Talk:David Ray Griffin

message: 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)
thread_title:  More Theology  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voice-morphing claims 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Book: Different forwords to 'New Pearl Harbor'?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long, very detailed interview with Griffin 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy Section - From theologian to conspiracy theorist 

message: I removed this text with edit summary "not in source".  reverted. Pls indicate where this is in the source? thx, Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a mistake and reverted. Sorry. Philip Cross (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'and joined the [[9/11 Truth movement]] in calling' ?? 

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

message: This article seems remarkably well looked-after, at least in regard to the conservation of its insults. (The external links, for example, still haven't been corrected – see immediately above.) My "uninsulting" edits were reverted in two minutes flat, as the recent removal of Cross's list has now also been (though without correction of the obvious error in the first sentence, which I've since handled). My suggestion remains that the list be maintained, but moved to a more appropriate place at the Aaronovitch paragraph in the 9/11 section. Griffin wrote me in this regard on September 26:
:In my 2010 book, I gave a ‘consensus’ view, stating that there is no consensus about “what hit the Pentagon," but there is agreement among 9/11 scholars that "regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon was not struck by AA 77 under the control of al-Qaeda.” Phrased more generally: the Pentagon was not struck by a 757 airliner being piloted an al-Qaeda pilot. ("The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach”, Chap. 7 of 9/11 Ten Years Later (2010.)  
:On the WTC: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth now has over 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed a petition stating that the official account of the World Trade Center buildings, according to which they were brought down by fires resulting from airplane attacks, could not possibly be true. AE911Truth was founded in 2006 by architect Richard Gage, who, as Wikipedia pointed out, "became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers after listening to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.”
:Recently, a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7.” The authors wrote: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse.”
I accordingly drafted and now propose the following revision of the paragraph:
:Griffin has been described and criticized as a conspiracy theorist.Sources which describe David Ray Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist", "conspiracist", "conspiracy nut", or otherwise associate him with 9/11 conspiracy theories include:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  David Aaronovitch in the London Times in 2008 wrote: "Griffin believes that no plane hit the Pentagon (despite hundreds of people seeing it) and that the World Trade Centre was brought down by a controlled demolition. There isn't a single point of alleged fact upon which Griffin's barking theory hasn't itself been demolished."  Griffin and others have disputed both points of this particular criticism. On the Pentagon, Griffin has claimed a consensus among 9/11 researchers that "regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon was not struck by AA 77 under the control of al-Qaeda." On the World Trade Center, AIA architect Richard Gage, after listening to a radio interview with Griffin in 2006, established Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which now has over 3,000 professional architects and engineers disputing the claim that the WTC buildings were brought down by fires resulting from airplane attacks. Griffin's view is further supported by a recent study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, whose authors wrote: "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse."
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)
thread_title:  Proposed repositioning of critical references 

message: @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)
thread_title:  Whether the section on Griffin's philosophy and theology work was mostly "original research"