Talk:Michael D. Griffin

message: Seems a major witch hunt is under way at NASA... how do we reflect that ?82.120.116.121 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Monday

message: STOP SHOVING OPINIONS DOWN THE READER'S THROAT.
By explicity praising Dr. Griffin, this article shames Wikipedia.  Encyclopedias are about FACTS, not FACTUAL IMPRESSIONS.  DO NOT evaluate the worth or value of specific achievements.  DO NOT compare parallel information to make a point, qualitative comparisons are ALWAYS POV.  DO NOT stack the data to present your opinion.  STOP WRITING POV!
I like Mike Griffin as much as the next guy.  One of my professors is an acquaintance of Griffin and has related to me his own favorable impressions.  But PLEASE leave these opinions out of encyclopedias.
This is fucking pathetic.  Too many Wikipedia bios read like Newsweek articles rather than Britannica entries.  At least Newsweek doesn't pretend to be a reference.  User:Xmnemonic
No kidding - this sounds like it was pulled off his NASA bio page, and then made even more positive. And wasn't he head of the SDI program for a while? Grahamdubya 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not very specific, but I edited to remove POV-vio statements and include more critical points of view. There are still some quotations from other experts about him that are quite positive, but those are factual reports of statements by those people, who are independent of NASA and the government, which are only fairly representative - newspaper articles about him have included positive comments by a lot more people. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP TRYING TO IMPRESS THE READER WITH PEACOCK WORDS 

message: Can the Neutrality Disputed header be removed? There's no discussion going on at all. Are those who disputed the article's content satisfied now? Honestly, questioning the NPOV merely because a "lifelong Republican hack" wasn't shown in a negative light is lugubrious. The author of the article deserves better than this. --Curmudgeonry 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Resolved 

message: The following is text deleted from the article, as there are no "published" sources to back up the claims. E-Wire articles don't count as acceptable sources, as E-Wire is only a press release agency, and the articles are not published in a third-party news source. --Amit 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished statements on climate change 

message: I removed this passage
:In 1993, Michael Griffin wrote a letter criticizing problems in the design review process for the International Space Station, problems that the Clinton Administration and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin ignored, resulting in design changes that set the International Space Station program back several years.
and I think it should stay out of the article until there's a source. It's certainly interesting and relevant material, if it can be supported in reliable sources. I, for one, would like to hear more. But it's contentious, and unsourced, and WP:BLP is quite clear on such matters: that kind of thing should be deleted. Yakushima (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP policy vio 

message: It seems that a number of references to Griffin’s involvement in the SDI program were added by a single user a few months ago. None of them are cited, and a cursory search wasn’t able to find anything to corroborate it. I suspect these regencies should be deleted. 2607:FEA8:1FE1:F100:C991:B30:F05:CDB8 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited SDI/Brilliant Pebbles Involvement