conspiracies ranging from the banking system, to the September 11 attacks to the secret society Skull & Bones. In the early 1990s Griffin published The Creature from Jekyll Island, the movement's bible, in which he claimed that ever since the United States replaced the gold standard with paper money, the country has been plagued by inflation, while banking elites print money out of thin air to secretly enrich themselves.

Julian Dibbell places similar labels on Griffin writing in the Village Voice in an article entitled the "The Goldbug Variation" (8 January 2002, pg. 56).
In any case, right now, we're probably not there yet. But if citations like these keep popping up then, yes, putting "conspiracy theorist" into the lead would be acceptable, according to the guidelines. J Readings (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we're talking about a gentleman here who likes to use the word "Conspiracy" in the title of some of his own books and films. In addition to the third-party literature already mentioned, there may come a point when the evidence suggests that using the "C" word is more than acceptable. J Readings (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding new sources, J Readings. I find it fascinating that different newspaper archives can come up with different articles. You use Lexis-Nexis, I believe, and I use Factiva. Vive la difference, I guess!
Anyway, I agree that conspiracy theorist is becoming more and more sourceable, especially given his own extensive use of the term for more than 30 years in books, films, and talks, e.g. Sayre book [26];

"In a wonderful talk by G. Edward Griffin, slides and diagrams of triangles and arrows and circles show how the Conspiracy learned its techniques from the 18th century Freemasons of Europe)....."He added "Is it possible that the communist and capitalist conspiracies have more than one inner circle? We don't know, but it seems possible.".

Arne says of the Creature book

"There is actually very little overt outrageous conspiracy mongering in the book till page 123 when Griffin contends that the fall of communism itself was a charade"

.[27] An extensive review of the Creature book in "Popular Paranoia" a collection of conspiracy theories (motto... All conspiracy. No theory)[28]. And the tantalizing reference in Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia which I may try to track down in print. --Slp1 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I would agree on including that "he has been labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' (by ...?)" whith refering to these sources. Because that's a fact that nobody can disagree on. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Slp1, thanks for these links. I have online access to the "Conspiracy Theories in American History" book, but I only found Griffin's name once, and disappointingly merely mentioned in the discussion of some other source. The sentence is: "In Nutter’s syllabus section entitled “Extremist Literature,” we find THE NEW AMERICAN magazine and books by its publisher, John F. McManus; its senior editor, William Norman Grigg; and a contributing author, G. Edward Griffin."
The book looks very interesting and promising, since it states in the preface that "It is intended neither to promote nor to dismiss various conspiracy theories", but at least the section about the Federal Reserve System appears to be mainly a history of the Fed from the author's POV, without even mentioning any "conspiracy theorist" in the field. Therefore rather inconclusive, unfortunately, I would say. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FeelFreeToBe, for the sake of the discussion, I just wanted to raise a few points about this issue that might be useful. I've been involved with editing a couple of highly controversial BLPs on Wikipedia where there was some disagreement about the lead section per WP:LEAD, namely on David Irving and Bobby Fischer. In the former, there was the issue of whether or not Irving, as a WWII Military Historian, was "widely discredited" as the result of his alleged "Holocaust denial." In the latter, there was the issue of whether Fischer, despite being the only heretofore American World Chess Champion, was also "widely known for" his anti-semitic views. In both cases, it was about putting those phrases in the lead section. In both cases, there was the issue of WP:LIVING and WP:BLP. When you examine both those pages, you can see what happened. They were finally added. Why? Because the preponderance of evidence was just so overwhelming that even the most sympathetic Irving or Fischer editor couldn't deny the fact that reliable third-party sources were constantly making reference to those issues. Personally, I don't have any agenda either way for the Griffin article. I got involved here by accident, but having researched him now, I'm interested in how it plays out. One of the things I keep reading in LexisNexis is how he's identified as a "conspiracy theorist." We can talk about the wording some more before adding anything, but I have more references here that refer to him as either "paranoid" or "conspiracy theorist" or similar. It's interesting, actually, how the third-party sources largely view him. J Readings (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I agree with you that it should be in the lead, because it's a very important point. Even though Griffin refuses to be called like that, nobody can deny that he is viewed as a conspiracy theorist by most of the people (including me, because the term is accurate - just negatively charged). In fact, now that we have so many sources about it, I think we have to include it to remain neutral. Is there any problem with using a phrase like "he is largely regarded as a conspiracy theorist"? Because I still think the most neutral way to say it would be to say that somebody calls him CT, than simply to say that he is one. Maybe we could even go as far as saying something like: "While admired/idolized by his supporters, Griffin is largely regarded as a conspiracy theorist". Probably there is a better way to say it, but I hope you get the idea. I have no problem with anybody editing this (I'm kind of torn between the two versions that I suggest here), but since it's a delicate matter, I will try to achieve a solution that looks neutral to me (as somebody, who looks at Griffin's "conspiracy theories" open-mindedly but not gullibly). BTW, thanks for bringing this to my attention so smoothly - that's the proper way to deal with a potential crackpot... ;-D FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

I realize, John, that you have done a lot of work on this, but I don't think all the editions are really needed. WP:LOW appears to suggest either the first edition only, or putting all the editions of the same book on the same line, which would be clearly, if all the information is really needed (which I am not sure it is, really).--Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. It's getting to be really excessive now. For example, do we need a "periodicals" section? My goodness, can you imagine what would happen if we started to list every single op-ed piece, journal article, or newspaper column that someone ever wrote in his or her encyclopedia entry? At that point, I would wholeheartedly agree with others that the G. Edward Griffin article would start to read like a resume instead of a serious encyclopedia entry. Half of those listings should be removed to first editions and the periodicals, etc. should be removed completely. J Readings (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK fine, but that was not an article, but a periodical he founded. It might fit elsewhere. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Founder or President or Board of directors

I think this need to be added to the Article.
(LakeOswego (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
But OrangeMike dont think so,
I disagree. OrangeMike quickly removed the resume-like listings of Griffin serving in various positions from the article. Actually, I agree that it was probably the right thing to do. The only way that (or any other) trivia should be re-added is if an independent third-party reliable source (e.g., journalist or academic) wrote about Griffin serving in those capacities. Otherwise, there is no objective criteria to determine what can and cannot be included in the article. G. Edward Griffin would explode into a lengthy mess with lots of non-notable factoids making it read very much like either blatant advertising or a resume, thus risking an AfD again. Hopefully, none of us wants that. J Readings (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
reliable source (e.g., journalist or academic) Again!?
Anyway the above list is FACT. :) I am getting sick from Wikipedia.
(LakeOswego (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
One More thing journalists are Liars and they create lies, I cannot understand how can they be "reliable source"
(LakeOswego (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
Are you getting sick from WP or sick of WP? Sick of, I suspect. Unfortunately, your career here is guaranteed to be frustrating if, as indicated above, your views differ so greatly from those of the community-agreed guidelines and policies. --Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Slp1 Thanks
There is 2 reasons someone whats to delete Mr. G. Edwards Griffin Article.
1 Paid to.
2 Ignorance
(LakeOswego (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
No reliable sources as to notability. I believe he thinks he's notable, and there are some semi-reliable sources (IMDB, Who's Who), who seem to think he's notable by their standards, but who thinks he's notable, even with respect to Laetrile? He doesn't seem to be the principle pusher.
That's the only Wikipedia-valid reason for deletion which has not been disproved, but I don't see any articles about him, only some which discuss (one of his) conspiracy theories, and possibly not even about that theory.
The articles may exist, and now may even be in the article somewhere, but they're swamped by the self-promotion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you need to be the principle pusher in order to be notable? The fact that his book about cancer has been recognized and critically reviewed in the scientific literature demonstrates that the book had impact.
  • Who's Who constitutes a reliable contribution to his notability. Various libraries of excellent reputation rely on Who's Who and none of them would spend money on a collection of biographies of non-notable persons.
  • He has world-wide notability as the various newspaper articles which quote him, demonstrate. Most of them have not been included into the article because they don't contribute additional information, but they nevertheless contribute to his notability.
  • Recognition and occasional mentioning by mainstream-media such as the Los Angeles Daily News, Wall Street Journal, ESPN, Boston Globe, Calgary Herald, Rocky Mountain News, National Post as well as his listing in the NY Times as actor (of himself) in the movie "America: Freedom To Fascism" contribute to notability.
  • The fact that several controversial books about the Federal Reserve System quote from his book "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and the fact that this book can be found in business bestseller lists is evidence for notability in his field.
  • His notable contribution to Nothaus's development of the "Liberty dollar" had impact in the real world.
I will not cite these statements any more, because they have been brought to your attention more than once, and never have been properly addressed by you. Nobody here is claiming that Griffin is extremely important or some kind of a super-star. But there is a fair consensus between a number of reasonable editors that the established notability is sufficient for the justification of a WP article. I'm afraid nobody will be able to convince you that he's notable if you keep ignoring the arguments presented to you :-( FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
We generally require that there be an article about him in a WP:RS, preferrably mainstream. Sources quoting him are not necessarily indications of notability, and sources mentioning him are clearly not indications of notability. Since there are so many sources which are clearly not reliable or that only mention him in passing, I'd appreciate it if you pointed to one WP:RS which is about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Since he is a journalist, book author and documentary film maker, his notability is conveyed through the "notabilities" of his work and its impact. An in-depth article about the person itself doesn't seem to be necessary to me, BTW it's not uncommon that such articles are written after the death of a notable person, but Griffin is still alive. The Who's Who entry is about Griffin. It's not extensively long, but it mentions the works which he is notable for. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, I see the phrase is "significant coverage in reliable sources". The closer of the prior AFD noted the problem was reliability, saying nothing of breadth or triviality of coverage, so that was the paradigm we've been working from. But now that you're arguing from nontriviality instead, I still don't understand why you think the LA Daily News article is not (exclusively) about him (even by your terms), and the med journal review of WWC as well, and others; or why you think that 15-20 of the articles don't give him significant coverage (more than trivial but allowably less than exclusive). John J. Bulten (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google video copyright

Is there any evidence that http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507 was not uploaded by Griffin, or with his permission. If there was proof, the link shouldn't be in the article, but I don't see any evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proof needs to be given that it isn't a violation of copyright, not proof that it is. The video is copyrighted, and Google Videos illegally hosts copyrighted videos. We need proof that it was uploaded by the author or we have permission to do so, not proof that it isn't a copyright violation. The video is copyrighted, and it a copyright violation unless you can prove it isn't. Provide anything that suggests that he uploaded the video or gave permission and I will keep it here. If you don't I'm removing it. — Κaiba 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Evidence needs to be given that it violates copyright, other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on google video. The uploader is listed as http://www.realityzone.com , "A subsidary of American Media", which is Griffin's publishing company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Good detective work Arthur, though not clear why you would want to make it easier for people to watch his stuff! ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is irrelavent. Everything on Google Videos that is copyrighted is illegally hosted unless proven otherwise and no amount of cleaver wordplay can change that. Since it you seem to be sure it is his publishing name who made the video, I won't remove it, though. — Κaiba 18:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:writing for the enemy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a point? — Κaiba 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
He's answering me, I believe, as I had rather rudely interrupted your conversation with my own sly remark. It's a good essay and one I like a lot, so more power to you! Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fasold

Hi Slp1, would you mind posting your source which shows that Griffin took his views from Fasold? Otherwise your entire add to Noah's ark would be revertable by anyone as a classic WP:COATRACK (i.e., not really about Griffin). I appreciate the search for balance, but (as with the prior case) you'd need to let us know what you've got on it, thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem: Griffin's own website [29]--Slp1 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot

Incidentally, who is Michael J. Ross and why should we care what he thinks about Griffin's book? According to this website, he is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter. <yawn> I'm beginning to have doubts that Slashdot constitutes a reliable source especially when the "review" opens with a "posted by" line. This website looks like it has the features of a blog to me. J Readings (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it adds anything useful and I have always wondered if it really met the RS grade.--Slp1 (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Griffin's books in translation

This is another issue that I've been mulling over. Listing his major publications (1st ed.) and films is one thing, but is it really necessary to start listing the translations, too? What does it add? Perhaps this is something that can be quickly mentioned in a sentence in the text -- something like, "His books have been translated into foreign languages such as XYZ." J Readings (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (how long will this expression last, do people think, now that records are a thing of the past?) I agree completely. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Produced vs. Narrated

I don't know which ones he produced and which he narrated. It would be useful to the reader if we could divide the films up under these subcategories, rather than these long, messy lists that are increasingly hard to read. Any help on this front would be appreciated. J Readings (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telly Awards

Having never heard of this award I decided to check out what they are. Perhaps others would care to do so too. Given the large numbers of people that get these awards, that you have to pay to enter, and that marketing advantages are a major reasons why people are encouraged to send in their US$70 [30] I seriously question whether this award is a sign of anything that should be included here. Comments please? --Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of WikiProject Films for a couple years now. This is the first time I've ever come across the award. In fact, type in "Telly Awards" into the Wikipedia search engine and you only get one hit: the actual award. Hmmm...curious. I also checked LexisNexis. I couldn't find any third-party sources reporting on G. Edward Griffin receiving this award. Hmmm...very curious. My inclination is to remove it as self-promoting spam from Griffin, but that's just my opinion. Does anyone else have an opinion? J Readings (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I put it in believing it to at least merit a mention, especially as it concerns his film Discovery of Noah's Ark. Certainly when bringing up a film he did in the article it would be pertinent to include that he won an award for it, even if most people haven't heard of the award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most people haven't heard of the award"...including the journalists who usually cover this material, apparently. I don't know. If journalists and academics don't cover the information, it's usually because they didn't think it was worth covering in the first place. I get nervous when Wikipedians start adding information that you can't find (even when you look hard!) in reliable third-party sources. In my opinion, the additions start to conflict with the official policies on what Wikipedia is not. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny. Google shows me lots of people who are very proud about their own awards and explain that it's a "widely known and highly respected national and international competition". I guess if enough people believe it, it really means something. Well, seriously now: One the one hand, it looks like too much advertisement than we should tolerate, since it doesn't look like a highly respected and well-known award to us. On the other hand, I would only be convinced that our scepticism is justified, if somebody can name another award for similar types of film productions, which is proven to be well-known and highly respected. In doubt, however, I'm neutral about whether to remove this statement or not (because I've no clue about many awards, even if well-known and highly respected). BTW, I wouldn't consider the "payment" argument, because a competition in which everybody can enter can make a nominal fee necessary, i.e. in order to prevent people from submitting their youtube vids. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why it shouldn't be mentioned. We mention the movie and pretty much everywhere this movie is on the Internet it's mentioned that it won this award. Considering this is an article about him it would seem relevant to me to mention that he won an award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I entered "Noah's Ark" AND "Telly Award" AND "Griffin" into Google News. If a reliable third-party news organization covered it, for example, I wouldn't have said anything. However, there's nothing. I also checked with both Factiva and LexisNexis. There are no mentions made in connection with this award. A simple google search doesn't tell us much of anything because they include blogs or other unreliable (or partisan) sites. Plus, and I think this is obvious, of course Griffin is going to promote the fact that he won an award (albeit obscure). So he likely sends it along to websites as a sort of press release, and hopes someone takes a bite. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore, for example, but journalists everywhere were quick to report his win of the Academy Award for Best Documentary for Bowling for Columbine. Winning that award (like winning a Grammy Award, or an Emmy Award, or a BAFTA, or a *gulp* even a Razzie) means something. Winning an award that no independent, third-party source with editorial oversight covers? Hmmm...no. I'm not convinced yet. J Readings (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the nature of the Awards it's easy to understand why it wouldn't be reported. Entrants are probably not going to be of national news interest. There are a lot of promotional and instructional videos with some cable shows included and they don't let in national network programs or commercials. Also the fact it isn't a competition means there's very little in the way of bragging rights except, "I won an award!" However, all things considered it is at least relevant as it seems to be the only award he's ever won and it is a national award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, your argument makes sense. Therefore, I would like to repeat the request that somebody should name another award for similar types of film productions, which is proven to be well-known and highly respected. If the Telly award is the only (or one of few) awards of equal reputation, then I would see no good reason for removing the statement. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Then again, see the important caveats to policies regarding WP:SELFPUB. I would ask why anyone would want to include information not directly about Griffin's personal life into the article that cannot be verified by an independent, third-party reliable source? It doesn't make sense to me. J Readings (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. So the whole discussion about how "well-known and highly respected" Telly is doesn't really matter. Sorry, I overlooked that argument. Not even on the Telly page itself can I find a list of winners dating back to the times of Griffin's film. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, Telly Awards claims that 35% of 13,000 entrants win, if they pay $175 to receive the statue-- sounds like Marquis Who's Who again? John J. Bulten (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to get into Marquis without paying; they are just likely to drop you the next year (speaking from my personal experience, at least). These look like semi-purchasable honors, and mere vanity products. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recents edits

Many of John's edits of today look good, but I have significant problems with two of them, and would be glad of the opinions of other editors.

  • Edit one: [31] My main problems:
  • The deletion of the East Bay Express reference [32]" as redundant and of questionable editorial integrity". What evidence of this is there?
  • The change of "the conspiracy theory of history espoused by the John Birch Society" to "JBS theory of history (arguably a conspiracy theory),". The first sentence is directly sourced from the Journal of Politics reference: "They [members of the JBS] overwhelmingly accepted the international conspirational theory of history espoused by Robert Welch." The second version (the arguably part) is unsourced. Which reliable source is arguing that the JBS does not have conspirational view of history? Given that the society and the man over and over again use the term conspiracy, and that reliable sources over and over again mention the JBS (and Griffin) and conspiracy theory in the same breath, I think we need to have multiple strong sources to say that there is any doubt about this.
  • Edit two: [33] My main problems:
  • To misquote Tina "What's Wyatt got to do with it?" Where is the evidence that Wyatt had anything to do with Griffin's film? It seems clear that Wyatt and Fasold split long before the film was made and before even Fasold wrote the book on which the book was made. I think Wyatt is totally irrelevant to Griffin and his film.
  • David Fasold's vascillation. Can you give provide the text from Deal's book "Noah's Ark: The Evidence" that proves this, please? But in any case I sincerely doubt that Deal's book is a reliable source. I note that the Wikipedia article on Fasold contains multiple unreliable sources to apparently try to prove that Fasold reneged on his early sworn testimony and newspaper interviews, including a scanned letter,[34] and books written by Ark researchers with a point to push, and with publishers who publish books "by scholars who, through much study and research, discovered some astonishing truths when they combined Biblical history and prophecy with secular history andarchaeology".[35] This is the publisher of the Deal book. Is it a reliable source? I doubt it, myself.
I would be happy for the comments of others on these matters Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me only respond to the conspiracy theory issue (I need more time to understand the other points): I share parts of both of your views: 1.) the original sentence is not neutral enough and needs to be changed; 2.) John's edit didn't improve it at all. To find the right wording using "conspiracy" terminology is a highly delicate issue in my view. Even so-called "reliable sources" have their POV and many choose to put certain views aside as a "conspiracy theory". But this is a generalizing and superficial approach, which we have to be very careful about. Using this terminology to label people and opinions with the excuse that everybody does it - even "reliable sources" - for sure would make our decision easier, but I think we will be able to come closer to the NPOV ideal. I don't have a final answer to this yet, but I will definitely think about it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts, Feelfree, and also your openness (shown several times on this page) to discussion and even changing your mind. While you are thinking about things a bit more, let me add a few other thoughts. The original sentence was "Since the 1960s, Griffin has spoken and written extensively on the conspirational theory of history espoused by the John Birch Society, including Communist and capitalist cabals,...". Given the titles of his books/pamphlets, the reports of his talks, a glance at his current website etc, I am astounded that anybody is questioning this way of describing what he did/does. But that is OR, and not allowed. However, we have lots of reliable sources for all aspects of the sentence. Are there any reliable sources at all that contradict (or argue) that this is not the case? If so, let's have them. Please also note as a general point that being neutral does not mean giving all views equal importance. WP:UNDUE is the thing to read here: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." --Slp1 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good that you posted the original sentence again. I have the feeling that you suspected I might be on the wrong track, and - if so - you were right (once again ...). In fact, I had only read (or understood) "conspiracy theory" instead of "... of history", which completely changes the tone of the sentence (looks like I want to see conspiracy theories everywhere
;-) ...). Also no need for further pondering, because "conspirational theory of history" is already perfectly neutral (it's an accurate way to say it without inducing immediate dislike - rather scepticism instead, which is good). I'm convinced now that the original version of the sentence is the better one (and a very good one indeed), and I changed it accordingly, with confidence that others will agree as well (if not, then disagree!). BTW, I'm not as often changing my mind as my knowledge and my conclusions - but I'm sure you meant it in the positive way only. (Thanks for the Wikilove, however I guess next time I'll try to first read and then comment ...) FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Slp1 and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss, because I've always found your edits level-headed as well and it's much more fun to reach consensus in such a case than it is with some people ....

(1a) The term "conspiracy theory" is nonneutral because pejorative to many. When the Journal of Politics uses it, because it is pejorative to many, it should be flagged as a POV among others. Griffin's POV (which I'd been agnostic about until I searched for it just now) is refreshingly clear: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory" [36]. Therefore the NPOV edit should not make use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" itself together (either of Griffin or of JBS), though both words can be used independently. "International conspiracy theory of history" doesn't vitiate the nonneutrality enough. (Example. "Bush believes a theory about 19 terrorists conspiring on 9/11" (neutral); "Bush believes a conspiracy theory about 19 terrorists on 9/11" (nonneutral).) This is not an argument from WP:RS, but from WP:BLP and proper use of labels. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources say "Hitler was evil", our job is to say "Hitler did thus and thus" (WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves).

(1b) Generally three sources for one point are overkill (with exceptions), and East Bay struck me as an area weekly alternative paper, not one with high standards. But the real question is: what does its article prove that no other source proves?

(2) Obviously the flood facts are sketchy and I'm only working from the other WP articles (though I might have a book source somewhere). We do know from the David Fasold article that the movie was based on the book, which described the Fasold-Wyatt expedition, so either the movie mentions Wyatt or it (notably) disses him. There may have been disagreements on particulars between the two at the time of the book or 1992 movie, but the actual doubting of its being the ark site was dated only to 1996-1998. (I also know that most everyone who approaches ark researchers has a POV to push, 3 of which are mentioned together in Fasold's article.) So IF both Fasold and his doubts are worthy of mention in this article, THEN Wyatt and his faith are also worthy, because otherwise the article implies that Griffin's promotion of a cause "abandoned" by Fasold is unwise. However, I'm also open to the idea that this is a WP:COATRACK and we could stick to a bare mention of Fasold, with a link for those interested in the controversy. It would certainly be ridiculous to say that Fasold's name on a 1996 article proves his whole belief system in the presence of these other charges and his 1985 belief system; again, it doesn't matter if the charges are less reliably sourced, it matters that we are not giving Griffin (or Fasold) proper due if we say baldly that Fasold recanted on the strength of one disputed reference. WP:RS does not apply when editorial slight-of-hand has been charged credibly against the source, nor is it proper to argue that WP's airing of the charges of unreliability is obviously unreliable but Collins and his editors are obviously reliable. Rather, the credibility of Collins is just as debatable as that of the Usenet posts. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this John. I will start at the end and work backwards. First, and most importantly, we cannot use the WP entry on David Fasold as a source here. See WP:SPS We must use original reliable sources, ones that we can verify. If I understand you correctly, you don't have the references (Dawes, Deal) that you have cited, and thus can't verify that the Fasold article used them appropriately. If this is the case then I am sure you understand that they and the sentences they support need to be removed as unverified. On another matter, I disagree with your questioning the "credibility" of the Collins and Fasold article, as published in a peer reviewed journal. Note that I also gave two other sources from mainstream newspapers (and there several more as well) reporting on interviews and on Fasold's testimony in court in which he said he had changed his mind. I can't find any reliable evidence that Griffin's film had anything to do with Wyatt and his work (he is notably absent from the credits), and unless you have something, then the importance of Wyatt and his opinions to Griffin is speculation, and original research/synthesis.
Being of neutral point of view does not mean obscuring the reliably sourced majority view of the John Birch Society or Griffin. It does not mean that Mr. Griffin's opinion that he is not a conspiracy theorist gets to affect the article, though inclusion of the denial would be interesting I think. The East Bay article adds more about the conspiracy theory angle and also specifically used the word "cabal" which you changed to the unsourced "cartel". Given the nature of this article, I think we need all the citations we can get, and unless you can get some agreement from others that the East Bay Express is not reliable, then I suggest we leave it in, so that readers can make their own decisions. Having said all this, I think your latest edit is a reasonable compromise that I can live with.Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Being of neutral point of view does not mean obscuring the reliably sourced majority view of the John Birch Society or Griffin. It does not mean that Mr. Griffin's opinion that he is not a conspiracy theorist gets to affect the article, though inclusion of the denial would be interesting I think."
Slp1 is spot on here, I think. John, I look at this way, if we have 100 articles (for example) that say X, especially when they're mixed together with preferable academic articles that also say X (and thus add to the weight), and only a handful of sources that say Y, we cannot really turn around and put undue weight on the Y articles simply in the name of NPOV and BLP. That was one of the major points of the WP:UNDUE policy as part of NPOV. And also, it's likely that Griffin's isolated interpretation of his works could also be part of WP:FRINGE.
To come back to the David Irving article again, I watched how a few editors attempted to re-write the article to exclude the vast majority of verifiable articles that identified him with "Holocaust Denial" simply because Irving publicly rejected the label and its negative implications. It didn't matter because WP:UNDUE kicked in. Citing that Irving rejected the label was fine, but removing the vast majority opinion from things like the lead section and the consensus view of Irving didn't fly. J Readings (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Slp1 accepted the compromise (thanks so much!), I only need reaffirm on #1 that, if there be any future edit, it should avoid phrases like "conspiratorial theory" which have negative connotations. There is balancing of POVs re "whether X theorizes conspiracies", but there must also be balancing of POVs re "whether 'conspiracy theory' is pejorative"; and the latter is a case where the rights of the minority to self-identify must be respected. There is no validity in arguing that the majority finds you to be a racist therefore you are; that is a judgment call of the "Hitler is bad" kind. E.g. for the other example, not "X denies the Holocaust", but (hypothetically) "X affirms there were no political deaths in Germany during WWII" or whatever X says, followed by the majority POV.
On Fasold I'm still disappointed that Slp1 felt it necessary even to mention him (based on the self-published source), and then not to mention Wyatt too. Once again, I'd appreciate the quotations from the two nonfree sources. And it would be appropriate to repeat my concern that Slp1's presentation may contain a slight POV slant by suggesting Fasold's change is both unambiguous and authoritative. Once Slp1 posts the quotes, I would be comfortable with that throwing it to me to do some more sourcing of my own or to suggest another compromise. Thanks again! John J. Bulten (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
John, with all due respect, I strongly disagree that "rights of the minority to self-identify must be respected" here on Wikipedia. Can you find a policy or a guideline that says this? And as J Reading pointed out, yes, verifiability says that if the mainstream, verifiable view of things that you are a racist, or a holocaust denier, or a conspiracy theorist or a promoter of conspiracy theories, then yes, it gets to go into the article. No, it does not play second fiddle to the person's claims otherwise, though such denials would be important to include.
re Fasold: There are not just two articles about his court testimony and interviews, but many. Here are some to consider:
  • "American author David Fasold told the court yesterday he spent $75,000 visiting and researching what some claim is the resting place of Noah's Ark in Turkey before he stopped "throwing money into this hole in the ground". One of two men behind the so-called Evolution v Creation legal battle, Mr Fasold told the court, "I stopped throwing money into this site . . . in February, 1995. I became very concerned that a mistake had been made." "Mud' A Geological Term, The Creationist Slinging Match Begins 10 April 1997 Canberra Times
  • "Mr Fasold said he met Professor Plimer at the site in 1994 and at the time still had "Ark fever". However, he told the court: "I stopped throwing money into the site, this hole in the ground, in February 1995. I was very concerned a mistake had been made." Mr Fasold claimed to have spent more than $75,000 on expeditions to the site." Ark claim `a mistake'. 10 April 1997 The Australian
  • "A MARINE salvage expert who was once obsessed with the idea that he had located Noah's Ark and held a nine-year belief in the structure's authenticity now regards it as "absolute BS", a court was told yesterday." 9 April 1997 Witness Tells How Ark Faith Sank. The West Australian
  • "Mr Fasold, who is suing college lecturer Dr Allen Roberts for allegedly lying in his lectures about his examinations of the structure, admitted to the Federal Court in Sydney he was thrilled when he first arrived at Mt Ararat in 1985. "At the time I believed it was Noah's Ark," he said. Mr Fasold, who is now a car detailer in Oregon, said he made numerous expeditions to the site between 1985 and 1994. But under cross-examination by Dr Roberts' counsel, Alex Radojev, he admitted he no longer believed in the Ark and had told the press it was "absolute BS". " Doubts sank faith in Ark. 9 April 1997 The Daily Telegraph
  • "A MARINE salvage expert believed for nine years that rock formations in Turkey were Noah's Ark before changing his position and mounting a legal challenge against the man who claims to have found the biblical relic, the Federal Court in Sydney was told yesterday. American author Mr David Fasold and the University of Melbourne's earth sciences department head, Professor Ian Plimer, are suing Dr Allen Roberts and Ark Search Association Incorporated in a landmark case in the Federal Court." Author admits belief in Ark for nine years.9 April 1997 The Australian
  • "It was not until he went to Turkey with Prof Plimer in September that real doubts about the "Ark structure" arose in his mind. He had been convinced by the dimensions of the structure (300 cubits long and 44,100 square feet in area) being close to those quoted in the Bible, but Fasold now thinks this is what made the ancients believe it was the Ark. He said: "I believe this may be the oldest running hoax in history. I think we have found what the ancients said was the Ark, but this structure is not Noah's Ark." THEORY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER PETER POCKLEY 6 November 1994 Sun Herald

--Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fasold info, I have a likely compromise that I will put out later. The issue of self-identification is described here in relation to other "outsider" terms such as cult, racist, perversion, cripples: Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint—that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature. It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). We can argue about whether the term is pejorative, but that argument is neatly bypassed in favor of its easily-determined status as self-identifier or outsider-identifier. I also recognize that if you are talking about 100 sources, then undue weight kicks in and you have an exception. But in most cases my main point stands, that "conspiracy theorist" should be replaced with, e.g., "researcher of potential conspiracies", and sourced cases like "X calls Y a 'conspiracy theorist'".
"Mainstream, verifiable view of things that you are a racist"?! Well, first remove the differing cases of (1) self-identifying racists and (2) nonliving people. When a living person denies a label as pejorative, you must weigh both the degree to which the label is considered unpejorative, and the degree to which the person is so labeled. Only when there is a heavy weight on both counts should the label be used as an assertion made by WP, without attribution to another source. Even in the case of articles on living "fringe theorists" WP regularly says "peer-reviewed scientific journals uniformly say this is false", instead of WP saying "this is false": because in the context of the article itself, the person must not be simultaneously described as able to theorize, and unable to theorize in accord with WP's theory of theories. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In haste, and noting that I will likely be unable to respond in details or to any proposals that you may have before Monday at the earliest. However, note that given the sources I believe that the edit about Fasold's change of heart is already very mild indeed. Also note that the style guideline you have cited does not mention the issue the right to self-identify at all, which is what I asked about.Slp1 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, OK, technically we're talking about the converse, the right to refuse identifications offered by others: "a term is accepted 'outside' but not 'inside'". The positive right to self-identify formally appears at WP:NCON#Types of entities. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The postive-right to self-identify is clearly just talking about given names, nothing else. I'm not comfortable trying to read anything else into what's not there. But that's less important than the overall policy point of WP:UNDUE (and not just a guideline), there are too many reliable sources that identify his works as the product of a conspiracy theorist. You cannot deny this. At this point, it might be useful to count the number of independent, reliable sources that make reference to "conspiracy theory" and "G. Edward Griffin" in the same article in order to take stock. I suspect the outcome will reinforce the trends that Slp1 and I already noticed in our research, but I'm willing to stand corrected. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A very delayed reply to say that I don't regard either guidelines cited to indicate that conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist etc cannot be used in the article. As J Readings points out WP:NCON#Types of entities is talking about article naming, and WP:AVOID says that words objected to by "a notable group" (not the person him/herself.... and what "notable group" has objected to the use of the term anyway?} should often be avoided, or should be cited to reliable sources. e.g. "neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y")." It seems undeniable that multiple highly reliable sources have linked conspiracy theories and Griffin, and I agree that it would be contrary to Undue Weight to eliminate the tag (and the denial) from the article.01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Slp1 (talk)
Thank you for your patience, I hope my latest does the job. As to conspiracy theory, as long as the current text is good with everyone, we need not debate further, as I can see that article still needs much much work itself. I think I also have resolved the source of the confusion about Fasold. This new source says Fasold "apparently believes in several 'floods'". While this is from a partisan, it has the virtue of reconciling Fasold's later beliefs consistently across all your reported sources if he believed it was some other deluge ark but not Noah's. Note particularly the difference between your text with Fasold "proposing that it was a natural rock formation that ancients had believed was an ark", and the source (Collins writing of Fasold in third person yet calling him coauthor): "Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge"; note the harmony of the latter with a non-Noahic boat, but not the former. Fasold said "structure", not "natural rock formation"; he said "not Noah's Ark", not "not an ark". Though Collins believes "not an ark", we cannot attribute it to Fasold, who clearly did not truly author (write) the words of the article. Hope that clears it up. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your current sentence "Popular Mechanics described Fasold's original site research as "radar imagery ... so clear that Fasold could count the floorboards between the walls";[34]" presents Fasold's opinion/report as that of Popular Mechanics and its author, when it clearly isn't.[[37]]. The actual PM text is: "David Fasold, an American shipwreck specialist with no religious affiliation, has led the investigation. He says the subsurface radar surveys of the site have yielded good results. The radar imagery at about 82 ft. down from the stern is so clear that Fasold could count the floorboards between the walls. Fasold believes the team has found the fossilized remains of the upper deck and that the original reed substructure has disappeared" is the original source, and does not support this "
I disagree with the attempt to minimize the content of co-authored article, especially given the multiple other sources on the subject. As with all journals, the journal in question requires release signatures from all authors before publication for copyright reasons: See[[38]]. But in any case, here is more from the Pockley article "The leading proponent of the controversial claims now agrees with an Australian geologist that the structure is not a boat." "Prof Plimer's on-the spot study caused him to change his mind as to the geological nature of the structure." Slp1 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More problematic edits

This paragraph has bothered me since someone added it: "Griffin has served on the board of directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends, and is the founder and president of the Cancer Cure Foundation[15] (now the Cure Research Foundation)."

I'm in the library right now, so I can't cite all the specific things that are problematic about the edit. The top (and most important) on the list is the fact that we need some verifiably independent reliable sources to confirm that he was, in fact, on the Board of Directors of the National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends, etc." If he's the founder and president of the Cancer Cure Foundation, then citing their website as confirmation of the fact should be easy enough. I have no problem with that. But for the non-Griffin related organizations that are arguably self-promoting and self-serving, we really should have some independent sources (i.e., journalists or academics) per WP:SELFPUB. Taking his word for it is not the safe road, I'm afraid. J Readings (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight for Freedom Force International

Can someone please think of a good (read: policy-oriented) reason why we are giving undue weight to Freedom Force International in the form of its own section? No matter how hard I try, I cannot find an independent, third-party journalist who wrote about Freedom Force International, let alone several. If it's Griffin's "major achievement" or "lifetime work" as one new editor repeatedly alleges, one would think that it would be fairly easy to find at least one newspaper article which discusses it independently of the subject (i.e., other than Griffin) or his partisan supporters in the blogosphere. To their credit, neither John Bulten nor Orange Mike endorse the new section. I think that's the right attitude to adopt, to be perfectly honest. Unless some objective support can be provided, the fact that he founded this organization should be relegated to one simple, short sentence placed back in the economics category where it belongs. Wikipedia is not about propaganda or advertising. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I cannot see why that this group is notable in anyway based on a google newspaper archive search. If no reliable independent sources care to comment on this organization, why does it need a section? --Slp1 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest WP:BITE? The new editor has been swatted down several times but is scaling the learning curve acceptably, let's wait a bit and see what comes. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not fighting Orangemike on that last revert right now, it's in the history. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the sentence from LewRockwell.com, both because Lew Rockwell is not generally regarded as a reliable source for controversial assertions, and because the sentence as quoted assumes as true a sweeping generalization which many editors consider a major NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BITE??? It is hardly bitey to discuss notability and undue weight on a talkpage, though I do appreciate John has been challenging Rdstone98 to come up with something substantive [39]. However, I think I can pretty much guarantee that if J Readings cannot come up with anything on a LexisNexis search, and I can't on a Factiva search, that there ain't much out there to find. Still I am willing to give Rdstone98 a day or two more....--Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm happy to wait a few more days, but I would be very surprised if the editor found anything that justifies the undue weight. As for reliable sources, I tend to use LexisNexis, Factiva, and Google News for a sweeping overview of notability and verifiability from reliable third-party sources. Between those three databases (and, BTW, be careful of false positives when searching!), it covers most reliably sourced newspapers and magazines in the English language. (There's a lot of overlap between LexisNexis and Factiva, so if you're going to invest in one don't bother investing in the other.) I'd also highly recommend JSTOR for academic journal articles--very much worth the trouble to use, IMHO. Finally, for books and book chapters, two very useful sources to use are Worldcat and Google Books. Google Books and Google News are both free and readily available on the internet for every editor here to use, the rest unfortunately aren't. The point is that if these six databases do *NOT* generate any useful material on a subject, it's difficult to turn around and argue that something (i.e., Freedom Force International) suddenly deserves its own section or article. That's what seems to be happening in this case. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Freedom Force separate section and undue weight....Everyone here has been very helpful. After much reading of Wikipedia content criteria and then research on Freedom Force as verifiable entity, evidence was found for individual members and chapters in the U.S. However, I agree that mainstream media has not yet covered it. Therefore, article should be reverted to Freedom Force as a sentence and not a section. I'm also learning Wikipedia topics where a strong political or worldview is held are hotbeds of critique, whereas apolitical non referenced articles can exist for months without discussion (e.g.,E. F. Schumacher Society). It's an interesting experience.Rdstone98 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rdstone98 for all your work searching and for actually reading the policies! I also appreciate you being so upfront and reasonable about your conclusion, too. I can't say all new editors react the same, so congrats! I totally agree that some articles can exist for months without any references, generally, as you point out, when they are non-controversial. But I don't think it is only that political articles are hot beds of critique, but also that they are hot beds for editors who would like to use the encyclopedia to publicize and promote their own preferred views, projects, candidates etc. As a result of the continual to and fro, editors on these pages tend to focus more on adherence to policies/guidelines, which at least provides some structure for these things. Otherwise things would be a free for all (which they often can be anyway!!). Obviously there are other articles that are subject to these kinds of pressures, and articles about companies can often have similar problems where the company wants to put out a sweetness and light message and other people with an axe to grind want to denigrate unreasonably. Anyway, thanks again, Rdstone98. Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article in good shape now?

Judging from the article itself and the decreasing frequency of edits, I believe the article is in a fairly reasonable shape now - hey, nice job everybody :-) Are there still important issues to deal with, especially in terms of NPOV? Does it make sense to have the article rated? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely have it rated. JJB 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, but I decided to give that peer reviewing thing WP:BIOPR a try. Sounded like that would be the first step. I'm not sure how many editors will answer. Would it be appropriate to contact some old friends who have contributed to the article at an earlier stage, like Arthur Rubin, Devil's Advocate, ..., in order to get some more comments? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book cover

My quick reading of the above recent discussion about including the cover of Jekyll in this article is: I support it; Slp1 opposes it as not adding information; FeelFreeToBe could go either way; and JReadings opposed it because not knowing of other author articles which included book covers (but did not respond after being shown some). Discussion having quieted down, I'd like to preserve this orphan image and request a consensus for my reinserting it for the following reasons.

  • Inclusion of the cover does markedly increase comprehension of the critical commentary of the book because it makes the book recognizable, gives the flavor of its presentation, and provides a useful anchor for emphasizing the book's greater notability than Griffin's other works (except perhaps Cancer).
  • The book formerly had its own article, now deleted; it is therefore borderline notable in its own right and may be sustainable in the future depending on how edits to this page proceed.
  • Book covers are not advertising when books are already borderline notable and only encyclopedic content is included.
  • Consensus has established that the cover is not restricted to fair-use limits, so there is no argument from this being an author article.
  • Finally, appropriate images improve any article.

Side point: on the inside cover, Griffin states that the Great Seal was chosen unedited because the eagle was more of a bird of prey than the vulture, and thus fitting to describe the Fed. Though interesting, I don't know if it is encyclopedic, but it does explain the cover clearly! JJB 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though I'm also not sure how encyclopedic it is, I think it does convey some kind of information (Griffin's choice to use the Great Seal is an interesting one). For those who don't have the book, someone has posted the cover description on the internet. I think it provides the basis to be at least mentioned in some way (I replaced the caption, which was still about the dollar course, with a short sentence like that). Finally, discussing the cover in some (even though very short) way would provide a justification for using the image (whether free or not). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

This article has a few red links -- meaning there is no corresponding article at the other end of the hyperlink. I wasn't able to find it, but what is Wikipedia's policy (guideline?) on red links? Do we remove the hyperlinks or do we keep them as is? J Readings (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This help page here [40] just says: "Links to non-existing pages are common. They are typically created in preparation for creating the page, and/or to encourage other people to do so." Since I think neither of this is the case here (with our two links on journal titles), I removed them just for the sake of esthetics (though I wouldn't mind them...). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks much better. J Readings (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviewer's comments

There's a first response on the Peer review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/G. Edward Griffin
I tried to address those issues as good as I could right now, but I think especially the lead section could be improved further to better resemble the content of the article. The reviewer also suggests a restructuring of the article. Though I can see that this might be beneficial, right now I've absolutely no idea how to tackle that. I'd appreciate any other editor's thoughts and actions on that. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new section for freedom force international?

I don't know how significant a news story on TBO is, but there's currently a story about a man who became violent and finally got killed, and there's a notion that it has something to do with his beliefs as being influenced by websites such as the freedom force international website. There's a second article describing freedom force international more detailed, clarifying that freedom force international is not supportive of violence. Include? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the two articles. Interesting developments. Yet, not much to work with outside of this negative incident on Freedom Force International. One or two sentences describing somewhere in the article what happened are probably fine (so long as they're in proportion to the everything in Griffin's life, so sure--no objection from me--but I can't speak for anyone else). That said, I'm still not convinced we should create an entire section yet. Hmmm. What about a subsection of a section? Maybe that would work better. Then again, not sure any type of section is appropriate yet. J Readings (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Very sad. I don't myself think that the incident is important enough to mention in Griffin's article at least based on current news reports, but the second article does include some information about Griffin and his opinions that might be usefully included in the article. But I agree that a section of FFI doesn't seem justified yet. --Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That second article is a lot of info from a reliable source. So much so that if I went ahead I'd waste too much time overdoing it. I'll throw it back to FeelFree for the nonce. Start with a paragraph or two and then see if it merits a subsection. I think it will at about the same time Jekyll becomes a subsection. The #1 New York Times and #1 Amazon bestseller cites Jekyll! JJB 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your replies! I tried my best to take all your concerns and suggestions into account, I just hope the paragraph about FFI is not already too much of a stretch. I tried to give a crisp and accurate description of FFI based on the information given in the second article. I think JJB's idea to create a subsection for Jekyll is doing the article a lot of good. I agree that a whole section for FFI would be too much. I think as long as we don't include that incident (first article) or possible future information, not even a subsection is required. I also agree we shouldn't include that incident, at least based on current information, as I believe that mentioning that a mother of a madman claims websites like that of FFI to be a cause is not encyclopedic content (if not investigated beyond the mere accusation). Ok, I feel like I've done my job, now FeelFreeToDoAnythingYouWantWithIt! FeelFreeToBe (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Capitalist Conspiracy

Thanks to new User:Kcjenner. It looks like his year adjustment is correct and will stand. Appears that the book was 1971 and the video was 1972 (buried on the "how to cite" page so I didn't see it and assumed it was 1971). Keep up the good work. JJB 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding issues and question marks

1. What is Griffin's place of birth (for the infobox)?

Y Done Thanks! J Readings (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

2. What is his current residency (if known)?

Doing... Need to cross-check the current Who's Who to be certain of details. J Readings (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I remember that back then I could only find Griffin in the Who's Who between 1991 and 1994, and I think I had looked into the current ones as well. You might doublecheck, but sorry to destroy your hope :-( FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Can Youtube.com be used as a reliable source given the copyright issues, among other problems? What is Wikipedia's consensus on this issue? Need to check with the WP:RS noticeboard.
4. Words to Avoid: we should do a sweep of the article to make sure it conforms with WP:AVOID, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.
5. Is "geocities" considered a reliable source for the claims made?

Y Done Thanks! J Readings (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other issues out there, but these are the few question marks that spring to mind. Best, J Readings (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Incidentally, it would be nice to get an upgrade for this article given everyone's hard work in making it comply with policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, we won't be able to even get a GA-status ranking without a picture of Griffin in the infobox, I'm afraid. Is there anyway we can find a free picture of Griffin? Has he failed to reply to Feel Free to Be's email? Shame, really. J Readings (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1.) Detroit (according to Who's Who reference)
2.) Who's Who says: Office: Am Media PO Box 4646 Thousand Oaks CA 91359-1646. However, that was 1994. I'm pretty sure, though, that it's still Thousand Oaks, since that's also the address of his organizations as far as I know, e.g. look here [41]. I can't prove it, but everything seems to point towards Thousand Oaks. If it helps, at the bottom of the freedom force page [42] there's a "point of verification". It doesn't display anything to me currently (maybe wrong browser settings?), but I remember when I was on the page for the first time, it contained some information, including an address. Maybe one of you is able to see it?
3.) Ok, to be honest, when I added that youtube reference, I was also wondering about that, but I just trusted the many eyes of the many editors that contribute to the Ron Paul 2008 article, where I took it from. Now that you raise the issue: The reliable source noticeboard has an entry here: [43]. It suggests to me that reliability is not an issue, rather copyright infringement. I'm not an expert and haven't looked too much into the guidelines now, but since the video shows a public speech in a Ron Paul rally I'm not worried about copyright in that case. If others are, fine for me.
4.) Aren't we doing that constantly? ;-) Yeah, sure, can't hurt...
6.) image: I'm afraid I didn't get any reply from Griffin, nor did I find any uploaded image on wikimedia commons. Recently I also sent the email to griffin @ realityzone.com (I had overlooked that address for a while). The page says Please note, however, that his schedule prevents him from personally answering each contact. If you have specific questions you would like to address to him, either Mr. Griffin or someone from our staff will get back to you as soon as possible. Well, I'm also disappointed since he seemed to be really upset about the AFDs and even complained a bit that his picture is gone... If anyone likes to send him another email, feel free to do so! Alternatives? If the youtube video is free content, maybe we can take a screenshot and use it as image? Someone could paint an image - LOL. BTW, why do you think it's not possible to upgrade the article without the image? I don't see a good reason behind that, since it's not something we have much influence on. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
According to GA-requirements (don't have the link in front of me), we're required to provide multiple relevant images to aid the reader. Does the photo matter for the biography? I would think so, yes. J Readings (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link for the GA requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_Articles Be sure to look at the biographies. I haven't looked at them all yet, but most have a picture of the subject in the infobox. I'm pretty sure we're going to be asked for one. J Readings (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! In the criteria they say: "It is illustrated, where possible, by images". My position is that if copyright prevents it, then it's simply not possible. I absolutely agree that it's desirable, and to be fair at least I haven't seen a single featured biography without image so far (and I've looked at quite some - I wish there was a search tool that allowed to search for a FA or GA biography with no free image...). But I still don't see that having no free image would be an unsurpassable obstacle to GA. But I'll trust your bigger experience with that. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:GVF says about GA status: Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale. Images are provided where possible, but lack of images is not failing criterion. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, have we ever checked if an image taken from Griffin's page could be used in compliance with the 10 criteria of WP:FAIR? I think in our case it depends on criteria #1 and #8. While I think, #8 is met (for example, check out [44] and the justification for that image: The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject.), #1 might not be met, since Griffin is still alive and therefore it's at least possible that someone takes a picture of him and uploads it. Any thoughts on that? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, finally some examples of GAs without free image of the person: Michael Savage (commentator), John Baird (Canadian politician), Norman Hsu FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Both my logitech wireless keyboard and mouse decided to die on me last night. No way to type a reply, so I had to wait until I purchased new hardware today.
Anyway, problem solved so back to the article. I had a look at the links you mentioned (thanks). Reading the GA-reviews, I noticed these three cases are really exceptions that prove the rule, and even the Norman Hsu article originally had a photo in the infobox (it just failed the free-content test, so it was removed.) Also, a start-class rated article is required to have an infobox for the biography, but you might be right after all that they'll cut us a break for a GA-rating. One thing is for certain: we need to add a Griffin photo before trying for an FA-rating but that's well off into the future, I think. Let's see what the GA-reviewer says. I have some more comments below. J Readings (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
5.) JR, could you please point to which source you mean? Can't find it right away. Thanks FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Footnote #27. J Readings (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a tough one but I think I can come up with a satisfying answer. According to this source here [45], Flaherty had a different page (with the same title) that is not accessible any more. But luckily, this high quality (academic) source here [46] (just download the pdf) cites Flaherty and refers to the geocities page (see second to last page of article)! So I think we can safely do it as well. If you're question is rather whether Flaherty's voice is a significant one from the professional world of economy, we've already had a discussion about that (see section "like-resume" on this talk page). At least it's the best that we currently have. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It'll come up during a GA-review. I know it will. Somebody is going to say something about using geocities as a source. J Readings (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I replaced the geocities reference with one from PublicEye.org, that appears to have the same content. Hope that's any better. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

7.) I always wondered whether the lead section should contain expressions like "plain vanilla researcher" or "crusader rabbit". Actually I'm also a bit frustrated about these terms because I just don't understand them (maybe due to language on my account). Is there a way we can get rid of those, or to give me a clue what they mean? Thanks in advance. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section still needs some work before we request a review. Per WP:LEAD, we're supposed to briefly introduce everything that is discussed in the article. I need to go back and re-read the entire article to get a sense for what could it improve the lead. Personally, I like the quotes but they don't necessarily have to be in the lead section. I think John was trying to add some balance in the beginning because the perception was that the article was too biased one way or the other. J Readings (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, the section's on his "early life" and "Noah's" Ark should be briefly mentioned in the lead section per WP:LEAD. It might be helpful to break up the lead section into organizational paragraphs. Just a thought, J Readings (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

8.) Citation format: we need to check those carefully. The citation templates should be consistently used. Some articles with web links, for example, are missing "Retrieved on 10 June 2008" with the "access date=" function, etc. I'll try to have a look there, too. Thanks again,J Readings (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
9.) Do we have any background information on his parents, family, etc.? Perhaps we can cite something from one of his official websites or Who's Who? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we need to cite a third-party source for something like that provided that it's not controversial. If he has any degrees and academic credentials that might also be useful in that section, though I'm not sure if we're allowed to cite him. Need to check that with the noticeboard. What do others think? J Readings (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember there was some information about parents and children in Who's Who. Shame on me, but unfortunately I don't have the source any more. I'm not sure if I still have access, I need to check it out. Actually I'm wondering whether we should include information like that. Doesn't WP:NPF apply in Griffin's case? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we run it by one of the noticeboards in order to see what they advise? I'm just not sure which noticeboard would be appropriate--the reliable source noticeboard or the biography of living persons noticeboard? Hmmm. Heck, I'll post it on both and see what they advise. Thanks for the link. J Readings (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

10.) Just so that we don't forget that: Have all of Yannismarou's concerns on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/G. Edward Griffin already been addressed sufficiently? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Think it's time to start a new section for only discussing how to improve the lead section. JR's notion that the lead should also contain something from the early life section made me think a lot about it, and I like to share some thoughts and ideas: It's my impression that most lead sections of biographical articles do include the kind of information that we have in the early life section. Further I think that an early life section is usually used in cases of famous persons, and may not even be appropriate for a less well-known person like Griffin. Because Griffin's early life is neither really contributing to notability nor of much significance by its own (except for giving an idea about the subject itself), I think a section about his early life is not needed, but the relevant information could be included in the lead section instead. I tried to basically paste the early life section into the lead, and add the "essence" of each of the other sections. At the moment it's probably inaccurate, unsourced, weasely, POV, and what not, but before spending more time on that I like to know if something along those lines could be appropriate as lead section:

G. Edward Griffin (b. November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, publisher, author, and political lecturer.[1] Born in Detroit, Michigan, he became a child actor on local radio in 1942. By 1947 he was emceeing at WJR (CBS), and continued as announcer at WUOM and station manager at WWJ-TV (NBC), 1950–1955. He earned his bachelor's from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in 1953, majoring in speech and communications.[2] Griffin served in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1956, reaching the rank of sergeant.[1] When George Wallace ran for U.S. president in 1968, Griffin served as a writer for Wallace's vice presidential candidate, Curtis LeMay. In the next year, Griffin began producing films for American Media of Los Angeles[1] (later moving to Thousand Oaks and Westlake Village, California), of which he is president.[3]
While he describes his documentaries on controversial topics like the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, cancer, archaeology, history, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy as the output of "a plain vanilla researcher", he also agrees with the Los Angeles Daily News characterizing him as "Crusader Rabbit".[4]
Some of his better known works are the books The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), in which Griffin charges the Federal Reserve System with being a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism,[5] World without Cancer (1974), claiming that an efficient cancer cure has already been found but suppressed by organizations depending on the cancer business, or his documentary The Discovery of Noah's Ark. While he is not alone with his call for abolishing the Fed, Griffin's promotion and advocacy of Laetrile as a killer of cancer cells has not been accepted by the majority of the scientific community,[6][7] and the alleged "Noah's Ark" has later been found to be a hoax.

Maybe it's too long, but I believe a reasonable length could be obtained by getting rid of that crusader rabbitt stuff, and maybe some not relevant detail on early life, or by shortening the last paragraph. What do you think about merging lead and early life? Should a mention of those organizations that he founded appear in the lead? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging lead and early life would be strongly discouraged by lead-writing guidelines (please read fully). Adding a sentence about early life and/or one about orgs founded would be fine. However, I think it's OK as is: it establishes context, establishes the range of the body of work and its controversial reception (the vanilla/crusader distinction is very useful for that, although it's possible for it to move down), and establishes the two biggest projects as the Fed and cancer. (As a side point, since we worked out a compromise for expressing the 3 major Ark POVs, it would be unwise to favor one or two of them in the lead; and archaeology and history are not the controversial topics.) We should retain an early life section in any case because it has several noted activities and serves as the "resume before he got famous" section (another example of this type of section is the perhaps poorly named John H. Cox#Biography). If you're looking at other biographies that contradict this, let us know, they might be more subject to improvement than this article is. Generally, early life not contributing to notability is an excellent reason it should not go in the lead. JJB 19:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Noah's Ark and the controversy has to go into the lead section, John. It's an entire section that's been excluded from the lead section in defiance of WP:LEAD. We cannot justify it not being there. At least one or two sentences need to be added, I think J Readings (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(Addendum) Incidentally, I just wanted to say that I also agree with John that it’s a good idea to look at other articles for how they deal with the “early life” of not-so-famous subjects notable for a limited range of things. The problem is that we should really try to focus on finding a few GA-, A-, or FA-rated biographies. The one John mentioned, while appreciated, is a start-class entry. I've had a look--nothing so far. Also, I agree that it’s probably not a good idea to move the entire “early life” section into the lead for the reasons already mentioned. It should stay where it is. Perhaps one or two sentences (place of birth, etc.) could be included in the lead, though. J Readings (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A list of good articles can be found on WP:good articles. For example check out these, though I'm not sure how helpful they are: Anna Politkovskaya, Emmett Watson, Jay Barbree, Mark Kellogg (reporter). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I agree that just pasting the early life into the lead is not justified. However, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section serves also as an introduction, and that's exactly how I see the "early life" section as well. There's not a huge difference between the purposes of writing a "resume before he got famous", "introduction", or to "establish context". I agree that with the current amount of early life material, we're better off with a section, but I'm still not convinced that the article actually should contain that much detail, out of two reasons: WP:NPF, and the fact that the only information we have appears to be self-published, meaning that nobody out there (in terms of media coverage) really cares about whether he was a child actor or seargant. However, for me, the way we treat is, is also fine, maybe it adds some nice flavor to have that kind of information as well.
One motivation for my draft was also to provide a better overview / summary of the three major topics. I think currently that part is still a bit mystifying and a little clumsy (especially the laetrile sentence lacks context). Of course the challenge would be to find a very crisp summarizing description without favoring one opinion over the other, and I'm aware that my draft is not fulfilling that requirement yet. I was just posting it to see whether improvement in that direction was possible. Mentioning "archaeology" and "history" was an attempt to find broader topics descriptions, inspired by ref. #6. It's not clear to me how those two topics are less controversial than topics like the Supreme Court or cancer. In fact, controversial discussions are at the core of any scientific or political progress, in any field! To come back to the article, at least in the case of "history", we have Flaherty calling The Creature an "amateurish take on history", and (on his website) Griffin published many historical essays that can be called controversial, for example I don't believe his views on JFK assassination, or Pearl Harbor reflect scientific consensus. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If this article ever goes before a GA-review, we will naturally be asked to comply with WP:LEAD. Accordingly, The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. I suppose one could argue that his "early life" is irrelevant in toto as an "important aspect of the article's topic," to which I would say, why are some editors still requesting we include one? Answer: because that's usually the standard. I'm just wondering how this would play out for those of us who seriously would like to see this article upgraded.
I've been privately chatting with a few experienced editors off-line about this article, having posted my questions on the BLP noticeboard. I'm sad to report that the feedback has been largely negative. The main criticism seems to be the G. Edward Griffin article does not give a full picture of the man based on independent, third-party reliable sources. My reply was (and continues to be) that we have exhausted the supply of reliable third-party sources out there. Please, I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong, for everyone's sake. Unfortunately, the few with whom I spoke about this issue are pretty sure that we will be laughed out of court if we attempt to bring this to a GA-review. Frankly, I'm disappointed. But I don't know what we should do. Everyone has worked quite hard to improve this article. If the work was largely for just a continual B-rating, then I would question what incentive there is for anyone to work hard on an article. I'm hoping that we find a sympathetic GA-reviewer or a good way out of this impasse. J Readings (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm the wrong person to answer that question, but I tried to scan the guidelines and couldn't find a really helpful clue about what actually characterizes a "full picture" of a person. The best we can do is to stick to the sources. Next to WP:good article criteria, further information about GA criteria can be found at WP:reviewing good articles. At least I believe that none of the "quick fail criteria" apply, so I don't believe we'll be laughed out of court. Some "comforting" quote from WP:reviewing good articles is: If an article on a porn star is well written, well organized, well referenced, and follows the relevant Notability, Manual of Style and biography guidelines, then you should not fail it simply because you disapprove of its subject. On the other hand, there's also the statement: Not every article can be a Good Article. If the references to improve an article to Good Article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria. That remark is puzzling me - can an article lack the sources necessary for GA status, but still fulfill the notability requirement (and of that one I think we could be somehow assured, since the last AfD discussion)??? Well, if some of our sources don't meet the WP standard, they should be removed anyways, and the length of the article adjusted appropriately. That shouldn't keep us from applying for GA status. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think it meets GA criteria now and will nominate it myself soon if nobody else does; there is no need for overworry. The only simple improvements I see right now would be (1) better lead; (2) get the Daily News article full text and add content from there; (3) pay a bit more respect to chronology. The bibliography and filmography are already at FA status IMHO, but then I contributed. Anyway I'll go ahead with changes to the lead based on the above and you guys can pick apart. The lead largely results from stagnation on my first attempt at proving notability and impartiality (thus the cancer disclaimer). JJB 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait a week or so (if that's alright with everyone) until we finish off the outstanding issues here. I'd be happy to nominate this article and see what happens. My curiosity is piqued. J Readings (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Videos

A few google videos are linked to this article. Did anyone check to see if we're violating copyright by linking to these? J Readings (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed in this section here: [47]. Is there any other google video that we refer to? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not my day. First the issue of logical quotations, now missing the obvious discussion of google videos on the same talk page! :-) <sigh> Thanks, J Readings (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to blogs: not a good idea upon reflection

^ a b c G. Edward Griffin. Ron Paul 2008 (24 December 2007). Retrieved on 7 March 2008.

Upon reflection, I'm putting this on the talk page. I don't want to replace it unilaterally with something else before we discuss it. First, it's a blog and that always seems to attract negative feedback thanks to WP:RS guidelines. Second, it's a political campaign website. That suggests that the site won't be up for long after the November Presidential election. Best to link to a reliable third-party source with editorial oversight that isn't going anywhere. Third, most likely we can link to the youtube video for the endorsement, so we don't need it. For the other assertions, I don't think it's appropriate to use it anyway because it's not a reliable third-party source. Arguably, it's partisan. My 2 cents. J Readings (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This source is used for the points "current president of American Media"; "founder of FFI in 2002" (backup for Tampa newspaper); and "endorsed Paul" (backup for Youtube). I believe it is a suitable source in this context for these unobjectionable but relevant details which nobody has controverted. However, if you wish to remove it, we need either another source for "current president of American Media" or agreement it needs no sourcing, and we need consensus that the Youtube is sufficient as a self-published source for "endorsed Paul". JJB 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Two other points. Peer review recommended better overall picture of career and restructuring. Why do you see a benefit in keeping early politics, economics/Jekyll, and later freedom networking all together, when there is a natural chronological division, and there are easily defined lines among the three?
I don't have time for a proper reply just yet, my apologies. I hope to address this some time this week. Thanks for your patience, J Readings (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, writing for LeMay came from Marquis Who's Who, which we've already vetted. I trust that's all you wanted and you weren't actually questioning whether LeMay was an Air Force General? Thanks. JJB 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. That's all I wanted. Thanks again. J Readings (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm usually death on blogs, for obvious WP:RS reasons. I do think, though, that the blog suffices for his Ron Paul endorsement (YouTube is never a good link for anything). The claim to be head of something called "American Media" and the FFI claim need reliable sources if they are not to be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For the American media claim there's also ref. 5, not sure how good that is. But I've also not a good feeling about that claim, because I can't find any information about American Media (I think it's not the same as the "American Media, Inc." which you find online - the logo is different). Maybe it would be wise to just leave it out. As for FFI, the same is true (if sources are not good enough), but in that case it's not that dangerous, because there can be really no reasonable doubt that this group exists (though it's not clear how big the group is and what they are doing) and that Griffin founded it. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to post and run, but I need to get to a meeting. I just wanted to respond to User:Orangemike regarding YouTube. According to WP:EXTERNAL, There is no blanket ban on linking to these [YouTube, Google Video, and similar] sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis. If we can demonstrate, and this is a big IF, that the uploaded YouTube and Google Videos originate with Griffin, then my understanding is that we can both link to and cite these videos as reliable sources. Now, the question is whether or not we can demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt to the GA-reviewer. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)