Talk:G. Edward Griffin

"False" theories

This assertion is supported by only one source, The Daily Beast. From WP:RSP: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast article is not a news article, it is a biased opinion piece making a controversial statement of fact related to a living person. It is not a reliable source in this context and should be removed, along with the word "false". Swmpshield2 (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, replaced it with the New York Times calling it debunked. Odd though: for his "signature work", virtually no reality-based sources discuss it at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

jzG, That's better, but The Hill source says the book "still raised some very good points that deserve serious consideration", directly contradicting the NYT source that says the book "has been debunked". Asserting that the book "has been debunked", which is a controversial statement of fact, in the lead section violates WP:NPOV. The word "debunked" should be removed from that sentence, but the NYT source should be quoted in the section specifically about the book. Swmpshield2 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, but The Hill is an opinon-based tabloid article, and the fact is that nobody sane takes it remotely seriously. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

jzG The NYT article is an opinion piece written by a movie reviewer. WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. The word "debunked" should be removed from that sentence, but the NYT source should be quoted in the section specifically about the book. Swmpshield2 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2, It is at least in a serious newspaper. The Hill is a tabloid. But feel free to quote serious reviews in reliable sourcesif you can find them. As I said, it's remarkable that what is supposedly his signature work is pretty much entirely ignored by reliable sources. Almost as if it is worthless nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Which it is, of course. [1] Retimuko (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is in violation of Biography of living persons policy

This article gives disproportionate amount of space, to criticism of Edward Griffin, ignoring his major contributions to understanding the federal reserve and our banking system. This understanding is critical to explaining the mechanisms of wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and how we are living through the biggest wealth transfer in human history in the midst of a synchronized global recession. Media Matters is not a reliable source and this article amounts to what can be described as an ad hominem attack, used to discredit his book on the banking system. The New York Times review - is a movie review.

Its in violation of "Balance"

Balance > Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:87D0:A850:2945:CF09:86F0:B6D3 (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources to support your view? Who called his work "a major contribution to understanding the federal reserve and our banking system"? Retimuko (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section - "According to Media Matters for America..."

Media Matters for America is a politically left-leaning organization that is a biased or opinionated source according to WP:RSP. Having this sentence in the lead section does not represent a neutral point of view and thus violates WP:MOSLEAD and WP:NPOV. It should be moved to the "Cancer, chemtrails, and AIDS denial" section. section. Swmpshield2 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)