Talk:F. William Engdahl

Biased language

I have tagged the article for neutrality issues. The wording throughout several parts of the article obviously takes a one-sided stance on several controversial issues. This needs to be sorted out. __meco (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, really? ;-) I'd wade right in, but I'm not sure I want to make a career out of trying to do NPOV BLP on the kinds of conspiracy theorists who can, by way of formal professional preparation, sound quite scholarly at times. See my extensive edits on Leonard Horowitz, which I doubt I'll ever get straight. I'd say Engdahl's bio is in that highly problematic class[1].

Is Engdahl a conspiracy theorist? Yes. In particular, in his GMO book, it seems he cites NSSM 200, one of Dr. Horowitz's favorites when he's blathering about how the U.S. government supposedly created HIV for genocidal purposes. This supposed memo was the ostensible basis for a disinformation hoax that (IIRC) the Russians actually apologized for later. Engdahl believes MKULTRA created the hippie movement. He calls George Soros a "Court Jew". Engdahl claims he's not anti-semitic -- but he's clearly got a problem with certain "Jews who are not Jews". (You know the ones I'm talking about, don't you? The ones who run the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy? ;-) But can Engdahl also write in a persuasive, formal, scholarly style much of the time? So it would appear from a number of very lucid comments about his books. (Appear? Haven't you read them yourself? :p --bonzi (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Engdahl has written for Executive Intelligence Review, a Lyndon LaRouche outlet. He claims he's not affiliated with LaRouchites anymore, but he does highly praise, and draw upon, at least one LaRouchite historian. I got here by way of October surprise conspiracy. There, it appears that Engdahl or some fan/proxy/meatpuppet has written up his theories on that (but without WP:V compliance, naturally, or any other Wikification).

The challenge here, as it has been for me with Leonard Horowitz, is to first determine if Engdahl passes basic notability tests. Has he been the significant subject of a reliable source or two? (Unfortunately, Horowitz cleared that bar with an inch or two to spare.) If Engdahl isn't notable per se, our job is easy: poof, he's gone. But if he passes, there is the challenge of getting verifiable information on him and treating him objectively, within WP:BLP. This is not, in my experience, a very easy task, since it means negotiating the "wilderness of mirrors" that conspiracy theorists have set up on the web, a network of mutual support and admiration replicated over many websites. You have to tweezer the sparsely distributed verifiables into place; after a while, you start wondering if you've crossed the line into WP:NOR territory. And all the while, you have to be vigilant against possible attacks on the article's objectivity from the subject's ardent defenders and his ardent detractors. What fun, eh? Yakushima (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, questioning Engdahl's notability here, in encyclopedia that devotes pages and pages on each and every fictional character of old computer games, is ridiculous. I like the article as it is (although the list of his activities is perhaps a tad too detailed); it says he was a somewhat controversial economist, hints at his tendency toward conspiracy theories, mentions his interest in Brzezinski (and so, by extension, Bilderberg Club and all that jazz), lists the languages into which his work was translated (rather short list, even including obscure languages like mine, Croatian), and that is pretty much that. Interested reader will proceed to this talk page and get somewhat rounder picture, and then decide whether to spend time on his actual work. Sounds sensible to me. --bonzi (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The matter of notability is legitimate. The only way of really testing it is to submit the article to WP:AFD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are quite popular in Europe, especially former Soviet block, and the Arab world. The fact is: even though these authors are not credible by any standard, they're making an impression out there and wikipedia is not going to change that by not including any mention of them. So it's actually a good thing that this article exists and states clearly who this guy really is and where he belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.39.5 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes he has some controversial opinions, yes some of them are downright ridiculous. So? George Bush would have us believe he honestly thought the Iraqis in possession of WMD and HE was elected to the highest office in the worlds most powerful country. A considerable portion of what Engdahl says is perfectly credible by any reasonable standard, especially his discussion of global geopolitics and its history. To simply dismiss out of hand his thinking as entirely "conspiracy theories" is ridiculous. When people actually respect men like Sam Harris and Rush Limbaugh and take them seriously I don't see why Engdahl can't be given a chance. Those two are dangerous, racist and have some quite idiotic opinions. Engdahl has some opinions that are just as laughable but he is by no means dangerous or, from what I've read at least, especially racist. 99.255.9.117 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I write some times for the hebrew wiki. I come across a few articles of this guy when i was interested in the ukraine-russia gas crisis.

In his articles he is using so much hidden propaganda against the west its amazed me i cant tell if he lies there, but it surely not written naturally. I think its awful to have him here presented in this way... that makes me sick please change or delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.114.246 (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeitfragen close to VPM psycho-sect in Switcherland

Strange alliances ( see german version ). But what about Asia Times? What he writes about financial Tsunami makes sense to me. Other source: James Cumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.106.206 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixes

I removed a ton of redundancies, rewrote the article for what I actually could source (removing things I could not find info about), took out POV language, and made some MOS changes. Looks better now, but hard 3rd party information about the man is still lacking. NJGW (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Engdahl's contribution to Real News Network: bias?

(first comment is an excerpt from talk page discussion)

I reverted a recent change because:

1. Sources must directly state the information in the sentence you are using them to support (ie Linking to an article written by Engdahl does not prove that he is a writer... that is considered wp:Original research.
2. The Engdahl article is not a place to list all or many of the articles he has written for various venues. It should list the notable things he wrote (like his two books), but what is more important is to find independent sources stating that something (like Engdahl himself or one of his writings) is notable.

- NJGW (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with removal of Engdahl's contribution to The Real News Network.

Here he is analyzing the current financial crisis. This is:

a) informative on the subject;

b) a good example of the way in which he analyzes the phenomenon.

c) newsworthy because his informed opinion differs from what most mainstream media present on the subject.

I don't agree with you that only two books should be mentioned as his publications. People who are interested in further reading, should be able to have easy access to his contributions to other media.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say only two books should be mentioned, but the books are more notable. What we think about the merits of a specific article are not important enough in this case. His contributions to the financial crisis debate has not been demonstrated by third party commentators to be a notable enough event in his life to be listed here. Having information not directly related to the verifiably notable events in Engdahl's life risks turning this article into a wp:coatrack (because this is not an article about the financial crisis and these articles are from a very short period in an otherwise very long career). NJGW (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This reeks of censorship. I disagree with you: he is a specialist in the field. The fact that his opinion stands out against other opinions on the subject, makes it noteworthy in itself and exemplary for his knowledgable analysis. To be honest: I am amazed to read that you dispute the relevance of his contribution. A unique example of the highest level of economic reporting and Wikipedia should not point out to this outstanding quality? To me this really reeks of censorship.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please don't accuse editors. Second, I have tried to find more information about Engdahl's notability, but haven't found any. If you have sources which can help establish him, please use them in the article. Also, you should probably read wp:Truth, as it will explain why even if Egdahl is "A unique example of the highest level of economic reporting", we can't be the first ones to print it. NJGW (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)F. William Engdahl

F. William Engdahl

F. William Engdahl

Let Wikipedia-readers make their own judgement on Engdahl's views on the economy. I'm sorry I made you feel uncomfortable. Let me try to explain better: I am not proposing to cite other opinions about Engdahl. I think the users of Wikipedia should be allowed to use their own sense of judgement to evaluate Engdahl's expertise. By deleting a reference to his contribution, shown here as an example of his work, which is part of his biography, the users are not given a chance to make their own judgement. To this I object.

I am quite suprised by some of the opinions made earlier on Engdahl on this page. I even read some accuse him of being a conspiration theorist. I find this a rather severe (and not substantiated) accusation and I fear it really serves to hide that people hold political views that differ from those of Engdahl.

From a more personal viewpoint: I find it quite incomprehensible to discover that people don't attribute a status of reliability to The Real News Network as a source.

To come back to our initial debate: I am not at all convinced by your arguments. But I will leave it to this, although I must confess I feel discouraged to further contribute to Wikipedia.

It's a pity for readers of Wikipedia they now will not be able to become acquainted with Engdahl's unique contribution on such an enormous important, if not THE MOST important issue as the current economic crisis, which is going to touch us all because it is linked to the climate crisis and to the food crisis in the world.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You bring up several important issues, and they each deserve an answer.

1. "I am not proposing to cite other opinions about Engdahl" All we can do on Wikipedia is discuss the verifiable and notable "opinions" about the subjects. Think of Wikipedia articles as news articles which may only report established details, and not provide any novel ideas/opinions/representations.
2. "some accuse him of being a conspiration theorist" That probably comes from the fact that he thinks the NWO controls the supply and price of petroleum. You'll notice however that he is not called a conspiracy theorist in the article because there are no reliable 3rd party sources calling him that.
3. "people don't attribute a status of reliability to The Real News Network" I haven't made any comments about the reliability of that source. I only point out that there is no indication that the article you link to is any more notable than any of the other articles Engdahl has written in his life. This is not the page to discuss the financial crisis, but if there are reliable 3rd party sources stating that Engdahl's view of the crisis is notable we can include such a statement in the article.
4. "I feel discouraged to further contribute to Wikipedia" Wikipedia does have some fairly strict requirements for inclusion of material. Because of this, it is not a project for everyone. I do encourage you to stick around and get to know the rules, as the project as a whole can always use more interested and thoughtful editors.
5. "readers of Wikipedia they now will not be able to become acquainted with Engdahl's unique contribution" The link to his homepage is in the article, and through that readers can find anything Engdahl has put on-line. Again, we cannot tell the readers what we think is important for them to read. Other (good) sources must write about Engdahl first. As for the possibility that he has simply not yet been recognized, we cannot predict for readers what will be considered important in the future. NJGW (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something really funny. The bio that the Real News Network uses for Engdahl is lifted right out of this article. Does this mean even they can't find more information that we already have for his notability? This is proof of how important it is for Wikipedia to be totally wp:Neutral. NJGW (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"All we can do on Wikipedia is discuss the verifiable and notable "opinions" about the subjects. Think of Wikipedia articles as news articles which may only report established details, and not provide any novel ideas/opinions/representations."

This is comment is irrelevant. I linked to a recent example of Engdahl giving analysis in an interview. No other links to interviews were included before. This example should not be approved of. It is simply an example.

Your argument implies that all examples of works of authors mentioned on Wikipedia are approved of by other sources. Notes and references are ment to substantiate the fact of their existence, or the source of their occurrence, not their approval. That Engdahls comments are seen by me as excellent is not more or less than my personal opinion . To my argument it is irrelevant.

Let me give you an example to enlighten my point of view. On bishop Williamson's views regarding the holocaust there is much debate and disapproval by relevant and fiable sources. Your argument implies that Wikipedia should not mention Williamson's arguments if an article would be written about him. In fact, there is an article which does mention his much debated holocaust views.

Pointing to the link to Engdahl's page is again irrelevant: the interviewes are published by The Real News Network not by Engdahl.

My proposal to add more examples of his articles and of an interview, is not conflicting with rules.

By deleting the link to Engdahl's interview, Wikipedia DOES tell readers what to appreciate: you have decided for them.

--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Your argument implies that all examples of works of authors mentioned on Wikipedia are approved of by other sources."

That's exactly the case. Read wp:N to see what forms of "approved of by other sources" are acceptable on Wikipedia (a policy standard arrived at by wp:Consensus.

"Your argument implies that Wikipedia should not mention Williamson's arguments if an article would be written about him"

Not at all. At the article you're talking about there are 15 major news stories, including some by CNN and the BBC, used to show the notability of the issue. It is "much debated", and so we have something to report.

"By deleting the link to Engdahl's interview, Wikipedia DOES tell readers what to appreciate"

No, we are only allowed to point out what is clearly already widely appreciated. Imagine if any author/artist/plumber/hotdog stand owner that had gotten 2 mentions on blogs insisted on having everything about them on Wikipedia... the encyclopedia wouldn't be taken seriously.

If you're not OK with this policy and its use on this page, they you are more than welcome to request a comment from an uninvolved editor. NJGW (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"The bio that the Real News Network uses for Engdahl is lifted right out of this article."

This is the bio I found on the website of the Real News Networdk:

"Bio:

F William Engdahl is an economist and author and the writer of the best selling book "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order." Mr Engdhahl has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. Mr. Engdahl contributes regularly to a number of publications including Asia Times Online, Asia, Inc, Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine; Freitag and ZeitFragen newspapers in Germany and Switzerland respectively. He is based in Germany."

Where is the proof for you asuumption this is lifted 'right out of this article'? --AdeleivdVelden (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Relax, it's not a big deal that they did it... people do it all the time, and I even saw a biochemical engineering paper lift a sentence for their abstract word-for-word from a Wikipedia article (unethical, but mostly legal). Here, judge the similarities in phrasing for yourself. NJGW (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

nice propaganda

"Mr Engdhahl has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock in the early 1970s."	"He has also spoken at conferences on geopolitical, economic and energy subjects, and is active as a consulting economist. Engdahl began writing about oil politics with the first oil shock in the early 1970s."
"contributes regularly to a number of publications including Asia Times Online, Asia, Inc, Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine;"	"is a writer for the Asia Times Online. He has contributed to a number of publications, including Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant's Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International."

Again, I find your comparison not convincing, especially because these are enumerations of mere facts, which can come from any other source. I just hope next time you want to delete text I have added, you could get in touch with me and discuss it first.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is also not acceptable, as anything written in Wikipedia is written with the understanding that it may be removed or changed at any moment (and then changed back by another person). For more information see wp:OWN. NJGW (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's hope someone else has the common sense to add useful information on Engdahl, for instance his recent views on the financial crisis. He may have the wrong opinions on oil and CO2, but that does not necessarily mean he is wrong on the credit crisis. Engdahl meanwhile has put the interview on The Real News Network on his site, so on that part you were right.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion: If you wish to include information about Engdahl's opinions about the financial crisis (or anything else, for that matter), you will need to find evidence that these opinions are notable. That means having clear references to his articles, and discussion of those points in reliable third party publications. There can be instances where links to primary sources are acceptable, but this does not appear to be one - it's just one, relatively small, part of his career. Now, if his opinions should later become the topic of widespread discussion, reporting in notable sources, and so on, then it will become suitable to include them at that point - citing appropriate secondary sources as they become available. Anaxial (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a rule only applied for non-fiction authors or is it also applied with fiction writers, singers etcetera? --AdeleivdVelden (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability applies to all articles, whatever the subject, but is particularly important when dealing with articles about living people. Anaxial (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, when I would write about a living author of fiction, or a living architect, I cannot add titles of their works, buildings or other accomplishments unless there is a secondary source who has evaluated these works? I think confusion has risen because I didn't intend to add the reference on Engdahl to give notability to his opinions. This was just an interpretation. I hope I can explain to you that according to me there is a difference between refering to a source to substantiate a view (which was not the case here) and adding a title of some persons works, be it a book or an interview. --AdeleivdVelden (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are not attempting to endorse his views - even a fringe view can still be notable, after all. Adding the titles of someone's works is fair enough, if it is what they are noted for. Engdahl, for example, has published a couple of books, both of which are mentioned in the article, and are not in dispute. If an author is notable enough to have an article at all, it's safe to say that his books would be notable enough to be mentioned in that article. Similarly, we could mention a singer's singles and albums in an article about them, so long as the singer is notable in the first place. But not everything that a person has done will necessarily also be notable (and note that the rules on writing about living people are particularly strict on Wikipedia, compared with other subjects). In this case, Engdahl's recent writings on the economic crisis are a small part of his life, compared with his prior work on oil and so forth. If his economic views are cited in a reliable source then, by all means, add that to the article. If he is significant as a consulting economist, sooner or later, someone will mention it in a reliable source, and then you're good to go. It may just require waiting a little bit, that's all. Anaxial (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed "anti-American" to "anti-globalization"

Greetings all...under the Career section I changed "Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-American Centre for Research on Globalization to "Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-globalization Centre for Research on Globalization.

The term "anti-American" is blatantly subjective and does not belong in an encyclopedia (except, perhaps, as the subject of an article defining it). I changed it to "anti-globalization" as that term more accurately reflects the POV of the organization in question. I hope both its supporters and its detractors can agree on that point. I suppose the most neutral term is something like "an organization critical of political and economic globalization" and if anyone is strongly opposed to "anti-globalization" feel free to change it.--User2346 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Others on Engdahl's interview on Real News Network

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"A fascinating interview with F. William Engdahl on The Real News, where Engdahl discusses the possibility of dramatic social change in America due to the deepening recession: http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2009/02/are-we-headed-for-a-10-year-recession.html" Dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/8/141924/3246/767/694879 --AdeleivdVelden (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Those are blogs. Please read the notability policy as well as the part of the verifiability policy dealing with blogs. NJGW (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)|}

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on F. William Engdahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219231637/http://www.financialsense.com:80/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html to http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0925.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927090035/http://www.financialsense.com:80/editorials/engdahl/2009/0924.html to http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2009/0924.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hagiographical changes

IP, please explain how your additions align in terms of Wikipedia's policy on due weight. Thank you. El_C 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping Ricardant, who is probably the same editor. El_C 17:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources

While doing a Global Research cleanup, I looked again at Talk:Seeds of Destruction (book) where there are suggestions that it would best be merged in this article. However, this article itself mostly uses primary sources, as if noone ever wrote about Engdahl. I haven't looked for sources yet, but the tag is still relevant as of July 2021. If independent sources are really lacking, this often suggests that the article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO... —PaleoNeonate – 20:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I am planning to look for secondary sources, but they seem fairly few. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion

I have sought advice at RSN about the recent suppression of the Boundary 2 citation in this article. See here. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It has been archived: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 367#Boundary 2. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

2022 deletion

@User:Cambial Yellowing: [2] What is the reason for this deletion? The edit summary was deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Very thin sourcing for clearly derogatory statements about a living person. WP:BLPBALANCE indicates we need secondary sources for such material. The sources were a passing reference in a Time opinion piece, and blog posts by two advocacy groups/charities. Not the robust secondary reliable sources for such material, and not due weight to appear in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)