User talk:Atsme/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Any Point?

Your quote- "I may not be perfect, but I can certainly strive to be." If there is absolutely no chance of being perfect, why try to be. Just a random question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.140.221 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Because as long as you are striving to be perfect you keep getting better. Grasping that concept may be difficult for those who set limits on themselves or lack self-confidence. Atsme☯^Consult 06:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Apollo Hall

The Apollo Hall

Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank . . .

. . . you. It feels good to be appreciated :) Writegeist (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mention

Please see the discussion here. jps (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson

I wouldn't revert Binksternet... I made a post at WP:AE over the actions and Cwobeel has been blocked temporarily over the matter and Binkster decided to reinsert it. On his unblock request, Cwobeel says I am making false statements and the only one opposed to calling Emerson an Islamophobe based half sentence (and purely name-calling) quips. I am might just unwatchlist the article because it is time-consuming and the battleground mentality is just really unpleasant for me. Feels like ole "Taylorology" here... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Chris. I know we've had our differences, but I have always considered you a valuable collaborator. I understand your frustration, especially with the Emerson - IPT fiasco. I was not aware you filed an AE, but will check it out in a few. Can't figure out why some editors just don't get it, and why we are seeing so many unmitigated attacks on BLPs, especially in the past year or so. Maybe instead of blocks, admins could impose a reading exercise that includes a thorough review of several FAs followed by a reading comprehension exam.

BTW, I started reading a few WP articles on what were once considered RS, such as the SPLC. I also read a few BLPs on highly controversial people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even threw in Charles Manson out of curiosity. I didn't see any NPOV issues in those articles. I also noticed how very little mention was made about the recent rash of criticism regarding SPLC in the past year, most of which is pretty high profile in mainstream media. Contrary to the aforementioned, poor Emerson has been targeted and attacked front and rear for a stupid gaffe he made in one interview. WP:RECENTISM. Worse yet, they still insist on including poorly sourced, inaccurate information re: Ok City bombing that dates back 20 years, and then deny it's noncompliant with NPOV and UNDUE. Atsme☯^Consult 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep... remember when you got all upset and dismissed future interactions with me? I had a feeling it was just the tensions and saw another editor clarified it because I failed to and I didn't want to get frustrated. It resolved itself in a sense. I expect people to disagree and have different opinions - it was your assertions which made me dig into Emerson and find out the deeper connections and issues. People you agree with result in a confirmation bias... different opinions and different views are not bad, but unfettered conflict is. Unfortunately, the line between the two blur under certain circumstances. I was strongly against a few things, but my arguments were not as strong and I switched sides after a particularly strong response. I couldn't argue against it, I may not personally agree... but it was the right decision in the end. I learned this about two years ago... and its not something which can be taught. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

You may want to go back and mention the quality of the source material. Your current contributions will be dismissed as a vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well Done

Your entries at Admin noticeboard on bullying and content agenda pushing masquerading as policy interpretation are perceptive, really well researched, and well written. Too many editors attempt to use requesting blocking there not as a way to silence troublesome editors, but as a way to silence editors whose proposed material addition for articles does not sit well with their world or subject view. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor. Further edits of this nature will likely result in a sanction, including blocks and bans. This warning is given pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision on complementary and alternative medicine and will be logged as a sanction, the process for appealing it are here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is under review. The error was inadvertent, and added a few extra emotions to a subsection title, which when combined, created the impression that I was being uncivil. Atsme☯^Consult 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a joke, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I'm pretty sure it was the result of a misinterpretation. See [[1]], and scroll down to the subsection Atsme to see what actually happened. It was a crazy malfunction of the emoji tool bar. I contacted Technical 13, and he suggested taking it to WP:VPT [2] which I'll do tomorrow. In the interim, I remain hopeful that once Callan has a chance to review the evidence, he will revoke the warning. Atsme☯^Consult 00:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• For all the talk page stalkers who have been following the emoji caper, Technical 13 was kind enough to provide his insight as to what happened with the rogue emojis. [3] Mac users need to be aware that reducing the size of your window(s) while using the SMirC emoji dashboard could be detrimental to your Wiki health as it may unleash a rampage of stampeding emojis with results you may not like, and certainly don't deserve. Atsme☯^Consult 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you rolled the eyes and used a pun. I see though that that talk page is on edge. What are some reliable sources that are missing? – [4] Popish Plot (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have vacated the warning following the discussion we had on my talk page, please be more careful in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Double standards

Hi Atsme, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that Callanecc has failed to take action against people making puns on eaach other. For example, an administrator once made the following pun:

A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang.[5]

Callanecc ignored this attack when he sided with the administrator to defend JzG. Just so you know.

-A1candidate 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement (and other noticeboard) statements

Hi Atsme, I just cleaned up a couple places on WP:AE where you didn't ensure that a statement header would be left for anyone who would come to make a statement after you. Please ensure that when you make a statement, the "====Statement by (username)====" header line and its following comment are in place immediately below in the text edit area.

My advice would be to copy the header and comment, paste that copy just below the original, and then write in your username and statement text. This is what I do on noticeboards, and it ensures that there will be no difficulties for anyone who follows me to add their own statements. Thanks! // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

coldacid, thank you! I apologize for that error. Guests from out of the country had arrived, and I was distracted. No excuse, and I will try to be more careful in the future. Atsme☯^Consult 11:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bowfin range

I am aware of WP:LEAD, and it says that only a broad overview of the article should be provided. However, that was not the point I was trying to make when I made the removal. Rather, I was trying to point out that the 3 mentioned basins only cover a fraction of the range. There are huge sections of the bowfins range that aren't covered at all, including almost all the river basins exiting in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States (only exception is Saint Lawrence system, part of the Great Lakes basin), various medium to small river basins existing into the Gulf (basins of Apalachicola River, Everglades, etc; essentially all except Mississippi). I can't think of an easy and elegant way to cover all this in a lead format, which is why I preferred leaving it at the more general "eastern United States and adjacent southern Canada" with full details to the relevant subsection. However, since you prefer to have more details in the lead, I've now modified it to cover it all, but I wouldn't call the solution elegant. The reason I changed it to the Great Lakes instead of only mentioning two of them is that 1) They're all part of a single basin (it's not really possible to talk about them as separate basins, though one may talk about sub-basins); 2) One of the main distribution sources (USGS) only mentions "St. Lawrence-Great Lakes" without going into details; and 3) Lake Superior is actually the only of the Great Lakes where the bowfin is not naturally present (see e.g. Ontario Fish Species, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory), so it is rather misleading to specifically highlight it (it has been recorded from rivers associated with this lake, but that's another discussion). I hope this clears up any possible confusion that may have occurred over my initial edit. If you can think of a better or more elegant way to cover the complete range in the lead I do invite you to make the update. Another possible solution may be to make it clear that only a fraction of the range is covered by changing "including the drainage basins of the Mississippi and Great Lakes" to "such as the drainage basins of the Mississippi and Great Lakes". I'll leave the judgement of that to you. Regards, 62.107.223.129 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Thanks for your detailed reply! That was very useful and thought-provoking, actually. In retrospect, it was probably my mistake to raise the issue again on the talk page after noticing the unsourced assertion in the lead, but I appreciate the useful links and commentary. You've given me something to think about. Oddexit (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read.

Responding to your Griffin talk post: Please read [6]. They speak for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP

I'm not entirely clear on how you were connecting Kissinger and Clinton to the subject of the article, but it did appear that the connection to Clinton was OR and a potential BLP vio - you can't connect things like that. As far as Kissinger, I'm assuming the subject's book mentions Kissinger? Or are you saying that both the subject and Kissinger are talking about the same things? Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll discuss [7] this here, not on the article talk page. I've asked you a question and I expect an answer if you want to continue discussing this issue. As of right now, I believe you've violated WP:OR and WP:BLP; convince me otherwise. Dreadstar ☥ 02:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I would not/have not ever used SYNTH to create a noncompliant POV passage in an article, and I don't intend to start now. My response addressed contentious statements that were made in this BLP, which actually are violations you may have overlooked. My post addressed the criticism of my proposed lead which was called, "substantially worse", [8]. It is a far reach to think anyone could believe the Fed is "a perfectly normal central bank and no more embroiled in controversy than the Bundesbank or the Bank of England". [9] The NWO allegation was as equally unsupported as was the Fed Reserve gaffe.

Every single edit I've attempted to make at Griffin has been reverted, and that is an issue that needs to be investigated because it is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. How could an admin not see the obvious concerted effort that has prevented me from improving/expanding this start-class BLP to GA? I've included some diffs below to substantiate my position in addition to the fact no progress has been made in the past 3 months to expand the article. Quite the reverse because it became the topic of an AfD. Connect the dots, and explain how such activity is helping the project? Coatracks and attack pages are supposed to receive immediate attention, which is what happened at Griffin, except it received immediate protection as a Coatrack. I provided a few more diffs below to give you an idea of why no progress has been/will be made at Griffin until certain behavioral issues are resolved. Will Griffin remain a Coatrack, or will it advance to GA review? Carrite who has created and/or collaborated on over 100 biographies and at least 50 BLPs pretty well summed it up well in his statement at the recent AfD request: [10].

In response to your question, Griffin does mention Kissinger in his book, and also quoted him. Much of the information in Griffin's book cites substantial documentation and historical events, some of which originated with Kissinger. In Creature, (which is available in an online archive), there is a chapter titled the New World Order which quotes Kissinger's article in the LA Times titled, "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." Griffin didn't make this stuff up. His book hasn't been a business best seller all these years because it's filled with garbage conspiracy theories as what his critics and political opponents choose to believe, but it isn't our job to prove or debunk - only to write about it based on RS. David Barstow, Pulitzer winning editor for the NYTimes, said in an interview, "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this." [11] The WSJ and Forbes has written about the book, and it is also on the list of recommended reading at various universities. If major players in the world of finance write about and recommend the book, it would be foolish of us to downplay it as something only aluminum hat wearers take seriously.

[12] See BUILDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER (113):

Applying this same perspective to the NAFTA treaty, former Secretary-of-State, Henry Kissinger (CFR), said it "is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system.... the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations." The newspaper article that contained this statement was appropriately entitled: "With NAFTA, U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order." David Rockefeller (CFR) was even more emphatic. He said that it would be "criminal" not to pass the treaty because: "Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere." By early 1994, the drift toward the New World Order had become a rush. On April 15, the government of Morocco placed a full-page ad in the New York Times celebrating the creation of the World Trade Organization which was formed by the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which took place in the Moroccan city of Marrakech. While Americans were still being told that GATT was merely a "trade" agreement, the internationalists were celebrating a much larger concept. The ad spelled it out in unmistakable terms:
• Toyoo Gyohten and Charles E. Morrison, Regionalism in A Converging World LMw York: Trilateral Commission, 1992, pp. 4, 7-9,11.

r » w i t h n a f t a , U.S. Finally Creates a New World Order, " by Henry Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, July 18,1993, pp. M-2, 6.

• A Hemisphere in the Balance," by David Rockefeller, Wall Street Journal, October 1,1993, p. A-10.

While you're investigating the false allegation of a potential BLP violation on my part, please take a moment to review a few diffs I provided below, and consider restoring my comments at the TP because I am at a loss to understand how a BLP violation actually occurred. The sentiment expressed in the following diffs is still very much alive, and I actually do have more recent diffs, but there's not need to provide them all. If your intention for taking over Callan's lead on Griffin is to create a productive working environment, then I hope you are successful in managing the behavior of the most aggressive opponents so proficient prose writers can get to work improving/expanding this BLP. Also, when/if you get a chance, take a quick look at the Griffin edit history, and see how many of my edits were reverted, and how many were actually allowed to remain. Also see who writes prose, and who simply hangs out to revert the work of others.

(removed diffs and struck references to same as they are not needed at this time)

Thanks for all the work you do and the time you put into it. Atsme☯^Consult 03:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response re: Kissinger; but I don't see a comment about Clinton - please clarify the connection between the subject of the article and Clinton. As for the rest, I've already explained that we're moving forward and I'll address violations as they occur. And no, I'm not taking over Callan's lead, I'm providing assistance where I can. Dreadstar ☥ 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dreadstar, but I'm pinging Callanecc to come review this conversation because I think it warrants his attention. You accused me of violating OR which is a pretty farfetched accusation considering OR does not apply to TP. WP:OR (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) I'm a little concerned over your behavior right now, especially under the circumstances. You still haven't explained why you think a BLP violation occurred. I don't believe I violated BLP policy, but I'm not sure about the behavior of the other editors whose posts you erased from the record. If no violation occurred, don't you think you should restore them? I don't appreciate being wrongfully accused, it is very hurtful and was unwarranted - and it is the kind of behavior you are here to prevent, not commit. If you think I violated BLP, then you are obligated to explain why you think such a violation occurred. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one you've accused of violating policy, even though you deleted the comments made by Guy and SPECIFICO.

• (cur | prev) 17:16, March 23, 2015‎ Dreadstar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (134,233 bytes) (-2,234)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: rem WP:OR and potential WP:BLP violation)
• (cur | prev) 17:13, March 23, 2015‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,467 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: mre)
• (cur | prev) 17:11, March 23, 2015‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,193 bytes) (+223)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: reply)
• (cur | prev) 16:07, March 23, 2015‎ SPECIFICO (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,970 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead)
• (cur | prev) 15:58, March 23, 2015‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (135,696 bytes) (+1,463)‎ . . (→‎Proposal for lead: read the following articles, one of which Griffin cites in his book Creature)

I am waiting for your explanation, please. Atsme☯^Consult 05:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Atsme, I got curious about what thise whole Griffin thing is about and have been reading. Now I think some of my confusion came because something got deleted from the talk page before I saw it. For talk pages the policy is "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

Was something said on the talk page which was an unsourced attack on a living person? I think a lot of people check talk pages to get the "real scoop" so that's why we have to be careful there as well as on the main article. I wish everyone involved with this would stop being so secretive and discuss the problems openly but I also see that the BLP rules might be the reason why this isn't/can't happen? Anyway this is me assuming good faith. Popish Plot (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The deleted text made it seem as though Kissinger and Clinton were in agreement with the subject of the article. I'm very sensitive about potential BLP issues, so removed the text until it could be investigated. I'm concerned that posting comments about Kissinger from the subject's self-published books violates BLP. The other concern is that because Clinton commented on a book, and the subject commented on a book with no RS to make the connection between the two, it violated WP:SYNTH and therefor a WP:BLP violation. Dreadstar ☥ 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is atsme shouldn't mention kissinger, clinton (not sure which one) or any living person without also saying what source is being used to discuss. I got curious like a cat and wanted to know what the problem was so I can look for reliable sources that may solve the problem but things being deleted make it hard to tell. And I don't want to go around insulting living people, criticisms are valid if they have a reliable source but what is the source? I too am curious now, what does Clinton have to do with this, if anything, and are we talking Bill, Hillary etc? I know there's a connection where both G Edward and Bill learned from Carroll Quigley but that's not really a notable connection. Popish Plot (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to be avoiding my request for how you connected Clinton to the subject of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dread, first of all, I've been waiting for your explanation which I requested above. Secondly, I can't explain how I did something I didn't do. Third, it appears you are jumping to conclusions that cannot be substantiated by the posts you deleted. My suggestion would be for you to stop pursuing this line of questioning, especially considering you made a false allegation of policy violations against me based on (1) OR policy which does not apply to TP, and (2) a BLP violation that does not exist. Based on the aforementioned, it is beginning to look a bit like WP:ADMINACCT, and I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Please show me what made you draw the conclusion that I may have committed a BLP violation. You also need to cite the portion of the policy you think supports your statements. Atsme☯^Consult 20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question about why I deleted the comments of others, it was a necessary step in order to remove the BLP violating material from the talk page history, it had nothing to do with what the other editors posted. It may be that it's all fine and not a BLP vio, but I need to be sure. Dreadstar ☥ 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your explanation regarding why you accused me of an OR and BLP violation when you should have known that OR does not apply to TP. I realize we all make mistakes, so I'll excuse that one for now, but you still need to explain the BLP accusation, and further explain why you are carrying on the discussion at the TP after you told me to respond to you here. [13] Atsme☯^Consult 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OR doesn't apply to talk pages - I never said it did - but you used OR to craft your comments that Clinton and Kissinger agreed or had the same views as Griffin, this violates BLP. There was no mistake on my part. I continue to discuss it on the article talk page because other editors asked about it after my general warning and notification about the removal. In order to comment about Clinton/Kissinger as it may relate to Griffin, you'll need high quality third party sources, and I don't see those kinds of sources presented. Dreadstar ☥ 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect, and apparently not interested in discussing your mistake in a rational way, much less admitting you made one. I will file the case at AN, and you can explain it there. Atsme☯^Consult 01:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate. I was attempting to help you. File away, but realize at AN you will definitely need to explain how you connected Clinton with Griffin; hope you have an answer that doesn't involve OR; and you will need show why a primary selfpub source should be used to make claims about what Kissinger (a BLP) thinks. I wish you the best of luck with this. Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Filing an AN is the last thing I want to do, but you kept pushing even after I explained. I've put up with 3 months of Guy's behavior, and the thought of having to deal with another admin who misinterprets my work took me back a step. You actually appear to be confused over the fact that OR and SYNTH do not apply to TP. Your argument is not substantive, and in fact irrelevant, which means there was no policy violation. You assumed I was making some kind of connection by mentioning Kissinger and Clinton. That can't be farther from the truth because that wasn't my intent at all. I was simply trying to make Guy understand that he has to stop calling Griffin names - it's defamatory, libelous, and I will eventually prove that what he is doing is a violation of policy. You cannot state in Wiki voice that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist without RS that support such a statement. Griffin wrote a single chapter about the new world order in his business best selling book that has remained a top seller for YEARS. Guy shot down my proposed lead because it didn't include the paragraph on the NWO, and he included some other comments that were hurtful to me. Look at his statement. It's the contentious labels that need your attention, not me pointing out that Griffin isn't the only one who has ever written about the new world order or a world order. There are other reputable authors like Kissinger, and even Clinton who wrote a review in Kissinger's book about a world order, and elaborated on it in the link I provided. It wasn't SYNTH, and it certainly wasn't a BLP violation. The fact that Griffin quoted Kissinger in his chapter has nothing to do with Clinton or what I attempted to show Guy, but the fact that you keep trying to connect the two is the SYNTH, and the fact that SPECIFICO falsely accused and caused you to do what you're doing is actionable. If you truly want to be helpful at Griffin, then investigate the real BLP violations in the lead, starting with the poorly sourced second sentence that is stated in Wiki voice. If you don't have a full understanding of RS and how they are used then I will be happy to help you. You actually owe me an apology for your accusations, and you should probably be a little upset if you've been prodded by the opposition. I have done my best to maintain a good record writing GAs and FAs - it gives me something to do with all the extra time semi-retirement has afforded me. I've been a successful publisher/writer/producer for over 30 years, and I have written enough bios on notable celebrities to know full well what I'm doing as a volunteer here on WP. I also have a very good understanding of WP:LIBEL, and all that is associated with it, so please don't be concerned about me violating BLP policy. 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that reliable sources used in the article call Griffin the same names Guy does. Again, I have not said OR applies to talk pages. Anything in the article that mentions Clinton or Kissinger need to have high quality third party sources that talk about Clinton or Kissinger in direct relation to Griffin - and that does apply to talk pages; I'd recommend not using OR to post things on talk pages that lack reliable sources to back them up - even tho OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it can easily lead to BLP violations - sorry I've been unable explain how that works. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term OR, even to that's exactly what I'm referring to. And WP:LIBEL is a bit different than WP:BLP, there's more to BLP. Anyway, file what you will, propose what you will and good luck with it. And no need to post any "I've replied" on my talk page, I still have your talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥ 02:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You said "it appears that reliable sources used in the article call Griffin the same names Guy does". With all due respect, Dreadstar, that is actually part of the problem. Are you of the mind that because a RS defames and/or discredits a living person that it's okay for WP to do the same? In an effort to help you acquire a little more in-depth understanding of why BLP policy requires strict adherence to "all applicable laws in the United States", you might want to read the following rather interesting articles, (and please don't try to make this falsely appear as a legal threat because it is not). I'm simply trying to help you understand why contentious statements like quack and quackery used in Wiki voice may be considered libelous. Example: "In the rare cases where courts have not protected terms like “quack,” they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a “quack” has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable)." [14]. It is much better to use statements that are of a higher encyclopedic quality, such as "not scientifically supported", or "not approved by the FDA": [15] Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n [16], [17], [18] [19].

Do you believe the second sentence in the lead is reliably sourced, and that it is justifiable to state in Wiki voice that his book "promotes conspiracy theories"?

Let's examine those two sources:

• Footnote 1 - Media Matters has proclaimed its partisanship as a "progressive research and information center" that is basically out to discredit their opposition, or what they consider to be correcting "conservative misinformation". Griffin is clearly of a political persuasion they are biased against. We identify the latter as a COI per WP:V which makes Media Matters a questionable source for making libelous, contentious statements in Wikipedia’s voice. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-COI_SOURCES-8 "It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." A questionable source is not a RS. There is no ambiguity in this policy.
• WP:BLP clearly states (my bold) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Again, questionable sources are not reliable sources.
• WP:V clearly states (my bold) Questionable sources - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. I was actually pushing the envelope to include any contentious material in my proposal for the lead, but I did so in an effort to appease the opposition. I used an inline text attribution, but even then, Guy turned it down WP:OWN behavior, and that's sad because there was no basis for him to do so.

• Footnote 2 - "Paul Out to Slay The Creature from Jekyll Island". USA Daily. August 22, 2007. Archived from the original on October 16, 2007. Retrieved 2008-03-02. Griffin, in ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’ documents an organized and successful attempt to seize control over the U.S. monetary system by powerful American and European banking families. ... The second cited source does not support any of the contentious material in the article, especially the one made in Wiki voice. The article makes no mention of a “ conspiracy theory”, and actually contradicts the claim that the book “promotes conspiracy theories”. Explain how it can be used to cite contentious material.

I will share some very wise advice from admin TenOfAllTrades:

A common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board [RSN] cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.)

I look forward to seeing how you will handle the current BLP violations in the lead since you are "very sensitive about potential BLP issues". Atsme☯^Consult 05:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Atsme:.23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC) What is USA Daily and why do you feel it's RS here? You appear to be acting in good faith, but it looks to me as if you're being selective and biased in your appeals to policy. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, it would be super if you'd reply to my question about that USA Daily reference. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, SPECIFICO. You asked, "What is USA Daily and why do you feel it's RS here?" First of all, I don't see how I could answer your question since it is based in an erroneous accusation, and does not relate to anything I stated. Read my comment above regarding Footnote 2. Perhaps you should ask the editor who cited that source for a passage in the lead it does not support. I'll ask you again to stop making spurious allegations against me like the one you just made about me being selective and biased in my appeals to policy, especially when such an allegation is based on your own misinterpretation of the information I've provided. Atsme☯^Consult 23:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I'll take your response as a concession that USA Daily is not RS to support any legitimacy for the Jekyll Island book. Please review this thread. I did not make any accusation, erroneous or otherwise. Just asked you a question. I also made a comment about how your behavior appears to me. That was just a statement about me, not a judgment of you, and while I wish you'd consider it, you are free to reject and ignore it. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, do not take my response as anything but what it actually is, which is nothing like what you stated. The passage sourced by USA Daily states: He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System.[1][2] The context of conspiracy theories in that passage is a contentious statement in Wiki voice which incorrectly states as fact that the book "promotes conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve System". Show me where in USA Daily it states the book promotes conspiracy theories. Atsme☯^Consult 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, as I've already said, I believe you are trying in good faith to collaborate on this article. I don't have any concerns as to your sincerity. However you are failing, over and over, to stay on topic in straightforward discussion threads. You've spilled billions of electrons conflating the RfC concerning a single lede sentence with other, larger issues as to other article text or Mr. Griffin's notability. In the current instance, I asked you a single question, and you've deflected and equivocated without responding. You cite footnote 2 in this thread above. I don't believe that footnote 2 gives a WP:RS source. It appears to link to a defunct internet site with a plausible sounding but irrelevant name, USA Daily. Because you refer to this source in your discourse above, I asked you to provide information about this site and your reason for believing that it is qualified to support article content concerning Jekyll. Did you uncritically accept that footnote as RS for the sentence it supports, or did you consider the source and the article text and conclude that it was good RS? If the latter, could you please explain your reasoning? If you're unable to engage in this kind of detailed discussion of the issues, you're not going to be successful in your efforts to recast the article to what you consider improvements. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, based on my past experiences with you, your current line of incomprehensible, misdirected questioning and the manner in which you have chosen to denigrate me, your intentions here are dubious at best, and I question whether you are acting in good faith, so let me be clear - I do not appreciate being castigated, denigrated, or falsely accused of doing something I did not do, especially here on my own TP. The spurious allegations you made above are unwarranted, including: "you are failing, over and over, to stay on topic in straightforward discussion threads", and "You've spilled billions of electrons conflating the RfC", and "I asked you a single question, and you've deflected and equivocated without responding". I asked you once before to not bring article discussions to my TP, [20]. In that same discussion, you attempted to denigrate me with unwarranted accusations of WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior because your criticism of me is clearly the result of your own misconceptions, and in this particular case, of what I clearly explained above in my initial thread to Dreadstar. March 25, 2015. I was the one who questioned the reliability of the sources that are currently being used to cite the 2nd sentence of the lead. I even went to the trouble of dissecting the unreliability of their intended use. With the latter in mind, why on earth are you asking me, "Did you uncritically accept that footnote as RS for the sentence it supports, or did you consider the source and the article text and conclude that it was good RS? If the latter, could you please explain your reasoning?" The questions defy logic and so does the fact that I've spent as much time as I have responding to them. It helps explain why I am constantly having to repeat myself, so here it goes again, only this time in bold so you'll be sure to see it...I don't see how I could answer your question since it is based in an erroneous accusation, and does not relate to anything I stated. Read my comment above regarding Footnote 2. The wording of your questions may be polite, but that doesn't make them any less irrelevant or misdirected. I will also repeat what I said to you in an earlier conversation, and will add another qualifier, this time in bold so you'll be sure to see it: Do not respond to article questions on my TP, and do not ask article questions on my TP. Confine your responses and questions to the relevant article TP. The sun is shining, the ocean is blue, and I've got things to do. Atsme☯^Consult 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting read! And thanks for the barnstar. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

quick note

i received a notification when you created User_talk:Atsme/ListJD. Just a quick note that per WP:POLEMIC it is fine to build such a list, but you must use it timely. interesting reading, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

for some reason i don't fathom, A1 deleted the comment above. i don't mind if Atsme deletes it, that is a sign that she read it. but this is not a personal attack and there is no justification for removing it. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What a horrible page. Why do I only get four mentions? After all, I gave you popcorn !! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your popcorn was too salty for me. (imaginary smiley emoji) Atsme☯^Consult 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

try to duplicate

Now is the time

Yep - did it again - one rogue crying emoji (which sounds better than "crying smiley"). Sucker appeared out of nowhere under the section title. I never clicked on it. I only clicked on 4, but got 5. They appear to remain only within a section, so if it's a long section, the rogue emojis will move all the way up near the section title, and if it's a subsection title, it will actually push it out of the way. Cause: shrinking active window using a mouse grab to size it. Emojis bunched up like before. Interesting. Remedy: don't use emojis when you shrink window size. Definitely don't use console emojis when they are piled on top of each other.

Glad I was able to duplicate it....I think. Atsme☯^Consult 07:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong

It's not that I have no intention of collaborating to make the Griffin article a GA, I just have no intention of helping you make it a "Nice Article", i.e. a whitewash. The material you keep asserting violates policy, does not seem to others to violate policy - you are pretty much the only one who thinks it does, and you consistently fail to persuade others. Griffin is notable only as a crank. Anything that obscures that fact, is a betrayal of Wikipedia's core goals. Remember, I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects, I am very very familiar with policy on this. I know you reject these facts, and I have no intention of having yet another sterile debate, but you really do need to stop stating your opinion as if it were immutable fact, because it isn't: you are demonstrating ill-faith while accusing others of failing to assume it. I am, by now, at a loss to understand why an otherwise decent editor would press so long and so hard against such robust opposition in pursuit of a goal which would serve only to buff up the reputation of someone who not only promotes the worst scam ever perpetrated on American cancer victims, but who also promotes chemtrails, AIDS denialism, 9/11 "Truth" and numerous other forms of craziness. I don't even think he's a notable crank, certainly mainstream sources all but ignore him, but if we are to document him, then it will be as what he is: a crank. (Redacted) Guy (Help!) 08:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What you consider to be a "Nice Article" is actually NPOV. Inclusion of the man's views with a brief explanation of where they originated is BALANCE. I believe in the sharing of information which cannot be achieved when there is censorship. I research and write about the information I find in RS, with the level of reliability dependent on the information I intend to include, all of which is based on the greater context of the article. Guy, I've enjoyed a long and successful career as writer for print and television. It's part of the reason I was able to take a very early retirement and enjoy a much slower paced existence on this beautiful planet. When I started editing WP, I did so with the intention of staying in practice, helping others, and filling a void between projects. Who knows what the future holds? All I know for sure is that I'm spending the bulk of my time enjoying the beautiful blue Caribbean on a small Dutch island. I'm not about to let our disagreements get in the way of what life is all about. I'm also not going to alter my core beliefs or who I am as a person. I recognize that I'm outnumbered, and that you're an admin with tenure, so you probably will get Griffin promoted to GA. Happy editing! Quite frankly, I've grown weary of all the spurious allegations and ill-conceived interpretations of my intent and what I've written. Our interpretations of policy are quite different. The passages I wrote in Griffin (all of which were deleted) demonstrate my intent, ability as a writer, willingness to collaborate, and the attempts I've made to compromise. I certainly don't have an agenda, or anything to prove.

• February 9, 2015
• User:Atsme/sandbox2

Hey, the sun is shining and I'm headed out the door to catch some rays! Atsme☯^Consult 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You cannot deny that Guy and the rest of us have a different interpretation of policy in this regard than yourself. The only editors who might be said to support you regarding the way the Griffin BLP is written are newbies who, like yourself, do not understand that that we must do BLP's from a mainstream pov. Removing unpleasant facts central to the BLP because you don't think we should state them, justified by special pleading and strange interpretations of WP:PAG by you, will not be accepted. If making that article a GA (why did you choose this fellow anyway?) means a whitewash of the BLP, then Guy, myself and many many others will not allow that to happen. We will merely have a good article, instead of a "Good Article" I wish you would stop the IDHT behaviour, and Droppit. Please. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Atsme, there is an awful yellow zit at the bottom right of this page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, the editors who supported my position in one way or another, mostly coincidentally, regarding the major NPOV issues at Griffin are editors with far more WP experience than I, including Nyttend, the administrator who closed the RfC, and is ranked #89 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created. There's also Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), a 10 year WP veteran who is ranked #96 on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created, and Carrite who has created or collaborated on over 100 biographies, and Srich32977, who has over 80,000 edits with some GAs under his belt, and Collect who is a prolific writer, fully understands NPOV, and earned the Quarter Million Award for an article he promoted to GA. For you to call them newbies is really reaching, don'cha think? I may be new to editing WP, but I am not new to writing biographies, and I can also proudly say that as a WP newbie, I am on the list of Wikipedians who passed a FA nomination, and it feels pretty darn good. I highly recommend the process. Therefore, your statement that The only editors who might be said to support you regarding the way the Griffin BLP is written are newbies is, well, read the section title because it actually applies to you far better than it does me.

You also alleged, Removing unpleasant facts central to the BLP because you don't think we should state them. Well, my response is best demonstrated here: [21]. I never suggested removing facts. I did rephrase the 30+ year old derogatory terminology and replaced it with 21st century language which I would think accomplished editors and prolific prose writers would be inclined to consider proper scientific and/or encyclopedic terminology. Believe it or not, but defamatory slurs that were popular 30+ years ago are rarely used today, except for the occasional roll off the lips of some comedians who push the envelope, and depending on the slur, are still popular with bigots, or biased pundits and the like. But while we are on the subject of facts, not only did I include essential facts you claim I removed, I included additional facts from the other side of the isle as well because they related to views of the BLP. It's called BALANCE, and I didn't present the information with UNDUE, either. My presentation was fact-based and it was relevant, not a whitewash as you alleged. Whether you agree with its inclusion or not, such facts are relevant, including the fact that Richardson wrote a book, and he happened to be the physician who prompted Griffin to write his book, World Without Cancer, whether we agree with its contents or not. WP doesn't censor information that belongs in the BLPs about pornographers, serial killers, controversial activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or any other notable person. The information I wanted to include is important information that has relevance to the views of the subject, and it belongs in this BLP. The fact it was deleted smells a lot like the result of, as you put it, strange interpretations of WP:PAG. Instead of posting your POV judgement on my TP with your finger pointed at me, I consult you to stand in front of a mirror. If you truly believe Griffin is a "good article" as written, I challenge you to get the FA review team over there, and see if they also support your belief. Surprise me. Atsme☯^Consult 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

^{I have the perfect home remedy for that zit.}

You keep saying that they supported your view, but actually they supported only the narrow and extremely specific issue of removing the words "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. This doesn't mean we can't call him a conspiracy theorist elsewhere in the article, or even mention that he promotes conspiracy theories in the first sentence. If you wanted to assess consensus for your view that virtually all mention of the refuted, nonsensical and crazy nature of his beliefs be excised, then you should have asked that question. You didn't. Instead you asked one question and assumed that the answer covers your entire crusade, when many others much more experienced than you, as you would put it, have told you in no uncertain terms that it does not. Griffin is a crank, we describe him as a crank, anything else would be an abject failure of NPOV. You insist that he is notable, and not as a crank. I don't even think he';s notable, not even as a crank. My view is that we should not write biographies of controversial people until they have been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Griffin has not been. Most of the sources only even mention his book in passing. This is notability by inheritance at second hand, from other well-known loons like Glenn Beck. Unfortunately when you were presented with the opportunity to remove the article, which is the only way we can deal with Griffin in line with NPOV without mentioning the fact that he is a crank who advocated one of the worst health frauds ever perpetrated, you chose to oppose it. I regret that you did this. You can request DRV and show that the strength of policy-based argument was in favour of deletion, noting the weakness of the sources proposed for inclusion, and that's about all you can do by this point. I'll help you do that and support the nomination if you like. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Its OK - I will send some reiki healing. You'll be right. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

^{Uhm, reiki? I like roku healing better, and I can do it wearing sunglasses so that zit doesn't blind me. And I can have my popcorn and eat it, too. It's all good. Atsme☯Consult 12:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}

Guy, if you're still not convinced of the NPOV and RS issues that actually have created UNDUE and noncompliance, just scroll through the edit histories of Griffin Talk, the RfC, the AfD, and the article.

• [22], (also see the diff I provided above) pay attention to why Nyttend made his edits.
• The RfC question was indeed designed to be limited to the first sentence, and it was done despite my objections and attempt to include a neutral alternate question per RfC guidelines. January 5, 2015 January 6, 2014
• I was asked (and expected) to revert the alternate question and move it to its own subsection. January 6, 2015
• I don't see how NPOV changes according to where it appears in an article. If contentious material stated in Wiki voice is determined to be noncompliant with NPOV in the first sentence, then it is also noncompliant in the second, third, fourth or whatever sentence in whatever paragraph. If you think not, then show me the policy that supports your position. My only concern is strict adherence to BLP policy.
• You are still trying to convince me and others that my interpretations of BLP and NPOV are wrong, even though they are very similar to the interpretations of the above named editors and others who attempted to clean-up the article. The evidence is in their edit summaries and comments on the TP (excluding the RfC), so your allegations that I had no support are unwarranted as demonstrated by these diffs: February 5, 2015, January 1, 2015, March 12, 2015
• I've actually lost count of the number of times you've accused me of being wrong and told me to stop editing Griffin, but I easily found three diffs: - January 17, 2015 - February 17, 2015. February 17, 2015

Jiminy Cricket, Guy, how is such behavior helpful to productive collaboration? Just look at what you're doing here now. I've asked you numerous times to show me the diffs, policy and RS that support your position. Where are they, Guy? Some of WP's most prolific BLP editors have abandoned editing this article, and I can only guess why, but based on my own experiences and how I've been treated, well, the answer is quite evident.

• Please stop misrepresenting my edits and intent. You are casting aspersions and getting away with it, and I am growing weary of this double standard. It is quite frustrating to try and improve/expand an article to GA when you're constantly making unwarranted allegations. There's nothing left of the carcass, Guy. It's time to straddle a live horse, [23].
• [24] you focused on the few DELETEs at the AfD that supported your view and ignored the numerous substantive KEEPs.
• March 12, 2015. You edited without consensus, and then falsely accused me of doing so despite the fact I was the only one submitting proposals at the time as evidenced in these diffs: February 4, 2015 February 9, 2015
• [25] Nice, nice when Richard first started editing Griffin which is as it should be, at least until his interpretation of RS and NPOV opposed your own. [26]

You shot down some of the RS I cited, and based your reasons on unsupported arguments, including your POV rendition of Ralph Moss and his book Second Opinion. December 21, 2014 Even after I explained the actual RS I used, you ignored it. December 21, 2014

If you want to delete BLPs that aren't notable, why aren't you focusing on the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, Kenn Thomas? Notice how his lead is far more subtle than Griffin's. Thomas' lack of notability has been challenged in the past, which only serves to validate my concern over why his relatively unknown work, Popular Paranoia, is actually (and unbelievably) used as a RS to cite contentious material in Griffin's BLP.

• December 20, 2014 March 5, 2015 You criticized most of the RS I listed as not reliable, so please explain the double standard when you get a chance.

Regardless of what you think about Griffin, it doesn't give us a license to include contentious material citing anything but high quality RS per BLP, V, and NPOV. Sorry, but Popular Paranoia and Media Matters are not considered high quality reliable sources for citing contentious material per WP:V, Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. There is a big difference between high quality reliable sources, and questionable sources. Surely I don't have to explain Popular Paranoia. MM, it is a progressive non-profit research organization whose mission statement is to prove wrong their political opponents. That is clearly a COI, much less a perceived bias, both of which disqualifies it as a high quality RS in this instance. [27]. There is no editorial overview on opinion blogger Sean Easter, yet MM is cited in the BLP to discredit Griffin in a defamatory manner. It appears to me the way Griffin is written, and the insistence on including contentious labels rather than encyclopedic terminology may be an indication that the issue really isn't about notability but something that smells a lot like an agenda, the latter of which may be at the root of our relentless debates, not to mention the constant misinterpretations of things I have written and the many false allegations. I can see that I'm outnumbered and out-tenured, but I will maintain faith that truth will prevail. Atsme☯^Consult 01:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Faith-based editing! Remember "verification not truth." SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, incorrect assumption - wrong essay. It is much better and far more important to remember Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false. Atsme☯^Consult 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I am indeed not convinced, and reiterating your claims yet again has not changed that. In particular, where you say I am "still trying to convince me and others that my interpretations of BLP and NPOV are wrong", it is notable that you are in a minority, usually of one, in virtually every active discussion re that article. You seem entirely unwilling to accept the possibility that you are anything other than 100% correct. I see no evidence of qualifying words or self-doubt in anything you say, and yet many of the claims you make are entirely unsupportable, not just advocacy of unreliable sources, but also your relentless attempts to assert that recent work entirely unrelated to the laetrile scam that Griffin pimps, does not change the fact that it was, and is, a scam. For me, that is a litmus test. When you drop that i will know we are making progress. That, and when you start doing as you repeatedly demand I do, and look at both sides of the argument. The policy-based Delete arguments were valid, accept it. Some of the keep arguments were also valid, others were not (e.g. those that referenced grossly unreliable sources as "proof" of notability, and those which asserted that simply having his books discussed in sources makes him notable, something rejected by every iteration of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines I have seen: notability is not inherited. Here's a simple fact for you: Griffin is a crank. As long as your edits don't serve to undermine that, you may achieve consensus for them. That hasn't happened yet. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy that's unhelpful, I wish you'd be more specific about what your problem is so that a compromise can be found. I see in Atsme's recent draft proposal of a lede in a sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atsme/sandbox2 it says "However, Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a review that was critical of Beck's interview, stating "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."[8]". So you think the laetrile thing is a scam and Griffin is a "crank". I think you may be getting confused like I was at first, that is just the lede not the entire article so it's not like Atsme was taking out things from the article that have reliable sources. Popish Plot (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, is the main problem here the laetrile? I see you bring that up a lot. I looked it up and I wonder if it is related to Krebs wanting it labeled as a vitamin to have less federal regulation on it? Laetrile. What more should be said if anything. Do you have ideas on how to make that reference wiki reliable? I do think you should stop saying the wiki article should be deleted, most said keep here 4th time nominated for deletion. . . why do some want this article deleted? Popish Plot (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate our ability to communicate with each other openly and with a moderate degree of unrestrained frankness, even if we never reach a compromise. What I see as the biggest obstacle is your unfaltering belief that "Griffin is a crank" which is based purely on opinion VS, for example, one's belief that "Charles Manson is an American criminal" which is based on a statement of fact. There is a determinable difference between opinion and fact, and your refusal to accept that difference in Griffin perpetuates the ongoing content disputes. The actual passages demonstrate the direction this BLP has taken which is undeniably POV. The latter is further evidenced by the undue influence of quack skepticism from a 70s perspective per the 30+ year old sources that are cited. I'm not saying the information is wrong, rather the problem is how it is being disseminated.

Regardless, the article is poorly written, looks more like an internet blog than an encyclopedic biography which is what I want to change, and rightly so. Quite frankly, you are making much ado about nothing. Ditch the contentious labels and pejorative terminology, and let me collaborate with biography-minded editors to write the passages using encyclopedic terminology and proper structure. I also find it ironic that you consider sources such as MM with its contentious labels and biased opinions as being more reliable than some of the sources I cited that actually are RS, and far more reputable, encyclopedic and scientific in nature, such as the ACS, NIH, WSJ, Forbes, and even the keynote address of the Hon George Brandis, Attorney General of Australia, [28]. I would also think the advice of 3x Pulitzer winning editor at the NYTimes, David Barstow would get your attention when he said: "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this." [29]. It may be passing mention, but it is substantive enough that we would be remiss as editors to not follow his advice, especially considering the encyclopedic premise WP is built on: a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Atsme☯^Consult 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD review

You are wasting your time. The close was "no consensus" because there was no consensus to delete, but there were credible reasons advanced by those proposing delete. Deletion review could overturn the close and delete the article, or endorse the close and keep it. No close will ever prevent a subsequent AfD (per "no binding decisions"). What you want is a binding ruling on notability, and Wikipedia simply has no mechanism for doing that. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps deletion is a much better option than what we have now. Atsme☯^Consult 12:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean, might as well delete the entire article so as not to violate BLP? Popish Plot (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are only two kinds of sources that discuss Griffin, at least looking at those presented to date: unreliable sources, and sources that are not actually about him, but instead about one of the books he wrote (almost exclusively just the one, Creature). Guy (Help!) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe delete the Griffen article then, but make a new article about the Jekyl Island book? It'd be a shorter article than the current one about Griffen of course. Popish Plot (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are few RS mentions of the book, none in any detail. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not notable enough so delete all mentions of person or book from wikipedia? Disagree, plenty of reliable sources. I see thru the article history this has been debated a lot thru the years. Now the article is locked and can't even make edits you'd support like taking out an unreliable worlddaily source. Popish Plot (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Popish, that comment served no purpose. If you have indeed located "plenty of reliable sources" for comments (pro or con) about the book, then you may propose them and the associated article text on the article talk page. Before you do so, please check whatever you find against proposals, e.g. the Forbes blog piece, that have already been proposed and rejected. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)