Talk:Gary North (economist)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)