Talk:David North (socialist)

David North as "business owner"
There has been a long running campaign of vandalism to include information out of the scope of this article, namely by inserting the claim that David North is a "business owner." This is not relevant to the article. The subject of the article is primarily known for being a leading member of the socialist movement, which is pretty clear from the title of the article. Even if the subject were to own a business, it would not be relevant information within the scope of the article. These actions are comparable to, for example, editing the article on actor Steve Carell to say that he is a "business owner" because he owns a store, though no one would suggest that is what he is known for, and it would detract from the focus of that article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:29E5:3D84:1B44:93D0 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevance article you posted even says that any information directly related to the topic is relevant. "The highest relevance is information directly about the topic of the article". I don't see why removing this individual's occupation is justified. Perhaps it should not be in the main first sentence, but I don't see why occupations should be removed all together. There is a sentence in the article describing how his company won an award for the best place to work at. If his occupation as a business owner of a printing company is not important, then that sentence should be deleted as well. Catiline52 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that should be deleted as well, but since it is at least sourced, I did not feel it appropriate to simply remove it without some sort of discussion. I did not want to start an edit war. Considering that "David North" is in fact a pen name, and that the articles title is "David North (socialist) it seems obvious to me at least that the focus of this article should be on the subjects political activities. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:29E5:3D84:1B44:93D0 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Comment by Thucydides411
Since this is a Wikipedia biography, there are certain standards of decency and precaution that have to be met in choosing what to include in the article and how to present the information. The inclusion of the CIA-accusation in such a short article violates this principle, since it gives the reader a very distorted view of David North. I'm sure that there are many events of more significance in David North's career since the 70's that are worth mentioning. It would be appropriate, for example, to go into the positions that Mr. North has taken on various events in the WSWS. If, however, the article were much longer and the accusation were presented in the context of a larger section (perhaps titled "Conflict with Gerry Healy" or "Breakup of the WRP"), then they would not violate this rule. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no susbtantial and/or verafiable evidence of your claims. To include this material would constitute a violation of wikipedia's strict rules and regulations related to biographies of living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoshottupac (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue in question was published in a book. I don't hear that the author was sued for this.  The issue in question is not a rumor. It was widely discussed. Therefore wikipedia can and will include this fact. If you want to improve the article, please feel free to expand. `'Míkka>t 05:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As Thucydides411 has already correctly explained, inclusion of the CIA accusation gives a highly biased view of North, and as such IS against wikipedia guidelines. If you still wish to include this, it must be through a much larger section explaining the decade long conflict with Gerry Healy. Sch6les (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have already explained just above, please feel free to expand the article however you wish, if you think it is incomplete. But you are not allowed to delete information which so classic as to be incuded in books. If you are so worried about the image of North, why don't you write a good big article? `'Míkka>t 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of the prior Articles' Talk
What about that (see last page in my talk archive)? What strict wikipedia policy affords that? Lycurgus (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Untitled and unsigned comment
I have deleated comments on this talk page by Thucydides. Whilst correct, their presence is unnecassarily insinuating...


 * Edited this so it's not associated with me Lycurgus (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this material as it is unproven and insinuating...Why not present information relating to North's writings, or political life? The repeated inclusionof this material serves to bpresent a biased view... Whoshottupac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoshottupac (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David North (socialist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612055453/http://www.wsws.org/IML/heritage/heritage_index.shtml to http://www.wsws.org/IML/heritage/heritage_index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Trinity reporter and BLP
A series of edits by IPs and throw-away SPA accounts  have attempted to include, in the second sentence of the lead, text stating that North is David Green, a 1971 graduate of Trinity College. The information is sourced to page 9 of this (I've also found it on page 9 here ), and amounts to a few lines listing the publication of a book. The source is not a description, a paragraph, or even an article. The text may be technically correct, but it may also be false, and it's impossible to verify the information given such extraordinarily thin sourcing. On these grounds I'm removing the information, which should not be restored per WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPREMOVE, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Per those policies, there are ample sources discussing other and easily verifiable aspects of North's work. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have the best understanding of the rules. Am I to understand that anything sourced from this publication is not usable, or would a "description, a paragraph, or even an article" from this publication be relevant? 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:1EF:3553:8EC3:48E0 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A description, paragraph or article about David North in the Trinity reporter would in my view be usable. If that article contained contentious material an editor might challenge it. In that case, further confirmation in other reliable sources could help resolve whether the challenged material remains in the article or does not. If you would like to follow up on these rules I'd just encourage you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic, which are not long and can be found here: WP:BLP. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for undoing recent contributions
I apologize in advance if I am not accurately following posting protocols. I am not an expert editor. I am, like the best editors at the Wikipedia interested in documenting the truth to the best that it can be discovered. I undid the contributions that cited an article by Gilbert Ashcar which called David North a "sicko." Such name-calling without argument or evidence is slander in my opinion and not worthy of good scholarship. While I undid Karma1988's contribution here, I did retain his contribution in the Wikipedia article for the World Socialist Web Site for people to read and make up their own minds about Ashcar's criticism. Bottom line: name calling should be eliminated from articles about living persons. Thank you for reading my message. Robert B. Livingston (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ashcar text is poorly sourced and is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, found here: WP:BLP. I have removed the text. -Darouet (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As Gilbert Achcar is one of the world's most prominent Trotskyist intellectuals (admittedly a small pond), I think there's a strong prima facie case for his views being noteworthy, but it would be better to show noteworthiness via secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Harassment by political opponents"
who are the editors you are accusing of harassing the subject of this page? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding More Content
I think this page would benefit from additional content. At present it gives information about some of this person's views, some of their history, but it seems the subject matter of what is written about vs. what is not written about to be somewhat random or haphazard. I will add some content to round out issues and conflicts that have not been covered. G.black.123 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I began taking this up. I added two new paragraphs on work since 1990's to improve the "Political history tab". G.black.123 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Pen name
I am somewhat confused about recent back and forth editing of this BLP. Specifically, there seems to have been a dispute via edits and edit summaries but raised here, over the inclusion of real name vs pen name. This edit by WP:SPA removes mention of his real name (which cites a 2020 letter from him to a university newspaper, so not something he's kept secret) and of his business career (citing a dead link to a local newspaper), saying these "violated Wiki guidelines on contentious/inappropriate biography citations for living people", but I'm not clear what guidelines these violate. This edit by says "The inclusion of his personal name compromises his privacy", which would be a very valid concern if the removed source wasn't him mentioning his use of the pen name. In later edits, the latter editor accused other editors of "harassment" for including it, which is a very strong accusation. Can anyone explain the problem? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Good points for which there seem to be no rational response.2600:1700:7AD0:BB10:650:802B:9386:AAF (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A number of sources (three) within this article which have not been disputed now identify David North as David Green. At this point, unless all of those sources are disputed and removed, there seems to be no reason not to explicitly include the real name vs pen name distinction. 2600:1700:7AD0:BB10:C89E:19A7:30D:C9C1 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)