Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Deleted from Wikipedia--G. Edward Griffin!

  1. #1

    Exclamation Deleted from Wikipedia--G. Edward Griffin!

    Deleted from Wikipedia--G. Edward Griffin!
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/39638

    I've just spent an hour reviewing the (voluminous) deletion history (link below) of G. Edward Griffin's Wikipedia entry.

    Six (6) different editors entered a "Delete"...ON THE SAME DAY !

    These were not ordinary persons - 2 of them are Administrators, and 4 others are either admittedly trying to become admins, or else have achieved a higher 'Editor' status, with extra powers.
    One of them performed 4,000 edits in the past 12 days - that person must spend every waking hour on Wiki !!

    It is truly amazing the extent that certain specially self-anointed busybodies on that site go to, to extinguish 'unsavory' items, particularly since the very same people not only allow, but personally espouse unsupported &/or radical ideas themselves on their own pages.

    The major repeated claim against against Griffins' continued entry on Wikipedia is :
    -that he is "not notable FOR ANYTHING",
    -that there is no 3rd party verification source.
    -that he is a conspiracy theorist.

    Griffin is someone who has several books on Amazon,
    has an IMDB listing, produced numerous films dating back to the '60s,
    & a comprehensive website with copious amounts of well-edited & researched data.

    His videos/audios (on the topic of the Federal Reserve & banking) have superb narrative & are very clearly & thoroughly laid out -
    At once easy to absorb for those new to the topic, and yet still incisive & comprehensive enough for those well-versed in the subject.

    I have ZERO Idea how to 'work' Wikipedia, but surely some on this forum do - if you haven't yet, please spend several minutes watching just one of his youtube videos - and if you agree, please make an effort to restore his Wiki entry.

    If it is not already clear, he is a supporter of Dr. Paul, and his analyses provided in his videos are a great entry point for those who are seeking to learn more details about the financial subjects Dr. Paul often references.

    This is really, truly, an outrage.....

    Link to private Wiki 'editor' page (where 2 editors smugly agree to themselves to KILL any possible re-creation of this page, and glad that they wont have to deal with that page ever again!) : (it is at bottom)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Excirial

    Final Deletion page Link (with extensive comments):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._nomination%29



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    bookburning come next! this is true nazi tactics!

  4. #3
    Look what they did to Irwin Schiff's book...if you buy it...they have to report you to the IRS because the info in the book is so damning to the IRS....true martyr for the cause.

  5. #4
    I predict that Dr. Ron Paul will be next...

  6. #5
    This is the first year in a long time that I didn't donate to Wikipedia, and it is precisely because of nonsense like this.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by HighlandMediaworks View Post
    Look what they did to Irwin Schiff's book...if you buy it...they have to report you to the IRS because the info in the book is so damning to the IRS....true martyr for the cause.

    What?????????? Are you kidding?

  8. #7
    And yet, most on this forum quote liberally from it, giving it some kind of whiff of credibility.
    When all else fails,
    there's always
    www.escapeartist.com

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance View Post
    And yet, most on this forum quote liberally from it, giving it some kind of whiff of credibility.
    Wikipedia articles quote their sources (which is why you should not quote wikipedia, but its not the worst thing in the world), if they don't, they get deleted. Wikipedia is not a monolithic entity we can hate either, thousands of people contribute to Wikipedia with their expertise.
    Religion is collectivism.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by IPSecure View Post
    G. Edward Griffin speech Tea Party Los Angeles 2007

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmt-BP_NWBc
    Here's an even better speech he gave about Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6zhIiGCvg

    Ed Griffin is also the founder of Freedom Force International: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
    Last edited by humanic; 02-23-2008 at 11:16 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance View Post
    And yet, most on this forum quote liberally from it, giving it some kind of whiff of credibility.
    I can't take a person seriously if they site wikipedia information as evidence to support their arguments.

  14. #12
    I am reserving judgement. Wikipedia has always been very good about free speech (to my knowledge), so I will await more information before making a decision. Until then, they get the benefit of the doubt.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Yongrel can post whatever he wants as long as it isn't porn.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by yongrel View Post
    I am reserving judgement. Wikipedia has always been very good about free speech (to my knowledge), so I will await more information before making a decision. Until then, they get the benefit of the doubt.
    you have got to be kidding. Griffin is a strong supporter of Paul and this is so blatently obvious......

    Have you watched "Fiat Empire?" look, I know you think truthers are wacko but Griffin is much more than 9/11 conspiracies.

  16. #14
    In his weekly newsletter Griffin said:

    "My listing in Wikipedia is being considered for deletion because some readers have labeled me a conspiracy theorist and a promoter of quack cancer cures. These people undoubtedly are well intentioned but suffering from a severecase of knowledge deficiency. If you are inclined, please go to the Wikipedia web site and enter a statement of support. Hopefully, there will be enough of these to offset the voices of ignorance. "

    http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

  17. #15
    I'm really torn on Wikipedia. On one hand, their political bias REALLY pisses me off. On the other hand, it's still the best site on the Internet, at least the one I spend the most time on.

    So, a while ago, I decided to stop contributing to it, not even to fix typos and vandalism I come across on daily basis. It was a hard habit to break, so I got my account banned by renaming the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" article to "List of scientists opposing the Global Warming hoax".

    Their loss.

  18. #16
    Whether you tell yourself you can or whether you tell yourself you can't... you are always right!



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    the ministry strikes again
    Dude, I'm rich! Check out this tin can! Uber wealth, ftw!

  21. #18
    Griffen also wrote World Without Cancer. www.vitaminb17.org
    "alternative" history, news, and audio archives: www.redicecreations.com

    cool stuff:
    www.radiorbit.com

  22. #19
    I don't see how Wikipedia can justify this deletion. Griffin is most certainly a lot more notable than many of the dopes that are featured on Wikipedia. He has authored and published over a dozen books, some of which are relatively well-known. If Porky Pig deserves a page on Wikipedia then Griffin certainly does.

    Also, one of the reasons they cite for deletion is that he is an alleged "conspiracy theorist". If that is a reason for removal then why do Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, Michael Tsarion and Jimmy Walter all have pages when they are supposedly also considered conspiracy theorists?

    Bah! Wikipedia has now lost most of my respect for allowing its administrators this kind of censorship power.
    "Truth will win in the end. We just don't know when the end is. So we have to persevere." ― Carol Paul


  23. #20
    Wikipedia has lost all credibility to me if this isn't fixed pronto!

  24. #21
    So, can you WikiGeeks translate for me? Does the following mean that 4 users have "put forth motions" to delete the page for him on Wikipedia? If so, I couldn't quite tell exactly why. It states that "this talk page was deleted." What does that mean?

    I use Wikipedia a lot, but I rarely edit or get into the inner workings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...edit&redlink=1

    This talk page was deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:

    * 23:29, 23 February 2008 Black Kite (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted article: Unpatriotic to delete it? Shame I'm not American then)
    * 17:40, 23 February 2008 Gb (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted article)
    * 15:47, 23 February 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G8), was a talk page whose corresponding page does not exist.)
    * 15:22, 23 February 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted article)
    * 14:50, 23 February 2008 Black Kite (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted article)
    * 11:03, 23 February 2008 Nihonjoe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:G. Edward Griffin" ‎ (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)
    Those who want liberty must organize as effectively as those who want tyranny. -- Iyad el Baghdadi

  25. #22
    The article seems to have been recreated and it is up for deletion again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._nomination%29

    Oddly enough though, most of the people commenting seem to want to keep it. Apparently the reason they want it deleted is that not enough "reliable sources" (mainstream media sources) mention or cover G. Edward Griffin's books, presentations, speeches and foundations.

    He seems notable enough to garner about 300,000 Google hits if you search his name...
    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=

    If being covered by the MSM is the requirement for a Wikipedia page, then we should worry about Ron Paul's page being deleted soon.

    Look at this person's reason for wanting it deleted:
    Endorse. The amazingly blatant sockpuippetry by the subject or his supporter aside, I've yet to see any substantive reasons beyond 'But dood, he's so totally the man now dawg! We gots to be all up in dat!' We haven't seen sources outside of his own little walled garden of the 'net, and I doubt we will. That we have seen promises of RS unfulfilled says to me that such sources do not exist, and will not. keep it deleted, keep it salted, and for heaven's sake, please IP block till this is over, they're all certainly socks of the same person or persons following an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    This person is alleging that all the people leaving messages in support of keeping the article are "sockpuppets" or a single user with many accounts. Remember the "spambot" accusations made against RP supporters in the beginning of the Revolution? People like Sean Hannity said that the only reason he won any polls was that his supporters voted over and over again.

    This is the same old crap again.
    Last edited by Expatriate; 03-01-2008 at 09:04 PM.
    "Truth will win in the end. We just don't know when the end is. So we have to persevere." ― Carol Paul


  26. #23
    Here is the archived page with the decision to delete Griffin's entry:

    * G. Edward Griffin Article was deleted in line with policy. No notability is established as there were few reliable sources cited. Reasons for overturning are not satisfactory. WP:SNOW is also worth taking into account here. — Save_Us † 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

    G. Edward Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

    "There is nothing so fearful as ignorance in action." [Goethe] It seems that ignorance has moved into action to delete the information by G. Edward Griffin. That is no surprise. Remember the 4 stages of any new idea: denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then it becomes intuitively obvious. Obviously, Griffin's ideas have been promoted to stage 3. Nothing new there, except it appears that Wikipedia is allowing censorship without requiring proof of error. --1215 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)1215
    — 1215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman Talk 11:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * It seems this page has been deleted by someone whose agenda is not NPOV. Reasons for deleting have included "not notable enough" (untrue: has published many many books), "self-publishing" (so what), "conspiracy theorist" (irrelevant and not neutral). Do we delete Oliver Stone because some of his movies have conspiratorial leanings? No. I do not agree with much of what G. Edward Griffin has to say, but that doesn't mean that I should delete his wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takometer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Overturn I'm looking at the notability guidelines and I don't see anywhere that it says reliable sources have to be in the article, only that they have to exist. I fail to see how anyone could search him up and not find his notability. He was one of the founding members of the Liberty Dollar organization, which has been in the news a great deal, his book The Creature from Jekyll Island is cited by various critics of the Federal Reserve, he was interviewed for America: Freedom to Fascism on the Federal Reserve, and he's brought up on several alternative health sites for his book on Vitamin B17 for cancer treatment. It seems obvious the article was nominated by and called for deletion by people who simply don't traffic in the field Griffin is notable in.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    * I don't see anywhere that it says reliable sources have to be in the article, only that they have to exist - That's a breathtaking bit of hairsplitting, there. But perhaps you could have brought these alleged reliable sources during the year between the article's first and second nomination, or, for that matter, at anytime in the last week you've been challenged to do so. Like now. Continued claims of reliable sources ought to be reality-based rather than faith-based. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * Endorse deletion — while there were a lot of "keep" arguments, none of them (as you can see in the nomination) were based on policy. The closest one came is an argument that "sources exist" — however, at no point were these sources produced, and indeed the exact same argument had been used previously as a reason for keeping the article, and the sources never materialized. There were a lot of peripheral claims of notability, but none which addressed our rationales under guidelines. This deletion review does not point out any error in the closing, and instead attacks the nominator while blatantly misunderstanding guidelines. Deletion review is not "deletion round two"; which appear to be the case here. --Haemo (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    * In the interest of truth and fair play, the page for G.Edward Griffin should be included in Wikipedia. He has published many books and is well known to a number of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth9898 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Truth9898 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    * Endorse deletion Notability for wikipedia comes from significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody in the AFD was able to point to such coverage and given that the article had existed since June 2005 without such sources being added it is likely they do not exist. The flood of single purpose accounts in the AFD were rightly discounted by the closer and did not produce policy-based arguments for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    * endorse deletion being interviews by others from the same fringe causes are not reliable sources. Allow recreation if actual independent, non-trivial, reliable sources are presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Overturn and restore - I never got a chance to see the article, but usually if we have a poorly-sourced article on a notable figure, we let the editorial process handle it. I have nothing but respect for Nihonjoe, but his suggestion that if an article fails WP:RS, it follows that its subject fails WP:V, is simply wrong. Overturn on the basis of good-faith misapplication of policy. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    * So, why is he wrong? An actual train of logic would be helpful here. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * Comment Just like the AFD it seems those in favor have a very vitriolic view of anyone who holds any conspiracy theories. I don't see how they can even be considered neutral. I pointed out several times that there are many sources which are available. I gave things that could be easily referenced. Searching the John Birch Society page for him will bring up several dozen results where his books are cited or he himself is brought up. It's not like I just said, "there are sources" and left it at that. I pointed out stuff that could easily be turned up in a basic search. Having just seen the Liberty Dollar page and how Griffin is connected to that as well, it seems the more I look the more sources I find to attest to his notability. It seems those who say they can't find sources are being incredibly selective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    o We have many articles about people who are fans of conspiracy theories such as Alex Jones, Lyndon LaRouche, Kent Hovind and Richard Hoagland. That isn't the issue. The issue is that we need reliable sources that talk about this man. For example, has ever been discussed in newspapers? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    * I think his positions kept some from approaching the article with a purely neutral perspective. The people you mentioned are undeniably notable, but a person doesn't have to be blatantly notable to be notable. In fact, part of the justification for deletion was also misplaced. Many argued self-published sources shouldn't be used but the policy actually says they can be used to establish notability. It seems the policy is being misapplied here. Never mind that just searching for the actual stuff mentioned in the article would let those questioning notability see exactly why he is notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * It seems those who say they can't find sources are being incredibly selective - So it ought to be simple enough to cite some of those, yes? And yet, you haven't, in favor of vague references to The International Journal of Because I Said So. So, how's about a few of those

    I didn't make vague references. I gave explicit subjects. The John Birch Society page is a "vague reference"? Are you saying you can't do a simple search on their site? Are you saying you can't type in the name of his organizations, films, or books in Google? Do you want me to name some to assist you? Accusing me of making vague references is just ignoring everything I've written so far.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * Many argued self-published sources shouldn't be used More hair-splitting: no, it says they can be used if they are "relevant to their notability," not to establish it. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    *
    o Yes, there is a dedicated group of Wikipedians who try to remove as much conspiracy-related material from Wikipedia as possible. That's no secret. Their favorite tactic is to claim that any source that would mention a conspiracy is necessarily unreliable because it mentions a conspiracy, and thus it's impossible for any conspiracy-related article to meet WP:RS. This interpretation of WP:RS is a sneaky backdoor way to get around WP:N; even where something is clearly notable with thousands and thousands of sources mentioning it, the thinking goes, if I think it's codswollop I can simply declare all those sources "unreliable." No policy on Wikipedia is as routinely and thoroughly abused as WP:RS. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse my nomination for deletion. I made its second nomination in large part because of its year-long unfulfilled promise of reliable sources Real Soon Now, and the massive wave of sock/meatpuppets flooding the AFD and trying to recreate the article has only confirmed for me the validity of that choice. Continued vague handwaving about how, no, there are actual reliable sources attesting to his notoriety, impact, notice and/or influence are out there, really, no, we mean it this time fail to convince (the comment, "'self-publishing' (so what)," certainly shows a basic misunderstanding of what's needed or desired). And the less said about the new made-up stories involving mindreading editors's motivations, the better. Put forward some actual, actionable reasons for overturning, or it's just pointless typing. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    o Upsidedownpiano (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)RESTORE!! - I cannot believe that this page is even being considered for deletion. He is a noted author, documentarian, and founder of various organizations including Cancer Cure Foundation, Freedom Force International and Reality Zone. He is the president of American Media. He has served on the board of directors for National Health Federation and the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends. Is any of this up for debate? His books sell on Amazon, you can easily find his biographical information on any kind of simple search. He's been interviewed plenty of times, one search of his name in google will produce plenty of interviews he’s had, one in particular that can easily be found is on NaturalNews.com. Is that source a "fringe cause?" You can't possibly say it's not independent, trivial, or unreliable. I completely agree with one of the previous posts that the more I search for him, the more credible evidence I find! He’s won a Telly Award for excellence in television production, he’s listed in the “Who’s Who in America” How are we quibbling over whether he has been discussed in newspapers (previous post). Simply entering his name in google elicits 315,000 results! There's been scores of people commenting on this forum with multitudes of sources of information including his books and films. Who or what, then, is considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia? There are plenty of lesser-known authors allowed on Wikipedia! I personally was introduced to him when he was a speaker at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival in Los Angeles. He is an incredibly enlightening individual and if it weren't for his newsletters, I wouldn't be able to find out about many (under reported) current events - his site provides links to all kinds of “credible” news sites such as CNN, USA Today, ScienceTimes, Financial Times, etc. And I can't even believe we would argue over the "conspiracy theorist" accusation. First of all, that title is COMPLETELY subjective. It is wrong to even disallow someone just because someone else has called them a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, that argument seems utterly non-existent. If one attempts to research G. Edward Griffin for just a few minutes they will discover an overwhelming abundance of information on his notoriety and impact. This is truly censorship if this man’s biography and work is not allowed on Wikipedia. Upsidedownpiano (talk) — Upsidedownpiano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * Endorse. The amazingly blatant sockpuippetry by the subject or his supporter aside, I've yet to see any substantive reasons beyond 'But dood, he's so totally the man now dawg! We gots to be all up in dat!' We haven't seen sources outside of his own little walled garden of the 'net, and I doubt we will. That we have seen promises of RS unfulfilled says to me that such sources do not exist, and will not. keep it deleted, keep it salted, and for heaven's sake, please IP block till this is over, they're all certainly socks of the same person or persons following an agenda. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * G. Edward Griffin is a dispassionate, professorial, writer and teacher, who only publishes after he has done significant due diligence. I recommend his writing as must reading for anyone who wants to learn about the Federal Reserve. His book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" should be mandatory reading in every high school, college and graduate school in the U.S. and around the world, not mandatory from a state-imposed viewpoint but from a moral viewpoint and in the name of academic freedom, etc. Griffin is a man of character, patience, self-control, and diligent research. He should not be dishonored by deleted from wikipedia. He should be honored for putting very important information out in the public domain so the average person can learn important items not taught in traditional schools or modes of communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonome (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) — Theonome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman Talk 11:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse deletion. The lack of reliable sources turned up during the AFD discussions seals the deal, despite the ardent claims of the flood of single-purpose accounts that have turned up for the disucssions. Policy says that reliable sources are required; if none are provided, then we have a problem and the article should not be around. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse my deletion of the article. Please be sure to also read the discussion going on here. I wasn't aware of this DRV discussion until now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse deletion. Looks like a perfectly valid decision to me given the lack of reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse deletion nobody has addressed the major problem here - namely that there is a lack of third party reliable sources. No amount of sock/meatpuppetry is going to change that. Hut 8.5 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    * Endorse deletion. Policy was followed here, whatever the contents of someone's hosiery drawer might say to the contrary. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    * Endorse deletion. Conducted in line with policy, whatever Lord Socky McSockson of Sockville Hall has to say. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
    "Truth will win in the end. We just don't know when the end is. So we have to persevere." ― Carol Paul


  27. #24
    Take a look at Google's cached version of the page from before it's deletion:
    http://saveall.org/griffin/gedgriff.htm

    And then compare it to the current version of the page which was recently added after the original page was deleted:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin


    The new page makes him sound like a real weirdo. He says that he is a "Crusader Rabbit"?

    G. Edward Griffin (b. November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, publisher, author, and lecturer.[1] While he underplays his documentaries on controversial topics like the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, cancer, and Noah's ark as the output of "a plain vanilla researcher", he also agrees with the Los Angeles Daily News characterizing him as "Crusader Rabbit".[2] Griffin's promotion and advocacy of Laetrile as a killer of cancer cells has not been accepted by the majority of the scientific community.[3]
    Here is the intro from the old version:
    G. Edward Griffin (born 7 November 1931) is an American political commentator, writer and documentary filmmaker. He has been involved as a founder and leader of a number of organizations in health, media, and politics of which the most prominent is American Media and Freedom Force International.
    I liked the old version of the page much better. It had many more citations and references, and didn't make him look so weird. Please help restore the page back to it's former glory by editing it if you have the time. Use the Google cache as reference: http://saveall.org/griffin/gedgriff.htm
    "Truth will win in the end. We just don't know when the end is. So we have to persevere." ― Carol Paul




  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    it's cool, they can turn wiki into the next digg.

    =irrelevant

    screw wikipedia.

    oh, btw

    are we sure that the deleters aren't sock puppets
    following some agenda?

    i'd suggest an IP ban until this thing passes (lol, stink finger)
    Dude, I'm rich! Check out this tin can! Uber wealth, ftw!

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by constituent View Post
    it's cool, they can turn wiki into the next digg.

    =irrelevant

    screw wikipedia.

    No, we can't let the enemies of freedom take over the internet one site at a time. We have to fight them using the mightiest weapon of all: Truth.

    Get a Wikipedia account if you don't have one, and re-post/edit the article every time they delete it or change it to make him look bad.
    "Truth will win in the end. We just don't know when the end is. So we have to persevere." ― Carol Paul


  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by HighlandMediaworks View Post
    Look what they did to Irwin Schiff's book...if you buy it...they have to report you to the IRS because the info in the book is so damning to the IRS....true martyr for the cause.
    Good thing I bought my copy directly from him at a personal appearance a few years ago (paid all cash).
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...d-on-hardfire/

  32. #28
    They also deleted Dave Champion's most excellent discussion on the Tax Honesty Movement.

    Do they have an agenda?

    http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm

  33. #29
    GRIFFIN IS BACK IN WIKIPEDIA!
    Last week my biographical listing in Wikipedia was deleted after being on line for about five years. The reason was that some of Wikipedia’s administrators do not like my view that there are hidden agendas in banking and government and they do not favor my advocacy of natural health without drugs. When I announced this in Unfiltered News, it triggered a wave of indignation that flooded the Internet and talk shows. Friends and supporters were angry that Wikipedia has no problem listing Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Dong, Al Capone, or even John D. Rockefeller’s father William Avery Rockefeller who, according to Wikipedia itself: “was a quack doctor and a confidence trickster;” yet, the editors found me to be so offensive that I had to be removed from the Internet lest my ideas contaminate the public mind. Then, on Friday afternoon, my listing suddenly was back, although drastically scrubbed to omit almost anything that might create a favorable impression. Gone is recognition of my participation on the Board of Directors of The National Health Federation and The International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends. There is no mention of The Audio Archives or my founding and leadership of The Cancer Cure Foundation, Freedom Force International, The Coalition for Visible Ballots, The Reality Zone, or Unfiltered News. Even my photo is gone. (Well, maybe that’s a good thing after all.) Of course, they were careful to let readers know that my works are “controversial” and that most doctors do not agree with my conclusions regarding cancer therapy. I have no objection to that because, basically, those are true statements, but I do object to their omitting the fact that there is massive support for my views and that there are several million readers of my works, which currently are published in five countries. All of that is true, also. Nevertheless, the bright side is that the outcry was sufficiently strong to at least cause my listing to be restored. That’s progress! Thank you for your support.
    http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html



Similar Threads

  1. Matt Collins' Wikipedia Page Will Probably Be Deleted
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 02:07 PM
  2. G. Edward Griffin
    By danberkeley in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 02:06 PM
  3. Wikipedia Deleted the moneybomb article!
    By Naraku in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 04:20 PM
  4. Ron's Wikipedia Photo deleted
    By foofighter20x in forum Bad Media Reporting on Ron Paul
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-16-2007, 03:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •