Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Undue -- discussion of problems

Different problems have arisen of late (and edit warring makes it difficult to track what problems exist at any particular time). First, too much of the article (particularly the lede) goes into the evils of laetrile. Necessary debunking of laetrile is properly done in the laetrile article. I submit that debunking should be placed in a short footnote. Next, too much of the article (particularly the lede, which uses the term 3 times) mentions conspiracy theory without sufficient explanation. As the term is derogatory, it should be used with more caution. These problems are evidenced by the section headings. For example "Fringe" is used as a heading without explanation. "Conspiracy theories" (plural) is used in a section heading when only two of the four topics have a conspiracy bent to them. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

above I asked you to be precise. you raise a bunch of issues here which are difficult to discuss en masse. May i suggest that you create separate sections for each issue, so we can discuss each of them clearly? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments unrelated to specific article problems. Please post in the subsections below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead uses pejorative terminology and contentious labeling that is clearly a violation of BLP, and in no way demonstrates strict adherence to NPOV: He is also known for advocating the scientifically-unsupported view that cancer is a metabolic disease that can be cured by consuming more amygdalin, and for his promotion of the conspiracy theory that scientists and politicians are covering up this cure. It also states the following which is another blatant BLP violation: Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community. Both of these statements in the lead ignore the 3 core principals of BLP as follows: WP:BLP ...a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research), and WP:VERIFIABILITY - NEUTRALITY - Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view., and WP:BLP - it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. It doesn't get any more precise than that Jytdog. This was explained to you numerous times, and you still WP:DONTGETIT. It appears to me that this is not a matter of you not understanding, rather it is a matter of WP:COI and WP:POV from a biotech. Please consider voluntarily recusing yourself from further editing of this article. Your disruptive edits are prohibiting GF, neutral editors from improving and expanding this article. Atsme☯Consult 15:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) The real question, Atsme, is whether you will be able to edit this article collaboratively with other editors, some of whom are likely to disagree with you as to whether the points you make about BLP violations are valid. You've made your view know, as have others -- no need to repeat. I came to this article via the BLPN discussion and am not "a biotech", btw. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I work quite well collaborating with neutral minded, GF editors who are not advocating a cause, and are truly interested in getting the article right. My contributions to WP speak for me and my goals as an editor here. You might also want to look back at the reverted edits in the article's edit history for examples of neutrality when writing about controversial topics in a BLP. My initial goal was to eliminate the BLP violations which has yet to be accomplished. I am not the problem here - the neutrality issues and COI are what prevents this article from improvement and expansion. Atsme☯Consult 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Remember article talk pages are places to discuss content not contributors. Behavior issues belong on user talk pages. Tossing around accusations of COI like above is problematic and doesn't belong here as it only distracts from getting anything done at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC) What about tossing around accusations of sanction breaking against GF editors? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) That too from what I've seen of it. I can see a few comments here in general that would best be struck and folks should work on getting back on track. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Fringe" as section heading – discussion

In my view, the section header accurately reflects the section contents. I honestly don't understand your objection. Please explain. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Section headings must follow guidelines for article titles and article titles must be NPOV (see: WP:POVTITLE). While Griffin's laetrile promotion is based on WP:FRINGE, we do not have RS in the article that says so explicitly. Even so, we cannot use the term Fringe in the section heading. I had revised the headings in this edit. I propose to do so again. Perhaps we can use the section heading "Views" rather than "Advocacy". Subsections should read "Political advocacy", "Creature", "Cancer and Laetrile", "HIV/AIDS", and "Noah's Ark search". – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theories" (plural) in section header – discussion

As you acknowledge, two of the four paragraphs are about conspiracy theories. This accurately reflects the contents. So what is the issue? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment above, section headings must be NPOV. As "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term, we can't use in the heading. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, is NPOV. PSCI is part of the NPOV. Right? (sorry to ask but you have read PSCI, haven't you?) Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we can say Griffin promotes the idea that the Fed is result of some sort of conspiracy, but when we use the derogatory terms "Conspiracy_theory#Term_of_ridicule" and "conspiracy theorist" we are violating policy by letting WP become a platform for those who wish to criticize him. We need RS that says "According to 'author X', Griffin is a conspiracy theorist." At that point we can use it in the text, but not the section heading. (You've read WP:POVTITLE, haven't you?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not inclusion of what reliable sources have said about him, the problem is in the way it is stated. You cannot simply call it a conspiracy theory because that is NOT NPOV, that is the opinion of someone else. If Griffin said, "I have a conspiracy theory I'd like to share..." then you can use it. If Joe Blow said, "He is a conspiracy theorist...", then you have to say something to the effect of "Joe Blow contends..., or Joe Blow alleged..., or Joe Blow believes...." Wikipedia cannot express a view, or opinion as stated fact. Atsme☯^Consult 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per PSCI we can just call a spade a spade and say, something like, "In the book, Griffin lays out conspiracy theories regarding the Federal Reserve System. It is not a genre he invented. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple. (And the link you provide does not mention Griffin.) We can say "in the book Griffin lays out his version of the History of the Federal Reserve System.^{[citation needed]} According to ... his view of the origin presents a conspiratorial view of the history.^{[citation needed]} We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to say what you propose because NPOV and BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Conspiracy theory" in lead – discussion

This we could maybe reduce to one. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment immediately above, we need RS that says "according to so-and-so ...." Then we can use the term in the text, and once would be enough. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

about this dif, that was a great catch that the quote was about Rand, not Griffin. But the source is very clear that Griffin is "standard-issue" conspiracy stuff, and the author actually uses Rand's citing of Griffin as evidence that Rand is also a conspiracy theorist. In my view it really validates the label. I reverted the deletion and removed the quote. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:SYN) McLeod is not making any statement about Griffin, much less an explicit one. Including McLeod as a reference to assert the derogatory statement that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist violates policy. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a great example of a specific issue that we can (after we hear from more participants on here) take through a dispute resolution process. We have a very specific question - is McLeod a good enough source for a statement, either in WP's voice or attributed to McLeod, that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist"? In my view it is. Let's see what others see. We have to really try to talk this out here before we can go to any DR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll bite specifically on the source, but I'm mainly lurking from afar on this one for now. Jytdog, if this were a source from a scientist stating one specific view of Griffin's is fringy, etc. it would be pretty clear cut. This source though is from a communications professor. If you summarize what he said about Griffin (based on your post below), Griffin is adored by conspiracy theorists as sort of role model and expounds conspiracy theory/fringe ideas. That latter part is a textbook definition of a conspiracy theorist and it would be almost impossible to argue otherwise. However, what exactly elevates the source above the opinion of just some random person (just being a professor doesn't always cut it)? If that question is satisfied, seems like we'd have a decent source in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That said, srich let me ask you. Here is the quote: "Paul's endorsement of G. Edward Griffin's The Creature...—along with several other positions he holds—has made him an icon for New World Order conspiracy theorists. Griffin's book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council of Foreign Relations, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley, the Rothschilds, the Bavarian Illuminati (a branch of which, the author suggests, played a role in assassinating Abraham Lincoln) . Griffin was also a longtime affiliate of the John Birch Society, which published several of his nutty books. ...However, when this congressman ... endorses Bircher books about a Federal Reserve conspiracy... it shows how the fringe ideas discussed throughout this book have infilitrated substantial parts of the political mainstream." And i note that McLeod discusses the fringey/conspiracy theory nature of all the ideas he mentions about Griffin's book, elsewhere in his own book. It is clear as day to me that he is calling Griffin's ideas both "fringe" and "conspiracy theories". But it seems that you are unhappy that he doesn't directly say "Griffin's ideas are conspiracy theories." Which is a bit too narrow of a reading to be reasonable, to me. But let me ask you this. - "standard-issue" is an adjective. McLeod elided something in the phrase "standard-issue references". What do you reckon he elided? To me it is pretty obvious that it is "conspiracy theory". What do you say? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To say he is a conspiracy theorist in the same manner you say he is an author is contentious labeling and a BLP violation. I'm not quite sure why you WP:DONTGETIT. The opinions of others should not be the opinion of Wikipedia, and that is exactly what you're doing. Critics consider him a conspiracy theorist, others consider him an author who presents facts. I've explained how the term can be included without violating BLP. Please read my comments. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McLeod doesn't even say Paul is a conspiracy theorist, only that he's an icon for them. (And he does not say Griffin thinks of Paul as an icon.) At most we can say "According to McLeod, Griffin writes about the 'nutty' idea that the Fed is the result of a conspiracy."^[cite] (Going beyond to what else Paul has done goes off-topic.) As this is a BLP "pretty obvious" is not enough because SYN policy uses the term "explicit". And as conspiracy theory is a term of ridicule we must "adhere strictly" to BLP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the characterisation of conspiracy theorist is widespread enough, then it should be presented not as (mere) opinion but as fact. If there is a significant minority view disputing it, then things might be different. But the fact that some call him an "author" does not amount to disputing the view that he is a conspiracy theorist; one can be a conspiracy theorist *and* an author. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

^^Are you proposing to rewrite BLP policy, NPOV, and MOS? Atsme☯^Consult 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If & when I become interested in doing that, I'll be sure to post to the appropriate talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the event you've lost your way, this is not the appropriate talk page for discussing policy changes. To even suggest that Wikipedia is positioned to accept opinion as fact is ludicrous at best. Whose opinion do you propose makes it fact, or are you proposing WP:SYNTH to make it so? The most his critics can hope for is to include in the prose that a reliable source referred to him as a conspiracy theorist. Atsme☯^Consult 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article body – discussion

Don't agree, per WP:PSCI. Looks like I am going to have go find the precedental discussions I mentioned earlier. I will go do that. I will say that doing it in a footnote is an interesting compromise, though. Thoughts on that by others? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

PSCI pertains to pseudoscience topics. Griffin is not such a topic. Per PSCI, see: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, Category:Pseudoscience, and WP:FRINGE/PS. Individuals are not listed in these resources. Accordingly, we cannot use stand-alone RS in the article to debunk what Griffin is promoting. By stand-alone, I mean material which does not mention Griffin. Per comments from other editors above, adding in stand-alone RS to debunk Griffin is improper SYN. That said, a one-line footnote to explain what laetrile is would be pushing the envelope. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Srich32977 for the most part, but at the same time, if we are looking to include an overview of Griffin's book, it is perfectly acceptable as well as expected to write about the key elements which have been noted by RS on both sides. Perhaps a quick review of some GAs and FAs will provide a basis to model after for those of you who have lost direction with regards to what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like. The tabloid sensationalism needs to disappear. The way this article is currently written, it wouldn't pass scrutiny in a DYK review. Atsme☯^Consult 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

quick note here. of course Griffin himself is not pseudoscience. that makes no sense. The ideas are. The content needs to be very careful to discuss the ideas, not him, as FRINGE or pseudoscience. Still looking for the precedental discussions on the intersection of BLP and PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

While your efforts are noble, Jytdog, they are not necessary to correct the BLP violations which still exists in the lead. There is no possible explanation to justify the contentious labeling of conspiracy theorist as fact other than to describe it as a BLP violation. Further, if prior discussions actually failed to recognize it as a BLP violation, the latter is surely cause for concern, but not cause to repeat the same mistake again. I do hope you understand what I'm trying to relay. Atsme☯^Consult 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

this subsection is about laetrile, not conspiracy theories. Please comment in appropriate sections so the discussion can stay on track. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

debunking of laetrile in article lead – discussion

Not sure what you mean by "too much". Do you mean "at all"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think my comments immediately above address the question. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE.

An opinion stated numerous times does not make it fact. American conspiracy theorist in the lead is a descriptive term based on opinion. WP:NPOV states Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Griffin's view of the term "conspiracy" as quoted from a published interview: First of all, we need to define this horrible word, conspiracy. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to that. They talk about conspiracy theorists as though conspiracies weren’t real, and I feel sorry for these people because I know they have never read a history book because history is full of conspiracies. In fact, it’s hard to come up with a major event in history that wasn’t created to some large and significant extent by a conspiracy or more of them. Conspiracies are very real in history. They’re very real in our present day. If you doubt that just go to any courtroom and sit there and listen to the cases that come before the judge and before the jury, and a good percentage of them involve conspiracies of one kind or another. So when people talk about conspiracy theories, I have to laugh. It’s too bad they don’t know anything about history. [1]

WP:Fringe theories - Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. References to laetrile and quackery in the article to describe Griffin's opinions and writings are POV and UNDUE as written, partly because the earlier claims are outdated by 35 years or so. There is no mention of the significant published results and/or recent scientific and academic research wherein the results either dispute or question the antiquated claims, and is still ongoing. Ernest T. Krebs, Jr., Dean Burk, and Kanematsu Sugiura, John A. Richardson, Philip E. Binzel, Jr., Hans Nieper of West Germany, N.R. Bouziane, M.D., from Canada, whistle blower Ralph Moss, and other highly reputable science writers, notable researchers and medical doctors, several of whom are included in Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, are not quacks, and their findings and actual clinical experiences/results are not quackery according to some RS. Where is the balance? Where is NPOV? Some of the theories Griffin pointed out in his book have been validated by factual information that was recently published, such as Ralph Moss' book, Second Opinion, and John A. Richardson's book, Laetrile Case Histories [2].

Further validation relative to the above is further evidenced here: [3]...(a reliable, published academic source which holds relevance as a source because Griffin is mentioned and cited in their research). Following are two excerpts from that published work:

The other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences. According to a press release of the Academy, the recent Sloan-Kettering experiments were done on `the most drug resistant of experimental cancers, and that many drugs that are effective against cancer in human patients have never been tested on them. As a result of the Academy's investigative work, Sloan- Kettering had to alter its manuscript which was forthcoming in the Journal of Surgical Oncology.

AND....

Our position is impartial, or perhaps even agnostic: we are not directly concerned with whether or not Laetrile cures or controls cancer. Rather, as in an analysis of the Velikovsky conflict, our interest is in 'the methodological significance of the affair,'93 or 'the methods which are actually used to distinguish those knowledge claims which are "true" from the rest.'94 Both sides of the controversy warrant examination. Finally, by giving equal time to both sides of the controversy, we are not suggesting that both sides have similar legitimacy. Rather, our explanation of the phenomenon is symmetrical, meaning that the behaviours of both sides must be understood if the controversy is to be understood.

The same issues apply to The Creature.... It is not our job as editors to advocate for or against what is written in Griffin's books. Our job is to present in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. And therein the problem lies. The article simply does not meet the requirements for NPOV, and contains several BLP violations. Atsme☯^Consult 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

everybody understands your position on this atsme and yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helpful for resolving the dispute. We are discussing specific issues above, and we are making some slow progress. At some point, when we have identified specific core areas of disagreement we can perhaps take this to mediation, but a) we must have first thoroughly talked things out here; b) we must have sought outside input via postings at notice boards, (and we should consider an RfC that we all agree accurately identifies the issues). If we still fail to get resolution then, mediation may be our best final step. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was so slow I totally missed it, so please point out what you consider progress. So far, and I might be wrong, but all I recognize as your primary contribution is WP:SQS while the BLP violations remain unresolved. FYI, the above is not a statement of my position, rather it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist. Surely I haven't overlooked something that important. I also don't understand your interest in this article considering the fact you haven't made any attempt to expand or improve it. I've already made known my purpose here, and I see where Srich32977 and a few other editors have attempted collaboration for the sake of progress. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain yours. Atsme☯^Consult 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have commented above on specific issues and briefly, which is generally the way that progress is made.Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of Atsme's claims in this section are new. The notion that there are BLP violations has been peddled extensively and has failed to gain consensus. I don't see the point of this new section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason I keep mentioning the BLP violations is because they still exist, and the editors who kept reverting and/or adding unreliable sources in an attempt to qualify the violations did not satisfy the NPOV requirement. And you wonder why I have to keep repeating myself. Ok, so I'll repeat what I stated a few lines above, and will also including the section title in the event you missed it...Summary of WP:NPOV and UNDUE - {{xt...it is a very specific summary of the BLP violations, complete with accompanying WP policy statements and reliable sources that validate my position. It would be refreshing to see those who dispute my claims actually cite policy explaining why the named BLP violations don't exist.}} Why did you think they were new claims? It is ludicrous to advance to new claims before the prominent BLP violations have been resolved. I'm still waiting for the editors who so boldly reverted the violations and caused PP to actually cite policy explaining why they think the named BLP violations don't exist. I haven't seen anything yet that qualifies as strict adherence to BLP policy. I do not see where any progress has been made, either, and I've actually read, re-read, and re-re-read all the comments. Atsme☯^Consult 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that when the full protection ends you'll quickly begin repeating the same edits you were making before. The fact that this might not be a good idea probably won't give you pause, will it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, it would probably help if you work through the article section by section and solve the issues in each section rather than wanting to do it all at the same time. Others don't share your concern that there are BLP issues in the article which need to be addressed straight away, therefore you need to move on from that onto improving the article the usual (proposal, negotiation and compromise) way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, my focus has been on the lead section, and trying to make it policy compliant. I understand your point, and under normal circumstances, I would definitely agree and follow your advice. Actually, I wouldn't be in this position under normal circumstances, so please try to understand mine. JzG actually acknowledged the contentious label in the lead, [4]. Unfortunately, he didn't come here as a proponent of NPOV, and tried to validate the violation by adding a few more unacceptable sources (trivial mention), holding true to his belief that "quibbling about the strength of sourcing does not really help." He's right to the extent that an RS will not magically convert an opinion into a statement of fact. In 2008, there was a collaboration of GF editors trying to get the Griffin article ready as a possible GA candidate. They kept the contentious labels and pejoratives out of the lead [5], which is unlike what I've tried to do. In June 2014 the contentious label was added back, [6], appearing as a statement of fact supported by WP. The article went downhill from there. I credit Srich for trying to negotiate and compromise like what you suggested - his patience is admirable - and his take on it may be quite different from mine, but his edits were also reverted before the PP. I think a few of his edits were "allowed" to remain, which begs the question, WP:OWN?? The pattern of responses in the section by section discussion above resembles WP:SQS. Is keeping Griffin a WP:Coatrack so important that it's worth all this disruption? Atsme☯^Consult 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, others agree that it is a contentious statement not that it is a BLP violation, in fact the rough consensus here so far is that it isn't a BLP vio. So you need to move on from arguing that, and probably the lede as well and focus on other parts of the article. Once you have sorted out those other parts you can go back to the lede. Continuing to post walls of text about the same issue isn't going to lead to progress and just is going end up with someone getting blocked when the protection expires or the article getting protected again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, are you seriously suggesting Ralph Moss as a reliable source? A man who has consistently lied about the job he did at MSKCC and was sacked for misrepresenting his employers? I do hope not. He is a crank. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the man, JzG, but if you are referring to the quote I included above about Second Opinion, please be advised it came from Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed journal. It's actually a well-balanced, well-written paper, and a good read. I highly recommend it. I'm not quite sure why my work has been so heavily criticized, but it appears as though it is the result of misinterpretation. Please rest assured that the prose I write is balanced, dispassionate, NPOV, well cited, and follows policy to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, so if another GF editor takes issue with something I've written, I am always ready and willing to discuss and collaborate if given half the chance to do so. If I've made a mistake, improperly cited a reference, etc., I have no problem correcting it, or having another editor correct it. My opinions about the subject are irrelevant, and the same applies to collaborators because our job is to be balanced and neutral. I don't factor in my personal opinions about anything I write unless I'm commissioned to write an opinion piece. If you haven't already, please read what I wrote, and tell me what's so wrong about it. [7].

Atsme, please see WP:MEDRS. Our content on laetrile needs to be sourced from independent sources: statements by major medical and scientific bodies, and the most recent reviews we can find. Those sources are already used in the article. Please especially see the "respect secondary sources" section of MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? What are you referring to? Atsme☯^Consult 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You only reference one-health related matter in this section - laetrile, and you discuss sources for material on laetrile. Those sources fail MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific - I truly don't know what you're referencing. Are you talking about the diff? Are you talking about something I referenced in this discussion? Just tell me what source please. Atsme☯^Consult 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

none of the sources you bring above, about laetrile, can be used to trump the MEDRS sources we already have; and there are yet more. Please do read MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If Guy is referring to Moss' book, Second Opinion, as mentioned above, then please refer to the source I actually cited. I did not cite Second Opinion. The excerpt that referenced Moss' book was published in Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed academic journal - May, 1979 - Vol 9, pgs 139-166, [8], chapter title=Politics and Science in the Laetrile Controversy - and I quote: "the other major criticism made by Second Opinion has been corroborated by the New York Academy of Sciences through its official publication, The Sciences." Our personal opinions about Moss are irrelevant.

Jytdog, surely you're not suggesting that the American Cancer Society, and The New York Academy of Sciences are not reliable sources, are you? I'm confused over your repeated references to WP:MEDRS when its application is context dependent. Griffin is not an article about laetrile, therefore citing sources that don't meet the standards of MEDRS is not an attempt by me to "trump" anything. Different RS will be cited in order to validate what we write about a particular opinion or passage in Griffin's book. In fact, Griffin's book fails MEDRS, but we can still refer to it. Regardless, we should not be conducting a scientific debate in Griffin's BLP regarding the use of laetrile. We must avoid UNDUE by keeping mention of laetrile proportionate to its prominence in Griffin's body of work. Also keep in mind that we cannot exclude the information that inspired Griffin to write, World Without Cancer, which may include information Griffin refers to in John A. Richardson's book. Atsme☯^Consult 19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

that was just a note about your wall of text and subsequent comments, generally. we are discussing specific content above. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Moss, and reasonably familiar with Second Opinion since it is the source of a laetrile propaganda film made by Eric Merola, who also produced the two propaganda films promoting the execrable Burzynski Clinic and whose only past feature-length work is on his brother's Zeitgeist Truther-fests. Moss specifically and laetrile generally are good litmus tests for credulous reporting. Any acceptance of the claims of laetrile quacks is prima facie evidence of lack of proper critical analysis, because laetrile, once the most profitable scam in America, is refuted. Not unproven, refuted.

World Without Cancer is billed as the story of vitamin B17. It is, therefore, fiction. There is no such thing as vitamin B17. Laetrile is not a vitamin, neither is amygdalin. The term "vitamin B17" was coined ins a cynical attempt to evade drug regulations and capitalise on the lax regulation of supplements in the US, itself a result of industry lobbying and legislation promoted by congressmen with extensive financial interests in the supplement industry. The name "vitamin B17" is simply fraudulent.

Yes, we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile: it is a quack cancer "cure" that does not work. That is the scientific consensus, unambiguously established from every single reliable independent source that discusses it. WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS apply. You may choose to quote mine sources that superficially meet MEDRS in order to imply support for Griffin's book, but that is cherry-picking and quote mining and a violation of policy. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you'd share what you really think. If you would please provide a link or two with some updated research (21st Century if you don't mind) that confirms your stated position, or are we supposed to maintain the status quo of results that date back to 70s and 80s? Just curious. Atsme☯^Consult 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a very thorough Cochrane review from 2011, PMID 22071824, which concludes: "The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative." Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you forgot to click on the update link in that review which dramatically changes the landscape, and why updating Griffin is necessary - [9] - (bold underline for emphasis): AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of Laetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment. Looks like Moss' Second Opinion may have awakened some of the sleeping dogs, maybe even stepped on the tails of a few. GF collaboration is a good thing if for no other reason than to keep us on our toes. Oh, and please take a look at the following update from Sloan-Kettering: With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment. [10]. It really is better to pay closer attention to the updated, rather than the outdated information. I also strongly recommend reading the October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories). [11] Read the Nacci's Curriculum vitae on pg 3 before attaching any labels to him. He is a specialist in nuclear medicine, and published the book, Diventa Medico di Te stesso (Become your own doctor), which was awarded "Best Scientific Book of Year 2006". And yes, his work passes the acid test for MEDRS. Alrighty then, since JzG stated that "we do, and absolutely should, have a position on laetrile", I agree. In light of the updated information, the only violation of policy I can see at this point would be the continued used of pejorative terminology and contentious labeling, so we must be careful how the prose is written. Updating antiquated information is a long way from "cherry picking", and more like getting the article right. NPOV requires the inclusion of updated information. I think the impact is even greater when it comes from world renowned authorities who have provided (and performed) the scientific research including numerous clinical trials that corroborate Griffin's book. Finally, I know we're all busy, and I realize the following 2007 doctoral dissertation doesn't qualify as a MEDRS. However, it is archived in the University of Western Sydney's Thesis Collection (with a citation on Google Scholar), and truly an enlightening read. It's titled, "Changes in Direction of Cancer Research Over the 20th Century: What Prompted Change: Research Results, Economics, Philosophy", authored by Jeannie Burke, Master of Science (Honours).[12]. Atsme☯^Consult 12:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The "update link" is to an earlier (2006) version of the 2011 Cochrane review Jytdog cited. Brunton (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Did a strike-thru, rest remains as is. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

now that atsme has understood how pubmed works, I see nothing else in the walloftext to respond to.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose not, Jytdog, considering Dr. Nacci's documentation on the whole laetrile thing, and all the sources he cited. Sometimes we get too focused on U.S. based policy and decisions, completely forgetting that Wikipedia is world-wide. Maybe you could start writing prose and helping to expand the article, maybe work on correcting the UNDUE issues, and help make it NPOV friendly. A good place to start would be changing the section titles so they reflect NPOV. We can't just leave the article looking like a WP:Coatrack. Atsme☯^Consult 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to address the "ideally from the 21st Century" point, as I have seen similar for several forms of quackery. For example, HCG diet hucksters claim that the research refuting the HCG diet is no longer relevant because it dates back to the 1970s.

Medical trials are governed by the Declaration of Helsinki. Under that declaration, it would be nigh on impossible to get ethical approval for a new human trial of a refuted treatment like laetrile. The existing evidence is so strongly against it, and the purported mechanism of action so far out of line with current understanding, that no institutional review board would approve it.

Put simply, when science finds an answer, it tends to stop asking - whereas quacks will always keep asking until they get the answer they want. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile is refuted everywhere. See this from the UK, for example. Your problem here would be WP:TRUTH if it weren't for the fact that the claims for laetrile are not actually true. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted from Sloan-Kettering isn't an update either. It is a single sentence cherry-picked from a page that clearly says that amygdalin has not been found to be effective as a cancer treatment. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the conclusion of the 2011 Cochrane review is: The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative. Which is how Wikipedia will represent it, because we're a project of the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, Griffin is a BLP not an article on fringe science or pseudoscience. The topic is not laetrile, and it is not our job to advocate, debunk, promote or criticize laetrile in this BLP. Wikipedia editors are obliged to follow policy and guidelines, particularly NPOV which requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Perhaps a refresher will help remind everyone what is required in WP:FRINGE under the heading Evaluating Claims - Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The latter is what is being ignored, and what my edits have tried to correct, all of which have been reverted. Atsme☯^Consult 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That latter element calls for editorial judgment. The simple fact that you appear to have a hard time accepting is that others disagree with you as to the judgment that ought to be made here. I specifically disagree that we are being "overly harsh or overly critical". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

at some, the usual way of resolving a dispute which, as in this case, consists of one editor with a rather obvious PIC refusing to accept that his POV is not neutral according to numerous long-standing Wikipediams, is to topic ban the one user. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue tag

I think the Undue tag can go, as it gives undue weight to a single opinion (that of Atsme) and it is abundantly clear by now that this is motivated in no small part by desire to advance a WP:FRINGE idea, the quack cancer treatment known as laetrile. Nobody else here seems to support the idea that the article gives undue weight to anything. The subject is known for his advocacy of crank ideas, and we reflect that dispassionately. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree so much that I'll do it myself. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait until after the holidays to express my concerns because I can see it's going to require a great deal of my time. Lucky for me, I have plenty of it. My main concern is how this article is being used as a WP:Coatrack even after I've provided reliable sources that dispute the prominent POV. Atsme☯^Consult 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a well known fact about Wikipedia that those advancing a fringe view have vastly greater motivation to press their point than other Wikipedians typically have to resist it. Don't be that person. The basis of the dispute as stated at the fringe theory noticeboard is that you dispute the categorisation of laetrile as pseudoscience, on the basis that this is a biography so should merely report the claims and not address their validity. Feel free to set me right if that is not your actual position (but do try to do it in terms that don't fail the TL;DR test, as many of your comments above do).

Whatever your personal view, the consensus of reliable independent sources is that laetrile is quackery. It's been identified as the most profitable quackery of its day. The only provable and repeatable effect of laetrile is cyanide toxicity. Asserting that laetrile is legitimate would be very unwise, as there is simply no way it is going to fly. It is one of the most widely discussed and best documented forms of health fraud in the world.

So, feel free to discuss the issues you have with this specific article, but don't even try to propose that Griffin's views on laetrile are defensible, because that will fail and it will piss off those of us who are here to keep the peace. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Let's start with the following: WP:PROFRINGE - specifically The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Have you even read the prose I wrote that was reverted? WP policy states that opinions cannot be represented as statements of fact.
• It is neither my desire nor intention to get into a debate with you or anyone else over the pros and cons of pseudoscience and/or fringe theories - but just a sidebar note: "Radiation therapy can damage normal cells as well as cancer cells." [13], or "Radiation has potentially excess risk of death from heart disease seen after some past breast cancer RT regimens.", and "Chemotherapy does not always work, and even when it is useful, it may not completely destroy the cancer." How about some actual results and survival rates after conventional treatments: [14]
• Regardless, that isn't what the Griffin biography is about, so I will reply matter-of-factly in a dispassionate tone. Read my UP to understand my motives, and please dispense with the conspiracy theories and insinuations that I have a "vastly greater motivation." Sorry to disappoint, but I have no other motivation than to get the article right, expand it 5x per DYK, make it a GA, and potential candidate for FA promotion. I wish more editors would edit with the same goals in mind.
• Why are you and a handful of other editors placing so much emphasis on pseudoscience in this BLP, and wanting to maintain it as a WP:Coatrack? Perhaps the answer is here, [15], and in your comments above. How can you believe the criticisms launched against me are not exactly what I'm being falsely accused of doing? The consensus of independent reliable sources is that Griffin has a Top 50 best seller on Amazon (in its 5th edition, 38th printing) about the Federal Reserve, not that he is a conspiracy theorist. The POV pushers, like Media Matters refer to him as a conspiracy theorist - not RS - but even if RS are cited that's fine with me as long as it is stated as their opinion, and not a statement of fact that represents WP's position.
• The article is riddled with other issues as well, including UNDUE and RS. I did not try to diffuse the claims that were reliably sourced. I simply tried to provide balance, and eliminate UNDUE in the article. I am suggesting (and you could call it "insisting") that certain statements in the article be changed to follow MOS as well as WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLPFRINGE. Atsme☯^Consult 22:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not persuaded by any of these concerns; they rehash arguments above that failed to gain traction, and I think we're well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. If the tag is re-added, I will support its removal again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears we've exhausted all reasonable channels of discussion. I'll take it to DR. Atsme☯^Consult 20:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've let Atsme take the laboring oar on these discussion, but the recent change to the Infobox (along with the lede) warrants the tag. As Atsme said, there is no such occupation as "Promoter of CT". At most Griffin is a writer who promotes kooky ideas, but using WP to tarnish him in this fashion is improper. This article was stable until August. But then we had a series of edits come in to slant the article. Sadly they have not let up and sadly editors have failed to describe Griffin and his ideas with NPOV in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The only particular undue weight concern I see in the lede is that for some reason it covers laetrile twice, saying that it is "scientifically-unsupported" in the first paragraph and that it is "considered quackery by the medical community" in the second. The lede needs to be rewritten to avoid this repetition. Brunton (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to delete the second lot of laetrile material in the lede, and keep the earlier "scientifically-unsupported" stuff; and actually "fake" or "bogus" would be a better term there too ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

When re-writing the lede (and other parts) care must be taken to avoid SYN. We cannot say "Griffin has promoted laetrile.^{[citation 1]}" and then say "Laetrile is quackery.^{[citation 2]}" The problem arises if "citation 2" does not specifically/explicitly mention Griffin. It is proper to provide RS that explicitly mentions Griffin and his promotion of laetrile, especially if the RS describes laetrile as quackery. – S. Rich (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977 instead of re-stating your view for the zillionth time, would you just please respond to my attempt to summarize and aim us toward next steps below? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

please TALK

Atsme and Srich32977 it is silly that you are resorting to edit warring instead of talking. Let's try to identify the specific things you are objecting to, so we can consider taking them to mediation or crafting a series of RfCs to address them (in other words, do dispute resolution.

• I think both of you disagree with characterizing Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" at all. Is that accurate?
• I think Atsme alone, objects to the description of laetrile in the article. Is that accurate?
• if not, please define exactly and concisely (no walls of text please) what the issues are. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't characterize the edits as EW. Who was it that added the ersatz "occupation" to the infobox before PP was instituted? (And why not direct your EW admonition to that editor?) What discussion has there been about the "occupation"? The edit was boldly made, it was reverted, and now it should be discussed. (Instead we see accusations of edit warring.) As for your question to me, I do think he is a CT, but the sourcing for that description is poor and thus the description does not belong in the lede. (And certainly not the infobox.) Instead of using WP as the vehicle to describe Griffin as a CT, the article should say "Some have described him as ....." Finally, without adding a wall of text (because I have commented earlier), this article should not be used as the vehicle to debunk laetrile. The SYN we have seen in this regard is shameful. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have not/do not disagree with the fact that Griffin has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist. We cannot label him as such to make it appear as WP's position. We cannot call CT his "occupation" because such a statement is worse than ridiculous. It is an opinion, and considered to be a pejorative term.
• I have not/do not object to including the views of government agency supported descriptions and/or conclusions of laetrile, etc. My objection is to the use of this article as a WP:Coatrack to advocate, debunk, and/or promote. This article is about Griffin, and laetrile happens to be the topic of ONE of his books. If one view of laetrile is included as the prevalent view of government supported agencies, then the prevalent views of notable experts should also be included to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. FACT: there is/has been widespread use, its use is controversial, there are opposing opinions expressed by renowned experts on both sides, there is recent research, numerous results from clinical trials, new information has come forward in 2013 & 2014, and the sources meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP, WP:BLPFRINGE, 2nd party and 3rd party reliability/verifiability. The term quackery is pejorative, and we must be careful how it used to not create a BLP violation. The subject needs brief dispassionate mention from a NPOV.
• Bottomline - fix the section titles, fix all of the issues in each section that create WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, correct, then avoid WP:BLP violations. All sections have the same issues. Atsme☯^Consult 14:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious, unhelpful and untrue in regard to laetrile. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP about Griffin, not a fringe article about laetrile. Atsme☯^Consult 00:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• with regard to "conspiracy theorist" in the infobox. I think this is not precedented and should go.
• I don't intend to address Atsme's issues with regard to laetrile per se; that is a settled matter and there is no debating it. Laetrile is not effective for treating cancer and has a high risk of harming people. That is settled medical science.
• with regard to concerns stated about SYN with regard to laetrile.... I posted at the Fringe Noticeboard here (and please note that the discretionary sanctions now in effect concern FRINGE/pseudoscience). That attracted comments there, and here from two new editors (Kingofaces43 and admin Guy), and both of them - both there and here - have supported the current way we address the intersection between BLP and PSCI - namely addressing Griffin's claims about laetrile. Neither found that we are committing SYNs and instead found that the text complies with PSCI and BLP. :) In my reading of the discussion at BLPN by Atsme here, from what I can see only Atsme and Srich found a problem, and Alexbrn, Elaqueate, Roxy the dog,and NatGertler found no problems. Nomoskedasticity seems to have started participating here due to the BLPN posting. Yobol sounded in there too, but he has been here for a while. At some point TFD jumped in and noted that he finds a problem with SYN but it seems to me that TFD, Atsme and Srich are alone in finding a problem with SYN. We have been to two notice boards already. Pursuing this further seems like forum shopping to me. I would be interested in hearing a next DR step that would not be forum shopping.
• with regard to naming "conspiracy theorist" in the lead and in WP's voice, there is boatloads of precedent for doing that (have a scroll/click through this search to see what I mean). In our article, there are five sources for that description of him in the lead, and more in the body. I don't see how S Rich can say there is insufficient sourcing for that. Please explain. Thanks. Note on this one: w have not taken this aspect in particular to boards yet, and I would be open to us working together to draft an RfC that we all find acceptable, on this issue.
• if there are other specific issues (i.e. exact bits of content) that S Rich and Atsme are objecting to, please state them. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (fixed typo in username for Nat Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)) (add roxy to the list Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC))

The thread on this at WP:FT/N#G._Edward_Griffin is active (again). I've just commented there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whys of Cancer Quackery

has a dead link tag. the full article is here if anybody wants to read it now... and we can fix the link when the article opens again. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Got the following message: You don't have permission to access /store/10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<815::AID-CNCR2820531334>3.0.CO;2-U/asset/2820531334_ftp.pdf on this server. Atsme☯^Consult 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

weird. i am just on the plain internet at home. I went first to the Wiley site here and clicked on the "get pdf" link. that just worked again! maybe that will work for you. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

in any case I have it now. if anybody wants to read it, email me and i will email it to you. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A link is not needed. Detail the full cite as it should be (without link) and I will fix it, this is a minor thing. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually all the links there work for me. There may be some problem with the Wiley site for the abstract, so perhaps just remove the doi. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

K. Which article again? Mixed up two open windows! Guy (Help!) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read this article - [16] Atsme☯^Consult 01:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Laetrile (amygdalin, B17) is not pseudoscience according to WP:Fringe

Please read my post at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#G._Edward_Griffin - I explain why it isn't fringe or pseudoscience. Atsme☯^Consult 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect at FTN. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not incorrect. A compound that is being used in Italy, Mexico, and other parts of the world is not pseudoscience. Regardless, this is a BLP, and the way it is written makes it a WP:COATRACK, so please, let's stay on topic. Discussion about laetrile is at the fringe noticeboard. Atsme☯^Consult 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It can only get worse if you continue down this path. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask that you please stay on topic and refrain from the spurious warnings. Instead, let's collaborate to get the article right. In order to accomplish that goal, Griffin cannot be used as a WP:Coatrack. WP policy states that WP:SYNTH is unacceptable, but that's what we're seeing here in Griffin. I consult you to read the policies, paying very close attention to WP:NPOV. Other issues are WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, and of course the contentious labeling that represents a statement of fact rather than opinion. The problems are readily fixable by simply following guidelines and respecting policy. Thank you kindly. Atsme☯^Consult 20:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is not an article on laetrile, it is a biography. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

archiving

this selection of hand-picked Talk sections to archive confused me, so I reverted. I don't understand why some were left and some not. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit request

What do you say we ask an admin to fix the infobox as follows:

• Occupation: "Author, Lecturer, and Filmmaker"
• Known for: "Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search, and Laetrile promotion and conspiracy theories"

This is what Srich32977 proposed - I added conspiracy theories for laetrile, since he does that too, per the content in the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I object to the second usage of "CT" as overkill. I would agree to "Noah's Arch searching, and conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and Laetrile" – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

trying to work with you here, so how about

• Known for: Conspiracy theories concerning the Federal Reserve and Laetrile, and Noah's Ark search" Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

K. – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:) yay. now let's see what others say... Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me - I'm willing to move forward, even if it's at a snail's pace. Let's hope the lifespan of the remaining debates aren't longer than our own. Atsme☯^Consult 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not the place for undue detail. It should simply read "Known for: Conspiracy theories, Noah's Ark search." The article will detail the conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

K x2. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with that shorter version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Specifico re: shortened version. Actually, just say Known for: Conspiracy theories - that's enough. Noah's Ark search isn't what he is known for at all. Atsme☯^Consult 13:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree on occupation line. Disagree on Known for. Alternative Known for: controversial topics.

--Pekay2 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept Atsme's point. The ark bit clutters up the infobox. Conspiracy theories is fine at that level. The article can present whatever content is well-sourced in appropriate detail. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request for infobox

Per the discussion above, would an admin please change the Occupation field in the infobox, and add a "known for" field, as follows?

• Occupation: Author, lecturer, and filmmaker
• Known for: Conspiracy theories

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_issues_at_G._Edward_Griffin

Thx, Jytdog. I am not forum shopping. I presented the notice to address RS only which is more of an issue to me now because of the criticism I've received over the sources I've listed. Atsme☯^Consult 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no current discussion going on at the RSN. This thread should be archived as unhelpful/resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - posted notice of RfC at RSN

Here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_related_to_reliable_sourcing_at_G._Edward_Griffin Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: There is no current discussion going on at the RSN. This thread should be archived as unhelpful/resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

archiving

Srich32977 has been manually and selectively archiving things. I have been reverting. Srich32977 added an "archive me" tag, which I just removed. This page has an archiving bot. It also has had a very active set of discussions. I would be fine with changing the bot settings so that things archive more regularly. The current settings are:

• minthreadsleft = 7
• minthreadstoarchive = 5
• algo = old(90d)

I would be OK with changing them to:

• minthreadsleft = 5
• minthreadstoarchive = 1
• algo = old(90d)

Other thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND suggests archiving at 75kb This page is now at 355kb. My archiving edits were extremely modest, removing obviously closed and OBE discussions. Per section 27 above Jytdog was confused and did not understand the rationale for archiving old discussions which unnecessarily clutter this much too long page. Still, I will suggest:

• minthreadsleft = 5
• minthreadstoarchive = 1
• algo = old(45d)

– S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

done. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is getting way too long. I'm going to manually archive some of these short and no-longer-relevant threads. – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)