Talk:Jeremy Griffith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Bestseller"

The claim is made that the book "A Species in Denial" was a "bestseller" in Australia and New Zealand and the reference is simply a link to U.S. Amazon. This shows nothing about how many sales the book had in Australia and New Zealand. It's release was well publicised and it seemed to be in most large bookshops I visited at that time, but surely the claim that it was a "bestseller" requires some sales figures or a listing on a newspaper's Bestseller list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiescribbler (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Okay lads, this whole article is laudatory in tone. I am going to add the POV template and start trying to figure out what to do with it. I will also add a section in WP:COIN to alert more experienced editor to this.

I cought drift on it in WP:COIN where the article was mentioned with regards to newly caught sockpuppets of ErnestCarrot. It seems that this sockpuppet master was hired by Griffith's organization to push POV material into this article.

Then we have a problem of WP:N: a quick online search reveals that most sources on Griffith are from his own websites or various other promotional material. Non-affiliated sites usually speak of other Jeremy Graffifths. It seems that Mister Griffith and his organization sunk lots of money into advertising, including hiring the said sockpuppet master.

He might be also related to a fringe pseudoscience theory called "Human Thermodynamics". I am pretty sure his own (rather bogus sounding) theory about the "Human Condition" is pseudoscience, as he seems to pass it off as legitimate biological research.

Av = λv (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The page now seems fine to me, so I’ve removed the WP:POV template. A quick search on ProQuest revealed quite a lot of material on Griffith and have drawn on it to reinclude some of the unsourced content you removed.Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Quadrant Magazine unreliable source

Jlevi has removed the 2 citations to Quadrant Magazine based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269#RfC:_Quadrant_Magazine, which states that "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible". Please note the specific terminology: "generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible" (emphasis added). In this case, the source is used to support 2 factual statements: that Griffith was the subject of a Four Corners program; and that the NSW Court of Appeal found what was said of him was untrue. The author of the cited Quadrant article is Geoffrey Luck, a respected Australian journalist; and the article was a detailed review of the Four Corners franchise. Accordingly the article is clearly independent, verifiable, substantial and reliable. While Quadrant may be "considered generally unreliable", this is an example where it's use as a source is appropriate given the limited and uncontroversial nature of the facts it is citing and the credibility of the author, Geoffrey Luck (who himself was a journalist at the ABC for 26 years. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

POV

I just found this article when looking up the World Transformation Movement and, at a glance I could see that it has serious POV issues. The subject advocates very controversial views about science and politics and yet there is barely a word about critical responses to this. Instead it mostly reads like a set of gushing quotations from his various admirers and attempts to inherit notability from the notability of some of those admirers. That's all good stuff for the dustjacket of his books but not so great for Wikipedia. Are we seriously meant to believe that there is not some more controversy here? If not, I would question whether the subject is notable at all? Anyway, I'll tag for POV. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Agreed. I have just looked into one aspect of the article (relating to the defamation proceedings) and found that it inaccurately categorised the court's decision. I have amended but suspect there is a great deal more work to be done here. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: I’ve worked on your edit because there were some serious problems with it. Your edit that "The court noted, in a decision that was upheld on appeal in 2010 by the NSW Court of Appeal, that his work had no support from the scientific community and was of a poor standard" is, respectfully, a simplistic and inaccurate summary of the Court of Appeal judgment. As you noted in your footnote, the Court of Appeal found that "the view of the primary judge that the work is of poor standard to be a view that could reasonably be reached" and "the finding of the primary judge that the appellant’s work had no support at all from the scientific community has not been shown to be in error". However, and this is key, the Court of Appeal ruled that “the nature and scale”(89) of Griffith’s work was “not adequately considered by the primary judge”(90) and went on to find that while there were many unconventional aspects to Griffith’s work, such as Griffith “had no affiliation or association with a university or scientific establishment, had no recognition from a university or scientific establishment other than an undergraduate degree, had apparently not published in peer review publications, and had self-published the work under consideration, are not elements of the standard of the work itself, but are nevertheless factors counting heavily against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community. The circumstance that the work was a grand narrative explanation from a holistic approach, involving teleological elements, would also count against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community, without necessarily impacting on the standard of the work.”(91) Basically, it was ruled that unconventionality doesn’t in itself constitute poor standard. Consequently the defamatory meaning conveyed in the program was found to not be true: “I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out.”(95) The wording that was on the page prior to your edit IMO was an accurate summation of the cited article (which is a reporter’s critique of that court case in the context of other programs made by Four Corners). The Court of Appeal considered a number of issues but the relevant information for Griffith’s page is surely that (1) he didn’t win any money and (2) what Four Corners said wasn’t justified. In any event, that’s what the news report reported, so that’s what I included on the page. The cited article states: “While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment. As a reading of the decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2010/257.html will confirm, that was an unusual outcome. What was interesting was the difficulty the judges created for such future cases with their comments on the imperatives of Rev. Millikan and the producers. The judgment found that Rev. Millikan considered Griffith’s activities highly undesirable in their impact on his followers and their families, and by inference, the purpose of the broadcast was to set back these activities. Rev. Millikan had also engaged in misrepresentation to obtain Griffith’s co-operation in making the broadcast. But the purpose of the broadcast, it said, was to inform the audience; setting back the activities was not the dominant purpose; the misrepresentation was engaged in to enable the giving of information, not for any other purpose. Therefore, the publication was not actuated by malice. Evidently the appeal judges failed to understand the motivations of some investigative journalism projects, which from time to time clearly attempt both to inform audiences and to exert social and political influence.” I also understood citing directly from court judgements was bad editing policy (isn’t a judgment a primary source?) so I kept my original edit strictly to what was published in the cited article, but if citing the judgment directly is OK, then hopefully the edit I have now made is OK. Cabrils (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Since when are scientific questions decided by lawyers? Most of that crap is irrelevant legal mumbo-jumbo. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm seeing some serious problems here. There's at least one source cited which doesn't seem to exist, and the claim regarding the appeals court finding is directly contradicted by the source cited. Also, the appeals ruling (a primary source) is being cited to support text which is directly contradicted by the ruling. I altered both, but was reverted both time. I reverted the revert of the nonexistent source, as that's flatly unacceptable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @MPants at work: I appreciate your experience and goodwill, and I am certainly not wanting to engage in an editing war (which would be my first ever), but respectfully, what you’ve asserted here isn’t correct. Firstly, the Southland Times source does exist. I don’t know what access rights your ProQuest search has but I am seeing the article in full: https://imgur.com/a/qsBMB7F. I haven’t undone your removal of the content based on this Southland Times article but if you’re satisfied with this then you might reinstate it? Secondly, as I explained in my previous post, regarding the court judgment: the wording prior to Chocmilk03’s edit was based on a secondary source article (an independent, reliable, substantial report), and I have explained there my concerns about using a judgment (a primary source), but as I said, if other editors feel it’s OK to use the judgment, which ChocMilk03 did and introduced, then OK, but then please use the correct finding of the judgment, the relevant part being in both the summary at the start of the judgment at paragraph 11 (“The primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. Causation was not established and on that basis the defence of truth was not made out.”) and in the main judgment 95 (“…I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out”). Paragraphs 61 and 85 (which Chocmilk03 and you have referred to) are not determinative of the final ruling which, as cited above in paragraphs 11 and 95, held that the defence of truth was not successful. Chocmilk03’s edit misrepresents the judgment. Regarding the secondary source article (which I personally feel is the better source to use rather than the primary source judgment), please see the reporter’s summary of the case, which is consistent with what I’ve done in the current edit: “While the three judges agreed that the program had not been justified in claiming Griffith’s book was of such poor scientific standard that it had no support at all from the scientific community, Four Corners avoided liability when the Court upheld a defence of comment.”. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

    The screenshot of the article that you provided is good enough for me as far as verification goes: It might be a geographic thing that's available to you, but not to me. Before you revert me however, there's a question of WP:DUE. This is a shockingly obscure review, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article. However, if it's the only review of this book available, then I guess we can leave it in. However, if there are other, more prominent reviews available, I'd prefer to see one of those used, instead.

    Regarding the judgement; I've read through the whole thing, and I was not referring to paragraphs 61 and 85, but to the summary of the appeals court's ruling near the beginning, where it states clearly that the appeals court judge upheld the lower court ruling on the overall truth of the statement. Paragraph 95 is as I described in my edit summary; the appeals court judge is disagreeing with one aspect of the trial court judge's ruling. It's saying that the defense of truth as rested upon the specific question being addressed in that paragraph is untenable. Of course, the defense of truth did not rest upon that specific question, but upon several, others.

    I understand (and agree) that that criticism of the lower court's ruling is important to understanding the case, but as this is a primary source, we have to severely limit the ways we're using it. For the broad and simple statement that the finding was upheld, we can use it. To go further, into analysis by saying how and why the appeals court judge critiqued the lower court judge's ruling would be WP:OR.

    I'd like you to note the wording that Chocmilk03 used; saying that the work was of poor quality and that it lacked scientific support. It's very precise, and probably the only way to communicate the detail that the appeals court did not agree that the lack of support was necessarily due to the quality of his work. It's probably the best possible way to say it in as much detail as possible without getting into OR or just quoting the whole ruling.

    Regarding the secondary source over the ruling; it's entirely unacceptable; it's one of our perennially unreliable sources and is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting and highly biased and opinionated. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, where editors also pointed out instances of pure fabrication. It's the sort of source that, generally speaking, if it agrees with you, you're probably wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

    @MPants at work: – Southland Times: Yes, maybe our geography is the reason ProQuest is not displaying it for you. To be fair, the Southland Times is a regional newspaper but it’s of higher readership than a lot of sources I see being used around the place. Re WP:UNDUE: This review is one of several on the page, including one from Australia’s national newspaper. It’s just the source for the statement that was included. That book is from 2003 also, so it’s pre-internet. If I can find a better source I will.

    Judgement: OK, well again, respectfully, I suggest the judgment is not consistent with your interpretation. We are diving into some detail here but clearly it’s necessary.

    I’m not sure how familiar you are with Australian defamation law, but in a nutshell if a defamatory meaning is conveyed by a publication then a person can complain to the court, and the publisher has the opportunity to defend that defamatory meaning (by for example proving that meaning is true—see the current Ben Roberts-Smith case). You would have read at the start of the judgment under the heading “Headnote” that the defamatory meaning in this case was “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community.” As the judgment states shortly below that at (ii): In order for the publisher to defend that defamatory meaning, it had to prove all 3 elements: (a) poor standard; (b) no support; and (c) causation, ie that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard. And on that crucial issue of a lack of support being caused by a poor standard, the Court of Appeal ruled, that a lack of support was not caused by a poor standard: it ruled that “the nature and scale” (89) of Griffith’s work was “not adequately considered by the primary judge” (90) and went on to find that while there were many unconventional aspects to Griffith’s work, such as Griffith “had no affiliation or association with a university or scientific establishment, had no recognition from a university or scientific establishment other than an undergraduate degree, had apparently not published in peer review publications, and had self-published the work under consideration, are not elements of the standard of the work itself, but are nevertheless factors counting heavily against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community. The circumstance that the work was a grand narrative explanation from a holistic approach, involving teleological elements, would also count against the work receiving consideration and support from the scientific community, without necessarily impacting on the standard of the work.” (91)

    Essentially, the court of appeal ruled that unconventionality doesn’t in itself constitute poor standard; that it did was basically the logic that the primary judge used, and why the appeal court ultimately overturned the decision of the lower court on truth.

    The publisher (the ABC) had to defend all 3 elements, which it did in the lower court, and that (amongst other things) was what the court of appeal reviewed. I agree the appeal court did not overturn the lower court’s finding regarding (a) poor standard; or (b) no support, but it did overturn the finding of (c) causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard), and because of that, the overall defence of truth (that the meaning was true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community”) failed in the appeal court, ruling that “the defence of truth was not made out” (95).

    The point is that the ABC tried but ultimately failed to prove that what they said about Griffith was true. Basically, it was not held to be true that “Jeremy Griffith, who holds himself out as a scientist, publishes work of such a poor standard that it has no support at all from the scientific community”. So any statement that in effect says the opposite is false, is a misrepresentation.

    While the appeal court rejected and overturned the lower court decision on the defence of truth, it did not overturn the defence of comment, and it’s only on that basis the lower court’s judgment regarding the defence of comment stands. Your statement “clearly that the appeals court judge upheld the lower court ruling on the overall truth of the statement” is simply not correct.

    I agree with your comment that “the appeals court judge is disagreeing with one aspect of the trial court judge's ruling” – the appeal judges only needed to disagree with 1 of the 3 elements for the defence of truth to fail, and that’s what they did, they said the third element, causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard), wasn’t made out so the defamatory meaning wasn’t true so the defence of truth failed. You said “It's saying that the defense of truth as rested upon the specific question being addressed in that paragraph is untenable.” – yes correct. But where you say “Of course, the defense of truth did not rest upon that specific question, but upon several others”, that’s not right. The defence of truth rested upon all 3 elements and the defendant had to prove all three elements to succeed: (a) poor standard; (b) no support; and (c) causation (that a lack of support was caused by a poor standard). Again, in the final paragraph in the judgment regarding the defence of truth at (95), the appeal judges find: “…the primary judge set the bar for the relevant finding of causation too low, and his reasons did not adequately support his conclusion. On this element, I would give effect to my own view that causation (in the sense explained above) was not established; and on that basis, I would hold that the defence of truth was not made out.” Yes, “on this element” and therefore, because not all 3 elements were successfully defended, “the defence of truth was not made out.”.

    The appeal court did overturn the lower court’s finding that the defamatory meaning was true. That is the accurate summary of what happened. I have noted Chocmilk03’s wording (which is included in the defamatory meaning) in the live version: “the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court ruling that found that a lack of scientific support for Griffith’s work was because of it being of a poor standard, and so found that the ABC’s defence of truth was not made out”, with ‘because’ being the key element in the Court of Appeal’s ruling against truth.

    I personally don’t think, as you say “criticism of the lower court's ruling is important to understanding the case [and therefore is justified being included on the page]” and that’s not the point I’m making. I agree that using the judgment is problematic because it’s a primary source, and it’s also WP:OR. But if you want to use Chocmilk03’s wording, which says that the appeal court upheld the incidental (the one element) finding that (a) it was of a poor standard; and (b) (the element that it) had no support, then you have to say "but the court of appeal overturned the lower court’s finding that the lack of support was not (c) caused by the poor standard, and on that basis the whole defence failed (because to defend the defamatory meaning on the basis that it was true, all 3 elements of the meaning have to be proved true)". And that, IMO is obviously WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.

    So that’s why I have worded it as it currently is, which does use Chocmilk03’s wording of “poor standard” and “lack of support” and doing so doesn’t rely on the judgment and so avoids the problems of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.

    You don’t have to take my word for whether what I’ve said is an accurate summary (and as an independent editor you shouldn’t), but you should consider what Geoffrey Luck wrote in his article and how he summarised it. Which leads us to his article: Firstly, yes I’m aware of the issues you raise—please see my post above here on the Talk page from 2020 in which I specifically address the issue of Quadrant being a deprecated source. However, as the discussion about it that you refer to (and that I referred to in my 2020 post) notes, the consensus (not unanimous) was that it be rated 3 out of 4 on the crude scale of reliability, that it is “generally unreliable...should be avoided wherever possible” (not “4. Publishes false or fabricated information”). The article is written by a journalist (Geoffrey Luck) that worked for the ABC for 26 years as a senior reporter, it’s a highly informed article and a perfect example of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which is exactly the point made by RP (with whom I agree incidentally when he said “This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest”). The article is a critique of a pattern of history of ABC Four Corners programs that were found to be defamatory, one of which was Griffith’s. (And remember that the ABC had to pay out over $1million to Macartney-Snape for this program, and the ABC didn’t challenge that in the appeal court). For clarity, the RfC discussion editors did not, as you say, point out “instances” of pure fabrication but rather just one instance, that as Adoring nanny noted “even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle [the editor] seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.” which is why he proposed it be rated “2. Unclear or additional considerations apply”. This article is exactly such a piece. Again, please see my comments in the post above. Cabrils (talk)

    That is a big wall of text, and I haven't read it all, only skimmed it. Regarding the judgement, you're interpreting a primary source. The edit by Chocmilk03 simply repeats the summary of a primary source. Using a primary source is frowned upon, but interpreting it is downright prohibited. Which leaves me to wonder if the language sourced to a primary source and an unreliable one is even WP:DUE for inclusion. I'm leaning towards "no".

    As for the quadrant source, there categorically was no discussion. There was you making an argument for including it and no-one else responding. That's not a consensus, which you would need to use a deprecated source. Your "3/4" scale comment is a major distortion: The RfC about Quadrant found that it was not reliable for claims of fact and highly biased, and as I pointed out, outright fabrications had been noted in their writing. You can talk about the writer's experience all you want, but none of that would refute the claim that maybe the author ended up writing for Quadrant because he got fired elsewhere, or quit because he was dissatisfied with their unwillingness to let him print falsehoods. There is a reason we look at the publishers when we judge reliability. Nothing you've said here gives me reason to trust that this particular article is reliable.

    If you have touched upon any other topics, I didn't notice them. You may wish to keep your comments shorter in the future, as it helps keep discussions moving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

    @MPants at work: –I appreciate your patience, however, and with the greatest respect, I still fear you are not understanding what I’m saying and are unintentionally misrepresenting my position. I am acutely aware of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WPs in general. I have been editing since 2018 and actively contributing on AfD discussions for 2+ years. I have attended Wikipedia meetups. If you haven’t already, please see my history of constructive, appropriate editing. Our discussion here began because you believed I had fabricated a source (the Southland Times article) and after further investigation you’ve agreed that I did not fabricate it. If you would kindly consider carefully what I’m saying because I believe it is in a similar vein.

    I am absolutely not wanting to present WP:OR- I am arguing against presenting WP:OR; nor have I been wanting to rely on a primary source, which is why I have suggested using Quadrant (more about the Quadrant issue below). However, if a primary source i.e. the judgement, is to be used (which is what Chocmilk03 instigated), the critical point is that the edit by Chocmilk03 does not repeat or represent the summary of the judgment- her edit does quote from the judgment but the quoted section is not in context and, importantly, is not the ultimate finding of the judgment. The judgment found all sorts of incremental things but the relevant and ultimate finding of the judgment is the final 8 words of paragraph 95, which is the end of the judgment in relation to the defence of truth, and those words state “the defence of truth was not made out”. That is not an interpretation or original research, that is just the court’s ultimate conclusion as it is presented and as such surely would have to be included on the page.

    Please bear in mind I didn’t create this issue- Chocmilk03 created it when she decided to use a primary source, and having done so, she then cherry picked two incidental findings in the judgment and failed to include the final and actual conclusion of the Court which is that “the defence of truth was not made out”. If Chocmilk03 is allowed to include her highly selective out-of-context references without the appeal court’s ultimate conclusion, wiki readers will be misled into thinking the defence of truth was upheld by the appeal court, when in fact it was overturned!

    Again, I’m not advocating that we should be using a primary source but if you insist that we can’t use the secondary source Quadrant article, then we need to use a summary quote from the judgment and those final words “the defence of truth was not made out” are that summary. I can’t see how the current wording can be improved, made more accurate or more parsimonious.

    Regarding Quadrant, I realise you are busy, but I do think it would be constructive to read my 2020 post re Quadrant and what I’ve posted above in this thread because it just seems there is a misunderstanding here. The “discussion” about Quadrant I am referring to is the RfC discussion (of course my 2020 post above is not a discussion). The "3/4" scale is expressly what that discussion was about, I didn’t create it, Bacondrum created that scale when he created the RfC. Cabrils (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

    A couple of points:

    • Your defense of your editing experience is unnecessary; I have not suggested that you were a new editor.
    • I did read your comments above about Quadrant. They were not compelling.
    • You are still analyzing a primary source, and doing so in a way that runs counter to the source's layout and the normal readings of court rulings which I've seen and done numerous times, with rulings from a wide variety of English-speaking jurisdictions.
    • You seem to be misunderstanding the results of the RfC. The RfC did not conclude that Quadrant rated 3 out of 4 on a scale of reliability, but that the third option (that it's "Generally unreliable for factual reporting") was the result, with examples of option 4 (that it "Publishes false or fabricated information"). Note the final sentence of the close: As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

      • @MPants at work: – Regarding “analyzing a primary source”: I haven’t drawn the following to your attention before but please see the final words of the headnote, immediately before the bold, left aligned text near the top of the judgment (a couple of feet down from the very top):

        “In relation to (viii)—Costs

        (Per Hodgson JA, Basten JA and McClellan CJ at CL agreeing)

        (29) The appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, but that issue is not readily severable from other issues in the case, and did not add substantially to the costs of the case; and it does not affect the appropriate order as to costs.”

      And also the Conclusion at the very end of the judgement:

      “Conclusion

      149 Thus it is my opinion that, while the appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth, he fails on the issues of statutory qualified privilege and comment. The issue on which the appellant succeeded is not readily severable from other issues in the case, and did not add substantially to the costs of the case; and in my opinion, it would not affect the appropriate order as to costs. In my opinion the following order should be made: Appeal dismissed with costs.”

      With respect, there’s no “analyzing a primary source” in recording the concluding statement of the headnote and judgement proper i.e. that “The appellant (Griffith) succeeds on the issue of truth”. If there is to be any reference to the court of appeal judgment, it must state the conclusion that the court reached on the key issue of truth. I agree there shouldn’t be any analysis of a primary source so if we can’t agree on that conclusion material, maybe any reference to the court of appeal judgement should be left out, as you previously suggested. In which case the wording on the page would end with “Griffith was not awarded damages in relation to the Four Corners broadcast”. Possibly “damages” should be replaced with “costs” as that’s what the Herald article (an IRS source) states.

      Quadrant: This might be redundant now but I think we’re actually on the same page here. I agree that the community consensus of the RfC was that Quadrant should be considered “Generally unreliable for factual reporting”, and included examples of 4, as well as examples of 2. I agree with your reference to the final sentence - that is what I quoted in my 2020 post: “wherever possible”. I simply make the point that it did not state “in every single case and circumstance” but rather “wherever possible”; and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a point also made by others in that discussion. Cabrils (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ve now done a pretty thorough review of the page, removed anything inappropriate, checked sources, added a couple of new ones and done some clean up to the references. The page does contain criticism (from Clarke’s article), but I couldn’t find any new ones. I can’t see how the page can still be tagged POV. As far as I can see all the issues raised above have been addressed so I’ve removed the tag. Cabrils (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)