Talk:The Granada Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Granada Forum article.
Article policies
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

Anyone know what this is? I can only find lectures which were held at it. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Created article with more info, which is being challenged by some anonymous user, 68.239.79.97 (Talk), who doesn't give any discussion as to why the article should be deleted. The Granada Forum's credibility is already established simply by the guests it has hosted (whose credibility has also been in question and yet is still on Wikipedia). -Eep² 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to establish notability, and the author has not provided any ... without them, this is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy.

The author has removed the {{db-inc}} tag twice without offering any real improvements to the article, so I have restored it ... read WP:3RR and do not remove the tag again. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is enough credibility for this article as there is for the past guests of The Granada Forum as mentioned in the article. You're an anonymous vandalizer. Get over yourself. Your talk page is riddled with people contesting your "contributions". -Eep² 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion. —68.239.79.97 20:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You must be new to conspiracy theories and its coverage in the mainstream media (so-called "reliable" secondary sources) is a misnomer. Obviously, these subjects are going to be controversial and challenging to one's beliefs. Regardless, why should an anonymous user be allowed to challenge anything without providing reliable sources/credibility for his/her own identity? Do you see they hypocracy in that, 68.239.79.97 from Washington DC? -Eep² 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, there is no difference between an anonymous username and an IP address. That isn't a valid argument. Second, the website itself doesn't corroborate any of the speaker claims made in this article. IrishGuy talk 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, are you blind, IrishGuy? Look at the forum's past guests and see for yourself. No, they don't have all the past guests there, but look at the Google Video: Granada Forum presentations for other guests. It helps to actually browse the included links in the article, you know... -Eep² 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Civility helps, too. The guests listed in the article (David Horowitz, Mike Ruppert, David Icke, Cathy O'Brien, etc.) aren't corroborated on the website. At all. Nor does the video link corroborate those names. Obviously, I did use the links that is how I know these things. :) IrishGuy talk 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you're freakin' blind. This shows Mike Ruppert (as does the LA Weekly article mention his appearance at the Forum, which I added to the article ~10 minutes ago). I'm not sure why the O'brien (and Mark Phillips) video doesn't show up in the Google Video search, but it's there and it's hard to miss the big "THE GRANADA FORUM" on the front of the podium...<eyeroll> As for the others, Icke, Riley, and Horowitz, I'm working on it...but I have little doubt they did appear there. Why would the Forum lie? That would just be stupid. -Eep² 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A single short piece in the LA Weekly is really enough to establish notability. The list of speakers doesn't establish notability either. The guideline for notability of organizations is at WP:ORG. Have any other periodicals profiled this group? -Will Beback · † · 22:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of speakers establishes notability in the sense that why would so many people of a particular niche (in this case, conspiracy theory) even bother attending a forum if it wasn't popular? How popular does something have to become before it's considered "notable"? Notability is relative--and, relative to this field, The Granada Forum seems notable, just as Art Bell's AM radio show is notable as a forum for conspiracy theorists et al to be interviewed and present their information on it. And if being mentioned in a Report by the California Senate Office of Research: TACTICS OF CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-GOVERNMENT EXTREMISTS (regarding one J.J. Johnson address of "150 militia members, Patriot movement supporters and onlookers" on September 4, 1997) doesn't establish notability, I don't know what does. -Eep² 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That CA State document just mentions the Granada Forum in passing. It doesn't tell us much of anything about the group. It says that the audience was composed of "150 militia members, Patriot movement supporters and onlookers". While we might use that as a source for the membership of the group, it doesn't indicate that the group is notable. As for speakers, it is ridiculous to compare a nationally-syndicated radio show with a local group that meets in a church. To be "notable" something has to be "noted". That's why we're asking for 3rd-party sources that focus on the group. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Noted how is the question. I can note how I went to the bathroom on my website. Does that make it notable? Sure it does--mostly to me though (and maybe my doctor). Again, notability is relative. Anyway, I just found this too: according to this site, it references: ADL Fact Finding Report, "Beyond the Bombing: The Militia Menace Grows," Anti-Defamation League, 1995. (which I find mentioned here but can't find the actual report on the site, oddly, although there is a mention of something called NEXIS) and mentions:
Bob Fletcher of the Militia of Montana addressed a San Fernando Valley group called the Granada Forum in Tarzana in March 1995. The group, which gathers regularly to discuss "patriot" issues, has also heard speeches by longtime anti- Semite Eustace Mullins and California State Senator Don Rogers, who has proposed a resolution objecting to any U.S. assistance in the formation of a "global government" and the "merger of the United States" into such a world government.
-Eep² 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new branch (since the other one is getting too indented) with more sources:

Seems to me this Forum's credibility is rising with each person I find who has spoken there... -Eep² 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And, just to show I'm not biased, I even include a source that discredits a Forum speaker (Medgadget: Pseudoscience Fridays: Video Edition, The Cure For Everything) August 18, 2006 about Dr Robert C. Beck's (mentioned on Robert Beck--added by a Wikipedia admin--and blood electrification--same admin and links to the Google video of it) presentation. -Eep² 03:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another source, this time from Issue Brief: A Public Policy Paper of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, March 2006, J.A.I.L.Amendment Threatens Judicial Independence in South Dakota (text-versioned PDF) about the founder of the Forum:

In 1992, Branson co-founded the Granada Forum,“a research center for all types of subject matters that cannot be talked about in the mainstream media.” The Forum still holds monthly lectures at a church in Tarzana, California.

-Eep² 03:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We're getting there. As for your earlier question of "noted how?" - that would "noted in a reliable source". As for the attendees, Pope John Paul II could have spoken to them but if no one thinks the group is worth writing about it still isn't notable. Anyway, more sources are better. -Will Beback · † · 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
We? I'm doing all the work... -Eep² 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. With all these great source we should be able to expand the atricle. -Will Beback · † · 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

This article really is a great help for me ! I love wikipedia. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Wikipedia is great but some of its editors are impatient and overzealous when it comes to Wikipedia's "rules" (policies based on guidelines)... Deleted articles are essentially black-holed from most everyone so one can't even fix/improve a previously deleted version (instead of having to rewrite the entire thing)--at least not without hounding the admin who deleted it. -Eep² 11:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)