Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More (mostly primary source) info of interest

As I wrote elsewheres, I am curious to see if North is that bad, why certain libertarians put up with him. Is there some explanatory text somewhere that's WP:RS? I found a few interesting things, mostly WP:OR (like the WP:OR cherry picked quotes in contention) and others not quite WP:RS. Some worth looking into for general overview.

• North, Fundamentalism's Bloody Homeland for Jews, 2003. Writes about “highly embarrassing, and therefore actively covered up, aspect of modern fundamentalism,” he thinks Jesus predicted 70 AD, not some future apocalypse and “The vast majority of dispensationalists are pre-tribulationists. They say that Christians will be pulled into Heaven and out of history immediately before a seven-year period of church-free history. In the second half of this seven-year period, the slaughter of the Jews will begin."

• North, Libertarianism 2004. Various views on the movement and this: "What I found is this: the concept of the rule of law was Mosaic, not Greek (Ex. 12:49). (Etc in that vein) ... It is my goal in life to do what I can to persuade people to shrink the State. The messianic State is a crude imitation of a religion of redemption....)"

• This non-WP:RS blogger writes in 2013 re: Ron Paul putting North in his curriculum program: “Whereas Theocrats advocate for the State to forcefully apply God’s law, theonomists (which are the Recons) advocate that the Church ought to take care of these (Old Testament) laws, all of which will be applied to those within the Church. Some theonomists even consider themselves voluntarists because joining the Church is optional. It is important to note that I personally am not a Reconstructionist, a theonomist, or a postmillennialist.”

Now, I don’t know if this is true re: North or anyone else or a misconception some libertarians have (like North thinks God will strike dead sinners??). That’s why we use reliable sources to parse this stuff out and not ourselves as mere journey-people editors.

[Added later: Secondary sources below]

• However, I did note that North has written on Theonomy (“state of being governed by God or in accord with divine law.”) as a part of Christian Reconstructionism, a topic which also should be a bit more central to this bio, if people are interested in a Wikipedia balanced article. A books google search showed several WP:RS discuss something about it.

• Murray Rothbard in 1990 in “Kingdom Come: The Politics of the Millennium” weighed in with this which certainly makes the various Xian viewpoints easier to comprehend: "One is the natural law/natural rights position of the (Catholic or Anglican) Scholastics, in which human reason is equipped to discover natural law, and purely theological or divinely revealed ethics is a very small and separate though important part of the system. Another is the Calvinist view that man’s reason is so corrupted that the only viable ethic, indeed the only truth about anything, must come from divine revelation as presented in the Bible. With his usual insight, Gary North sees that the two positions are and must be at loggerheads, and hence stakes his entire case on Calvinist presuppositionalism. Unfortunately, presuppositionalism is not a position likely to gain adherents outside the hardcore Calvinist faithful, and even there I suspect he might have problems. (Is there really only a Christian chemistry, a Christian mathematics, a Christian way to fly a plane?)"

Well, that's an hour of research on an article I'm not that interested in. Perhaps people who are more interested can do more? User:Carolmooredc 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There's been a whole lot of censorship to this bio based on misinterpreting the warnings about having too much from primary sources. I'm no lawyer and I don't care enough to argue with these people, so I'm just going to stick to the facts. Bruce Wilson (American journalist) wrote an article that brings up some of North's less mainstream statements, so we're just going to use that to avoid the pointless arguing. The article's at http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/5/28/102926/539. MilesMoney (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I missed this. At the Reliable sources noticeboard the site was not considered very reliable before. Bruce Wilson's wiki article is thoroughly non-notable and I've seen lots like that deleted. Shall I take it to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard so you can see how that works and get a response?? User:Carolmooredc 04:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When you show me links, I actually read them. And once again, you've misunderstood and misinterpreted what you linked to. I wonder why you keep making the same mistake. If I were cynical, I might imagine that you were hoping I'd just take your word on what the link says instead of following it, but we both know by now that this would never happen. Anyhow, I'm gonna assume good faith and hope you learn from your mistake.

Look, for Thomas Muthee, Talk2Action was "being used to source a minor paragraph that can be removed with no harm done", so nobody bothered to dispute the claim that it wasn't reliable. The author's bio shows that, unlike either of us, he's notable as a journalist. MilesMoney (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because Muthee article erroneously uses it doesn't mean it can be erroneously used here if someone objects. And no Bruce Wilson is not notable as article is currently written. But this kind of back and forth is why we have noticeboards. ;-) User:Carolmooredc 05:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the Wilson RS, Miles. It will be used to help source the documented RS claims here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm nowhere near as good a copyeditor as you, but I can Google ok. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

With all the talk about proper use of primary sources, I think it would be great if whoever is interested in beefing up this bio would just use secondary sources as suggested above or others I later noticed in passing but failed to list here. And I wish ref names had people's names on them instead of numbers like "1" so they wouldn't be so confusing. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on Wikipedia rules on "Primary Sources"

Please see WP: Primary. Use of primary sources to document the views of BLP is not banned on Wikipedia, so long as they are used to describe what a source says bereft of response, evaluation, commentary, or any other OR. Those who object to the specific quotations used need to make a positive case as to why this use misrepresents North's views. In this case, the "objectionable" primary sources only illustrate or complement views documented in secondary RS; this is not only permitted but encouraged. Steeletrap (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you misread the policy. We are not here to show "George Gnarph said 'thus and such'" as our own research (WP:OR) at all. We generally and specifically rely on secondary sources, and your statement about using primary sources to "say what someone said" (possibly out of context) is contrary to policy. Sorry -- we stick almost invariably to secondary sources except in very rare circumstances, of which this is not one. Collect (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "evidence" is the (damn) policy in the first place. Please avoid making snarky comments. We do not use primary sources to make any claims not made in secondary sources. Note specifically from WP:BLP: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, 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. Is this sufficiently clear? It is a mile away from your claims about usage. Collect (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The bolded policy precisely corresponds to our current situation. The bit about killing children illustrates and complements North's view (from multiple secondary RS) that disrespecting parents is a "capital crime"; the bit about God hating gays et al complements North's view (from multiple secondary RS) that homosexuality is a grave sin for which a Bible-based/theocratic society must impose the death penalty. Steeletrap (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)ase

Also, please strike your claim implying that (statistically) almost no BLP articles have segments sourced only by original sources. You have no evidence for this statistical/empirical claim, apart from a speculative inference from policy recommendations. And it may serve to mislead our peers here.Steeletrap (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I read the sources, and I aver that you are mightily stretching policy here in your interpretation, I suggest you ask at an appropriate noticeboard about your intended use of sources. I am not the "enemy" here, I am just trying to follow the policies as stated, and not try to make them fit what I want them to say. Now post at an appropriate noticeboard to see what others say about this. Collect (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the RfC is to adjudicate these issues. Your position that the sub-titles presentiment North's views puts you in the distinct minority. Steeletrap (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that no RfC can override Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

At the biographies of controversial bloggers and authors who publish their own material, we cannot list every single wacky or outrageous statement they make. Some of their statements are made with almost nobody noticing—the tree falling in the woods. Some filtering must be done with regard to the various self-published statements. A very useful filter is to find WP:SECONDARY sources that have noticed the publication, and have written about it. That is why secondary sources are being insisted upon here. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're kind of missing the WP:PRIMARY forest for the trees and the citation of WP:SPS further above doesn't help. Binksternet is broadly right, of course, but I would note that we're not dealing with the same issues as with the BLPs of, "controversial bloggers and authors who publish their own material". North isn't an academic crack-pot firing off letters-to-the-editor from some windowless room in a community college. Though some may be now (with the creation of the LewRockwell.com and the like), the opinions in question were not published in a blog, in fact blogs didn't exist when the opinions were published. He had them published the "old fashion way" through reputable publishers having presumably submitted a manuscript to an editor along with everyone else. From WP:PRIMARY:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

The first part was clearly the original issue here and the subject of the RFC. That issue, from what I can tell, is being resolved with NPOV headers and the removal of anything that might be considered WP:OR editor interpretation. The second part, though, is what I understand is being proposed now - that we include a small number of quotes from North himself, published in his various work across the spectrum of his career, as an indication of the views and opinions that have made him notable.

Rather ironically, the comparison was made at WP:BLPN between this article and that of Barack Obama and it was suggested that, "editors are not free to pick sentences from past statements and add them" to his BLP. Again, ironically, that is exactly the case at Barack Obama#Religious views which includes a number of primary source quotes from the President himself about his own religious views. I'm struggling to see how one standard might be acceptable for the religious views of someone notable for his politics and public service but not for the religious views of someone most notable for his religious views. Anyone? Stalwart111 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama is not saying that disrespectful children should be put to death. I am taking as the model for North's biography Pamela Geller rather than Obama. Check out the talk page on that article for similar arguments. Binksternet (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad example, actually, though I would imagine that North's views, extreme as they might be, have not been reprinted as readily as Geller's. Those who respond to North also seem decidedly more academic, consistent with his publishing. The Geller article still includes plenty of primary source quotes (from interviews and the like) though there are obviously more secondary sources than we have available here. It's a good model, I think, in terms of balance and NPOV. It's certainly not inconsistent with what a few of us have been urging here. I think there is still a place for a select few WP:PRIMARY quotes for context, provided any commentary/interpretation is based only on WP:RS. For Geller, the argument seems to be that quotes from her blog should be allowed for the purposes of refuting RS secondary material. In that sense, it's different to this article where accuracy/intent are not being challenged, only balance/ WP:WEIGHT. But I appreciate you highlighting it - thanks! It's certainly better than the BLPN Obama example. Stalwart111 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Good example indeed. And the use of primary materials "for the purposes of refuting RS secondary material" is something I support. The problem is going through 700 page documents to find the nuttiest thing written and then trying to build a paragraph or a section(with juicy section title) around it with absolutely no mention of the issue/idea by secondary sources. (And who among us will read that 700 page tome to find out if it's out of context, if there's refutation else where, etc. etc.) That's called cherry picking quotes for pov purposes. User:Carolmooredc 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you asserting that an editor has gone "through 700 page documents to find the nuttiest thing written and then trying to build a paragraph or a section(with juicy section title?" Which editor? If that allegation were true, such an editor would have willfully violated WP policy. Please substantiate your accusation with diffs or strike it. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations of personal attacks in response to every argument or comment you disagree with are getting really tiresome. Maybe its time to learn a new rhetorical argument. The information in question is sourced to primary sources. If there were secondary sources pointing to those particular passages, then we would be using those secondary sources. Since there are apparently NOT secondary sources, what option is left other than the editor attempting to include them read the work for themselves and picked those points out? Of course the other obvious option is that there are in fact secondary sources who have pointed out these passages, but they are so obviously unreliable and unsuitable that nobody has made an attempt to cite them. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that not every general statement of phenomena found all over Wikipedia is not a personal attack. In fact, if properly phrased it would not be a personal attack to say "Editor y in diff Z seems to be cherry picking a quote for POV reasons." That's just an example of a teaching moment at best, and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors at worst. User:Carolmooredc 16:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, your remark is inaccurate and inappropriate. Instead of making subjective generalizations about SPECIFICO's alleged inability to respond substantively to arguments, you should focus on arguing the specific matter of policy discussed above(namely, whether SPECIFICO's assertion that Carol violated WP:Policy (WP:PA) is accurate or inaccurate). Steeletrap (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the remark, it's pretty clear Carol violated WP:PA by making baseless personal accusations. Per WP:PA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. Without diffs it's a PA/policy violation, whether or not users find it tedious for this to be pointed out. Steeletrap (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Activist" Sugg of Creative Loafing

The addition of gratuitous characterizations of the authors of articles published in WP:RS is a glaring and clearcut instance of at least OR and SYNTH and perhaps additional documented prohibitions relating to the derogation of the authors. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The names could have been switched to avoid any suggestion that Sugg was an activist. (Although he has written for Americans United for Separation of Church and State (an organization which I support).) But both names are now removed. (Perhaps they will reappear.) But explain why removal of those names (the inclusion of which is in accordance with WP:NEWSBLOG) is any different than including Walter Olson, Adam English, or Mark Oppenheimer? – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed Oppenheimer, will look at mentions of the others. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not considering the policy in WP:NEWSBLOG, which clearly describes how articles should read "Mr. X said" or "According to Ms. Y". And once the newsblog names get put in, why not add the names of the other commentators? They serve as helpful information to the reader. Why would we include the newsblog names in the text, and omit other names? – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rich, the passages to which you refer are not opinion pieces or criticisms of North. Rather, they constitute reporting (by credible outfits) on what North's views are, bereft of commentary. Therefore I think it inappropriate to apply WP:NEWSBLOG standards in this context. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Do the subsections of "Views" contain improper Primary Source material or constitute OR?

Some subsections and paragraphs in Gary North (economist) do not contain secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here: Talk:Gary North (economist)#Controversial views section. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Notifications of this RfC have been posted to various WikiProject talkpages and user talkpages by Steeletrap, S. Rich, and Carolmooredc. 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey – please post comments below

Improper/unacceptable:

In posting their comments, editors are asked to limit their responses to "...distinct responses, one per editor." per WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding

• Improper/unacceptable: While the PRIMARY sources themselves are factually quoted, the WAY in which they are being selected and used is indicative of editorial bias. Here, we are taking about a man who has written more than 60 books on a wide range of subjects. Between his books, newsletters, and sermons he has probably written MILLIONS of words in the past 50 years. But for Wiki editors to comb through his many writing and pick out particularly controversial sentences to highlight in his Wiki bio is doing a great disservice to scholarly writing and shows undue weight. This is akin to 10-second television news soundbites pulled out of a week-long seminar. Why aren't the editors keying in on his commentary on home schooling? Why aren't they keying in on his commentary on the importance of Christian scholarship? Why aren't they keying in on his commentary on Christian economic theory and its Biblical underpinnings? Because those facts aren't nearly as sexy and disparaging. If editors want to include "controversy" then should rely on reputable SECONDARY sources, who found those facts newsworthy. (And. BTW, "Mother Jones" is a marginal source at best, given the notoriously radical leanings of its editors.) Biographies of living people (BLP) need to be written very carefully, and without even a hint of bias. The standards for authoring BLPs are among the highest in the Wikisphere, and for good reason. Any portions selected from PRIMARY sources that show bias should either be removed! OnlySwissMiss (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• partially improper These statements are vile and despicable, and as they are on his own page I do not doubt that he said them. However, the two sections which do not have secondary sources are inappropriate. This is in a section called controversy. There must be evidence of the controversy to be valid, and that evidence would come from secondary sources condemning his statements. Optimally, this would be in the form of a reliable source objectively describing the controversy, but not taking part. Next best would be a reliable source directly making the accusations against the subject. Finally, if a notable person is self-publishing accusations (where such self-publishing is reliable, such as their own website or twitter etc), I might even think that would be acceptable (but such accusations would need to be attributed to that person and not stated in wikipedia's voice. However, if the extent of the "controversy" is the editors here themselves, or some random commentor on a blog/forum somewhere, then those sections should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper/unacceptable: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still [Editors] must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules. This should have been taken to BLP Noticeboard already. [Added later after fuller study: Using a primary source quote after a secondary source identifies an issue is ok. Using primary source to balance an inaccurate or biased opinion (per Wikipedia:BLP#Balance) is ok. Just creating a whole paragraph from primary sources is a no no. So per Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material have removed it. Like I said this should not be an RfC since it's a WP:BLPN and WP:ANI issue. I think enough editors have questioned the use of primary sources to make that clear. So let's not have to take this further] User:Carolmooredc 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The above comment is an ad hominem attack on me, and not an argument; therefore it should be crossed off and disregarded, per WP: No personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak. User:Carolmooredc 13:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper/unacceptable: I agree. The editorial history of this WP:BLP is a good example of POV-pushing, WP:OR, and none-too-subtle character assassination via the use of out-of-context quotes. Anything in a WP:BLP that casts a negative light should always come from the best secondary, NOT primary sources!!! There are lots of WP:RS articles ABOUT Gary North out there. So find them and quote from them, but spare us this "I found it on page 217 of a book that he wrote in 1982" garbaggio! That is WP:OR, most heinously! DiligenceDude (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper to have only primary sources. I notice the heading "Controversy" has been removed, which is good - who was to say that these views were controversial? In terms of actual misrepresentation, I would say that including his view on Native Americans is undue weight - he wrote, AFAIK, much more on the topics of homosexuality and religious liberty. This topic would be a comparatively minor theme. It's good that we have the Sugg quote, but we would need other quotes to back the rest up. I will do some research now. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper and not changeable by RfC Policies may not be over-ridden by any RfC. Really. And, in this case, several policies are involved, none of which may be over-ridden by any RfC ever -- including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. No matter if a thousand people !vote otherwise - they are absolute and not negotiable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper/unacceptable: It is definitely improper to cherry pick quotes from PRIMARY sources, to push a particular POV. Little quotes like that can be damaging if they are taken out of context. That is why RELIABLE secondary sources are so important when it is a biography of some one who is still living. Chipenge (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper/unacceptable. Quotes that are not discussed by WP:SECONDARY sources are subject to cherry-picking and POV skewing. The fact that third party observers have said something about a North quote gives the quote proper WP:WEIGHT for us to include it. Without that weight the quote is WP:UNDUE emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Improper/unacceptable (invited by bot) The wording of the RFC is a bit off, as there are more problems than just primary vs. secondary sources. But cherry-picking form primary sources to present a negative impression is wrong on many levels. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable/proper:

In posting their comments, editors are asked to limit their responses to "...distinct responses, one per editor." per WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding

• Acceptable/proper: - They're probably OK. Wikipedia:PRIMARY might give some reason to be concerned here, but unless there is a specific argument about how one of the references is being misrepresented, I don't see what the issue is. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Acceptable/proper - No argument has been given as to why this material misrepresents North's views. Use of editorial discretion in determining what views of a thinker (drawn from both both primary and secondary sources) are informative in understanding her or his outlook is the norm on WP; and the information presented on an intellectual's entries typically represents a small proportion of what she or he is written. What I did is commonplace on WP BLPs and does not violate policy in any way. Steeletrap (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Acceptable/proper - All content on WP, from whatever source, is selected according to the good faith judgment of editors as to relevance, significance, and neutrality. It is baseless to suggest that the material is unacceptable merely because an editor made the good-faith judgment that these statements of North's are significant and representative of North's work and beliefs. Such judgment is a common, widespread, and valuable part of the editing process. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Somewhat acceptable/proper - the guy is an author seemingly notable for his views on a range of subjects. I don't think there is anything wrong with telling people what those views are and that's kind of the point of WP:PRIMARY. They are his views and what better a source for his views than his views in print? Surely we're not suggesting they aren't his views? The suggestion that quoting someone giving a personal opinion and stating it is a personal opinion is somehow WP:OR is a bit strange to me. How is that original research? If anything, no research has been done because we're literally just dumping his views into the article.

But as below, what isn't okay is then suggesting in Wikipedia's voice that those views are "controversial". In that regard, Gaijin42 is dead right. Who says they are controversial? Me? You? Some other Wikipedia editor? Not good enough folks. His views are his views but until someone says so in a reliable source, they aren't "controversial" views. Beyond that, the commentary from those who oppose including his views seems very much like an attempt at protecting the subject from his own history. That's not what we're about. He said those things and from all accounts he still believes those things. Unless there is an equally WP:PRIMARY source retracting a particular view, I don't see the problem in including it. Stalwart111 07:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include as the primary sources seem to meet WP:ABOUTSELF. It's not unusual for those who preach the supremacy of selfishness as a goal in and of itself, held above social welfare and the conduct of efficient fair trade through regulation, to also hold other fringe views that mainstream readers might find repugnant. It serves the reader and the encyclopedia to prevent whitewashing articles to remove such views. EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Acceptable. Primary sources are not forbidden, despite what some editors seem to think. The primary source is the subject's own books. They are reliably published. The views in question are also factually written and not misrepresented or taken out of context. It has not been analyzed, synthesized, interpreted etc. by Wikipedia editors, but stated as is, except where they were discussed by secondary sources. All of these satisfy our policies in WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Furthermore, given that he is notable for advocating Christian Reconstructionism (and actually does write a lot about homosexuality), I do not exactly see why enumerating his specific views on how such a Christian theocratic state should function is regarded as irrelevant or controversial. These are his own views. If he didn't want anyone to know them, he wouldn't have published books about them. All the arguments against its inclusion seem to rest on the idea that these views are negative and controversial to us. The act of removing them because we find them controversial or negative is actually the only thing here that is biased (the subject obviously does not believe these are negative, so why do you?) and an evaluation (a violation of WP:PRIMARY). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include the information on North's stated views; do not label them "controversial" (or any other adjective) without a good secondary source to support that. It would be one of the worst cases of whitewashing I've seen for the article not to mention them at all. Actually it would be utterly bizarre. On a side note, I'm seeing attempts to misapply WP:BLP in this discussion. That policy should never be invoked to stifle constructive discussion about whether to include verifiable statements made by any notable person, living or dead, nor should it be used to sanitize the article of a public figure who chose to publicly express repugnant views. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Include the information, improve the headings to maintain NPOV - there seems to be an effort to pretend that this guy is part of the Christian mainstream, rather than the divisive and controversial fringe figure that he is. BLP and NPOV do not require us to pretend otherwise; see WP:FRINGE. (And I'm tired of the whole "walled garden" bit, which is really irrelevant here as it is in many places where it's been brought up lately.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include information, but don't label them controversial if others don't Limited use of primary sources is allowed if done in a fair-minded way, to give an overview of North's views. However, primary writings should not be cherry picked for controversial views and then labelled as such. Views that are discussed in secondary sources as controversial may be labelled as controversial. LK (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

Correction. OP's analysis is plainly mistaken; there are secondary sources for two of the four sub-sections: support for stoning to death homosexuals, other sinners, and opposition to religious liberty. The two sub-sections which don't have secondary sources constitute simple paraphrases of North's views, from his published works, bereft of any commentary or inference. So I don't see why they are inappropriate or "OR".Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction made to posed question. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Steeletrap: his own writing is a reliable source on the topic of what he writes. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is pointless. There is no policy-based problem with the text. There is a single editor who declines to accept the reasoned consensus on talk. An open RfC will pointlessly encumber the article for an extended period. The RfC should be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Material drawn from original sources is routinely used to outline the views of intellectuals. This material typically represents a small proportion of all written remarks by an intellectual, and is used according torov editorial discretion. There is no argument given as to why these sections outlining North's views (which are fringe across the board, even on "uncontroversial" matters) are inappropriate or violate the general norm I outlined above. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to character assassination allegations I am frankly befuddled by the allegation that this page is designed to distort North's views in order to make him look bad. The most incendiary statements of North's in the WP entry --namely, that he wants to stone gays and misbehaving children to death -- are sourced by multiple secondary RS. The straightforward paraphrases of original sources (which routinely serve as informative sources on the views of BLP, on good WP entries) are more or less complementary with the "stoner"/anti religious liberty/generally far-right stuff found in secondary RS. I think that those who accuse me of defaming North are projecting their own value judgments on to him; the guy is outspoken in his views, and shows no signs of being ashamed of them. Steeletrap (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

His views are extreme, which makes them repulsive to some but attractive to others. It's not assassination, it's accuracy. MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Miles, I am inclined to think that you are saying here and above that the edits are proper and appropriate. Please confirm or deny this. Steeletrap (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're appropriate. It's not like North is ashamed of this stuff or hiding it. There's nothing to "assassinate" here. MilesMoney (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Commentary - I think this RFC is well-intentioned but perhaps misdirected. By that I mean that since the RFC started, it seems someone changed the sub-headings in the article itself, to the point where the RFC actually points to subsections that no longer exist; now 4 rather than 2 and titled differently. I think the issue with this article actually lies in the sub-headings themselves, now, rather than the text (though the text probably needs some work). Having distinct sub-headings to account for 3-4 lines of text is just silly and does nothing but make it look like the article is an attempt to inject as many POV headings into the article as possible. I think what is said in the article could probably be said under maybe 3-4 headings with 1-2 sub-headings for clarity. There's certainly no need for 18 headings and sub-headings in a 20,000 byte article. What, for example, is the purpose of the sub-heading Opposition to religious liberty for the enemies of God. It might be "accurate" in the broad sense of that word, but as a heading for 3 lines of primary-source text, it really is pointless. Yeah? Beyond that, the primary-source-sourced text is pretty much exactly what WP:PRIMARY is about. He holds those views, he has printed those views and so sourcing those views to his own books is okay. He is notable for providing his opinions on various things - telling the reader what those opinions are is perfectly okay. What is NOT okay is to then call those views "controversial" in Wikipedia's voice without reliable secondary sources to back that claim up. Unless someone else has claimed his views are controversial (each one specifically would be best), then we can't. Until then, his views are his views - simple as that. A secondary but still viable option would exist if he himself had accepted that some considered his views controversial - "So-and-so responded to my book suggesting my views on homosexuality were controversial" - that might be okay. We cannot say his views are "controversial" simply because they are controversial to us or are not particularly mainstream from our perspective. Would I consider his views controversial? Sure. But my opinion counts for naught because I'm not a reliable source for such commentary. Stalwart111 07:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think your remarks regarding the number of sub-sections are helpful, Stalwart; some merging would be a good idea. Regarding the sub-sections under the "controversial views section", two have secondary RS which characterize North's views as controversial. Regarding the two original-sourced passages, I believe that in the OS North mentioned or alluded to the fact that the views are controversial. I will go through the text tomorrow to find particular quotes illustrating this. Steeletrap (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, combining is fine, but do we really need someone to confirm that stoning gays is controversial? 08:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

@Steeletrap - yes, that would be a good start. Until we have WP:RS to say each of his views are "controversial", they are simply "views". Not "good" views, not "strange" views nor "controversial" views. Anything else breaches WP:BLP, plain and simple. Drawing multiple views under the sub-heading of "controversial" when only one has been described that way would also not be okay. Best to just describe them as "views" and then describe as "controversial" only those that have been described that way in WP:RS. Stalwart111 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney - yes. They probably wouldn't have been "controversial" a couple of hundred years ago. There are some countries today where such commentary would be considered a factual statement of law. To suggest they are "controversial", in the context of a BLP, we need reliable sources that say so. Stalwart111 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As User Stalwart mentions, there are far too many subsections with POV titles under controversy and I have removed them per WP:Biographies of Living Persons policy which reads: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. BLPs should not have trivia sections. In ones own private writings one can put a subsection for every sentence if they want, but not on Wikipedia.

Also, do find more secondary sources saying what is controversial. As I am adding above, using a primary source quote after a secondary source identifies an issue is ok. Using primary source to balance an inaccurate or biased opinion (per Wikipedia:BLP#Balance) is ok. Just creating a whole paragraph from primary sources is a no no.

I did a few other cleanup things too. I don't wish to investigate his writings or replies or clarifications of his writings to correct what may be inaccuracies, misinterpretations, etc. But I do want to see full quotes where I put quotation needed to prove that is in fact what he said in full context. The only thing I've ever paid attention to that this guy wrote was when he said in a critical fashion that Christian Zionists supported Israel so that Jesus would come back, take Israel for Christians, and kill all the Jews who did not convert, which seems like a reasonable take on Christian Zionists. I have no idea what the rest of his views are or whether what is in here is a reflection of the bulk of his views or what... But Wikipedia IS supposed to reflect that sort of thing. People who care more about Wikipedia than pushing a pov get that. User:Carolmooredc 14:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I replaced the section headings with NPOV labels that reflect the cited sources in the hope that this will help focus the RfC discussion on the suitability of the challenged text. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Closing improper RfC: Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. After more thorough review of article realized, as I wrote above, material had to be removed. Like I said this should not be an RfC since it's a WP:BLPN and WP:ANI issue. I think enough editors have questioned the use of primary sources to make that clear. So let's not have to take this further]User:Carolmooredc 15:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about the material, so let's leave it in place so that editors can view and opine. (Removing it in effect says "I don't care if there is a discussion going on, I've decided to remove it!) If the BLP problem is so severe, then request administrative action via WP:ANRFC. (I would object to moving this to another forum. This RfC is well publicized, people have commented on both sides, another forum will not change the arguments or ultimate outcome.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure existed and will go there immediately - and ask if WP:BLPN is better place to go or WP:ANI while I write up complaint... User:Carolmooredc 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The ANRFC is the best route to go. The discussion here is contentious and the issue, particularly WRT BLP, may have "wiki-wide implications". – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you are being disruptive. WP:Con does not support your view that BLP is violated. Post to the relevant noticeboard if you are concerned; we have gone this route before, and your charges have been consistently rejected as inconsistent with BLP policy. Steeletrap (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you admit that the stoning comments are obviously controversial, why do we need someone else saying it? Whether they were controversial a few centuries ago would only matter if we were editing this a few centuries ago. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:SRich: I've give it a day for BLPN/ANRFC talk page questions of where it's best to discuss this to be answered in case there is some pre-established policy.

User:Steeletrap. Your BLP violating edits have been reverted so many times in so many articles, I can't even remember which were related to BLPNs and which to just proper editing by BLP-sensitive editors. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

USer:MilesMoney: As a brand new editor you need to acquaint yourself with WP:BLP and WP:OR policy. User:Carolmooredc 17:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Notifications on this RfC: I though we were supposed to mention where notifications were posted? I noticed that User_talk:Stalwart111#RfC_on_Mises_fellow user:Steeletrap notified another user here, which probably isn't a big issue. However, I read that Steeletrap also posted to: Project Biography, Project Economics, Project Calvinism with editorializing, Project LGBT, Project Sexology and Sexuality without mentioning it here. Then User:SPECIFICO chastised user:SRich for accidentally notifying the Libertarianism article talk page (he meant Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Libertarianism). User:Specifico warned he should not notify that project, even though Srich cited the above information! Yet, User:Spedifico recently posted another RfC to that Wikiproject! Isn't this the kind of behavior that led to this long ANI discussion? (Note: User:Srich notes above he posted to a Project, which I've identified as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard . And I just added it to Libertarianism and conservatism projects since the article describes him as both - or will when I put in the LA Times mention; obviously word mentioned twice already.)User:Carolmooredc 17:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Carol, but some other people here seem to think that you might learn something if you read the same policies you recommended. That's why I'm going to have to ask you to be very specific in explaining why we can't summarize "stone the gays" as "controversial". MilesMoney (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because editors who dislike the subject of a Bio violate policy, and Wikipedia isn't always on top of every WP:OR issue, doesn't mean it's ok to violate policy and that repeated violations will not eventually be sanctioned. That's why the WikiGods invented diffs. What did I write above: "Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material." WP:Secondary sources must say something is controversial; and all primary source summaries and quotes must be given proper context and properly quoted. (At least that can be corrected and will be shortly.) User:Carolmooredc 18:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It says no such thing. I read it. You should, too. MilesMoney (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, with all due respect, you've missed perhaps the most important part of the line you keep quoting; the end where it says: "unless written by the subject of the BLP". The material in question was written by the subject. How that material is treated or how is it quoted, framed, responded-to or described are all suitable issues for a talk page discussion and certainly an RFC. There's no reason to close this RFC and certainly no reason to take any of this to yet another drama board while everyone seems capable of discussing the issues maturely and reasonably. In fact, I'm at a loss as to what the "incident" here would be that might qualify it for WP:ANI. There's no lack of participants or discussion or differing views. I'm not one for WP:BOLD editing while an RFC or discussion is underway but apart from a couple of reverts, most of the concurrent edits seem to be moving the article in the broad direction of loose consensus here. For that, participants should be commended, not dragged to ANI.

As for WP:CANVAS, which I think is what was being suggested above, I appreciated the neutral notice I got, especially given I was mentioned in a discussion here a few days ago without being pinged (not that I'm worried about that, but it closes the loop). I apologise for not specifically stating that I was notified of this RFC (though given I have my own RFC in the same categories, I likely would have found it naturally anyway). As I have said before, the more the merrier in situations like this. In a "walled garden" situation, the worst possible outcome is a discussion that includes only those inside the wall. I've proven (several times over, I think) that I have no dog in this fight, nor any particular knowledge of or view of economics in general (beyond my WP-centric views about walled gardens and BLP sourcing which I hold with regard to a number of subject areas). Stalwart111 00:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the WP:Walled garden article. But don't forget the even more pernicious phenomena is WP:Attack page.

I have seen cherry picked out of context quotes shot down too many times in other bios not to wonder when I see them being seriously discussed. Especially when I don't see an effort to find WP:RS on the topic. (Too often I'm the only person actually trying to find a variety of good sources and then seeing people cherry pick out the one bad thing in the article, and delete the neutral or - god forbid positive info that I put in with more BS excuses... don't get me started.) Very frustrating.

But perhaps I was over-reacting a bit on the RfC closure. However, a BLPN still remains possible if that sort of thing continues within the article itself during the Month this RfC is open. Unfortunately, it's harder to get neutral opinions for jerks, than for others. But since some people somewhere might want to use a few jerks to tarnish all freedom lovers everywhere, it seems like at the least Wikipedia should try to uphold it's Neutrality in BLP policy. User:Carolmooredc 00:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To be an "attack page" it needs to be... well... an attack page. Other than the misguided headings which have now been fixed, I fail to see where the "attack" is. He can't attack himself and these are simply his quotes. If the guy had spent his life talking about non-controversial things and then written one book where he said some strange stuff but we spent 90% of the article focused on that book, I'd agree with you. The guy seems to have spent his entire professional life making controversial statements and we recount some (though seemingly not all) of those. I've even argued that we shouldn't call them "controversial" until others have in reliable sources. I'm also not clear as to who the "jerks" are and who the "freedom lovers" are. Stalwart111 00:42, 28 July 2013

Proposed resolution With a majority of editors supporting keeping the original material, and many of those who advocate changing it only having a problem with the term "controversial" and/or the sub-section titles (rather than the actual content), I propose that we resolve is issue by (per WP:Con) keeping the original material, which the vast majority of us believe is an accurate representation of North's views (indeed, one user has found a secondary RS to that effect) but changing the sub-section titles.

The specific change I propose in this regard are as follows: we create two sub-sections "Theological views on homosexuality" (for the god hates gays) stuff and "Support for stoning to death homosexuals, other sinners" (for North's support for executing various people, which has gained him a lot of attention in RS). These sub-sections are both specific and NPOV, since they plainly describe North's views bereft of commentary or inference.

I propose that North's opposition to religious liberty be merged into the general "political and economic beliefs" section, rather than having its own sub-section, since it is more or less complementary to his pro-theocracy views. I propose that the Native American sub-section be deleted and the material therein moved to a new section titled "views on history", which I plan on creating anyway, since he is a Ph.D in history and the entry describes him as a historian.

What say you all? Steeletrap (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First, Wikipedians don't make decisions on "votes," but on policy, including in RfCs. Also, RfCs stay up for a month. As noted, some irrelevant Wikiprojects were notified while some relevant ones were left out. It's the weekend. Please don't rush it.

Also, the main issue is - do we include cherry picked quotes from one 468 page document that no one has the time to read and analyze themselves? or from a second 797 page book? Or do we try to find WP:RS that comment on the topic and then only use quotes regarding topics they have commented on, assuming someone wants to search for them? A lot of damage can be done to people's lives and reputation with cherry picked quotes. User:Carolmooredc 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• We need to look for secondary sources. It was easy to find one on religious liberty. There was extensive interaction in one book that I found, and I have added material to the article. But I can't find any interaction with North's quote on Native Americans. It's simply not as an important part of his writing and theology as the issues of capital punishment and liberty. It definitely fails WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. Unless someone can find a reliable secondary source, the subsection should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A good start. It would be nice if there weren't two sections about economics. And if there was more about actual beliefs (per my refs presented below) so the article at least gave more context before launching into the sensationalist stuff, some of it from biased sources without any reference to what North document actually said it. Wikipedia should do better and find such documents. Or there is the Letter to Paul Hill that was so abstruse I gave up after ten minutes trying to figure out where he called for capital punishment. It's annoying to see all this work done to cherry pick from huge documents, and then no explanation of what one is referring to in a short one. User:Carolmooredc 03:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I think my eye caught the phrase, "If, as an accident, a woman has her child aborted, and this is a capital crime, then we can legitimately conclude that if it is a self-conscious effort to kill the woman's child, then abortion is still a capital crime." But then North goes on to say "But the reality is that there is no verse in the bible that says directly that the practice of abortion is illegal." To be honest, I looked at the article expecting North to say that abortion was a capital crime, because that was in the "reliable" source. But now I'm not so sure. I think it's better just to remove the mention of abortion. StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why we're not allowed to interpret things ourselves; we mess up. I added a ref that confirms North supports stoning women who have (or recommend) abortion. It's a reliable source, and you're not. MilesMoney (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree on the problem with primary sources. Of course, your source not really a reliable one. As I say below, At the Reliable sources noticeboard the site was not considered very reliable previously. The authors wiki article is thoroughly non-notable and I've seen lots like that deleted. Shall I take it to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard so you can see how that works and get a response?? User:Carolmooredc 04:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable source I added was reason.com, and nobody's ever suggested it's unreliable. I think you confused the sources. Or, at least, I'm going to assume error, not malice. MilesMoney (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, there was a "reliable" source saying exactly the same thing, but it could be wrong. Can anyone find a primary source in which North says abortion is a capital crime? StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Since so many "reliable" sources that obviously were parotting some other source kept saying he wanted to execute women and the men who advised them, I thought for hell of it I'd see if I could find a source that actually led to a Norh document. This does and if you search that chapters refs it refers to 1989 book WHENJUSTICE. IS ABORTED. Biblical Standards for. Non-Violent Resistance. Now I couldn't find right search terms to bring up the right quote and wasn't going to read whole book. But the bottom line is, some editors are more interested in piling and putting back crappy refs and claiming false consensuses to use WP:OR, etc. and wikipedia has no mechanism for dealing with it. So it's a useless cause. User:Carolmooredc 06:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. We all agree that we have reliable sources which say North wants women to be stoned for abortion. If you really doubt that these sources are accurate, you can go look for other sources that contradict or even correct them. You can't apply your own original research to the primary sources to overrule the secondaries, and you definitely can't expect me to do that work for you. MilesMoney (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All User:StAnselem and I are discussing is, as I see it, if you see the same wording over and over in dozens of sources you start wonder where it came from. But frankly my dear i don't give a damn. unwatching this article. more important ones to deal with. overshot my wikipedia budget for 1.5 weeks today, so must desist.... User:Carolmooredc 06:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It's really hard to see where this RfC is going, considering the article has changed so much since it was opened. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)