Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Other Gary

I removed irrelevant info about the "other" Gary and made it a simple "should not be confused with." Paul 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An excellent edit idea. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot" website

I removed the link for the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot website. I did this because the link description in the article included a comment about Gary North's "fanaticism." That is clearly not in keeping with NPOV. If someone wanted to re-insert the link with a description that actually described the site accurately, that seems like it might be acceptable. I have serious doubts about the site as a notable source. It is a satire/parody site, in part (as the page itself says), and it includes all sorts of claims, including unsupported claims of Gary North "smoking crack." That is hardly a source that should be represented as seriously analytical. Dick Clark 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a late response, but the "note 2" at the top of that page has this line: "Gary North actually does not smoke crack." Nova SS 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial in first line

We should not describe Gary North as being "controversial" in the first sentence before anything else has been said about him. By all means, we should mention that his views have been been (and still are?) controversial, and this can be stated clearly in the lead section (as we now do, I believe), but it's closer to NPOV to describe what he does first, and then how people react to him second; otherwise, we're giving his critics precedence. — Matt Crypto 17:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Political Beliefs" section

This part claims North would execute people for "being gay". If he is advocating biblical law, then this provides for execution for sodomy, but not for merely BEING gay. Should be cleared up. Also the section seems to have NPOV issues, especially with the remark about the feelings of someone undergoing execution. The writer of the section appears to want to discredit North, without using overtly partisan language.

Agreed. I've deleted the "little comfort" sentence, which is clearly POV. I've replaced "being gay" with "sodomy", but I still don't think that's quite accurate. — Matt Crypto 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster, but the fact is that what Gary North interprets the Bible to say and what it may actually say may be very different and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide that. If he says that's what he thinks, that should be included.--Gloriamarie 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Racism

Surely North's purported links to racist movements and racist comments merit greater discussion than the Y2K controversy.

• In order to publish it, an accusation must be based in fact. "Alleged racism" does not cut it any more than "alleged shoplifter". This is Wikipedia, not the SPLC! :P 69.143.110.86 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Super Cheap" video

Before anyone starts screaming "shameless advertising!!", I included this link merely because it features North himself talking on camera. --Jquarry 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Y2K alarmism

Why has the information about his Y2K predictions been removed? — Matt Crypto 10:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone else deleted that. It is noteworthy, but hardly the centerpiece of his biography. (Perhaps that is why someone zapped it.) I have added that back in, in the new "Writings" section.Trasel (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-title article Gary North (Christian economist)

I recommend re-titling the article Gary North (Christian economist), since the majority of people with English surnames are Christians (or claim to be) "Christian" by itself is an insufficient differentiator for disambiguation. Agreed? Trasel (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No comments? If I don't hear any objections, I'll start the process of changing the article title (page name), as mentioned, in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_name sometime in the next few days.Trasel (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there some third-party source that supports the notion that there is something called "Christian economics?" Perhaps this is an out of left field question on my part, but that base should probably be covered before making this change, since I think a lot of people are going to go look for the "Christian economics" article here and find nothing, and question this move. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He wrote a book by that title (An Introduction To Christian Economics, 1973). Perhaps we should just re-title it Gary North (Economist) Trasel (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically he'd be an economic historian given his credentials. The title should be supported by third-party evaluation beyond his own writings. I'd leave it the way it is unless there's some other Christian Gary North; the disambiguation as-is should be sufficient. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_(journalist) isn't a Christian? The current disambiguation page For "Gary North" implies that Gary North the journalist is a non-Christian. Do you see the rub? Trasel (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you do have a point there. "Christian author" would certainly be both neutral and clear, given his prolific publishing history, and he clearly writes from a Christian viewpoint for a Christian audience. He could also be called a "Christian Reconstructionist" since he self-identifies as such, and there is a Christian Reconstructionism article (in which North is in fact named) that unambiguously explains that term. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Christian Reconstructionist" to "Christian economist", for the reasons given above.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with using "Christian Reconstructionist". That certainly leaves no room for ambiguity. Trasel (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we in accord? If so, how do I change an article title? (I've never done that.) Thanks, Trasel (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's time. At the top of the editing page there's a 'move' tab that moves the article to a new title and redirects the old page. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, BTW, far from clear to me that Gary North is even “notable”. Lots of people have had publications and had associations with minor institutions or minor associations with major institutions. Gary North is not an economic scientist and has not made any notable contributions to economic science. This entire page is blatant advertising and political campaigning. It should not even be here, unless anyone can prove the notability of Gary North.—Flying Pete (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

His notability is assured, based upon his published works, alone. Anyone with 55+ published books is notable. And clearly anyone with his stature in Christian theological discourse is notable. (The fact that he is not well known outside of Reformed Christian circles does not detract from his notability. Within that circle, he is considered a luminary on a par with Rushdoony. He even married Rushdoony's daughter.)

New section: Writings

I started a new section on his writings. As time permits i will add a list of his books and their ISBNs.Trasel (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Averted catastrophe

Since someone reinserted it... I do not think that the sources linked support the assertion that Y2K was a potential 'catastrophe' that was 'averted' (certainly not on the level North predicted, which is implied by the text that was reinserted.) Does anyone want to discuss this? --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just made an edit that tones down the POV of the original. This strikes a NPOV middle ground between the edits, and more closely matches what was described in the reference. Just saying that Y2K glitches didn't materialize makes it sound as if it would have never been an issue. If it were not for millions of lines of legacy code being re-written, there could have been some very significant problems. Trasel (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

uncited quotes

one of these lists a book that isn't in his list of works. does it even exist? another has no citation whatsoever. yet i don't see any comments here justifying adding these, and they certainly are a few choice words, aren't they? 71.174.150.202 (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rushdoony

Rushdoony is simply a father-in-law and there is no indication, much less WP:RS, that North agrees with him. Including Rushdoony as an "affiliation" is unsupported, the description is off-topic at best, and including him in this BLP is a smear at worst. Since North founded ICE, which is described as a CR organization, a reader might assume that North is CR, but what support is there to say he was CR? Perhaps he simply wanted ICE as a vehicle to publish his stuff. In any event the paragraph is tagged as cn.--S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually edit wikipedia so I don't have a login, sorry. I just thought I should point out that Gary North's association with Rushdoony was built for many years around their shared enthusiasm for Christian Reconstructionism. They worked together on the Chalcedon Foundation for years before a major rift in their relationship due to a theological disagreement. The education and background section of this article states that "North made it his life's work to synthesize Austrian Economics with Rushdoony's ideology" unfortunately it has just identified Rushdoony as "controversial Holocaust denier Rousas John Rushdoony" thereby giving the impression that Holocaust denial is what North is trying to synthesize with Austrian Economics. Given that Holocaust denial is a minor point given a very small amount of attention by Rushdoony, compared to over ten books on Christian Reconstructionism, and that North (to my admittedly limited knowledge) was not a Holocaust denier, it seems that this identification as a "controversial Holocaust denier" may be included simply to discount Rushdoony, and by association, North. It's like identifying Elvis as "Famous Hotdog Eater Elvis Presley", it may be accurate, but it is certainly not properly representative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.53.29 (talk • contribs)

As Rushdoony's article uses the term "accused", we ought to/got to stick to that. If he is more than accused, then that article can be/should be changed to reflect what RS says. At that point North's article can be changed as well. But labeling Rushdonny as a denier (true or not), without qualification, here is doing an end run around proper WP:V. Moreover, simply saying "controversial" is unclear: e.g., was Rushdonny controversial and a denier or was his denialism controversial? "Alleged" is the only term that I can think of that properly qualifies the sentence. Also, the material here had stuff about North incorporating Rushdonny's thoughts into economic theory, but that lacked RS. In any event, the proximity of the denier label to the fact that North was reading Rushdonny implies a connection which is weak at best, and it most unfairly suggests that North was reading the denial stuff early on. I ask, had Rushdonny gotten into denial at the time North was reading him? Did North ever endorse the alleged denials? Answering those questions would be interesting and would give weight to an argument to including the denial label. But to be fair in this biography a NPOV "alleged" qualifier is needed at the very least.--S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Srich. Please read the cited source and see whether you still have any concern about this. I am indifferent about the word "controversial" in this setting. On the one hand Rushdoony was controversial. On the other hand he is not the subject of this article and I can accept your feeling that the word is gratuitous in this context. I don't read it as qualifying the fact that he was a denier, but as I said I have no problem with you deleting it if you feel strongly. On the other hand, I hope that you will agree that the denier statement should not be qualified or mitigated given what you will read in the source.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The source cited in the North article is the Trueman footnote quoted below. Additional references also listed.

• Sugg, John. "A Nation Under God", Mother Jones, December 2005. "Rushdoony denied the Holocaust and defended segregation and slavery".
• Braun, Aurel; Scheinberg, Stephen J. The Extreme Right: Freedom and Security at Risk, Westview Press, 1997, p. 71. "Rushdoony, a one-time John Birch society activist, has in his books 'maligned Jews, Judaism and Blacks, and [has] engaged in Holocaust "revisionism"'".
• Lane, Frederick S. The court and the cross: the religious right's crusade to reshape the Supreme Court, Beacon Press, 2008, p. 40. "Despite its provocative suggestions, the book [Institutes of Biblical Law] did not receive widespread attention when it was published[...] in part because Rushdoony also used the work to deny the Holocaust, defend segregation and slavery, and condemn interracial, intercultural, and interreligious marriages."
• Holthouse, David. "Casting Stones", Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2009. "The elder Rushdoony was a racist and Holocaust denier who took his group's name from a medieval council of bishops that proclaimed the subservience of all nations and governments to God."
• Schaeffer, Frank. Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism), Da Capo Press, 2009, p. 117. "Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier."
• Trueman, Carl R. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History, Crossway, 2009. FOOTNOTE: "While Rushdoony’s followers do not like to acknowledge his Holocaust Denial, it is incontestable that he held such a position, according to the technical definition (i.e., a massive lowering of the number of estimated dead from the usual six million, and rejection of the idea of systematic mass slaughter). His sources are atrocious, second-hand, and unverified; that he held this position speaks volumes about his appalling incompetence as a historian, and one can only speculate as to why he held the position from a moral perspective: see his The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 586-88. He deals with the matter under the issue of the Ninth Commandment and, ironically breaches it himself in his presentation of the matter."

http://www.crossway.org/books/histories-and-fallacies-tpb/

http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9781581349238.pdf

• Brock, David. Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Random House of Canada, 2003, p. 201. "Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier."
• Blumenthal, Sidney. The Clinton Wars, Plume, 2004, p. 319. "One of the members of the small founding board, RJ Rushdoony, was a Holocaust denier who favored the death penalty for homosexuals and doctors performing abortions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 21:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support for executing nonviolent people

Hey! I think that an article that so extensively discusses North's political and religious beliefs should have a mention of his controversial support for stoning to death homosexuals, blasphemers, and disobedient children. So I wrote a section about that. Let me know what you all think! Steeletrap (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

you wrote the section, but you have no reliable source. The two sources given are from organizations firmly opposed to his views (Mother Jones and Alternet). Even so, reading the items in detail, they never say that he himself personally believes it. The first reported a statement consonant with it, but not saying it; the second talked about the general movement, and gave no specific quotes on this point. The third source, that he advocates stoning for those cursing their parents, is reason.com, another hostile source. It does quote him saying that, but gives no source for the quote. The 4th reference is indeed from a reliable source, one of his books, with a page number. as found on Wayback machine, tho from a site that seems to have some political position. Again, it talks only about stoning people for cursing their parents.

To be sure, it's reasonable that someone who takes that position would also stone adultuers, etc. I personally have no particular reason to doubt that he believes what you say he does, but we need a source for this. Considering that this is a BLP, and that this is an exceedingly controversial statement, unquestionably reliable sources are essential. Unless you can find them, the section will have to be removed--it might even be argued that I should have removed it instead of removing the sources that do not have this material, and adding a cite needed tag. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Presbyterian still?

He wrote http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/243a_47e.htm, which says the Presbyterians have been taken over by liberal humanists, so how does that square with him being a Presbyterian? MilesMoney (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there a number of different Presbyterian denomination. The biggest one in the US, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is theologically liberal, but the smaller Presbyterian denominations are usually very conservative. The word itself merely refers to the type of church government. Now as to North's current denominational affiliation, I don't really know. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I just noticed that the infobox up top says he's in the Presbyterian Church in America, which is conservative. I can't confirm this, though. We can tell that he knows about it because he mentions it in http://www.garynorth.com/public/2429.cfm, but he doesn't even hint at being a member. Maybe he's a member of a smaller conservative denomination. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If so, one possibility is the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, which he dedicates http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf to. MilesMoney (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

More on ICE to DEM.

I'm trying to fill in the "citation needed" stuff for the transition from ICE to DEM, but I'm not finding anything useful. I tracked down DEM (http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/profile/541599283?popup=1) and confirmed that it's doing business as Good Shepherd Schools, but nothing in its history (http://www.goodshepherdschools.com/about/history/) even mentions ICE or North. In fact, the organization dates back to 1993, which means it was around years before the transfer of assets from ICE in 2001. As for that money, their 2011 taxes claim $271,631 in assets, which doesn't seem like much at all. Gotta say, none of this makes sense to me.

Is there any confirmation that ICE was dissolved and its assets given to DEM? MilesMoney (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversial views section

Who is saying these views are controversial? The editor who has added the primary source material? Where is the secondary source material that says these views are controversial? What if this section was titled "Views" -- wouldn't this constitute original research? And then where is there balance in the section? The material we see now is the result of reading North's stuff, finding portions that have unpleasant aspects, and posting them as if they represent North's general views. (One example -- in North's Political Polythesism he makes a rhetorical statement about "savages" in the 773 page work and this item is posted as if North himself has these views.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review the ORN thread concerning the Rothbard/Friedman text. User Stalwart, who has extensive experience and considered judgment concerning these walled-garden personalities, has given a policy-oriented statement that addresses your repeated objections regarding these articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just how, Specifico, does your statement address the concerns I have raised? – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1) This views are ascribed to North because he wrote and published them. 2) The section title was actually (quite ironically) originally chosen by you, Rich. 3) the claims regarding North's support of stoning to death gays and other nonviolent people are well-sourced by RS, and probably are what North is best known for. 4) WP rules regarding OR are explicitly stated to be flexible not set in stone and 5) need to approached in a flexible manner when dealing with walled garden articles, per the remarks of Stalwart and others. (Without OR, there will be no balance to walled garden articles whose only "RS" are friends and coworkers within the garden. 6) the word controversial can be used in a value-free encyclopedic sense, to characterize views likely to provoke heated responses. A modest exercise of common sense tells us that advocating the execution of recalcitrant children falls under that category. Steeletrap (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes, North wrote the stuff – that does not give us an excuse to engage in OR. 2) The section title was provided when the section was supported by secondary sources. (And if I change the section/subsection headings the OR/non-secondary source nature of the material will be even more apparent.) 3) Sourcing of such stuff must come from secondary sources, particularly if it is controversial or a BLP. We cannot look at something he wrote and say, on our own, "North wrote this controversial stuff". 4) The Wikipedia policy on WP:OR does not use the word "flexible"! 5) The walled garden problem does not excuse OR. If the sources are reliable secondary sources, walled garden or not, they are acceptable. This "savages" stuff seems to have come about because there are no sources outside -- or inside -- the garden that address this "view". Given WP policy, a lack of sources does not excuse editor interpretation of what he wrote. 6) If there are "heated responses" to North's comments, on whatever subject, those responses can be cited. But we cannot provide our own "heated response" to what North wrote. – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction. I misused the acronym "OR", and meant to say rules regarding original sources or primary sources are flexible. They are and it's appropriate in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the Rothbard/Friedman ORN thread does not support the statements in your post. You tagged that discussion "stuck" so I recall that you are familiar with it. If you state your disagreement on the ORN thread instead of on each article, perhaps it will get unstuck. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, what is the text to which you refer: "our own 'heated response'...?" thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Steele, I am not striking my statement about the OR policy in no. 4. To the contrary, "flexibility" in using sources simply relates to the policy of verifiability. The OR policy prohibits SYN, whether or not a source is reliable. In fact, if a source is not reliable it cannot be used as a threshold determination. That is, if the source is not RS, then there is no OR issue at stake. This is an instance where you have found original/primary stuff that North has written and you want to post it. But consider WP polity – if you want to criticize North, you should start your own blog. WP is not the place for such material. – S. Rich (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I am at a loss as to how your reference to the ORN addresses any point in this discussion. The "our own 'heated response'" refers to the "heated response" that Steele seems to be providing in the article. E.g., Steele does not like what North wrote, so Steele is posting it – as OR – on WP. But Steele cannot or has not provided a heated response from any secondary source. – S. Rich (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, what is the text to which you refer: "our own 'heated response'...?" thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am too confused by this. The text drawn from primary sources just a paraphrase of what North said. The text does not attempt to draw inferences or implications from North's remarks; it's just restating them. Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3PARTY will help. What North himself publishes is the first party source -- the statements are, in effect, "I think such and such about American Indians...." The source is primary. (Also see WP:Party and person & WP:USINGPRIMARY.) A secondary source says "North wrote such and such about American Indians." – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, what is the text to which you refer: "our own 'heated response'...?" thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try again. Steele used the term "heated responses" in point six above. E.g., Steele seemed to be referring to heated responses that had been or were likely to result from North's writings. If there are such heated responses, then Steele and others can use them in this article, subject to RS, OR, SYN, BLP, V, etc. But there do not seem to be any such heated responses. In which case Steele has no secondary source or "heated response" to use in the article when it comes to commenting on North's book or these particular passages from North. But -- putting in the PRIMARY material from North's own book, without support from a SECONDARY source is a type of personal WP-editor generated "heated response". Or, it may be a "non-heated response", by Steele, to what North wrote. After all, the book by North is 700+ long. How is it that Steele has selected these particular passages to comment (e.g., "respond") on? The situation illustrates how OR (personal research by Steele) is violated. – S. Rich (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My view -- and I hold this is a fact, not an opinion -- is that it is controversial to advocate murdering gays by stoning, and also controversial to label an ethnic group as "savages." I paraphrased these controversial views, without adding commentary (much less "heated" commentary) in the article. The article presents North's statements in a NPOV way, bereft of commentary or analysis (therefore, there is no OR). Steeletrap (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, what is the basis for your assertions in WP policy as it relates to this text? Every addition of text to any article (from whatever source) is based on editor judgment as to the significance of the information added. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele, I share your opinion and your view that what North has advocated is controversial. (And please don't think that I like in an any fashion. I do not!) Because there is controversy (at least as far as you and I are concerned) WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. (I say you because there is no secondary source that supports the notion that North's stuff is controversial.) BLPPRIMARY says: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use ... other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source [emphasis added], it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." North's book is a public document. He published it and made it available to the public. (It is public because it is not a private diary or journal.) It is a primary source, and therefore extreme caution must be exercised. You are not doing that. You have cherry picked items that you consider to be controversial and you seek to include it on your own without any support from secondary sources. And there has been analysis on your part because you read the material, did an analysis of what you thought should be put into the WP article, and you are asserting that it is important enough to say that North wrote such and such. Yes, he did write that stuff. But we are not at liberty to post such stuff on our own in Wikipedia. Go set up your own blog if you want to criticize North. You cannot do it here, even if you claim innocence by asserting that "North said it, it is in RS, I'm only repeating some of the things he said, therefore it is okay to put into WP." You are violating policy.

Specifico, it is correct that every editor exercises some judgment in composing what they write and add. You, Steele, and I are exercising judgment when we engage in this discussion. But our judgment must be exercised within the policies that Wikipedia has set forth. I've laid out why the addition of the primary source "American Indians as savages" material, which lacks commentary from secondary sources, is improper. Am I exercising poor judgment in this regard? Doesn't my analysis, my judgment comport with WP policy? If not, please show me where I am wrong. I do not see anything that contradicts my analysis. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's find secondary sources. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lacking, at present, secondary sources, the primary sourced material has been removed. Also, I reclassed the article as "C" (which may be generous). – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you are misunderstanding and misstating WP:BLPPRIMARY, which refers to primary documents not written by the subject of the artilce. For example, the policy states we may not go to the Municipal Records Bldg of somewhere and find the arrest record of somebody and use that as the sole source to state in the article "so and so was arrested..." That is not the situation here. Please undo all your removals pending resolution of this text on talk. So far, nobody has supported your view. Please restore the text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] -- interesting edit summaries. Interesting indeed. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Red herring. The fact is that primary-sourced material is allowed on Wikipedia, even though secondary sourced material is preferred. My edits illuminate North's outlook as a thinker and approach to economics (he is an "economist" after all). Incidentally, primary-sourced material has also been used repeatedly throughout libertarian articles that we have edited together, for instance, on Herr Hans Hermann Hoppe and "argumentation ethics." Steeletrap (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OR Tags

The OR tag refers to a section in which nearly every section is cited to a source. The tag should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's all cited from North himself, which raises the question of whether he is being quoted out of context, or with undue weight. I realise there is a "primary sources" tag as well, but OR is closely related. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The sections violate OR. WP:STICKTOSOURCE says: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." Was it North's intention to describe Native Americans as savages? Or was he using the phrase in a rhetorical manner? The editor who added the material (as described in earlier discussion) has evaluated the particular items and added them incorrectly. The OR tags are appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we specifically indicate where the "OR" is? All I did was paraphrase North's remarks. If there are specific concernss of places where I ceased to paraphrase and egaged in OR, please state them so we can resolve them. I can't imagine how the "savages" passage could be read any other way, but am open to hearing from you in this regard. What I am not open to are vague statements about "OR" bereft of of any specifics. Steeletrap (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Retitling article

A while back there was discussion on re-titling the article. (See above.) I'd like to re-examine the question. First, it seems that "economist" is not the best descriptor because most of his views deal with religion and society. But is it fair to say he is a "Christian economist"? What is the school of Christian economics all about? Rather, it seems that "Christian reconstructionist" is the better descriptor. (FYI, we need a descriptor because there are two other Gary North articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna say he's still primarily an economist, with the Christian stuff being an adjective. MilesMoney (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Favor Srich proposal. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How many people even know what a Christian reconstructionist is? MilesMoney (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point, actually. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've linked the CR article in the discussion herre. That may help advance the discussion. It seems to me that Christian reconstructionists ought to be working up these articles if they are interested. Also, in the listing of books by North, 36 are religious while 10 use "economics" in the titles. North seems to be in the Reconstructionist camp far more than the economics camp, let's put him there by article title. Readers will figure out what Reconstructionism is by reading up on it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Any other Christian reconstructionists got that in the name of their bio? MilesMoney (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifics, please, on OR charges

Summarizing the views of a thinker by paraphrasing original sources (books, articles, etc she has written) is a common feature of WP entries, and not contrary to "policy." As far as I can see, that's all I did on this page. Where specifically did I cease to paraphrase and add interpretation? The onus is on those alleging "OR" to provide these specifics. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of primary source material

Rather than have a debate on 3rr on a weekend, though it would be a good test of BLP reversion policy, I'll just post my still mostly WP:OR version of what is now sloppily called "Societal punishment of blasphemers". At least this provides fuller context, doesn't cut a quote central to his view, does cut a less central one; it also includes other material giving a broader perspective; I'm sure much more can be found:

Views on homosexuality

In his 1999 Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Leviticus, Volume 1, North quotes Dennis Prager to support his view that the Hebrew Bible is “absolutely hostile to homosexuality”. He states that the purpose of his book is to support the “Holiness Codes” challenged by other authors, and that Leviticus 18 and 20 regarding homosexuality are part of that code. He writes:

“It was not because Israel was “primitive” that God declared His law and its morally appropriate civil sanction. Israel was not primitive. Israel was God’s agent to establish a new civilization in Canaan. God announced this law because He despises homosexuality and homosexuals. He hates the sin and also the unrepentant sinner. He does not hate the sin and love the sinner. He hates the sin and hates the sinner. This is why there is a hell: God hates unrepentant sinners. God is indeed a homophobe. He hates the practice and those who practice it, which is why He destroyed Sodom.”

In the same volume, North provides other critiques of homosexuality, including that "Homosexuals do not reproduce. They recruit.” and thus “This is not just a war over civilization; it is a war over the survival of the human race." He also notes that the media’s response to conservative David Brock’s allegations about regarding Bill Clinton sexual infidelities was to accuse Brock of being a homosexual. In 2013 North wrote in an article on LewRockwell.com that the United States Constitution does not authorize either “Federal laws against homosexuality” or “ Federal laws legalizing local homosexuality”.

Thoughts? User:Carolmooredc 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a discussion of federalism (i.e. what is the right jurisdiction in which to murder gays) is relevant to North's view of the proper response to/punishment for homosexuality. Other than that, these remarks basically discredit your "OR" case, as the Brock RS indicates that everything I wrote about North accurately reflect his views. Steeletrap (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Having a WP:RS introduce any view always makes it seem more credible - and leaves the editor less open to all sorts of questions on and off Wikipedia about bias, attempts to smear and libel, etc. And others also have opined my summary and quotes might be problematic. BLPN editors might agree.

I have a problem with the mis-impression that only North thinks this, which my summary corrects. I'm sure there are hundreds of rabbis and thousands of protestant minsters who think the same thing. All the ones with Wiki articles need to be quoted, though it's not a job I care to take on.

On the other hand, if millions of people including the current president, have softened their views of homosexual issues over the last 20 years, maybe North has too and that should be reflected. (I don't think that's what he meant mentioning Brock.) Looking for more updated info is another function of good editing on WP:BLPs; the Constitution article would be relevant in a broader context, just a taste. User:Carolmooredc 20:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"Always makes it seem more credible"? Seem more credible, yes. Actually more credible, not so much. Arguably, North himself would be a reliable source of information on a range of subject and individuals (in the editorial/publishing sense) but would adding his commentary to articles about those subjects make those articles more credible? Hardly. To be frank, the "impression" you get of North with regard to "hundreds of rabbis and thousands of protestant minsters" is irrelevant. We're not here to compare him to thousands of others if reliable sources haven't done so first. Speculations as to whether North might have changed his views because others have (which I would note is contrary to my experience of fringe thinkers in general) are exactly that - speculations. Walking the subject's comments back for him because we think he might have possibly changed his views since then is, quite plainly, original research.

Beyond the un-sourced commentary added by a couple of NPOV headings and sub-headings, I'm still not sure where the "smear and libel" comes into it. Misquoting him might lead to suggestions of smear and libel. Quoting him accurately could never be considered libel. He can't libel himself.

Beyond all of that, I see no real problem with the text you drafted, given it is not significantly different (in terms of tone or technicality) to what has previously been presented (with which I had no significant issue). Stalwart111 00:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If North has repudiated his advocacy of stoning to death gays, non-virgin women, etc (which were not remotely mainstream in the 1990s), it would be worth noting. That would, however, entail a repudiation of Christian Reconstructionism, given how that ideology is defined in RS, and North seems to still identify himself as a Reconstructionist. It also doesn't make much sense in light of the fact that, while the books were originally written a couple decades ago, the cited revised editions (which still contain the pro-stoning stuff) were published only a few years ago, and contain the same assertions. Steeletrap (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, in principle. If someone makes a statement in the 1980s and now no longer holds that view, it is unlikely that they would have authorised a reprint of the original statement without a correction. It's unlikely that they would have authorised a reprint at all. One would think that a prolific author, under such circumstances, would simply write a new book. However (and it's a big however) your interpretation and mine would be considered WP:OR for the purposes of the article and we certainly couldn't suggest that the subject holds those views today because of those interpretations. Stalwart111 00:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying we should draw that inference in the article, which certainly be OR. I was pointing it out as a response to Carol's speculation that North no longer endorses these views. Steeletrap (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking if you include cherry picked quotes from one 468 page document or another 797 page book that no one but the "cherry picker" has the time to read and analyze, you are getting into a questionable area of bias and potential defamation that is the reason we prefer WP:RS to decide what the issues are. I mean you can string together a lot of partial sentences and make anyone look like anything you want.

I have found over time that almost all the cherry picked primary source quotes that make people look bad were taken so out of context that they were just that. Maybe North is the exception. Or maybe even the couple derogatory WP:RS have done the same thing. I don't know.

I do know that OR is not merely about "drawing inferences." I do know that Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] User:Carolmooredc 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap - yes, I figured as much.

Carolmooredc - you've hit the nail on the head with "questionable" and "potential". Both of those exist here and that's why this RFC is a good idea (and I appreciate your subsequent comments about this RFC). Of course there are risks of WP:WEIGHT problems when we use primary sources and we do have to be careful. If, as has been suggested, there are reliable sources that respond to particular comments then those should be considered among his important comments - those worthy of response. That doesn't mean that his other comments are not notable, not interesting or not worthy of inclusion. Nor does it mean that adding them should be considered WP:OR (something nobody seems to have been able to explain thus far). As I said, your suggested edit seems fairly on-the-level to me because I don't see it as being significantly different in tone to some of the previous/existing material. Nor does there seem to be anyone who specifically objects - you should feel free to add/amend that section if you wish. Stalwart111 08:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Another proposed rewrite of some other primary sourced material

North wrote the following on June 16, 2012:

Success in Business or Politics: I have heard of people who have the same affliction of ambition with respect to business. But business is different from politics. A successful business involves serving customers on a long-term basis. Day after day, month after month, year after year, a businessman serves the desires of customers. There are successes that register in the corporation’s profit and loss statement. There are daily challenges, but there are daily victories.
A businessman learns through trial and error how to serve the needs of customers. After a time, he usually gets good enough at this so that he can do it in a consistent manner. He can see, on a quarterly basis, how well he is doing. He is able to see that customers are satisfied with the output of his labor. He can see that he has been a success on a small scale over a long period of time. [2]

Hmmm. Seems to be a pretty neutral comment. He's not disparaging anyone, but praises the hard work that businesspeople do. (Actually, he's making negative remarks about people with political ambition -- and we know about the high esteem that the American public has for politicians and lawyers.) But aren't there many, many positive things that North has written of in the reams of material he's produced in the past? I would think so. So why not add this, or other such material, to the article? After all, can't editors make the good-faith judgment that this statement of North's is significant and representative of his work and beliefs? But is there a secondary source that reflects or supports what the WP editor determines is a good-faith judgment? I submit that unless such a secondary source is found, the quoted material is a purely primary source document and should not be included in the article. And from that point, the primary sourced material that CarolMooreDC has sought to present in a neutral manner should be omitted as well. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rich, please explain specifically where the primary-sourced material adds OR/misrepresents North (it's a bit late in the game for that, but it'd still be helpful to see a specific argument). I don't think this lengthy, unspecific argument from analogy is helpful, since primary sources are routinely used on BLPs (and in any case, we have found secondary sources for everything but the "native american" bit). Also note that (per Stalwart) Carol's summary and secondary sources more or less say what I said. Please also note that use of complementary primary sources with secondary sources that assert the same thing is commonplace. And finally, I recommend that you look at the views of your peers, the large of whom do not believe "OR" is present in the relevant text. Steeletrap (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are complementary secondary and primary sources, then using the secondary sources with the primary is fine. (I have not objected to such usage.) But if I (or others) were to post this businesspeople paragraph on our own, even without commentary, it is OR. Two reasons: 1. We are presenting "A" (North's piece) + "B" (our own editorial judgment), to imply "C" (that North is a great supporter of business people and/or the scourge of politicians) 2. Because we violate WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Similarly, if North was writing something which had the intent of disparaging Indians (or businesspeople) in general, then we might, supported by secondary sources, comment on what he had written. But if we bring in our own judgment and say "This piece about businesspeople and politicians (or Indians) had the intent of praising the businesspeople (or Indians) -- because he actually praises/disparages business people/Indians," then I think we go beyond the intent of the source and substitute our own judgment as to what was intended in the primary source. STICKTOTHESOURCE also says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." This can be read two ways: 1. If there is no 3rd party RS, then WP should not have a distinct article about the topic. Or, 2. "If there is no 3rd party RS on aspects of a topic, WP should not have information in articles about it." Putting 2. another way, if the only info -- to the hypothetical exclusion of all other available info -- was this or that primary stuff from North, we would not have an article on it. If this is the case, then why would we allow portions of the article to exist without secondary source support? Given the overall guidance that WP operates under, i.e., the restrictions on BLPs, no OR, the demand for secondary sources, etc., and because we are not the originators or interpreters of new information, we've got to leave out everything from North that does not have backup from secondary sources. – S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

SRich: I don't think we can ignore the crazier stuff he wrote in the 1980s and 1990s, given that some quasi and actual WP:RS have commented. (See [http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm Free books page/left side link to books by author.) Or ignore the fact that he wrote something like "yeah, and we'll push this til we take over."

On the other hand, if we do a proper chrono in bio order we can't ignore that most of the stuff he's written on Lewrockwell.com archive or Mises.org archive look at first glance fairly mainstream libertarian. He may not choose to reject his past views (male pride/pride of authorship/etc), or maybe he's too busy/tired to decide which ones he holds deeply and which were just ridiculous. In any case it doesn't look like he focuses on or intimately promotes them any more. (If there is outrageous stuff in last 10 years I'm sure some editors will find it there.) In any case, as Wikipedians its our job to be dispassionate and accurate and not a scandal rag emphasizing past outrages. User:Carolmooredc 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, I don't see any specific problem with adding quotes like that. In fact, from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, adding both old commentary and new commentary is probably a good idea. Adding only his old stuff suggests his period of scholarship ended in the 80s and he's written nothing of note since. If that's the case, so be it. If not, we should be quoting his views in as balanced a way as possible with equal weight (where possible) given to era, different subjects, individuals cited, etc. Stalwart111 08:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol & Stalwart, you are ignoring the Camel's nose. Without secondary sources, adding innocent purely-primary source stuff allows for the less-innocent purely-primary stuff to come in too. In an article like North's the only sensible way to keep this BLP squikky-clean is keep out all material that lack secondary source backup. That is, we shouldn't use BLP as a sword to delete the controversial/contentious material and as a shield to keep in the non-contentious material. The only way to keep this article proper is to keep out all of North's primary-source material (naughty or nice) unless it has secondary source backup! – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've unwatched this page but I got a notification someone mentioned my name! Anyway you aren't explicit but I assume you are talking about proper uses: Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; (and a couple other less relevant things). Obviously secondary sources are better, but someone else has to do that work of finding them. User:Carolmooredc 16:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your oft-repeated opinion has not been supported by WP policy practice or guidance. In promoting your view, it has not proven effective to argue from analogy nor to cite article content as if it were a considered norm of WP editorial guidance. It really would be helpful if you would cite specific policy and specific article text to which you believe the policy applies. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)