Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Changing stoning/religious liberty sub-titles

Can someone please explain why the sub-titles "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other sinners" and "opposition to religious liberty" are inappropriate? I am baffled by this; all these sub-titles do is describe North's views, bereft of commentary. The "alternative" sub-titles are vague and obscure North's views; it's pretty clear that the former are far more encyclopedic. Steeletrap (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP Policy, article titles are to be neutral, non-judgmental and non-descriptive. See: WP:NDESC. In turn, WP guidance says section headings are to follow the policy set for for article titles. See: WP:HEADINGS. The headings you want to emplace do not meet these standards. The text below them can and should fully explain what North's views are, and allow for WP:BALANCE. Pre-loading the section headings does not achieve that goal. – S. Rich (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also per WP:BLP which is a non-negotiable policy. Please do not under any circumstances seek to revert again to make such an improper title in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, vague, unspecific (and therefore meaningless) citations of 'policy' will not affect the editing process.

Rich, I think you misunderstand the rule you cite. WP:NDESC specifies that we should have "non-judgmental descriptive titles." It is not judgmental to describe the views of someone, so long as the description is accurate, even if those views are likely to offend. It is not, for instance, non "NPOV" to identify Rothbard colleague Harry Elmer Barnes with "Holocaust Denial" section on Barnes's page, because that title (like mine) only describes what Barnes believe, even if that description (accurately and specifically, like mine) identifies with Barnes views most people will find offensive. (Also see the NPOV sub-section on Nazism which describes the "anti-semitism" of Nazism.)

You may personally find stoning gays to death objectionable, but that is neither here nor there. What's important is: Is that an accurate description of North's views, as detailed in the corresponding section? And: Does the sub-title describe, without rendering judgment on or adding OR to, North's views? It's a clear yes to both questions (if you disagree, please specifically detail how the title renders judgment on North's views or inaccurately describes the views of North outlined in the corresponding section.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sad that you seem to regard policies stated in clear language to be "meaningless". I have stated what they state - and suggest you ask at the appropriate noticeboards for each policy whether your interesting interpretation is correct. Collect (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I regret if my choice of words was terse. However, I stand by the claim that a broad citation of policy like "BLP" does not further debate, because one can't figure out specifically where policy is violated. In my view, quoting specific text (as you did in another section) is the way to go. Steeletrap (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to this edit summary - English goes on to say "maybe the situation is not as clear-cut as it appears"... StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on BLPN regarding "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other sinners" but thought I'd drop by to share it here because it really is the crux of the matter:

The problem here is POV pushing. Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Some Xians might want to execute.

As a woman who had an abortion I'm quite offended myself. But I'm not suggesting we call it Support for executing women who had abortions and other sinners. Because I care more about wikipedia NPOV than pushing the abortion rights agenda. User:Carolmooredc 21:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As a man who has procured two abortions, I can assure you that I'm ok with capital punishment for it. I deserve death. Yet I find your characterization of "nutty Xians" to be uncivil and a borderline personal attack. So I suggest you retract it soon and comment on content instead. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, since I feel if I don't say "nutty xians" (ie. the ones who are nutty, not all Christians), I'll be attacked as an enabler of North for wanting to see his BLP properly done. So are you saying that it's a personal attack on Gary North himself or one some other individual? Believe me, I've been annoyed at the personal attacks I've seen on subjects of BLP myself. I guess I can strike nutty on that principle. Thanks! User:Carolmooredc 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article currently has "Capital punishment for various crimes", which I'm fine with - that might be as good as it's going to get. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop warring over the heading titles and discuss them here, achieve WP:CONSENSUS before changing them again. The next person to change any heading will get an edit-war warning from me and appropriate sanctions will be sought. The next venue will probably be WP:RFPP. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's edit warring at all. I think people are trying different suggestions on for size. I think it's just really hard to find the right wording, but I think we're getting somewhere - we've left "homosexuality" behind, and probably the "sinners" bit as well. StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Range of capital offenses" works OK. I think "mandated" would be the wrong word, since North would emphasise that it's a maximum penalty. StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is this revert diff and anti-consensus edit summary pure edit warring? I will not artibitrarily accept changes based on vague claims of "non-NPOV.' sections most specifically refer to the norms/laws in North's ideal *theocratic* society) Seems a bit much to me. (Actually looking at the history, it might be 3rr. I think the editor should check. I am right now.) User:Carolmooredc 17:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele's edit is a good faith effort to improve the article. The heading needs tweaking because it is awkward and the subsections do not follow up in a logical or consistent pattern. No 3RR is involved, as per St.A's remark. Also, I posted a note to Elizium about my discussion with Steele about article improvement. Let's drop this as an "Edit war" issue and set up a new discussion thread about how to improve the particular section. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There were four reverts in less than 24 hours. I don't have energy to do anything about it, but steeletrap should be aware that all those reverts against the general consensus to keep section titles neutral (and with at least one rather imperious edit summary, per the above] violate 3rr and are editing warring. So if anyone else is annoyed, go for it. 1, 2, 3, 4. User:Carolmooredc 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

These are 3 reverts to one sub-section heading and 1 revert to another section heading. I've been the primary respondent regarding edits. As I and others have said, no EW is going on. I am hardly annoyed, irritated, hurt or paranoid about these edits. A discussion, below, about the section is underway and that section needs resolving first, Then the basis for the sub-section & its heading will allow for further article improvement. Please join in on the discussion below. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: I won't argue my point, tempting as it might be. Thanks for the invite to keep editing, oh mysterious poster who forgot to sign. But I am unwatching this article. Looks like other editors have it under control for now and hopefully I will never think to look back and see what happens a month from now User:Carolmooredc 21:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction 3/4 of these relate to a collaborative editing process which Rich, (whose titles I repeatedly "reverted", but who says no 3RR occurred) myself and others were working on together, after I had (cooperatively) agreed to nix my old title. We were actively experimenting with alternatives, and as rich himself indicates, this did not constitute 3RR. Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to watch here, but I'm pretty dubious about this "new" policy and its setting a bad precedent, so I have asked the question here. Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. User:Carolmooredc 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such collaborative exception to the 3RR. Please adhere to this rule at all times, unless removing simple vandalism or material that violates WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Admin at Editwarring talk wasn't quite as explicit but he did write:

The reverting at Gary North (economist) is on the edge of being troublesome. If it continues, full protection might be justified. Has anyone noticed that a well-drafted RfC might solve the problem? People who could be following WP:Dispute resolution but decline to do so should be asking themselves if it is wise. It is likely that Gary North may deserve criticism for his more eccentric views but third-party sources ought to be found for such criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor tends to prefer protecting pages to sanctioning editors. Anyway, I think the bigger point remains WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with editor(s) not understanding despite all the times the policy point has been made that neutral section headers are better than ones that easily can be interpreted as nonneutral. Well see if those multiple opinions stick this time. Back to being an un-watcher... User:Carolmooredc 15:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ with Gamaliel regarding "collaborative exception". By definition, EW "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". There was discussion going on -- a friendly, constructive, collaborative discussion. No "rather than" at all. This EW stuff is a side issue, water over the damn, spilt milk, OBE (overcome by events), and it actually detracts from the effort to improve the article. 15:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk)

• Endorse Srich comment The parties were involved in a series of collaborative changes which were converging on a good NPOV solution. None of them were concerned about an "edit war." If Carolmooredc were concerned about an edit war, she could have reported it to 3RR for adjudication, however the past two times she's done that to other editors this year her claims at that forum have been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's great that you guys were working collaboratively, but there is a talk page you could discuss this on, and there are other editors who work on this article too that have to adhere to the rules that you claim don't apply to you. Obviously, nobody's going to block anybody for a minor infraction two days ago. But if the 3RR is violated again, whatever the good intentions of the editors involved, and it is reported in a timely manner to me or the 3RR noticeboard, then I will block. Two people can't get together and decide this rule doesn't apply to them. Gamaliel (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not involved in this situation. However if any editor were concerned, the remedy would have been simply to file on the 3RR noticeboard and let the process resolve the issue. I didn't see the involved editors claim a "collaborative exception" or 4RR rule, or any other principle contrary to site policy, and I've never seen Srich or Steeletrap disregard policy at the expense of WP content or improvement. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And what has been disappointing is that no-one has suggested who has been edit-warring, or provided diffs. I didn't think I broke 3RR. A general warning posted on the talk page is no substitute for doing the hard work of counting reversions. There weren't many reversions, because the heading was changed to so many different things, rather than being reverted back to a previous version. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I counted 37 diffs in a 4 or 5 day period. WP:EW describes this behavior as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." While there are not a lot of classic reverts here, there is a lot of overriding of each other's contributions with an associated paucity of discussion here. It does not take 37 edits to hammer out a consensus about section headings. It takes a bit of reasonable discussion and proposals on the Talk Page and not in the article. It was very painful to watch the article for these past days and decipher what all was changing in it. It was one of the lowest Signal-to-noise ratios in my watchlist. All diffs are listed below.

Elizium23 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

list of capital offenses

Are each of these offenses listed as capital in the Bible? If so, then aren't we engaging in SYN to say so, even with RS from the Bible. Does North say "These various offenses are capital offenses according to the Bible"? If so, let's find the RS that supports this assertion. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain that is what he's saying (and AFAIK, he wouldn't hold to the death penalty for drug smuggling, for example, since it's not in the Bible). There is a list at List of capital crimes in the Torah, linked from this article. So the key thing is not this list of arbitrary crimes that deserve death, but the principle that Old Testament capital punishments (should) still apply today. And perhaps some of the critics miss this point. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section title preceding stoning and religious liberty material

"Proposed theocratic political and legal order." That's what this section most specifically refers to. "Political and ethical views" is much less apt, insofar as it fails to note that the views contained in the passage refer to the an social norms and legal strictures of North's hypothetical theocratic (per the NYT and North's own words) society. We have no direct evidence North favors stoning in our current society; all of this stuff refers to his proposed theocratic order which, according to his "theology of victory", will eventually be imposed. Steeletrap (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I kindly ask that those who have reverted my preferred section title either revert their changes or provide an argument as to why my proposed title violates NPOV. Steeletrap (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also am at a loss as to how your header is supposed to violate NPOV. — goethean 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The section title that Steele proposes might work out. It is a bit awkward as it is too short. But if we say "North's proposed theocratic political and legal order" we get into something too long and which does not guide the reader into the subsections. Also, do we have secondary sources that say "North is proposing this [new] theocratic political order"? For now I suggest, Steele, that you propose a re-write for the section itself. That may lead to a workable section heading. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording provides an opinion about the political view that is about to be presented in a neutral manner, thus ceasing to be neutral. The political view may be theocratic or not, depending on the sources, however we should still name the section in a neutral way. -- Fsol (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Theocratic is not my opinion; it's from our RS. The term "theocracy" may carry a derogatory connotation to those of us who favor secular government, but the term itself is value-free and descriptive (simply describing a specific political system in which religion/religious texts are authoritative). And, per RS, it is appropriate to use in this context. Please read through the article again. Steeletrap (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument is not that it may or may not carry a connotation. The argument is that it is a caracterisation that should not be made. Even for Obama, for instance, you would not say "democratic political views" or for Romney "republican political order", you would just say "political views" and the proceed to writing all relevant material in the paragraph. -- Fsol (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am very confused as to what your actual argument is. It isn't a "characterization"; it's a restatement of North's views. He states he favors theocracy. Your analogy with Romney and Obama makes little sense, since "democratic political views" has a much less specific meaning and would in any case be inaccurate in those instances where Obama (and Romney) deviate from their party platforms. Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument is that a section title on an encyclopaedia should be as neutral as possible and should thus refrain from stating conclusions (albeit correct ones). If you dislike the Obama/Romney comparaison, take Hitler for example, one will not entitle a section "National Socialist Views", even though nobody would deny he held such views, but rather "Political Views", and the following text would let the reader understand that those views were in fact National Socialist. -- Fsol (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I really think that, per NPOV and BLP, we *have* to specify that North's views relate to the legal/social norms in his ideal society. (theocratic, though I'll use the term "Christian political and legal order" if folks continue to object) I think the section title has to reflect this, per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Steeletrap (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. How do WP:BLP and WP:NPOV imply this? StAnselm (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now it is I that is very confused as to what your actual argument is. "I really think that" is not a valid argument. -- Fsol (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Economic Historian

What RS call him an "economic historian" as stated in the lede? He has a degree in history and he has discussed economics but that doesn't make him an economic historian. Is there any source or body of North's work to support this description? SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added publication data to the article. A few of the listed books/pamphlets are not self-published (i.e., published by his institute). — goethean 16:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who disagrees that "economic historian" should not be the description of North in the lede. If not, I will change to "Christian reconstructionist writer." SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Recommend "religious historian". The next sentence goes into the subjects he likes. The lede also needs material bout his home schooling set up and investment advice activities. As we have an open RfC (on unrelated issue), North is a hot topic. So I recommend we wait for more input before making change. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of individuals write about the economy or business who aren't "Economists"...being identified as an Economist normally implies the individual has a graduate degree in the discipline. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that he's a historian, religious or otherwise. He seems to be a theologian. — goethean 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Theologian of sorts and a proselytizer and polemicist. Those would be the English language terms for him. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Alas -- we have two policies WP:BLP which requires strong sourcing for calling him a "polemicist" or "theologian" etc. and WP:NPOV which also mitigates against using words which might be construed as violative of that non-negotiable policy. Collect (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So, to get back to my initial question: Do you know of any RS that calls him an "economic historian?" If not, what shall we call him in the lede? SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one source for "polemicist" -- [1] SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your source appears to be humourously editorial in nature and fails WP:BLP. By a mile. I assume you were giving it as a humourous example. Collect (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Important information is obviously missing from the article. It says "Between 1961 and 1963, while an undergraduate student, North became acquainted with the works of Wilhelm Röpke, etc." But it doesn't say where he studied, or what his degree was. It would be good to find that, and that might help describe him. I think he can definitely be described as an "economist", but I'm happy with "writer" in the first sentence, since it goes on to describe what he writes about. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just added University of California, Riverside. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is likely that his Ph. D in History would provide a basis for "historian" I suspect. Collect (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, his PhD title was "The Concept of Property in Puritan New England, 1630-1720". If that's not economic history, I don't know what is. StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And this settles it. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

With earlier discussions in mind (both from a few years ago and one that I started up recently), let's retitle the article. "Gary North (historian)" would work. He's written about the history of economics, the history of religion, and his PhD is history. He will probably remain in the economist category, etc., but that is not a big matter. What will help is an article title that is more accurate. Then he gets a {{infobox scholar}} template. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We need RS and we need to test against WP standards for writers (or academics if we base it on his PhD). I don't see him doing what historians would call history. He's more like Velikovsky. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, to put an end to this, I might do a WP:BLAR to Gary K. North. Then the Gary North dab page gets modified. Objections?? – S. Rich (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Who calls him that? I never saw it. What about Gary North (Christian reconstructionist) or Gary North (theonomist)? SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Those suggestions are risible. NPOV requires we use proper and non-POV names for him - and a degree in history makes one a historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

<<a degree in history makes one a historian.>> That's not what WP policy says. That's OR. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He has a doctorate in history from a reputable university, and has published books on the topic. [2] with many citing his work. Thus meeting the notability criteria for an academic, even if you hate his positions. [3] 50 books is surely sufficient, don't you think - even if you think he is the looniest person on the face of the earth. WP:BLP requires that we address him in a neutral point of view manner in a conservatively written biography. Collect (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that you think he's loony. You need to find RS that states he's an historian or whatever. Your ideas are all based on your OR evaluation of primary data you're googling. Anyway, a catalog of 100 self-published documents doesn't even make for defensible OR to call him an historian or anything other than a publisher. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean other than in a whole slew of RS sites, books. scholarly articles, newspapers, reviews and the like? How many do you "require" since you found a humour site to call him a "polemicist" and thought that was sufficient for using a dysphemistic term? Collect (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He is described in a RS as an "economic historian". I think he could either be called an "economist" or a "historian" in the article name, but I think "economist" is more accurate. We should avoid "Reconstructionist", since the disambiguator should be occupational rather than philosophical. That is why we have Josef Ackermann (politician) rather than Josef Ackermann (Nazi). StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Theocracy

A "theocracy" is rule by priests or a church. Otherwise Ireland, Italy could be called "theocracies." No source seems to say North says that church rulers should be national rulers. This is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and requires very strong sourcing. Collect (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You're totally right, which is why I'm glad that ‎Goethean added a strong source and ended this debate so conclusively. MilesMoney (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP sources

There's a tag on top of the article that warns editors of BLP source issues. Do these issues still exist? MilesMoney (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it moved. MilesMoney (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)