Talk:Jeremy Griffith

context

This really is an ancient debate that is being presented as something ground-breaking, and to which nothing of substance is being added. What is being added is rather questionable: paid-for youtube ads in which various people declare that watching the guy talk "changes everything" - without context, we are at risk of losing the encyclopaedic and getting lost in mass hysteria. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B1C5:1E95:9E6:61B9 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Please, Wikipedia really should be so much more careful with it's content: this is such an obvious pseudoscience presented as a ground-breaking discovery that I can't wrap my head around the fact that Wikipedia has "lurking around" stupid content about "scientific theories" like the content about Jeremy Griffith or his stupid hypotheses. I mean - even it it's own page it admits that the vast majority of the scientific community is not in agreement with his "theories": check Full History of Rejection of Jeremy Griffith’s Treatise | World Transformation Movement (humancondition.com).

I love science, I've been in scientific research (now I'm in IT) and I quite hate lack of coherence to any extent in any system, including the fallacies in his theories (promoting negative entropy - contrary to the accepted theories in physics... et caetera).

These paid ads by his pointless organization gave me headaches.

Everyone reading this: please help keep Wikipedia clean(er)!... :)

My biggest issue with this article?... Not respecting NPOV (Neutral Point Of View)!... I keep wondering if Wikipedia can ever be neutral - as it can easily be "attacked" by various activists giving here their misinformation! At least, if people could easily vote an article to be marked as "DISPUTABLE"!... :) (and if a number of people voted this, to give big alerts to the user of the potential arguability of the content :) ...)

PS here you can see quite a number of people pissed of by those paid ads (and the fallacies within his "theories" :) ... ): https://www.quora.com/How-good-is-the-science-in-Jeremy-Griffiths-s-treatise-on-the-human-condition

GodIsBlessing (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. These comments are so wrong, and frankly verging on abuse. In particular, your ridiculous assertions that Griffith’s work is “stupid” and “pointless” and “pseudoscience”. You claim to “love science”, but then effectively insist that your unsubstantiated opinions should be taken as fact by everyone else. Have you even read Griffith’s books? My opinion on Griffith’s work is that it’s the complete opposite of pseudoscience. If you’re interested in having a rationale debate about it, I’d recommend you to look at FAQ 1.10 at https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-is-this-theory-testable/, because it’s an in-depth treatment of all these questions about pseudoscience and the truth about Griffith’s treatise. In essence, science’s discovery of natural selection and genes allows us to understand that instincts are only orientations; science’s discovery of how the nervous system works, in particular that nerves are able to remember events, allows us to understand that the intellect operates from a basis of understanding cause and effect. These are two of biology’s fundamental tenets. What Griffith postulates is that because instincts are only orientations they must have resisted the intellect’s experiments in self-management, causing a psychologically upsetting clash.

Certainly Griffith’s insights are a product of inductive rather than deductive reasoning, but to claim that is not “real” science is absurd. As Professor Scott Churchill, a former Chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Dallas, writes in FAQ 1.10, “Griffith’s ideas have been criticized for not presenting the field of science with “new data” and “testable hypotheses.” But such a complaint is disingenuous since evolutionary processes are not subjectable to the same kind of “hypothesis testing” that one finds in the other sciences. An hypothesis is a “smaller, more compact thesis” that is “deduced” from a larger idea or thesis in such a way that one can test that larger idea piece by piece. Whereas, the kind of synthesis offered in Griffith’s book is presented both conceptually and metaphorically with an aim to tie together existing data, while correcting and expanding upon the more limited existing interpretations of those data…Such a perspective comes to us not as a simple opinion of one man, but rather as an inductive conclusion drawn from sifting through volumes of data representing what scientists have discovered”.

And in the introduction to Griffith’s main book Freedom, Professor Harry Prosen similarly points out that “Jeremy, like Darwin did with his theory of natural selection, puts forward a wide-ranging, induction-derived synthesis, a “grand narrative explanation” for behavior—which, incidentally, very wrongly led to both Darwin’s and Jeremy’s work being criticized by some for not presenting “new data” and a “testable hypothesis”; even for “not being science at all”!’. The www.humancondition.com website lists support from many other scientists. I appreciate these questions are contentious scientific issues and reasonable minds can differ, but to say Griffith’s ideas are not scientific is just resorting to personal abuse.

As is further explained in FAQ 1.10, “Beyond its logic, we can know the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition is the real explanation of the human condition because we can test it through our own experience as well as witness its extraordinary power to explain all aspects of human life. We also have history’s confirmation of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ elements involved in producing the human condition, to which Jeremy has added the all-important redeeming explanation of WHY the clash between those elements produced the psychologically upset state of the human condition. This critical clarification by Jeremy has been made possible by science’s recent understanding of the difference in the way the gene-based, naturally selected, instinctive learning system and the nerve-based, conscious mind’s learning system work, further confirms.”

Incidentally, Griffith’s recognition of negative entropy is far from unique to him. Erwin Schrödinger, who first proposed the concept of negative entropy, was a Nobel Prize recipient for his work in physics, and the concept is widely acknowledged in the scientific world.

Wikipedia articles are based on rules. If your suggestion was adopted, the validity of every article would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encylopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not people’s unsubstantiated opinions and abuse. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Griffith's ideas are pseudoscience. You can like them, but they are. His 'interview' with multiple minutes of hyping it up is a textbook example of trying to prime an audience rather than give the actual evidence, and when he gets to the actual 'research' it is severely lacking. The claim that people teach that human ancestors are inherently violent is just wrong - it's been understood for ages, well before Griffith, that humans are social creatures and as such developed compassion and love. Rather than acknowledge that, Griffith ignores it, constructs a straw man of the actual worldview, then criticises his made-up enemy for being incoherent, to then push his narrative with no examination of the actual theory. Not looking to get into that on a talk page, but to assert that his ideas have any substantive backing simply because he can criticise a straw man is absurd.

I'm not opposed to Griffith having a page, but including as much fluff as this page does feels more like advertising than Wikipedia should. It treats him like an actually significant figure when the reality is that he's a ten-a-penny self-help guru whose brand is in appearing significant. How much of this page actually meets Wikipedia's standards for notability?

NPOV matters. Quoting his political views and cherrypicked reviews of his books and supporters is not that. Wikipedia has standards

At a bare minimum I propose we cut out half of the the sections "Writings on human condition," and "World Transformation Movement," and merge them together as they cover similar ground with a lot of content unnecessary to an understanding of the man. I know, I know, I have no account, I'm a random IP etc etc, but it is really egregious to have such a thoroughly one-sided page for a figure that a lot of people are going to google due to his incessant advertising. 86.164.128.245 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you vehemently dislike Griffith's work is not a legitimate basis to attack and manipulate the content of the page.

Please see my comments above refuting the claim that Griffith's work is not real science. Inductive reasoning is a recognised, legitimate form of scientific enquiry.

Ironically, your criticisms and abuse are based on a complete misrepresentation of Griffith's analysis and position on existing theories of the duality of human behavior. Griffith does not say that we are not taught that we have a cooperative aspect to our genetic inheritance - what Griffith in fact argues is that the main scientific theories (eg Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Self-Domestication) maintain, in his view incorrectly, that human selfishness is the result of selfish instincts (see [1] | chapter 2 of Griffith's book Freedom]), even if there are cooperative instincts in the mix. The only one creating a straw man to attack is you.

Professor Scott Churchhill, who I quoted in my post above, a former Chair of the Psychology Department as the University of Dallas, said "I have recommended his [Griffith's] more recent work to my students precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright".

I agree Wikipedia is governed by rules, which Griffith's page evidently meets.

Your proposal to cut half of the sections "Writings on human condition" and "World Transformation Movement" and merge them altogether because "they cover similar ground" makes no sense, they don't cover similar ground at all. The Writings section is about his work, and the World Transformation Movement section is about the history of the organisation he founded and the defamation cases.

Again, the fact that you personally dislike Griffith's work is not a valid reason to manipulate the content of the page.

The real issue, clearly, is that the subject matter of the human condition is highly contentious. As Professor Harry Prosen wrote in his introduction to Freedom: "as my profession has taught me only too well, for most people, trying to think about this ultimate of questions of whether humans are fundamentally good or not has been an unbearably self-confronting exercise ... while Jeremy's work has drawn praise and garnered impressive commendations from some exceptional thinkers able to acknowledge his insights, he has, as mentioned, also had to withstand the enormous cynicism, indifference and even persecution that humans' historical resistance to engaging the subject of the human condition produces."

As I posted above, Wikipedia articles are based on rules. If your suggestion was adopted, the content of every page would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encyclopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not on individual people's unsubstantiated opinions and abuse. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you vehemently dislike This straw man in the first sentence will make people ignore the rest of your wall of text; the rest is probably just as invalid. The other IP is right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside - you'll note that at no point did I feel the need to attack your clear bias in Griffith's favour nor did I criticise inductive reasoning - let's focus on the two points of import.

A) Condensing the sections. The WTM exists to push Griffith's view on the 'human condition.' The defamation cases were against the ideas that Griffith pushes. When you cut the fluff (ie, repeated quotes more at home in an ad than an encyclopedia) there is very little actual content across both sections. Lists of people who support him are irrelevant. Tim Macartney-Snape for example founded the WTM with Griffith - surely it is sufficient to just mention that rather than trying to use him to buff up Griffith's credibility separately? And is it necessary to list the biographies of individuals whose own pages are literally linked?

B) "The content of every page would become a popularity contest about the subject rather than an encyclopedia, which is why Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources and not on individual people's unsubstantiated opinions and abuse." There is an unavoidable element of popularity contest to wikipedia - notability is the watchword here. Random articles that happen to have been posted one time and forgotten about by everyone outside of people especially focused on the one issue are not notable. People that did one thing and got forgotten about are not notable. Sustained importance matters. I am not convinced that the bulk of this article meets that criteria. Griffith is arguably notable for the WTM, but that doesn't make his every opinion and acquaintance significant enough to include. I am discussing paring down the article to focus on what actually matters as it is currently unnecessarily padded.

Yes, I have my own opinions on the guy, just as you do, but that doesn't make me incapable of gauging the adequacy of a wikipedia article. Is this a discussion you would actually like to have or will you respond to any and all criticism of the article with the insistence that it's just 'abuse' directed at Griffith because we're all too ~afraid~ to engage with him? 86.164.128.245 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The page well establishes that the subject meets the notability criteria, supported by reliable sources. The basis of your argument to trim the article, which are assertions of “pseudoscience” and “ten-a-penny self-help guru”, are not evidenced by reliable sources. And even if they were, they would have to be handled with special care to meet WP:BLP.

There is no practical limit to the length of an article as long as the content is based on reliable sources. What you’ve said about certain sources being “random articles” does not align with the guidelines.

You clearly have an adverse view of Griffith, which you are of course entitled to, however Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I would respectfully encourage you to be mindful of WP:BLP. Cabrils (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Those were not the basis of my issue with the article, merely a response to the other user. As I said, the article repeats itself and contains a number of claims that don't seem to be notable. Yes, I'm going to be critical of Griffiths in the talk page, but I have not proposed adding those statements to the article, merely paring down the unnecessary fluff. In line with BLPSELFPUB, BLP1E,

WP:BLPFRINGE, WPSOAPBOX, I am emphasising the fact that A) Griffiths is known primarily for his work, which is of the self-help genre (you can say it's based in science if you believe that, but so is a lot of purported self-help, his work is explicitly geared towards "the psychological rehabilitation of the human race" and is hardly a scientific journal. The purpose is clearly 'self-improvement'). This covers his books and the WTM. Until such time as an actual peer-reviewed scientific publication comes to light, I will treat Griffiths works as he himself does and as Wikipedia rules would have me - as self-help books and nothing more. B) There are people that follow Griffiths' beliefs but a list of every one of them would not meet Wikipedia's standards.

Specifically, then, I'm saying:

-It is not meaningful that Birch, Morton, Snape, Prosen etc happen to follow his work, on its own merits. Snape's inclusion is justified later given that he helped found the WTM, but the rest reads like advertising text taken from Griffith's own website. Like you say, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ditto, WP:UNDUE. It very much sticks out how much credence is given to pushing the credentials of select supporters and giving their words, while the one criticism given doesn't do the same legwork of quoting the even the minimal article (eg: "In Griffith's mind, such disagreement with Van der Post is magically transformed into evidence of a malicious desire to persecute him.")

-Random political musings ("Griffith argues that the ideology of the Left is regressive and might lead to extinction" and subsequent paragraph) from Griffiths are not notable and at the very least don't belong in the same category as his human condition writing given that the rest of the section focused on his books. A political category could be included if he's done more of significance in this area

-Some basic summary of his beliefs makes sense, but the article is not adopting WP:NPOV with the laudatory quoting of the same advertising hooks Griffiths uses on his site, while also quoting Griffith's false statements in regards to the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. Again, WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. (While you could argue this would count as original research - a fair statement - I would draw your attention to WP:UNDUE again, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I am granting you that this article ought to exist despite my own reservations but to give weight to Griffith's fringe theories on the basis of 'Most scientists have barely heard of him and those that have can't be bothered to write a direct response' goes against Wikipedia policy. Even if you take the point of view that he is correct, everything he states including his claims about evolution are his opinion and should be treated as such).

Again, while I may have an unflattering opinion of Griffiths the man, and am not going to pretend otherwise in this discussion, I am condemning the messy nature of the article. 86.164.128.245 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

All pages are perpetually open to improvement, however this page has a history of disruptive editing, including vandalism, hence my caution when I see proposals that are clearly motivated by a dislike of the subject rather than by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. As I noted above, your arguments to pare back the article are based on your highly subjective and adverse opinions, which you are entitled to hold but not to impose as though they were facts (e.g. that Griffith is a pseudoscientist), especially where there are no reliable sources supporting them. Such reliable sources would be necessary to evidence breaches of policies (WP:BLPFRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc), otherwise such accusations are purely WP:OR.

Conversely, the present content on the page appears to me to be supported by reliable sources and reads neutrally and cogently, includes criticism about “the empirical veracity of his anthropological writings”, and has meaningful sections that are relatively concise and on point. I’m not seeing any “fluff” or “mess”.

Essentially, you are wanting to impose your highly dismissive view of the merit of his work (for example, to strip out 4 named notable proponents of Griffith’s work despite there being RSs), by misusing policies which you evidently either do not understand or are intent on selectively misrepresenting. I would again caution you against such misuse and encourage you to carefully re-read the relevant policies. Cabrils (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that personal attacks shouldn’t be made, and that’s not my intention, but I do think it is important and relevant to highlight your animosity towards Griffith because it obviously is affecting your criticism of the page. So I’m not putting any weight in your characterisation of Griffith and his theories, I much prefer to trust in the opinions of qualified scholars like Churchill and Prosen.

Regarding your particular points:

-Peer review is not the arbiter of whether something is scientific or not (see the lengthy discussions above including about independent scientists like Darwin, who was an outsider despite being a brilliant biologist).

-Psychological implications and political views. Griffith’s work is focused on explaining the human condition, and he argues that psychological rehabilitation is just the important consequence of presenting that explanation (the article by Harry Prosen in the Montreal Review is titled “The psychological rehabilitation of the human race through understanding the human condition”). It does not mean that Griffith is a “self-help guru” or that his theories are not scientific. Similarly, Griffith’s political writings are not “random political musings” at all. They appear in the section titled “Writings on human condition” and if there are political implications of a theory about human behaviour, as Griffith argues there is, then surely such implications should be included. And they are sourced.

-Birch, Morton, Snape, Prosen. Making mention of notable proponents, or critics, and their relevant qualifications surely makes sense to include.

-I've read that article you refer to that criticises Griffith’s interpretation of anthropological writings, but the quote you suggest including is incredibly tangential and hard to comprehend. I don’t see how that helps the reader understand what that article is trying to convey beyond the summary of the criticism that is already included.

-Basic summary of Griffith’s theories. The existing summary seems comprehendible and pretty brief for an explanation of the human condition. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

it obviously is affecting your criticism Don't do that. If the other IP's criticism does not hold water, then refute it, period. The addition of snootily looking down on your opponent and saying "yuck, you have an opinion, keep it away from me" is neither necessary nor helpful to improving the article. It also raises alarm bells from experienced debaters who know that such things are primarily used by people who have nothing else.

Peer review is not the arbiter Nowadays, yes, it is. Darwin lived in another age when the methods of science were not as well-developed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

“Looking down on your opponent” has nothing to do with it, it’s about the need for objectivity. And I would suggest that the need for an independent thinking scientist like Darwin, has never been greater than now. Peer review points out that “innovative projects” or “radical or unorthodox projects” are discouraged by the peer review system, so it is wrong to say that only peer reviewed work is science; clearly the peer review system struggles with “innovative” science. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

it’s about the need for objectivity. Just accept the fact that you are not allowed to attack you opponent, only their reasoning. Your excuses do not matter.

clearly the peer review system struggles with Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and what is reliable is not decided by your fiat. You want to revolutionize science by replacing peer review, go do it where it actually happens. Do not start on Wikipedia, Wikipedia just follows. And you are misusing a Wikipedia Talk page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Every potential editor to this article has a bias. WP:NOOBJECTIVITY I am upfront about mine rather than trying to hide it - both for the sake of honesty, and to demonstrate the frankly excessive amount of leeway I am giving Griffith. I am quoting wikipedia rules for each proposal I am making. The following are simple objective facts independent of your or my personal opinion:

-Griffith's work is in self-improvement. Again, pretty much every self-help author is going to base their work in what they would argue is some sort of scientific understanding, but any underpinning is not the same as the text itself. I did not say to remove Griffith's qualification as a biologist, just to not misrepresent his text. His work as presented is self-help, based in his personal understanding of science, but still self-help.

-Griffith's work is fringe and does not represent a majority viewpoint. As such, his work falls under WP:UNDUE WP:NFRINGE WP:PROFRINGE. Whatever our personal opinions, wikipedia rules demand he be analysed through that lens.

.

I did not say to strip out four proponents of Griffith's work - for one, I said Snape was relevant due to his presence in the WTM. The fact Griffith has famous friends however does not seem to me to be in itself notable, especially in a section primarily focused on quoting glowing reviews. There is a clear imbalance in how the two sides are treated, with the pro side featuring glowing quotes often ripped from Griffith's own ads, while the anti offering one unquoted minor objection and not the fact Griffith was accused of dismissing objections as 'evidence of a malicious desire to persecute [Van Der Post].' WP:UNDUE seems very relevant. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement..."

My issue is that his work is given very clearly one-sided treatment. His straw man of the theory of evolution is left to stand, not as 'Griffith states that evolution implies...' but as 'Griffith rejects the [false claim].' Meanwhile, beliefs that would potentially paint Griffith in an unflattering light, such as the 'Deaf Effect' in which he states that anyone who rejects his work is just closed-minded and that no one could therefore have reasonable criticism, goes unmentioned. Meanwhile political beliefs whose sources are a) an article he wrote, and b) a now-deleted podcast get put up. My criticism is that this article feels like an advertisement that pads itself out with glowing testimonials from Griffith's own site where fully half of that section is dedicated to quoting his ads. Explaining his ideas and marketing them are not the same thing. WP:SOAPBOX 86.164.128.245 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, as I pointed out above, you misunderstand WP:UNDUE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NFRINGE. If the page was solely about competing theories of the human condition, then yes those policies may be more relevant. However, this is a biography about Griffith himself, so those policies are far less relevant (please carefully read the policies, and see my comments below). In this instance, WP:RS and WP:BLP are more relevant and so a reasonable summary of his theories may, and should, be included.

WP:UNDUE applies to articles about particular issues and subjects on which differing theories exist to ensure that "fringe" theories are not given undue weight compared with more established theories. In particular, WP:UNDUE states: “For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.” Griffith’s page is not about a subject on which differing theories exist, it is a biographical page about Griffith.

WP:PROFRINGE relates to articles that are solely about a "fringe" theory, and the need for reliable sources: “the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources”. Griffith’s page isn’t a page that is solely about a "fringe" theory, it’s a biography of Griffith the person. The next section in this policy, WP:ONEWAY, discusses the inclusion of "fringe" views in other articles: “Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.” So Griffith’s theories (whether they are "fringe" or not) may be included in his page as long as "independent reliable sources connect the topics [in this case, Griffith’s theories and himself] in a serious and prominent way", which the current page plainly does.

WP:NFRINGE relates to articles about a "fringe" theory, not to articles about the theorist whose notability is independently established, as Griffith’s notability is on this page, so this policy does not apply in the way you contend either.

The salient point is that Griffith’s article is a biography about Griffith. It is completely appropriate, in fact necessary, for it to include a reasonable summary of his theories about the human condition, as long as it is sourced from reliable sources, which it is: WP:RS, WP:BLP. Griffith has also expressed public views on a wide range of topics (such as political ideology and Australian eucalyptus trees) which have been recorded in reliable sources, and there is no reason why such matters shouldn’t also be noted on a biographical page.

In relation to your assertion that there is a “clear imbalance” on the page evidenced by what material is used from the Sydney Morning Herald article, on my reading that piece contains a lot of positive commentary about Griffith’s research that has not been included in the page, but arguably could be, so it seems to me that the current selection strikes a sensible balance. Cabrils (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

World Transformation Movement

How is the World Transformation Movement funded and does the author of the Griffith article have financial ties? They seem to be advertising heavily on social media.

Beats me but I second your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:30A1:F00A:F51:6ADE (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Prophet?

"Unhappy at being portrayed as some sort of diety he is nevertheless quite comfertable with being called a prophet..." In the bulletin article https://images.wtmfiles.com/1998-05-21-TheBulletin-HigherGround_WEB_909x600.jpg

Him being noted as being a self styled prophet and his explicit denial of founding a cult would make the rest of the article more sensicle and makes quotes like "…I have no doubt Griffith’s explanation of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychological rehabilitation of the human race." more understandible from a certain perspective.

But "Jeremy Griffith (born 1945) is an Australian biologist, self-styled prophet and author." sounds mildly defamatory. So I'm unsure how to intergrate it properly.

2A02:A457:558:1:841C:AB9D:D0A6:4D2D (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In the circumstances, I think the use of a contentious polysemous term like “prophet” needs to be handled very carefully, as you say, given the attendant risk of it being defamatory. WP:BLP is very clear that biographies of living persons need to be edited with particular care and a high degree of sensitivity: “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures”: WP:NPF. Where a public figure is accused of an allegation, their denial of it should be included (WP:BLPPUBLIC).

And so, where a word like “prophet” is proposed to be added to a biography of a living person, it is necessary that the subject’s views about that be included. Many, probably most, people would consider a prophet to be a deity or figure of reverence or a religious figure, which tends to connotate delusions of grandeur etc, as your draft (“self-styled prophet”) unavoidably infers. As is clear in the Bulletin article, Griffith does not consider himself such a figure at all, so any use of prophet has to fairly and accurately context and reflect Griffith’s secular usage. With that in mind, based on the Bulletin article source, I’ve added what I think is a fair, acceptable, non-defamatory reference to prophet.

Finally, I note that “prophet” seems to be almost absent in the RSs, so the guidelines around undue weight [WP:UNDUE] limit how much material should be included in the article about prophet (but, as explained above, what is included must adhere to WP:BLP). Schnitzelking (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. 2A02:A457:558:1:90B7:627B:4A18:CAB5 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Harry Prosen

I recently saw a string of YouTube ads and this website page https://www.humancondition.com/professor-harry-prosen/ which prominently show Harry Prosen as a supporter. Is this legit? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

More relevant here: Does anyone have WP:RS on it? Does not look like it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Prosen’s support of Griffith is evidenced in (at least) the |Sydney Morning Herald, and the Montreal Review, which are both in the article. He also wrote the foreword to Griffith’s book Freedom. Cabrils (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Relief hunting"

Never heard of it, and couldn't find a definition on the net. This needs explaining. 77Mike77 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)