Talk:David Ray Griffin

More Theology

For a article on a theologian there is remarkably little on the subject of theology to be found on this entry. Harpakhrad11 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Voice-morphing claims

A page on David Ray Griffin should carry some mention of his claims on voice-morphing technology having been used to fake calls from passengers. Although other people have considered the idea, I don't know of anyone else who has persisted as far with this as Griffin. Grifin's repeated returns to the topic of voice-morphing and faked calls are definitely a personal mark of distinction of his, for better or worse. Something should be said about this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett

I don't mind a brief mention of Griffin's endoresment of Barrett's congressional campagin. However, I'm not sure if it is really relevant.

I do have a problem with the rest of the paragraph which mentions a number of controversial statements made by Barrett over the years. It seems to suggest, falsely, that Griffin endorses all of Barrett's views. These section should be removed.

In any case, this article is about Griffin, not Barrett. That info belongs on Barrett's article.

~~Urbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbie (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that Dr. Griffin does support Dr. Barrett's views, else why would he have made the endorsement? Contrivance (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

--It doesn't logically follow that Griffin endorses all of Barrett's statements or views simply because he endorsed his congressional campaign.Urbie —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

Perhaps it doesn't logically follow in terms of philosophical logic. In terms of pragmatic logic the assumption seems reasonable that when someone endorses a politician whose extreme and irrational statements are his claim to fame, the endorser agrees with the statements. In any case, the endorsement serves as an indicator of Dr. Griffin's character--whether he is a nutcase like Barrett, simply careless in his endorsements, or demonstrating a high degree of personal loyalty to an old friend remains to be seen. Contrivance (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What is THIS tripe doing on Wiki?: 'Barrett is widely regarded[citation needed] in the 9/11 Truth movement as an irresponsible advocate of discrediting ideas, one given to extreme and illogical statements and anti-semitism.[citation needed] Barrett received 2 percent of the vote in his Congressional district.[citation needed]'

Please remove at once...or is WIKI trying to show its not an encyclopedia at all? (Brian, Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Book: Latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Debunking?

There is a white covered version with 'Revised and Updated Edition' written on the cover (Olive Branch Press; Revised and updated edition (March 30, 2007)) and a black covered edition without a comment on being updated on the cover but is by Arris Books (21 Jun 2007). Although the publication date shows the newest published one, it is by different publishers so which is the latest one with newest information?

The white cover with 'Updated' is the latest version. Although the black cover was released later, it is only the UK published version of the original older book.

Book: Different forwords to 'New Pearl Harbor'?

The original printing had Richard Falk and the update Michael Meacher. Why remove Falks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.24.33 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Book: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World

His newest book, "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World" was released August, 2017.

Long, very detailed interview with Griffin

This is a long, detailed interview with Griffin which gained wide currency on the Web: http://www.globalpolitician.com/25203--terror 77.28.14.149 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is Unsnarling the World-Knot?

David Ray Griffin's 1998 celebrated book on panpsychism, Unsnarling the World-knot, is missing from the biography and bibliography. I consider the book to be one of the most important books EVER WRITTEN! and its absence is distressing. 207.181.239.79 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Jeff Graubart

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Valfontis (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section - From theologian to conspiracy theorist

This article should have a "Controversy" section, that acknowledges the deep divisions that Prof Griffin's transition from the role of leading advocate of Whitehead's Process Philosophy, to leading advocate for the Truther movement? It should surely be acknowledged that Griffin's transitions from being a highly respected academic figure (the co-editor of Whitehead's pivotal philosophical text, and a leading spokesman for the US Claremont based Process Philosophy / Theology school of thought) was both disconcerting and embarrassing for many of his erstwhile colleagues. A summary of how academia responds when one of their own goes rogue and becomes the leading spokesperson for an assorted group of conspiracy theorists is a crucial but missing aspect of this biography. Asd154 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

'and joined the 9/11 Truth movement in calling' ??

I removed this text with edit summary "not in source". Philip Cross reverted. Pls indicate where this is in the source? thx, Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I made a mistake and reverted. Sorry. Philip Cross (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

'conspiracy theorist' label

@NomdeA and Philip Cross: The Guardian uses the term in the headline, not in the article body; the New Statesman piece was by a 'staff blogger'; NPR does not use the term; Nation does not use the term; the Telegraph reports the label from a blog. The sources do not support this derogatory label. In consideration of WP:BLP, please revert. Humanengr (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The headline in The Guardian article is part of the article and is clearly linked to the content of the opening paragraph in which Griffin is the first individual mentioned. "Staff blogger" in the New Statesman suggests the article was rather directly under the control of the NS editorial staff at the time. David Aaronovitch uses "9/11 conspiracists", in the extract from his Voodoo Histories, as short hand for "conspiracy theorists", a term which he has already used as all encompassing of the loose group of people he mentions. Jon Swaine in The Daily Telegraph mentions Richard Falk's blog, but the description of Griffin is not from it. The passage reads: "And he [Falk] described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called '9/11 truth' movement, as a 'scholar of high integrity' whose book on the subject was "authoritative". Alexander Cockburn in The Nation describes Griffin as the "high priest" of 9/11 "conspiracy nuts". I indicate that I have allowed what are effectively synonyms at the beginning of the citation. Philip Cross (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Description and interests

I have been conferring with Prof. Griffin, who has asked me to represent him per WP:BLPKIND and who will confirm this to anyone who asks. He takes exception to being termed "a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" and requests that this be reverted to "a political writer", which was added to his description by Cphwb556 on 20 May 2014 and stood for over six years (until being changed by NomdeA on 13 June of this year), indicating a consensus on the earlier term. That there is no consensus on the changed one is indicated by the opposition of Humanengr on the same day, by my own on 27 August when I first saw it, and by that of various other editors who have objected to the application of the term in this article in the past.

It may be argued that the characterization is adequately sourced, but this isn't necessarily sufficient to justify its use here. MOS:OPENPARABIO indicates that the opening paragraph should "neutrally describe the person", which "a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" does not. Griffin may have been so described by some, but per WP:UNDUE this should not be given undue weight if other reliable sources do not characterize the subject in this way.

Prof. Griffin also states that his interest is in 9/11 and not in 9/11 conspiracy theories, which should be obvious to anyone familiar with his work.

In the absence of an established and genuine consensus to the contrary, I will restore "a political writer" and list "9/11" rather than "9/11 conspiracy theories" in Prof. Griffin's main interests. Philip Cross's references may be retained, but I suggest they be moved to the paragraph with David Aaronovitch's comment at the end of the 9/11 section, to which I will add a sourced response on the Pentagon and the WTC. This move was indirectly suggested by Axl Matulic of the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team, who wrote: "A possible compromise would be to convince editors that the article should not describe [Griffin] as a conspiracy theorist in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but instead say that he 'is known as' or 'is described as' a conspiracy theorist, to attribute the characterizations to the sources." This compromise is acceptable to Prof. Griffin and myself, and we would not object to the addition of a sentence preceding the Aaronovitch quote. For example: "Griffin has been sharply criticized for his views on 9/11. David Aaronovitch in the London 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴...".

I invite discussion and sincerely hope a continuation at the biographies of living persons noticeboard will not be necessary. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am the OTRS volunteer who gave Roy McCoy the advice quoted in his last paragraph above. I have no opinion on this matter myself. I'm here more as an interested observer, and if necessary, as an administrator who will lock this article if the content becomes unstable due to a dispute.

I agree that the WP:UNDUE possibility needs to be investigated. As I advised earlier, it's preferable to find a way to attribute the term "conspiracy theorist" in the prose to the sources rather than giving the appearance that Wikipedia is taking a position on it.

@Roy McCoy: Because you have a conflict of interest here, please refrain from making further changes to the article. Your task here is to create a consensus for the change.

@Philip Cross: You seem to be keen on including this characterization, in spite of previous objections from others. As such, the WP:BURDEN is on you to support it. Roy McCoy isn't advocating removal of the sources you added. Would you suggest an acceptable compromise? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is dominated by the section 'Statements and publications on the September 11 attacks', much longer than the section on Professor Griffin's life and professional career (excluding the early life and education paragraphs), which suggests his opinions of 9/11 may be the main basis for David Ray Griffin's notability. It also appears a reliable source indicating he is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist does not exist, so one can assume it is not really in dispute. In the policy document WP:FRINGE appears the statement: "the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise." So referring to Professor Griffin as "a political writer" or someone interested in 9/11 is inadequate as a description in the summary or elsewhere in this article potentially misleading readers. Philip Cross (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: It is possible for Prof. Griffin to be notable both as a philosopher/theologian and as an authority on 9/11, and since the first preceded the second chronologically there is obvious sense in leaving the opening sentence as it was before in regard to his fields. Neither you nor JzG have provided any indication of knowing anything about Griffin's non-9/11 work (actually about his 9/11 work either), so you can hardly present yourselves as authorities on that subject. Furthermore, if anybody is going to be misleading anyone else in this article it's going to be you, who know so little about Griffin and yet are determined to present him in a negative light. Your list indicates nothing other than that several news sources have treated Griffin in a disrespectful manner, as you wish also Wikipedia to do. A large majority of the sources are more duly respectful, for example The Atlantic, the BBC and the NYT. It is unnecessary for them to say "Prof. Griffin is not a conspiracy theorist", which goes without saying unless you're out to smear him. Your pretension concerning fringe advocacy is curious, given that 9/11 skepticism is in no way a fringe opinion. Telling on this is the last NYT/CBS poll, which asked, "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" The results: "16% said 'telling the truth', 53% said they are 'mostly telling the truth but hiding something', 28% said they are 'mostly lying', 3% not sure." If anything is fringe on this, it's a belief in the official narrative. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I have made no extensive attempts to modify the article. I understand that any substantive change I made would be reverted by Philip Cross, and one may rest assured that I have no desire or intention to enter into anything resembling an edit war with him or anyone else.

My request for clarification at WT:CANVAS went unanswered, also when I copied it to an administrator. An experienced editor recommended that I limit the number of prior editors contacted to 15, which I modified to 14 in order to be able to conform to the WP:APPNOTE policy: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." This to me implied sending notifications to an equal number of Griffin-non-insulting and Griffin-insulting editors, but the matter remains problematic. As I said in my query: "If I select using some random method (none of which I have in mind), what's to say it's really random? And if I select an equal number of editors expressing a certain disposition and those expressing another, then what's to say I didn't include the ones I like and exclude the ones I didn't, even if I included the same number from both categories?" Furthermore, as I'm thinking now, there's something wrong with this in any event, as the number of editors wanting to label Prof. Griffin a conspiracy theorist is relatively small, and it doesn't seem right that they should be given undue weight in a selection of persons to be notified of a discussion. One possibility might be simply to ping all the previous editors despite there being more than 14 or 15, but we may agree that it shouldn't be necessary to canvas anyone if prior editors are still following the article and may be persuaded to break their silence on this occasion.

May I receive confirmation that my conflict of interest is serving as Griffin's representative, or the correct explanation if this is not the case? I also request that "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the main interests be changed to "9/11" – i.e. [[September 11 attacks|9/11]] – immediately. I am confident there is a general consensus on this, but it is not something for which an explicitly attained consensus should be necessary. Griffin states that his interest is in 9/11 and not in 9/11 conspiracy theories, there is no reason not to believe him, and his work fully attests to this fact. It is ridiculous for Wikipedia to claim otherwise, and there should be no delay in correcting this. I can deal with Cross's current argumentation if necessary, but would prefer that another editor do so. Changing "a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" to "is known for espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories" is not an acceptable compromise. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your COI is due to your association with the article subject.

I must point out that if Mr Griffin is paying you, then you must disclose that (you entered into a legally binding agreement to do this when you created an account here). There's nothing wrong with being a paid representative as long as the disclosure is made. See WP:PAID for details on how to disclose.

Rather than canvassing, you could always start a WP:RFC.

Whether or not a compromise is acceptable to Mr Griffin isn't relevant to this discussion. Any compromise must align with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Philip Cross is one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia, with about 16 years and 180,000 edits here. He is quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies and content guidelines. I believe there is some room for movement between his version and your version, but as I said, I am trying to be a neutral observer. Addressing his points will move the discussion along better than conversing with me. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea never occurred to me to ask Prof. Griffin for compensation. There is no suggestion of paid arrangements at WP:BLPEDIT: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." I wrote to Prof. Griffin on Sept. 21: "Would you like for me to represent you at Wikipedia on this?" He replied the same day: "Yes, I approve, I authorize you." That is the extent of our contract. I have never met Prof. Griffin or had any relationship with him other than having contacted and corresponded with him in regard to the article. Since WP:COI seems to emphasize paid editing and more substantial relationships than our scarcely existing one, I wonder if an actual COI exists in my case. There's an apparent fogginess in "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." If it becomes a matter of something "political", I would say that Cross's COI is much more obvious than any of mine. I don't accept that he essentially owns the page while I'm essentially topic-banned on it – though, again, I don't want an edit war and am hardly anxious to edit in the face of certain reversion even if my edits are perfectly in order.

Thank you for suggesting the possibility of an RFC, though I have no experience with this procedure. I won't rule it out, though the biographies of living persons noticeboard seems more particularly geared for this kind of case. I'm familiar with WP:FORUMSHOP and I know I have to constantly walk on eggshells throughout this, but I nonetheless am obliged to do whatever I can to correct the unacceptable and misrepresentational insult concerned.

I would prefer to remain here on the talk page, but where are the editors? I just now became acquainted with the Page Information link, which indicates not only that only 96 people are watching the article, but that only 11 and 19 people have visited the article and its talk page, respectively, in the last six months. I don't understand this. Shouldn't everyone watching the article receive notifications of changes? If so, it doesn't seem plausible to me that 85 and 77 of these would ignore all of these notifications. If they're ignoring the notifications, why are they following the article? If they don't want the notifications and aren't going to respond to them, why don't they unfollow it?

I didn't start talking about a compromise, and I'm sorry I picked up your phrase about an acceptable one. I actually don't see this case as an occasion for compromise. Let's say a text is 2 + 2 = 5 and we want it changed to 2 + 2 = 4. There's nothing there on which to compromise, and naturally no one should be obliged to accept 2 + 2 = 4 1/2. We are calling for the retraction of a demeaning insult, not a modification of it that perhaps makes it somewhat milder. This is not to say that we haven't nonetheless compromised in our willingness to accept the retention of the insult list, though we request that it be appropriately moved to the Aaronovitch paragraph (to which, again, we will propose an elongation).

It's surprising you should mention policies and guidelines, when Prof. Griffin and I are in violation of none of these and the NomdeA(?)/Cross edits, we maintain, are: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV at a minimum. The policies are okay: the question is whether they are going to be observed or not, and whether there isn't some unstated policy overriding everything else. I am now familiar with Mr. Cross's reputation and will almost certainly wind up addressing his points, though I will not do so today and would still prefer that another editor pick up on this. I am not so foolish as to think I can win the day against Cross and his colleagues on my own, and I will continue to seek a consensus in spite of there not yet appearing to be anyone here. I again request that the erroneous [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]}}<ref name=CT-DRG /> (the reference should precede the double brackets though it makes no difference visually) be changed to [[September 11 attacks|9/11]] without unnecessary delay. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

where are the editors? My watchlist has about 20,000 entries, about 200 of which popped up in the last 24 hours. The vast majority of those are about pseudoscience. I pick the ones which seem most interesting to me at the moment to look at. Just now, this Talk page won. But I just posted a link to this discussion on WP:FTN and WP:BLPN, which will probably lure more people here.

First: You talk too much. Most of it is only peripherally related to the subject of this page, which is improving the article.

All antivaxxers say they are not antivaxxers, almost all climate change deniers say they are not deniers, and a lot of conspiracy theorists say they are not conspiracy theorists. But Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and when the reliable sources say "this person is a conspiracy theorist", that is what Wikipedia says. You have given no reason why it would be different in this case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made a thorough reading of this article. I have to say that it read as possibly too kind to Prof. Griffin in that it appeared to be bending over backwards to imply, for example, that the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is an idea that reasonable people might find plausible. Even his religious-lit publisher has distanced themselves from these ideas which they themselves published. I suppose in the interest of free exchange of ideas, it is somewhat laudable when a publisher allows an author free rein to entertain completely discounted or discredited ideas, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to pretend that this is not what is going on. Since the most reliable, independent sources indicate that this is naked promotion of conspiracy theories, the proposal that we ought to tone down the prose per something like WP:LABEL or WP:BLPKIND is at odds with our editorial mission. With that in mind, I have tweaked some wording and added a few inline templates to see if we can't clean up the language describing his rhetorical positions. jps (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why I got called here--oh, now I see: Roy McCoy had accused me, I think, of being a paid CIA agent, like Philip Cross. I appreciate you not repeating that allegation here, because a next block for that reason will be indefinite. I read through jps's note, and I agree, but I want to signal another problem: the actual biography part is ridiculous--it's overly detailed and contains no reliable secondary sourcing at all. Are we to believe that the entire first paragraph, about his upbringing and church and conflict and whatnot is to be trusted by way of a link to a directory? Anyway, I see no reason to water down anything: the sourcing for "conspiracy theorist" is very, very solid, particularly Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction--and that is really all the time I want to spend on someone who apparently denies planes hit the WTC and it was an inside job. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems odd that Drmies can't be sure whether I accused him of being a paid CIA agent or not, when he had just then posted the diff supposedly indicating that I had. If one follows his link, one will see that (1) I did not accuse Drmies of being a paid CIA agent; and (2) Drmies commented, "I wish the CIA would do me the courtesy of sending regular checks." Nor did I accuse Philip Cross of being a CIA agent. He had written at the top of his user page: "I am one individual, not a team ('coalition of neocon editors') or a front for another person, nor an agent of the CIA, Deuxième Bureau, or MI5 (let alone NATO) or any other security agency." I commented in an edit summary that his saying "I am not an agent of the CIA" sounded like Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook" – an incident which I saw live on television in 1973 and of which I was reminded. I understand that you, Drmies, are pointing the Wikipedia gun at my head, and that you do not wish to spend any more time on this article. You may rest assured that I will never allege that you and Philip Cross are paid CIA agents – not that I did in the first place, though I didn't and don't contest the three-day block that was put on me for saying what I did, which was to suggest that you were paid by someone. You won't hear any more of that from me either. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Since Nixon was a crook, the implication was pretty clear, especially given the context: User introducing conspiracist POV in article, getting reverted, putting the reverter in the paid-conspirator box. Happens every day on Wikipedia in some article or other. This is why Philip has that sentence on his user page in the first place.

We do have WP:AGF, so we should probably use the working hypothesis that this is just an unfortunate coincidence, till the next such coincidence. Back to article work. Did you find a reason why Griffin should be treated differently from other people with similar ideas? If not, I guess we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that, considering their COI and their editing habits, Roy McCoy should stay away from this article altogether. I am not really interested in escalating this to ANI, but maybe we should. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"His", please, or "hes" (pronounced hez) if you prefer genderless. I not only haven't edited disruptively, I haven't edited at all. I didn't even replace an obviously missing period (or full stop, for the Tony Blair fans). I was advised to discuss this on the talk page and was already consciously and effectively avoiding edit-warring, as I noted here. When it turned out there wasn't anyone on the talk page with whom to discuss, I sent notifications precisely in accord with WP:APPNOTE and with the advice of an esteemed editor, restricting myself to past editors of the article and using the unmodified Please see template as recommended. If I haven't succeeded in doing everything exactly right, it hasn't been for lack of trying. It's okay for me if there's a case at ANI, as I've been assuming it would wind up at the BLP noticeboard, where the relevant WP policies would seem to indicate that the few edits desired should be accepted. In light of Hob Gadling's having chosen that particular place to canvas send notifications, however, and Helen Buyniski's comment that "[a]ttempts to take the matter to higher authorities are persistently rebuffed" (I won't reference the unreliable source), I suppose ANI is as good as anywhere. So I formally request you, Drmies, to bring your case there immediately. One wouldn't think you'd get very far on the basis of the limited instances of conduct for which you've already taken an administrative action, but ga je gang. Maybe Wikipedia practices double jeopardy, and maybe it's anxious to get rid of anyone who in any way questions its historical record, on the slightest of pretexts and as quickly as possible. Since you say "we", as did jps and Hob Gadling, please bring your colleagues. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not canvas. I posted to the two noticeboards which are relevant here, and which are traditionally at odds with each other: FTN wants to emphasize fringe opinions being fringe, and BLPN wants to de-emphasize it. You wanted other users to discuss, and I alerted them. Now it's "canvassing".

Keep digging, I can guess where this ends.

Changing the subject back to what this page is for: did you find that reason why Griffin should be treated differently from other people with similar ideas yet? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please excuse me. I honestly forgot the WP distinction between canvassing (bad) and sending notifications of a discussion (acceptable). You can see I did this before ("it shouldn't be necessary to canvas anyone"), and that Anachronist hesself seems to have used the term in a similarly loose way ("Rather than canvassing"). I apologize and will try to remember this in the future, if and when the occasion arises. I have corrected "canvas" to "send notifications" – is that all right? I'll get to your question in a minute soon, thanks.. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy this, given the wording chosen that particular place. No matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I don't accept the predicate of your question. Indeed I don't accept several of your predicates, but particularly not that I am obliged to provide a reason why Prof. Griffin should be treated differently than other people with similar ideas, and that if I don't the discussion is over. I am not concerned with other people here, as the article concerns Prof. Griffin and not other persons. It contains one glaring error that has nothing to do with anyone else by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't think that certain slanted elements of the article can be justified by reference to other cases either.

"[...] Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and when the reliable sources say 'this person is a conspiracy theorist', that is what Wikipedia says." What is unquestionable is that Wikipedia is based on sources that are purported and claimed to be reliable, without this necessarily always being the case – but let's not dwell on that. I don't really care whether all the sources purported to be reliable say something or not, if it is not true. But it is questionable in this case whether the sources actually assert that Prof. Griffin is a conspiracy theorist. Philip Cross has compiled a list of several purportedly reliable sources that indicate in one way or another that Prof. Griffin has been called a conspiracy theorist, yes; but this does not, as has been supposed by some here, indicate that he has consistently and conclusively been identified as such. I'm sure I can find various RS that refer to Donald Trump as a madman, for example, but that doesn't mean I can go into his article and add "and a madman", or even "has been called a madman". I will look into the media reports on Prof. Griffin further and report later; in the meantime I hope to have answered your question. I'm dealing with only one person here, and I find it curious that a small group of persons should be so earnestly dedicated to denigrating in the same manner everyone who holds an opinion contrary to those they profess. –Roy McCoy (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We are earnestly dedicated to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia worthy of that name. If fringe theories and their proponents were presented as serious ideas and serious researchers, it wouldn't be. The accurate presentation of people's status within or outside the scientific community is a must. See WP:FRINGE.

If you think those reliable sources are not reliable, go to WP:RSN - but only if you have good reasons for downgrading them.

When a group of RS say something is the case, that cannot be undone by other RS not saying it is the case, only by other RS saying it is not the case.

If there are enough RS calling Trump a madman, then of course, has been called a madman belongs in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, different people. We have rules, those rules are applied, and it results in conspiracy theorists being called conspiracy theorists. If you want this article to be different, you need to say why it is different. Guess what the fans of other conspiracy theorists say when they want the term to be removed from the article: They say

• the reliable sources used are not reliable sources,
• the editors are part of the conspiracy,
• there are sources which do not use the words "conspiracy theorist".

Looks familiar, doesn't it? If you want to succeed, you'll have to do better than them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I have to repeat myself, but I don't wish to further comment on matters I would prefer not to discuss in this context whether they relate to the article or not. Again, my only concern here is getting the erroneous main interest corrected and the denigration in the lede moved to the Aaronovitch paragraph in the 9/11 section, with Griffin permitted to add his brief sourced continuation at that point. That's what I'm talking about here.

I answered your question, now here's one for you. You wrote: When a group of RS say something is the case, that cannot be undone by other RS not saying it is the case, only by other RS saying it is not the case. Philip Cross said the same thing: It also appears a reliable source indicating he is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist does not exist, so one can assume it is not really in dispute. It is in dispute, and I'm sorry I didn't note that before. But the question now is: where is the published WP policy on this, if it exists? Thank you.

I said I would look into the media reports and report later. I haven't looked into the individual reports – there are many [though less than I thought – see below] and I don't know where to begin – but this is what I did last night and this morning. The first thing I needed was a list of purportedly reliable sources (henceforth "RS"), but getting this turned out to be easier said than done. There is a gradation of "RS" quality (quotes won't be typed again) at WP:RSP, so not finding a list of the most acceptable green ones anywhere else I had to make my own. I then devised a macro to search consecutively on all of these with

+"[name of source]" +"David Ray Griffin"

and

+"[name of source]" +"David Ray Griffin" -"conspiracy theorist" -"conspiracy theorists">

and copy the results to a text file. This was all mechanical and I got what Google gave me, which turned out to be weird. The Daily Beast, for example, gave me 27,400 finds, but only 1,940 without "conspiracy theorist(s)", which seemed extremely implausible. I found that this boiled down to only 137 when I clicked to page 2 – and then 139 without "conspiracy theorist(s)", which is impossible. I similarly boiled down various of the other results, which generally but not always yielded a reportable result. The oddity is that all of the large figures boiled down to precisely two pages, i.e. between 101 and 200 finds with my Google set for 100 finds per page, with the sole exception of one that was three pages; the ones with less than 100 finds came in like that to begin with. I know others have problems with Google and will likely agree that it used to work better than it does now, whether they approve of the current censorship or not.

I'll post what I have here, but I don't advise anyone to look at it unless they want to get a general idea of the proportions involved, which I feel are sufficient for the conspiracy theorist label be moved out of the lede. Thanks to Google, the finds are not much use for anything else, also because very few of the them are actually from the sources concerned.

Google search on reliable sources

The first figure is searching on +"[name of source" +"David Ray Griffin"; the second, on +"[name of source" +"David Ray Griffin" -"conspiracy theorist" -"conspiracy theorists". Agence France-Presse 157 / 157 (no instances) AFP 191 / 182 Al Jazeera English 97 / 88 Anti-Defamation League 178 / 157 Associated Press 64,600 / 58,800 AP 322,000 / 318,000 The Atlantic 275,000 / 271,000 The Atlantic Monthly 2,830 / 2,470 The Australian 286,000 / 284,000 The A.V. Club 25 / 16 Axios 85 / 68 BBC 339,000 / 330,000 British Broadcasting Corporation 45,100 / 44,800 Bellingcat 88 / 68 Bloomberg 102,000 / 70,000 Bloomberg Businessweek 56 / 45 BuzzFeed News 71 / 41 The Christian Science Monitor 4,870 / 3,370 CSM 3,220 / 3,120 CS Monitor 33 / 24 Climate Feedback 21 / 16 CNET 917 / 704 Computer Network 3,230 / 2,800 CNN 91,700 / 51,700 Cable News Network 93 / 75 Common Sense Media 31 / 25 CSM 3,220 / 3,120 The Conversation 61,100 / 56,400 The Daily Dot 23 / 16 The Daily Telegraph 94,400 / 92,000 Deadline Hollywood 12 / 11 Deseret News 107 / 78 Digital Spy 27 / 27 (no instances) The Diplomat 66,800 / 41,500 The Economist 105,000 / 94,400 Encyclopædia Iranica 23 / 23 (no instances) Engadget 46 / 40 Entertainment Weekly 131 / 101 Financial Times 138,000 / 134,000 Fox News 60,700 / 25,400 Gamasutra 12 / 10 The Guardian 205,000 / 171,000 TheGuardian.com 204,000 / 171,000 The Manchester Guardian 42 / 33 The Observer 11,000 / 9,090 Haaretz 35,600 / 1,730 Ḥadashot Ha'aretz 0 / 0 (no instances!) The Hill 205,000 / 176,000 The Hindu 55,000 / 53,900 The Hollywood Reporter 93 / 73 Idolator 14 / 13 Imagine Games Network 1 / 1 (no instance) The Independent 241,000 / 229,000 The Indian Express 44 / 41 Inter Press Service 1,550 / 1,020 The Intercept 202,000 / 179,000 International Fact-Checking Network 12 / 6 IFCN 14 / 10 Journal of the American Medical Association 116 / 93 Los Angeles Times 23,800 / 17,100 Metacritic 47 / 40 GameRankings 10 / 7 Le Monde diplomatique 41,100 / 40,300 Mother Jones 7,700 / 5,030 MSNBC 170 / 155 National Geographic 251,000 / 246,000 NBC News 19,000 / 16,900 The New Republic 1,560 / 6,710 New Scientist 128,000 / 127,000 New York Magazine 5,900 / 3,780 Vulture 7,020 / 1,020 The Cut 83,500 / 82,300 Grub Street 63 / 57 Daily Intelligencer 28 / 26 New York Daily News 6,180 / 5,030 The New York Times 319,000 / 316,000 NYT 91,200 / 62,500 The New Yorker 213,000 / 202,000 Newsweek 44,000 / 14,300 NPR 59,500 / 29,700 National Public Radio 11,400 / 10,600 People Magazine 2,120 / 1,820 Pew Research Center 3,880 / 801 PinkNews 14 / 8 Playboy Magazine 78 / 59 Politico 257,000 / 254,000 PolitiFact 93 / 57 PundiFact 7 / 4 Polygon 63 / 58 ProPublica 1,550 / 925 Reason 372,000 / 355,000 The Register 5,890 / 5,430 El Reg 6 / 2 Religion News Service 47 / 32 RNS 96 / 90 Reuters 53,500 / 23,400 Rolling Stone 98,600 / 95,000 Rotten Tomatoes 5,750 / 5,720 Science-Based Medicine 35 / 29 Scientific American 82,400 / 56,200 SciAm 94 / 59 Slate 88,500 / 61,200 Snopes 3,350 / 2,260 Southern Poverty Law Center 2,940 / 1,370 Der Spiegel 32,000 / 5,950 Spiegel Online 2,520 / 1,280 SPON 1,730 / 1,070 TheWrap 30 / 20 The Times of London 148 / 94 TorrentFreak 32 / 26 TV Guide 5,940 / 5,790 U.S. News & World Report 2,070 / 1,340 USA Today 26,600 / 23,400 Vanity Fair 18,600 / 14,700 Variety Magazine 29 / 22 VentureBeat 31 / 24 The Verge 65,500 / 63,100 Vogue Magazine 33 / 28 Vox 205,000 / 203,000 The Wall Street Journal 121,000 / 90,000 WSJ 9,540 / 6,690 The Washington Post 31,700 / 23,400 WaPo 135 / 119 Wired 112,000 / 102,000 Wired Magazine 139 / 97 Wired UK 21 / 19 ZDNet 114 / 84 ANOMALIES/SCREWUPS/IMPOSSIBILITIES: ADL 63,900 / 60,100 Al Jazeera 143 / 151 Aljazeera.com 50,800 / 22,900 ( > 141 / 155) Ars Technica 46 / 51 Bloomberg News 1,150 / 2,250 The Daily Beast 27,400 / 1,940 ( > 137 / 139) EW 62,300 / 63,100 Forbes 309,000 / 308,000 THR 35,900 / 11,000 IGN 819 / 41,100 IPS 94,000 / 3,830,000 JAMA 71,600 / 45,800 MoJo 225,000 / 225,000 The Nation 249,000 / 3,870,000 SA 375,000 / 370,000 SPLC 1,520 / 90 Time Magazine 151 / 170 (was: 40,800 / 14,000) The Times 315,000 / 311,000 The Times 151 / 163 The Sunday Times 297,000 / 296,000 The Sunday Times 147 / 164 Vogue 159,000 / 157,000

I've now added the aforementioned period, which was still missing. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

where is the published WP policy on this, if it exists? There is no such policy, because it is simple logic. The fallacy based on ignoring this simple logic is called argument from silence. Most reliable sources do not even mention Griffin, or 9/11, because they are on completely different things. Are we supposed to conclude that the existence of Griffin and 9/11 is highly dubious, because only a tiny minority of reliable sources mentions them?

We do have WP:GOOGLE#What a search test can do, and what it can't, which says "and search engines often will not: [..] Be neutral." Using the numerical relation between Google hits with or without a specific word in articles is WP:OR. Also obviously silly. This is not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Instead, sources are weighted for quality and relevance. Wikipedia has standards. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone removed a comment I added here a couple days ago. I'll paste it in again:

this edit by ZScarpia is along the lines of my original suggestion, to attribute the term "conspiracy theorist" to those who call him that, without saying it in Wikipedia's voice. Roy McCloy, I think that's the best compromise you can hope for in light of the sources available. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: My unintentional override, sorry. On compromise, and in line with what I wrote before, I like what Hob Gadling has on his user page from JzG: "Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement." As far as compromises go, however, this one is acceptable. Prof. Griffin and I want the phrase moved to the Aaronovitch paragraph, however, which move is further justified by the sentence's being overly long with the phrase as a tag-on. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy McCoy, I can't help interjecting here that Wikipedia doesn't care what Griffin wants, and your role of "representing" him is a problematic one. When BLPKIND says Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative that isn't to say it's a good idea -- that text is about helping subjects who do that to understand how WP works i.e. that they should largely stay out of it and limit themselves to pointing out cut-and-dried factual errors (mistaken dates, number of kids, that kind of stuff). Telling us that he (or you) "want" a phrase moved down has zero weight; if you'll reframe your argument in terms of what best serves the reader's understanding of the subject that would be more appropriate, but at this point I'm afraid your participation here is permanently tainted. (Sorry to have to say that, but it's true.) EEng 03:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how the WP:LEAD section of an article works. The lead section provides an overview of the body of the article. There are multiple paragraphs dealing with conspiracy theories in the article, so a single sentence in the lead section is an appropriate summary. It's already out of the lead sentence and put further down in the lead, but the lead still needs to mention it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, and right now we say "leading him to be described as", which is WP:WEASEL. Advocating the controlled demolition conspiracy theory and being a founder of a Truther group means we should call him a conspiracy theorist, in Wikipedia's voice. We should also open by saying this is what he is known for. Without the Truther nonsense, he would be profoundly anonymous. That is the source of what fame he has, as the article makes clear in the body. this is not "fairness", it's whitewashing. he's a leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist,[1] the high priest of the Truther movement.[2] Guy (help! - typo?) 19:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just an observer, not a party to this dispute. I have no problem with version mischaracterized as "fairness" or the wikivoice version. That said, you are applying WP:WEASEL beyond its definition. The phrase "leading him to be described as a conspiracy theorist" is a logical and accurate description of the consequences of his activities. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, the problem is that "leading him to be described as" at the end of the lead is both minimising the impact (by casting the overwhelming consensus of sources as an opinion by some sources), and it's burying the lead.

Griffin's primary source of notability is his promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is very well established in the article.

In Griffin's mind the official explanation of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. That's a fringe view, and in and conspiracy theory in and of itself. The theories for which he is known are, objectively, conspiracy theories. He's a co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions , and called the 9/11 commission report "a 571-page lie".

He is, unequivocally and without any need for caveats, a Truther. And Truthers are, unequivocally and without any need for caveats, conspiracy theorists. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style / Words to watch: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
Conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are value-laden pejorative terms whose purpose is to paint the things so labelled as cranky. Just as people view "freedom fighters" whose cause they do not support as "terrorists", they do not view conspiracy theories that they agree with that way, or their proponents as "conspiracy theorists". Unless dealing with illuminati or space-lizard-type claims, use of the terms in the Wikipedia voice should be avoided, using in-text attribution as the Manual of Style suggests.
I suggest that the term "truther" is treated similarly.
    ←   ZScarpia   19:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the style guide does not trump WP:NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So words-to-avoid aren't words-to-avoid when avoiding using them would clash with personal opinions as to what is neutral? For example, a "terrorist" is a terrorist when a person's favoured sources (which, of course, are considered reliable because they affirm what that person believes to be true) use that description? Obviously, there are contributors here who do not think that using the derogatory terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" as factual descriptions is NPOV here. Would using in-text attribution really be so bad?     ←   ZScarpia   21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a reason "conspiracy theorist" is not one of the examples given in the "words to watch" page. "Terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are POV forks of each other. "Conspiracy theorist", on the other hand, has a clear definition.

What you are doing here is explained in the The Alt-Right Playbook video Ship of Theseus (see also Ship of Theseus): you replaced "words to watch" by "words to avoid", added a word of your own, and replaced Guy's actual reasoning (WP:NPOV) by "personal opinions as to what is neutral". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your "alt-right playbook" argument, the wording of the Manual of Style is: "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided." If the term "words-best-avoided" were to be substituted for "words-to-avoid" in my comment, would it then be acceptable to you?

I notice that nobody is arguing that the term "conspiracy theorist" is not a "value-laden label".

At the end of the list of value-laden words to watch, the ellipsis indicates that the list is not exhaustive, it is only a set of examples. Any value-laden label, including conspiracy theorist, is a candidate to be on it. Personally, I think your "POV fork argument" is a non-starter. If you need a complement for conspiracy theorist, try terms such as truth-denier, truth-phobe, truth-reactionary, truth-atavist etc.

I'm pretty sure that the term "conspiracy theory" isn't, as you state, clearly defined. Stripped of connotations and used in it's traditional sense, it just refers to theories which have conspiracies as causes of events. Seen in that light, even the official version of what happened on and before 11 September 2001 is a conspiracy theory. (I think that the RationalWiki article on the topic is worth reading)

My previous comment was an attempt to address the rather glaring weaknesses in JzG's argument: "the style guide does not trump WP:NPOV." No explanation is given of how the style guide is opposed to the neutrality policy. My guess is that the thinking behind the statement goes something like this: the statement that Griffin is a conspiracy theorist is NPOV; the style guide advises avoiding value laden labels such as conspiracy theorist; therefore the style guide is opposing the neutrality policy. There is no doubt that sources verifying that Griffin has been called a conspiracy theorist exist. However the claim that to see him as such is not a point of view is pretty tall. A small number of newspaper and journal articles have been listed as a justification, no books or superior sources (and one of the listed articles is a blog-opinion piece which doesn't even directly refer to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist). To see that Griffin isn't universally seen as a crazed loon howling at the moon, all that's necessary is to read the list of recommendations given at the beginning of books such as "The New Pearl Harbor".

    ←   ZScarpia   00:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, Do you accept that Griffin is a "Truther"? And is primarily known as a "Truther"? If you don't, then we're unlikely to reach any kind of consensus here. You may find Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice helpful in answering this question.

Once we've established that, the question moves on to: what is a "Truther" if not a conspiracy theorist? See 9/11 Truth movement.

Of course Griffin rejects the label. Someone who is best known for being wrong would very rarely agree that they are best known for being wrong, especially when, as with Griffin, he is on record as sincerely believing that the official explanation of 9/11 is a fraud. If he didn't dispute it then he probably wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist. This is kind of obvious. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone's disputing that Griffin has played a prominent part in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The article could just state that and allow reader's to form their own opinions about what that means in terms of conspiracy theories. I think that you should stop using the word "truther". It gives the same effect as though you were describing, say, Germaine Grier as a Women's Libber. The only questions we should be moving on to are ones about what sources say and how to represent their contents policy-compliantly. Obviously, having a discussion about what the truth is, is immaterial. We should be avoiding letting our own personal opinions about that intrude into how we edit the article shouldn't we?     ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It isn't just MOS:WTW, and WP:NPOV doesn't justify "conspiracy theorist" anyway since Prof. Griffin is so identified in only a relatively low percentage of RS references. Prompted by ZScarpia's mention of in-text attribution, I checked "conspiracy theorist" in Wiktionary, where the definition is "(derogatory) One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." As an acknowledgedly derogatory term, "conspiracy theorist" isn't really acceptable here and particularly not in an opening paragraph per MOS:OPENPARABIO, which doesn't need to trump WP:NPOV either.

One point of interest on this that might imaginably lead to a resolution is that Griffin will admit to being called a conspiracy theorist if it is granted at the same time that those who follow the official story are also conspiracy theorists, the official story itself being, he says, a conspiracy theory. He's said this several times, including in his introduction to Debunking 9/11 Debunking. I gave a copy of this book to a friend and am waiting for him to send me a scan of the page concerned so I can provide an exact quote. In the meantime, Griffin's attitude is described in Tod Fletcher's essay "Championing Truth and Justice: Griffin on 9/11" (findable by a search on the title), which I recommend to anyone not presently familiar with Prof. Griffin's work on the subject.

It occurred to me after writing the above that one of the Griffin comments on this, perhaps the one from Debunking 9/11 Debunking, might follow very well the recently deleted "leading to him being described as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" or similar. ("Griffin accepts this designation, but only on the condition...") So this may be more of a possibility than I thought when I mentioned it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The "those who follow the official story are also conspiracy theorists" line is pretty common among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but still bunk. There is heaps of actual evidence for the "official story", including tapes from the main conspirator where he says he did it, which does not fit the description "conspiracy theory". Of course, 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim the tapes are fake. See 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I don't recall having heard "they're conspiracy theorists too" from anyone other than Prof. Griffin, and if others have said the same thing I imagine they picked it up from him, directly or indirectly. Among my various differences of opinion with Griffin is the matter of official CT vs. alternative CT. The problem, as I've seen it, is that the official CT will not be acknowledged as a CT by those defending or believing in the official story, who will say that it's what actually happened, the historical record, not a theory. And that's what you're doing, so thanks for confirming this expectation.

There is actually a remarkable paucity of legitimate evidence in favor of the official story, and if the best you have to offer is the fake bin Laden videos you do a good job of demonstrating this. Your best evidence – what you choose to cite – is that this guy:

Video bin Laden
Fake bin Laden 1 Fake bin Laden 2 Fake bin Laden 3 Fake bin Laden 4 Fake bin Laden 5

is this one:

Real bin Laden
The real bin Laden

That proves Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did 9/11, all right. Tell me another joke, please.

Note the remarkable difference between the two subjects, with the video bin Laden images darkened to the point where it's impossible to discern any detail. I suppose this is what I get for trying to use Wikimedia Commons on this topic. Also notable is that the video bin Laden is well buried in the "Osama bin Laden" finds, not appearing in the first 500. When searching on "Osama bin Laden video" they come up in the first 500, but you have to set it on 500 to get them on the first page. This is not something the official-story establishment is proud of. Griffin demolishes the fake videos in Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (which I found and read in the Portland OR public library, so I'm well familiar with it), along with the rest of the post-9/11 OBL myths.

I don't ordinarily argue 9/11 truth anymore, as anyone with access to my Internet history can confirm. One of the main reasons is that there are always obnoxious trolls to deal with, and it's impossible to distinguish the professional agents from the genuinely unperceptive laymen. In any event it always turns out to be pointless arguing with either, which is probably the intended result. This is one of the reasons I don't want to continue along this line; the other is that it would be said that this isn't the place to discuss what happened on 9/11. What happened on that day is actually critical to the topic, but the validity of 9/11 truth isn't necessary – or shouldn't be – to establish that "conspiracy theorist/theories" is contrary to the stated WP guidelines (and particularly erroneous in the case of the main interests) and therefore should go, if only for that reason. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So, you are essentially arguing not that Griffin is not a Truther, you are arguing that Truthers are right and therefore not conspiracy theorists, therefore Griffin isn't either. In other words, you are a Truther trying to convince Wikipedia to embrace Trutherism. This will not happen. I will tell you the same as other fringe proponents: Convince the reliable sources first, then we can use them to say what they will we saying then instead of what they are saying now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that "conspiracy theorist" is an unacceptably insulting term to apply to Prof. Griffin in his description and interests, everything else aside. What I'm saying may or may not apply to other cases, and that may be of concern to you for one reason or another – but it doesn't particularly matter to me.

I don't know why you're capitalizing "truther", by the way; it's not a religion, look in a dictionary. Nor, again, is 9/11 skepticism fringe. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy McCoy, David Ray Griffin is known as a leading exponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories. As an author outside that field, he is a niche presence of very limited impact. This is well established in the article.

To omit the fact of his being a conspiracy theorist, as a core source of his notability is a gross failure of NPOV, which is a foundational policy.

He doesn't have to admit to being a conspiracy theorist, any more than David Duke has to admit to being a white supremacist. The sources say it for us, we just summarise the sources. No, we don't defer to his conditional acceptance of the term. He promotes conspiracy theories, it's what he's known for, and we say it, bluntly and without weasel words. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

On the fine point of the infobox 'main interest', WP:BLPCAT says Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation and These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that … suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. Per Conspiracy theory#Etymology and definition, Robert Blaskiewicz comments that examples of the term were used as early as the nineteenth century and states that its usage has always been derogatory.[cite]. In view of that caution, we should change 'main interest' from '9/11 conspiracy theories' to '9/11'. Humanengr (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I found two video interviews and I watched part of both. Much of what he said in these interviews show a good understanding, but some things he said demonstrated a lack of understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion. However, he is a philosopher, not a scientist or engineer. Scientists and engineers who have examined the Twin Towers collapse agree that the collapse was due to the intense heat which softened and weakened the steel, essential to support such high structures. Structural failure in the region of impact led to the higher floors collapsing onto the lower floors and so the cascading collapse (down, since the only force acting was gravity). In the second interview, he demonstrated a keen knowledge of climate dynamics and the doubts manufactured by the fossil fuel industry. However, he is a theologian, not a scientist, engineer or climatologist. In seeking the truth, it is important to consider all possibilities, however remote they seem. Nobody is right about everything, but it is important to challenge assumptions to make sure that the consensus is defensible.

Enquire (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Physicists and their phoney "laws" are part of the conspiracy. EEng 05:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, physicists-for-hire working for the government are part of the conspiracy. The uncompromised physicists and Newton's laws are just fine. Enquire and EEng should have a look at The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False, which Prof. Griffin considers to be his best book (email Aug. 31). –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Enquire: you want "Interviews" rather than "Inteviews" on your last edit. Also, the Mackey thing isn't an affiliation; it needs a separate "Works discrediting David Ray Griffin" section. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll make a point of reviewing it next time I'm at the library, though I doubt that will be any time soon. EEng 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy McCoy Ooops! Fixed typo. What is the Mackey thing?!? Anyway, I have watched plenty of documentaries on 9/11 back in the day. No doubt there are still things we don't know, and probably never will - but essentially DRG is right in his point about following the money (Climate Change). However, in terms of the scientific and structural analysis I am inclined to go with consensus and consilience.

Enquire (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Enquire: The Mackey thing is the second item under Affiliations, right above Interviews. There were previously 25 links, all but 3 of which were removed on 5 November 2019 by JzG, who for some reason elected to leave this one. The links' all being listed as affiliations should have been corrected long before, but wasn't. –Roy McCoy (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed repositioning of critical references

This article seems remarkably well looked-after, at least in regard to the conservation of its insults. (The external links, for example, still haven't been corrected – see immediately above.) My "uninsulting" edits were reverted in two minutes flat, as the recent removal of Cross's list has now also been (though without correction of the obvious error in the first sentence, which I've since handled). My suggestion remains that the list be maintained, but moved to a more appropriate place at the Aaronovitch paragraph in the 9/11 section. Griffin wrote me in this regard on September 26:

In my 2010 book, I gave a ‘consensus’ view, stating that there is no consensus about “what hit the Pentagon," but there is agreement among 9/11 scholars that "regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon was not struck by AA 77 under the control of al-Qaeda.” Phrased more generally: the Pentagon was not struck by a 757 airliner being piloted an al-Qaeda pilot. ("The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach”, Chap. 7 of 9/11 Ten Years Later (2010.)

On the WTC: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth now has over 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed a petition stating that the official account of the World Trade Center buildings, according to which they were brought down by fires resulting from airplane attacks, could not possibly be true. AE911Truth was founded in 2006 by architect Richard Gage, who, as Wikipedia pointed out, "became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers after listening to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.”

Recently, a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7.” The authors wrote: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.”

I accordingly drafted and now propose the following revision of the paragraph:

Griffin has been described and criticized as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>Sources which describe David Ray Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist", "conspiracist", "conspiracy nut", or otherwise associate him with 9/11 conspiracy theories include: * {{cite news|last=Gilan|first=Audrey|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/09/september11.world|title=Full house as leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist has his say|work=The Guardian|date=September 9, 2006|access-date=October 9, 2020}} * {{cite news|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church|title=The 50 people who matter today: 41-50|work=New Statesman|date=September 24, 2009|access-date=June 13, 2020|author=Staff Blogger}} * {{cite news|last=Swaine|first=Jon|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8281125/UN-human-rights-official-claims-911-was-US-plot.html|title=UN human rights official claims 9/11 was US plot|work=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|date=January 25, 2011|access-date=June 13, 2020}} * {{cite news|last=Epstein|first=Rafael|url=https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1737980.htm|title=The World Today: Former spy raises 9/11 conspiracy theory|work=ABC|location=Australia|date=September 11, 2006|access-date=June 13, 2020|quote=one of the world's most popular 9/11 conspiracy theorists}} * {{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123127032&t=1592073221181|title=Debunking Conspiracy Theories In ''Voodoo Histories''|work=NPR|date=January 30, 2020|access-date=June 13, 2020}} * {{cite news|last=Cockburn|first=Alexander|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/911-conspiracy-nuts/|title=The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts|work=The Nation|date=September 7, 2006|access-date=June 13, 2020}} * {{cite book|last1=Byford|first1=Jovan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e0ilsF4VcTQC&pg=PT165|title=Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction|location=Basingstoke|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|year=2011|page=165|isbn=9780230349216}} * {{cite news|last=Stahl|first=Jeremy|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/the_theory_vs_the_facts.html?via=gdpr-consent|title=The Theory vs. the Facts|work=Slate|date=September 7, 2011|access-date=October 9, 2020}}</ref> [[David Aaronovitch]] in the London ''[[The Times|Times]]'' in 2008 wrote: "Griffin believes that no plane hit the Pentagon (despite hundreds of people seeing it) and that the World Trade Centre was brought down by a controlled demolition. There isn't a single point of alleged fact upon which Griffin's barking theory hasn't itself been demolished."<ref>{{cite news|last=Aaronovitch|first=David|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/un-expert-no-a-conspiracy-crank-zndmplz35dp|title=UN expert? No, a conspiracy crank|work=The Times|location=London|date=April 15, 2008|access-date=June 13, 2020}} {{subscription required}}</ref> Griffin and others have disputed both points of this particular criticism. On the Pentagon, Griffin has claimed a consensus among 9/11 researchers that "regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon was not struck by AA 77 under the control of al-Qaeda."<ref>{{cite book|last= Griffin|first= David Ray|author-link=David Ray Griffin|date= 2011|title= 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed|location=Northampton, MA|publisher= Olive Branch Press|chapter=Chapter 7: The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach|isbn=978-1-56656-868-5}}</ref> On the World Trade Center, [[American Institute of Architects|AIA]] architect Richard Gage, after listening to a radio interview with Griffin in 2006, established [[Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth]], which now has over 3,000 professional architects and engineers disputing the claim that the WTC buildings were brought down by fires resulting from airplane attacks.<ref>{{cite news|last=Rudin|first=Mike|publisher=BBC|title=The evolution of a conspiracy theory|date=July 4, 2008|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm|accessdate=May 23, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090918155229/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm|archive-date=September 18, 2009|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Walter |first=Ted |date=March 25, 2020 |title=University Report on 9/11 Building Collapse Contradicts Official Conclusions |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-report-on-911-building-collapse-contradicts-official-conclusions-301029854.html |agency=PR Newswire |access-date=September 28, 2020}}</ref> Griffin's view is further supported by a recent study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, whose authors wrote: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse."<ref>{{cite book|first=J.L.|last= Hulsey|author2=Z. Quan|author3=F. Xiao|title=A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report.|institution=College of Engineering and Mines, Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK|number=INE Report 18.17|date=March 2020}}</ref>

I'm not overstepping any bounds here, since (1) I'm not attempting to make the proposed edit in the article itself, and (2) I'm not representing Prof. Griffin anymore, so perhaps I'm entitled to edit the article anyway. I would be happy to continue representing Griffin, but he despairs of getting a fair shake from Wikipedia and so doesn't want to have anything to do with the article. I disagree with him and think the article is important and could be improved – arguing, for example, that if even [name deleted so as not to attract attention to the figure concerned] isn't described as a conspiracy theorist, Prof. Griffin could achieve the same. But he has a prohibitively negative view of the Wikipedia project in its present state, and points out that he's 81 years old and has other things to do. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy, I've reviewed some of the references in your proposed revision. Most notable is the "...recent study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, whose authors wrote: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse." All one needs to do is go the the first page of this study to learn that it was funded in total by "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". To the tune of: "Project Budget: $316,153". Indeed, in the PR release through PRNewswire, paid for by A&E for 9/11 Truth, it states that they funded the research. This organization (A&E for 9/11 Truth) is known for promoting and expounding the same conspiracy theories as Griffin and, as such, their funding this study violates the necessary objectivity for studies of this nature to be taken seriously. It should be no surprise that "Griffin's view is further supported by [the] recent study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks". --Brianjgolfer (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Elaborating Griffin's contributions to process philosophy/theology

Those who say (above) that Griffin’s notability is primarily based on his 9/11 work seem to underappreciate his prominence in the field of process philosophy/theology. Probably this is a result of 9/11 being simply more accessible to most people than process philosophy is. But I would think that the fact that process philosophy is more esoteric does not mean Griffin’s contributions to that field are less notable. It may also be that people have shied away from filling out the process philosophy side of his work because of the 9/11 stuff. If so, that is unfortunate. In process philosophy, Griffin is, at least arguably, the near-equal of his mentor John B. Cobb. Cobb himself modestly writes, “I suspect that he [Griffin] has been my teacher more often than I, his,” and he also writes: “[I]f the potential of Whiteheads philosophy to change the climate of scholarship and of intellectual life is realized, there will be no one to whom more credit will be due than David Griffin” (Reason and Reenchantment, p. i, xiv). I would therefore expect that the “Life and Professional Career” section of the page (or perhaps a new section focusing on his work on process philosophy) should probably look more like Cobb’s page does, if it gave due weight to Griffin’s contributions to process philosophy/theology. I’m not the person to remedy this, though I could perhaps help a bit if someone else took the lead. I'm also not sure how best to inform potentially willing parties with the relevant competencies about a potential improvement of this aspect of the page. (I'm not sure how recruitment of this kind is supposed to work but perhaps the people who contributed to John B. Cobb's page, or that of Alfred North Whitehead or Charles Hartshorne, could be encouraged to assist.)Knuteson (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Knuteson: I became acquainted with Prof. Griffin through his work on 9/11, but one of my best friends from college, who had never heard of Griffin in relation to 9/11, wrote to me that he "came to Griffin through some of his brilliant work on Alfred North Whitehead." I'm not directly acquainted with such philosophical work of Griffin, and, as you suggest, the editors of his article don't appear to be either. So though you say you're not the person to remedy this, you may nonetheless be the only current editor with competence in this field. I'm informally topic-banned because Griffin at one point authorized me to represent him in regard to the article, and I've mainly been concerned with simply getting the "conspiracy theorist" tag removed anyway. Even if Griffin may at some points have theorized regarding one or another aspect of 9/11, this is still a mischaracterization, and just because some sources insult him in this way doesn't mean he is generally so regarded.

There is, again, little I can do, but I can at least perhaps draw your attention to the Ryan Mackey PDF under "External links", which should have been deleted long ago as it clearly isn't an affiliation, never was, and particularly hasn't been since sticking out after JzG selectively left it in his cleanout on 5 November 2019. I'm not sure, moreover, that the link isn't dead. When I click on it it has a Chinese title (?) and only downloads to 2%.

I don't think anyone will object to inviting the editors you mentioned to have a look at the page and possibly improve it as you've suggested. I can help you with that, at least. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

POV issues

@Gbollinger143:, please explain your POV concerns here. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My concerns are:

1. If the main or only section is about 9/11 then this narrow focus itself slants the article. Given Griffin's productivity in theology, philosophy, and political philosophy, such an extreme emphasis distorts Griffin's contribution.
2. The use of the term "Conspiracy Theorist" is loaded. It is fair to say that Griffin held controversial, probably false positions on 9/11, as well as controversial positions on climate change, American exceptionalism, and parapsychology. But 'controversial' or even 'false' does not mean undocumented or irrational, whereas the term "Conspiracy Theorist" has come to mean just that. The philosopher William James, for example, was also controversial and also believed in parapsychology. I do not think it is Wikipedia's intent to discredit scholars based on controversial social/political/scientific positions. That would not be neutral. I would like to change the term "Conspiracy Theorist" to "controversial political theorist" and parts of the section on 9/11 to make it less biased. I expect that most of the original material would remain.
3. More importantly, the editor(s) of the 9/11 section seems not to have read any of Griffin's theology or philosophy. These editors seem not to be familiar with Griffin's work beyond 9/11. I and others would like to add sections on Griffin's political philosophy related to American exceptionalism and climate change.
4. There is nothing that describes Griffin's theological positions on the nature of evil, God, salvation, inter-faith dialog, etc. I and others would like to add sections describing this theology.
5. There is also little in the article describing Griffin's philosophy, especially his discussion of the mind/body problem in Unsnarling the World-Knot. This book is groundbreaking, arguably Griffin's best book, yet not even referenced in the bibliography. In addition to a section on this book, I and others would like to add sections on other important contributions made by Griffin to modern philosophy. This would substantially relieve the one-sidedness of the current article.
6. Another major contribution made by Griffin but unmentioned in the article is the impact he has had on Chinese thought. The Chinese scholars Zhehe Wang and Meijun Fan (Meijun Fan is a former professor of philosophy at Bejing University) would be adding a section on Griffin's impact on Chinese philosophy.
7. Some of the people besides myself who would add sections are Marcus Ford, Sandra Lubarsky, Catherine Keller, and the Chinese scholars mentioned above. These are all experts in Griffin's thought, though not all agree with his position on 9/11 or parapsychology. I believe we do all agree with his position on climate change.

Gbollinger143 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gbollinger143, please keep in mind that editors are supposed to summarize what independent, secondary, reliable sources say on a subject; not what that subject says about itself, nor what the editors think/believe/know about a subject. If content that is in the article is sourced, your recourses are to challenge the reliability of the source or to provide contrasting sources that provide a different view. You should also read WP:NPOV. "Neutral POV" on Wikipedia does not mean articles are neutral, it means the articles summarize the sources in a neutral manner. If reliable sources refer to Griffin as a conspiracy theorist, that's how the article should as well. (I have not gone through the refs to see.)

Any new sections added, such as describing his theology or political philosophy, should be based on independent, secondary, reliable sources that discuss his theology or political philosophy. Factual summaries of his writings can be based on the writings themselves, but no analysis or conclusions by the editor can be. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd the problem with editors doing factual summaries is possible, even if unintentional, cherry picking. I prefer to see reliable secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I was thinking more along the lines of brief book summaries, which can be based on the work, but I agree with you that secondary sources are definitely preferable. Schazjmd (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

We will concentrate on new sections. Thanks for the help understanding Wikipedia expectations and standards. Gbollinger143 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, I am new to Wikipedia and perhaps didn't fully understand the policies about material appropriate to a biography. The section on 9/11 seems lengthy and mostly non-biographical, so I believed that it was possible to discuss a philosopher's major ideas in a biographical page. Is this true? I also thought it to be Wikipedia policy to discuss major deletions before making them. However, it seems that User:Anachronist, without any discussion in Talk, and for no apparent reason (perhaps because he doesn't agree with David or hates philosophy ofDavid's sort, but with no indication that he understood what he deleted), can delete whole sections on Griffins ideas at will and with no discussion. Is this true? I want to follow policies but some guidance would be appreciated - as I have indicated. Is it in fact impossible to discuss the major ideas of a philosopher in a biography page about the philosopher? I would note that every sentence in the sections deleted contained a citation to a reliable reference (either Griffin or someone else) that was not written by myself. So I don't see how they violated the "Original Work" restriction. The sections were also read by PhD experts in Griffin's thought so User:Anachronist's disparagement of "jargon" and so on seems more like name calling than anything else. I would appreciate some more guidance on the issue of arbitrary deletions and policy around biographies. Gbollinger143 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gbollinger143, I'm not watching changes to this article, but from a quick read-through of Anarchonist's most recent edits, it looks like the text Anachronist removed was (all? mostly?) an editor deciding which pieces of information Griffin had written should be in the biography. (It also appears there was some analysis, which is original research.) A biography should mostly cite independent sources. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent, reliable published sources say about a topic or person. Any of Griffin's views that have received significant coverage in independent sources would most likely be worth including in the biography, summarizing what those sources say about those views. (Also, on the "jargon" aspect, jargon is the specialized vocabulary of a field. That "PhD experts on Griffin" understand it doesn't mean it isn't jargon.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gbollinger143, you might also find the WP:BRD essay helpful in understanding Wikipedia editing processes. As it applies here, you added a great deal of content; that was the bold edit. Anachronist objected to the content; that was the revert edit. The next phase is discuss. I see that you pinged Anachronist, so I expect that they will join the discussion to expand on their objections. Reaching consensus on the talk page is key. Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I had started a discussion on this talk page after my removal of text that was heavy on original research and reliance on Griffin's own words. Unfortunately I neglected to save it due to a family distraction here.

Bottom line: Wikipedia cannot publish original thought or interpretations about Griffin's works. I retained information that cited other authors where possible. We need to document what reliable sources have stated about Griffin. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether the section on Griffin's philosophy and theology work was mostly "original research"

@Anachronist,

I think we should use this page as our discussion page since, as I understand it, Doug Weller is dealing with an illness.

1. Your basic complaint and the reason for your deletions seem to be your unsupported assertion that my edits were “rife with original research and [my] own interpretations of quotations.” You later explain that “Wikipedia cannot publish original thoughts or interpretations about Griffin's works [something I do not challenge]. [You] retained information that cited other authors where possible [not much or in any meaningful way]. We need to document what reliable sources have stated about Griffin [obviously, but this seems to assume that primary sources are always unreliable sources about an author's thought].”

2. A second complaint is that there is “Way too much primary-source material here.”

3. A third complaint is that “This is a biography article, not an essay about the subject's philosophies.”

Because I am new to Wikipedia I am not entirely confident about my understanding of its policy pages, but my discussion response here will nevertheless depend upon published Wikipedia policy pages, which I assume reflect actual Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate any correction of my understanding that is supported by the policy pages themselves.

The Wikipedia:No original research policy page defines original research, and that is a good place to start: “The phrase “original research” (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist.” This page also says: “The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.”

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy page provides further guidance on what counts as a reliable source. In particular, it says: “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.”

1. The first issue is the factual question of whether my edits contain original research and personal interpretations of quotations. My edits do not contain “original research”, because I always cite reliable secondary or primary sources to summarize Griffin’s position accurately, without commentary or conclusions of my own.

I believe every sentence in my edits includes a citation either to a primary or secondary source supporting the text of my edits. I provide no original interpretations of quotes, no analysis of the meaning of the quotes, no attempt to derive Griffin’s positions by synthesizing primary sources (or secondary sources), and no evaluation of the truth or falsity of Griffin’s ideas. This would be easier to discuss, of course, if the content of these edits had not been deleted prior to the discussion or if you (Anachronism) had provided some evidence of your claims in your complaints. In fact, my edits contain only two kinds of sentences, sentences that include an inline citation to a reliable source that supports my paraphrasing of a writer and sentences that include a citation introducing a direct quote. If you (Anachronism) can point out from my edits where I made uncited conclusions or citations relying on sources that are not reliable, I will gladly correct the problem. Given the policy pages, I do not assume (as you seem to me to assume) that primary sources can never be reliable, only that primary sources require extra care when used and that secondary sources are easier to defend against the accusation of “original research”.

2. The second issue is the question about the overuse of primary sources. The policy page says: “Material based upon primary sources can be valuable and important additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person — with access to the source but without specialist knowledge — will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.” You provide no evidence that my edits, based on the provided citations, are not merely descriptive, and straightforward, and could not be verified by an educated person. Also, the policy pages apparently do not make any statement about what is “too much primary-source” material, although they do say secondary sources (and in some cases, even tertiary sources) are preferred. My understanding is that secondary sources are preferred because there can be issues of cherry-picking original sources, taking quotes out of context, adding personal explanations or interpretations about quotes, and so on. I deny that I did any of that and you have provided no evidence that I did. Of course, if one uses primary sources one must exercise extra caution with one's citations, which I made an extreme effort to do; but I do not believe the Wikipedia policy pages warrant treating primary source citations as self-evident examples of "original research". I point out again, that several times I did in fact also cite secondary sources which you also deleted. If you can point out where any of my citations, primary or secondary, do not support the text in my edits, I will gladly correct that.

3. The third issue questions writing a section about the subject’s ideas. I do not think that a biography page about a philosopher that has no section on their thoughts has much value. I have reviewed many biographies about philosophers on Wikipedia (though not exhaustively, of course) and so far have found none that do not include one or more sections on the thought of the philosopher, most longer than the edits I tried to publish before its untimely deletion, and all including some citations of primary sources. Here’s one such biography about the philosopher Daniel Dennett. In any case, such biographies with one or more sections describing the philosopher’s thought and including references to primary sources are not unusual on Wikipedia.

I would note that I have tried to follow Wikipedia policies in my edits, though it’s a lot to grasp in a few weeks. I have returned several times to the page to try and improve it, and I have asked for guidance. I am gladly willing to make changes and accept any would edits that are sourced and accurate. I do not believe wholesale deletion makes a very positive edit or improves an article, and believe the justification for such deletions should be supported, not just asserted, especially if they occur before the discussion. I do not want to violate any Wikipedia policy. I note also, that I have not in any way touched the 9/11 section.

Gbollinger143 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)