The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
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 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)
His newest book, "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World" was released August, 2017.
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)
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
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
chosen that particular place. No matter. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
has been called a madmanbelongs in the article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
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 |
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?
"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)
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representativethat 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.) E Eng 03:29, 13 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)
Video bin Laden
|
---|
Real bin Laden
|
---|
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)
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:
I accordingly drafted and now propose the following revision of the paragraph:
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)
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)
@ Gbollinger143:, please explain your POV concerns here. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
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 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)
His newest book, "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World" was released August, 2017.
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)
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
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
chosen that particular place. No matter. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
has been called a madmanbelongs in the article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
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 |
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?
"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)
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representativethat 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.) E Eng 03:29, 13 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)
Video bin Laden
|
---|
Real bin Laden
|
---|
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)
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:
I accordingly drafted and now propose the following revision of the paragraph:
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)
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)
@ Gbollinger143:, please explain your POV concerns here. Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@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)