This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G. Edward Griffin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
My edit which attempted to make the preamble more neutral was reverted. The claim that Griffin's theories have been debunked comes from the book Pranksters: making mischief in the modern world. As many people in this talk page have pointed out the book cites no actual evidence against Griffin and just says his theories are silly. I have not seen anyone who cites this book actually explain why this is a credible source to use especially as there isn't even any specific page citations given. I would like to challenge the people citing this source to explain what evidence McLeod actually gives to debunk this theory instead of the dismissive response which they have given to multiple people already. King of Crimson (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's multiple sources that have rejected Griffin's theories - again, look into the article talk pages. Yes, you can find a (very) few people that think his views have some validity, but the vast majority dismiss them. Presenting the views as anything other than what we do today violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Again, there are multiple prior discussions in the archives going back years. You don't get many responses because this HAS been discussed over and over and over and over. And over. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a response.
I would like to first point out that the preamble which my talk page was about uses only this one Pranksters book as a source for the claim that Griffin's theories about the federal reserve have been debunked. As I've shown in your talk page this source has no evidence to debunk Griffin's claims. People bring this up over and over again as they've raised this same point and none of the people who oppose Griffin's theories ever are able to explain why this source disproves it or provide a better source.
However I'll address a few of the other sources used to debunk Griffin's claims regarding the Federal Reserve[he's most known for this and Laetrile but I'm not too versed on this topic and discussions surrounding this so I'll leave that to someone else to discuss].
Looking through the article many other sources seem to come from the criticism section. I'm fine with having this provided equal space is given for praise of Griffin though I'll discuss what's being said here anyway.
Flaherty's article is essentially a claim against a claim. He never cites anything to show that those who met at Jekyll Island wished to create the Federal Reserve as a genuine economic remedy. This is compared to Griffin who quotes Aldrich as saying the federal reserve was “not a bank but a cooperative union of all the banks in the country for definitive purposes.”[Creature from Jekyll Island Page 19] e.g a cartel and "Before the passage of this act the new york bankers could only dominate the reserves of new york. Now we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the country.”[Creature from Jekyll Island Page 20] It should be noted that Aldrich was an investment associate of J.P Morgan.
He also states that "The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed." though contradicts himself a paragraph later by saying "Although it was defeated, the Aldrich Plan served as an outline for the bill that eventually was adopted." which Griffin agrees with as he proves the Glass bill was just a dressed up Aldrich bill.[Creature from Jekyll Island Pages 463-4] Flaherty's point that the Fed "wrestled control" from the cartels is wrong as the plan was always to have the appearance of decentralisation whilst control was done from the federal reserve board [Creature from Jekyll Island Page 439]which Vanderslip who was at Jekyll Island admitted.
Contri-Brown makes this same error with the misunderstanding of the Glass bill which I have addressed above. He also admits on Page 10 that Hoover believed the depression was caused by the fed and even agrees that the New York branch was to blame.
Catsoulis just makes the claim the book has been debunked. The source cited for this [1] calls Griffin an anti-semite yet there was no reference at all to Judaism in the book. If Griffin did write the book to be anti Semitic then he certainly would have brought this up in regards to Warberg who he states to be the mastermind behind the Fed's inception[Creature from Jekyll Island Page 17] but he doesn't.The Rough articles are not even about the federal reserve but about the second bank of America.
I'm fine with having this provided equal space is given for praise of Griffin That is not how Wikipedia works. We follow where reliable sources go. If they do not go where you want, tough for you.
And what is a reliable source? I've just addressed all the sources used. This is what I've said before about certain people on this page being dismissive. King of Crimson (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the Pranksters book which simply describes Griffin's views as 'nutty' without any evidence? That is all which is written about Griffin in the book yet the editors on this page simply ignore this when it is brought to them.
I've addressed all the sources used which "debunk" Griffin and yet no one has countered me. So I'll repeat the challenge I gave at the start of this topic:
That'll be a total waste of time. Third opinion is for disputes between two editors. We are, if I'm not mistaken, a foursome - we could do a square dance? Also, where is the edit war of which you speak?- Walternot in the Epstein files Ego18:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources are used too, and until reliable sources also have your analysis, only they will stand. Wikipedia is like this (I like to provocatively call it "by necessity an echo chamber of reliable sources") because it is an objective standard that eliminates a lot of devolving into Reddit comment threads on which side is right: It is far easier to count the number of reliable sources in support of something than argue it. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But then it seems like Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself if it relies on consensus rather then factual evidence. I've argued against all the sources which "debunk" Griffin's federal reserve theories and the only counterpoint in this talk page seems to be that many people have chosen to ignore my arguments. Not a single person has presented any sort of rebuttal against my points and just sort of talk past me.[Also I've called this an edit war because I was told I was edit warring which can be seen on my personal talk page] King of Crimson (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point you made in your first post, The claim that Griffin's theories have been debunked comes from the book Pranksters: making mischief in the modern world, has been refuted. As more than one person has said in this discussion, there are multiple reliable sources making this claim. They are just not cited in the introductory paragraph. There is a whole section in the article explaining and describing how his theories have been debunked. --bonadeacontributionstalk09:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I've explained above why all those sources don't debunk Griffin's claims which seems to have been ignored. Additionally, the preamble only uses the Pranksters source which is why I've attacked it so often.
Even if you believe that Griffin has been debunked this source shouldn't be used and one of the "stronger" sources should be in it's place. There's been no reason given to justify why Pranksters should still be cited for this page. King of Crimson (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an echo chamber of reliable sources as it only accepts reliable sources instead of original discussion; it prioritizes factual evidence over consensus, not the other way around.
To summarize parts of WP:Verifiability: We trust books from publishers reputable for fact-checking what they send out, unless there's other evidence to the contrary, like scandals involving the author, patterns of malpractice in the publisher, or other reliable sources that say conflicting things. This University Press book does say that it is debunked, therefore it is usable to say it is debunked, unless you can present the unless-es I've mentioned.. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And have the publisher of Pranksters published the sources they've used for this supposed factchecking? Because otherwise the claim that Griffin's theories have been debunked is still unverifiable in addition to being unreplaceable. King of Crimson (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—it has 24 pages of notes and 22 pages of bibliography, a typical proportion for a scholarly book—and even if they didn't, they're assumed to be reliable as University Presses perform peer review on books they publish; in such cases Verification should be available through emailing the University Press.https://library.cityu.edu/researchguides/evaluate/peerreview has more information on the peer review that UP books go through. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see so please provide me with the specific sources that has been cited which proves that Griffin's claims about the federal reserve are false. I don't think this will be hard for you to do since you seem to have the book to hand after all. King of Crimson (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you CTRL+F 'Griffin' then you'll see there is only a single passage about Griffin. The author just calls his theories "nutty". His only source cited is just a quote from the reviews on the back of Griffin's own book from Ron Paul which says it is a "Superb analysis" which McLeod has just cited to prove that Paul supports the claims in the book. Clearly what has happened in this book is that McLeod has presumed that Griffin is wrong without doing any research to debunk him as there are no sources cited to disprove The Creature from Jekyll Island.
Therefore there is no reason why this source should be used. If you claim that the Publishers have done additional research to fact check McLeod's claims which appear outside of the book's contents [as I've proved it contains no sources within the book to demonstrate that Griffin is incorrect] then you will need to show where this can be accessed. King of Crimson (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the claims have individually been looked at before in that chapter. For example, with just Griffin’s book is laced with standard-issue references to the Council on Foreign Relations, you go to the index and look for "Council on Foreign Relations", whereupon you find it appears on page 171 cited by note 42, which references a specific page of Pipes's _Conspiracy..._ which you may find in the Bibliography, as well as pages 177–178 cited by note 55, etc.And as I mentioned above, if you really confidently believe the source isn't there, you may email the NYU UP for verification. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what is said about the federal reserve. The index states that it talks of this on pages 159,177,178.
On Page 159 McLeod writes about theories that the Federal Reserve was created by Marxists in the Wilson administration or Jews. There is no reference to Judaism in Griffin's book. If Griffin wanted to write a book which bashed Jews then he would have brought up Warberg's judaism especially since he attributes the creation of the federal reserve to Warberg but he never does. While Griffin does bring up Marxism in his work he never accuses anyone in the Woodrow Wilson administration of being a marxist.
Page 177 speaks of Carroll Quigley who Griffin does use as a source.One of McLeod's sources for this is this article: https://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm . Firstly it claims that the book was not suppressed as it was constantly checked out of libraries and never returned. This seems an unlikely claim especially since it is not backed up by any evidence. It also claims that there was no suppression of Tragedy and Hope but Quigley himself said that the book was suppressed as he was said he was lied to for 6 years and was told that the book would be reprinted if it received 2,000 orders but the publishers told anyone who asked that it was out of print and would not be reprinted so it could never happen.The plates for Tragedy and Hope were also destroyed which Griffin was able to get Paul Wolff who was Quigley's lawyer to confirm.[Creature from Jekyll Island Page 269]. Tragedy and Hope was originally published by MacMillan publishing who suppressed the book and the second volume was only more widespread when it had a different publisher which the author mentions is Collier Books so the author of the sources' claim that there was no suppression is a lie.
Quigley also talks about the new world order but never denies Skousen's claim that there is no conspiracy just that "I never called it a conspiracy and don’t regard it as such.” so he never denies being part of this group and does not deny the existence of this group which is reflected in Tragedy and Hope [Page 949-950]. McLeod then writes that Quigley "was actually describing a web of corporate and nongovernmental bodies, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and J. P. Morgan, which sought to “coordinate the international activities” of commerce and governance. ".If what McLeod is admitting to existing here isn't a conspiracy I don't know what is as it's a group of people who wish to form a cartel to control the world. McLeod has slipped up and admitted that there is a conspiracy in all but name only.
Page 178 only mentions the Federal Reserve amongst things conspiracy theorists theorise about it doesn't debunk anything.
You are not addressing what I'm saying. The conspiracy theories the book advances are listed during the paragraph and the book individually says elsewhere why they aren't true. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu I disproved in every page in the index why McLeod has failed to debunk the conspiracy theories about the federal reserve. Please provide me with a page[other then 159,177 or 178 as I've already addressed these]where McLeod disproves theories regarding the federal reserve.
Also Ravensfire you've said me critically looking at the source and the sources which McLeod has cited is doing original research. Would you rather me mindlessly take the author's word for it and not check their sources? I don't think this is a good way to engage with the spread of information. King of Crimson (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So I have one guy here saying that if I email the publishers and clarify the supposed hidden sources they used to fact check this book I'm doing my own research which isn't allowed yet I have another person saying to do just that.
Aaron it is very clear to me you are dodging my questions because you can't give me a page in this book which actually debunks Griffin's claims. You moved the goalposts from the book and it's sources about Griffin to the other pages about the federal reserve to some supposed secret sources which the publisher fact checked it against. You admitted that you don't even own the book in question and only read any of it when I linked you a pdf of it which calls into question why you are still arguing here.
I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in me still arguing here because everyone talks past me, never refutes or even acknowledges my points and then reverts my edits as if they did. I was threatened with a page ban by an admin earlier for not reaching a consensus yet how can I do that when everyone here is refusing to engage with the discussion? King of Crimson (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it seems like Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself Correct. Wikis are not reliable sources because some user could always put their own ideas there when nobody watches. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the article's only source for the fact that his theories have been debunked. It happens to be the source placed by that claim in the introduction, but the section "Conspiracy theories and fringe science" cites a range of reliable sources. (Of course, we might all think that there's no need to say that his claims are debunked since they are too preposterous to be believed in the first place. But apparently some people have believed in his theories, and Wikipedia is a good place to present the actual facts about them.) --bonadeacontributionstalk17:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
