Talk:Gary North (economist)

Other Gary

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

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

"Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot" website

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

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

Controversial in first line

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

"Political Beliefs" section

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

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

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

Alleged Racism

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

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

"Super Cheap" video

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

Y2K alarmism

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

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

Re-title article Gary North (Christian economist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New section: Writings

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

Averted catastrophe

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

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

uncited quotes

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

Rushdoony

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Support for executing nonviolent people

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

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

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

Presbyterian still?

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

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

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

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

More on ICE to DEM.

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

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

Controversial views section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR Tags

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

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

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

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

Retitling article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics, please, on OR charges

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)