Talk:Gary North (economist)/Archive 4

Posting Issues with Citations, before starting another Edit war
I disagree with North on religion, but believe he's incredibly solid on economics. That said, a bunch of claims on here about his religious beliefs are extreme, and also unsubstantiated. Before I start editing away, I'd love it if a few other editors would check out what I found. Because there is some VERY un-encyclopedic stuff on the Gary North article here that doesn't pass a smell test, i.e. the "citations" aren't valid at all. I think some person or persons with a major anti-Gary North agenda have heavily edited this article. Also, a lot of people hate North, and cite things that cite other false things about him, in a circle. To whit:

From Wikipedia: "North favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; these include women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents,[22] male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses in the Old Testament.[23] North also favors capital punishment for women who have abortions.[24][25]"

[22]"The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death". See Olson. Also see Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), pp. 59-60. Walter Olson quotes North with no citation to the original

WHAT I FOUND: - I read pages 59 and 60. None of the quotes are there, quotes are not even inferred by the context.

[23] John Sugg, "A Nation Under God", Mother Earth News John Sugg, "Public Stoning: Not Just for the Taliban Anymore." Alternet. John Sugg, "Warped Worldview: Christian Reconstructionists Believe Democracy Is Heresy, Public Schools Are Satanic And Stoning Isn’t Just For The Taliban Anymore", Americans United

WHAT I FOUND: Again, lots of wild quotes, no citations

[24]"Invitation to a Stoning: Getting cozy with theocrats" by Walter Olson, Reason, November 1998, pages 1 and 2 Walter Olson from the November 1998 issue WHAT I FOUND: Lots of quotes from several Reconstructionists, very few citations, no citations for North

[25]North, Gary. "Letter to Paul Hill". Retrieved 28 July 2013. Paul Hill murdered an abortion doctor and his body guard, while wounding the doctor's wife. Hill wrote a rambling manifesto citing the reconstruction framework as justifying the murders.

WHAT I FOUND: North wrote the letter in question to debunk Hill. North says Hill is "headed for Hell". North says the Bible doesn't sanction the killing of an abortion doctor and goes on to say the Bible is silent on abortion. Actual quote; "But the reality is that there is no verse in the bible that says directly that the practice of abortion is illegal. There is no verse in the Bible comparable to the original clause of the Hippocratic Oath forbidding abortion. There is nothing this graphic; there is nothing this specific." North goes on to contradict Hill's claim that it's justified to kill a woman who is trying to have an abortion. North says; "And if your disciples do this, what will happen to those unborn infants? Your disciples, not the mothers, will become the murderers."

MY CONCLUSION; I can't find any primary evidence to support most of the more extreme claims against North in this article.

ElizaBarrington (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eliza, I suggest you move this down to the bottom of the page as a new thread. A lot of water has passed under the dam and over the bridge since the last comment in this section. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've taken the liberty of doing this. This looks like an important this to discuss and resolve. StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eliza, you're right that some of his political views seem extreme by modern, non-Biblical standards, so we definitely want to be careful not to put any words in his mouth on these issues. Looking at the sources, I don't think we're doing that at all. Have you read this? MilesMoney (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * She pointed out that the above statements are not backed by valid citations. Whatever you may think of north, are you aware of specific sources that back the above statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I offered a valid citation to back it up. MilesMoney (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That article claims he has written those things. But does not give any citation as to where it is written and can be confirmed. As this is a significant WP:BLP issue if untrue, and all are inagreement that this view would be extreme, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This does not meet that bar. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is a reliable source. The fact that is claims these things is sufficient. We don't need to go digging in the primary sources to try to confirm them. Please consultWP:RSN to confirm what I just said. MilesMoney (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need them to cite primary sources to corroborate all these claims, though such prmiary sources are available. (I tried to add a primary source where North literally said 'God hates gays, and he should'; but some of North's supporters had it deleted.) On Wikipedia, we go off of the statements of reliable secondary sources. We have a number of RS substantiating these claims against North. Steeletrap (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Some of North's supporters"? Your wording and source got deleted because they did not meet Wikipedia's standards for controversial BLP content. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it more than a little rich that people who cried "no primary sources" when I added North's original statements vilifying and advocating the murder of gays are now saying we can't use the secondary sources who assert that. Steeletrap (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As much as the statements ascribed to North might seem extreme, our sourcing is extremely good. We not only have the primary source which show his own words, we have multiple secondary sources to avoid any appearance of original research. MilesMoney (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent removals
I'm hoping someone could explain why citations and their summaries were repeatedly removed without explanation or discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weren't you specifically warned about using reliable secondary sources (vs your selection of, and interpretation of North's primary documents?), and topic banned from LVMI? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following the topic bans, but clearly the removal was because of the reliance on primary sources and the synthesis that results from it. For example, it is totally misleading to cite a statement of North where he says he has a PhD in history to say that "he has no degree in economics". In fact, his degree was in economic history, with his thesis being on "The Concept of Property in Puritan New England, 1630-1720". StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the topic ban is just for the Ludwig von Mises Institute but it is not a good look seeing User:MilesMoney adding poorly sourced material to related BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * StAnselm, please explain what sort of WP:OR you used to convert "economic history" into "economics". As I read it, your complaint is that I'm sticking too closely to the sources. Perhaps, but if so, that's something you could learn from. MilesMoney (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the economic history/economics question is one that has been discussed previously in regards to the article title. But I'm not the one seeking to change the article. I think you've misunderstood the objection - you weren't sticking to the source at all. The source says North has a degree in history. You added a claim to the article that he didn't have an economics degree. That's simply not what the source says. StAnselm (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's start with this:
 * This was a citation that you removed for no apparent reason. It's the primary source that was referenced by the secondary source preceding it. Please justify its removal, and remember that this article is under general sanctions so violation of WP:BLP is especially unacceptable. MilesMoney (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this article under general sanctions? There is no mention of that here. I don't generally edit other Austrian Economics articles, so I didn't know what had come of all the discussion... StAnselm (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be; North is an Austrian economist, so WP:AEGS applies. Now, please explain why you removed that reference. MilesMoney (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the standard sanctions banner here so that there's no further confusion. MilesMoney (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you knew that this article was under general sanctions, why did you edit war? Your addition was reverted, so you should have started a talk page discussion explaining why it should be included, rather than just adding it back in. Now, it's interesting that you are concentrating on the reference citing North's 1982 essay - and that is the only component of your edit that has any merit. But I still wonder at the necessity of including it - is it merely to demonstrate that Olson is citing North correctly? Finally, on a more formal level, Olson is not citing North at all, and possibly was quoting from another secondary source. For all we know, Olson hasn't actually read the 1982 work. But that would have no bearing on the article. StAnselm (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP, so we have to be especially careful not to misquote anyone. Even the material you removed had a misquote that nobody else had bothered checking, so this is not an unreasonable concern. Do you have any explanation for why you removed the source? MilesMoney (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, Olson quoted from a book by North, not an essay. Second, are you claiming it's original research for us to identify the book that this quote comes from? Or are you claiming that, if Olson found the quote through another reliable source, this would somehow invalidate Olson? What are you even trying to say?! MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, Olson quoted from a book by North, not an essay. Second, are you claiming it's original research for us to identify the book that this quote comes from? Or are you claiming that, if Olson found the quote through another reliable source, this would somehow invalidate Olson? What are you even trying to say?! MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm, do you plan to respond or do you agree that the referenced primary source should be restored? MilesMoney (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with it being restored as written. My personal preference would be to have simply "North has said" rather than "Walter Olson from Reason quotes North as saying" and then have both Olson and the primary source. StAnselm (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, then that's what we'll do. MilesMoney (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I support your edit, but I seem to recall that the previous consensus on this page was not to have direct statements from North. I'm not sure why, really, and of course consensus can change. StAnselm (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Initially, there were too many quotes that had only primary sourcing, which led to attempts to censor the article by removing these quotes. In defense against this, the quote we're talking about was cited to a secondary source, which is fine, but went a bit overboard by attributing it to the secondary source. I think the current version restores the balance. The primary source confirms the accuracy while the secondary source confirms the significance. MilesMoney (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Thanks for the discussion, and I'm glad we could come to an agreement. StAnselm (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy that we could come to a compromise we could each live with. MilesMoney (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename article?
Very little of the article concerns North as an economist. (Indeed, his degree is in history, and 12 of the 46 books listed have "economics" as part of their title.) Let's rename the article. I suggest either "Gary K. North" or "Gary North (writer)". (We can't use 'Gary North' because that is a dab page.) My preference is Gary K. North. Using "(writer)" sounds like he only does writing. If we get agreement on one or the other of these, I'll do the work via a WP:BLAR. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:COMMONNAME. Unless he uses his middle initial in his books and such, we shouldn't make it part of his article name. Likewise, the article may not be primarily about his economics, but an economist is what he is. We've gone over this before and policy is quite clear. Let's focus on something more important, like content. MilesMoney (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says: "Occupation: Christian social theorist, blogger, author" &mdash; goethean 16:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch: fixed. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I say leave title of article as is. He's an economist. As for not all of his books having "economics" in the title, a lot without that word in the title are still economics books in one way or another. I'm currently re-reading "Government by Emergency." It's largely an investment guide, with a lot about how government actions effect the economy. ElizaBarrington (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a re-examination/re-discussion of the article title? (As several new people have edited lately, their thoughts on removing the "economist" from the title would be appreciated.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think he's difficult to pin down, especially without engaging in POV, so I think the discussion is worthwhile. It seems to me that there is some dissonance because the press sees him differently than he describes himself.
 * When discussed in the press I think it's clear that North is primarily known for his theological views (sometimes called a theologian) – that's the centre of his project. Economics and history are tools he uses to serve theological ends, but he's not a theologian. From what I gather, I believe he might concede to that description.
 * North calls himself an economic analyst: "I'm a follower of economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I am an Austrian School economic analyst. My formal academic training was in history (Ph.D). Since 1974, I have edited the financial newsletter, Remnant Review." That's a carefully worded, terse statement; I think he would have called himself an economist if he believed that term applied to him. He calls von Mises and Rothbard economists; he thinks of himself as something slightly different.
 * Based on the press descriptions and North's statement I don't think we should call him an economist – unless we can establish he is competent in the field and respected by academic economists.
 * I don't have a better term. I think all these possibilities are valid: social theorist, theorist, historian, economic historian, Christian libertarian.
 * -Sigeng (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Y2K
I'm the latest person to try to add Gary North's Y2K activities to this page and experience summary removal of same as "not helpful." Y2K media coverage was by far the most significant engagement with the mainstream public in North's life and career. If people outside fairly obscure economic, religious and political circles know of him at all, it is because of this. Material on this element of North's life speaks directly to his credibility, and removal of it casts doubt on the reliability and objectivity of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbeck03 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree that it is relevant, and the section is well sourced. I think it should be included. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What Church Does He Belong To?
This seems relevant info. I once heard, incredibly, that he was an Episcopalian! 213.205.251.177 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary North (economist). 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/20141205032731/http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm to http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm

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) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?
Journalist Martin Amis (The Nation, the New York Press) notes that North has expressed skepticism of the Holocaust, saying he's "not convinced" whether 6 million really died. and described Ernst Zundel's Did Six Million Really Die as "reasonable historical revisionism." (1) Should this be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)
 * Alas, subscription required. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to say the same thing. In any case, I'd like to see a primary source as well, to convince myself that Ames is quoting him in context. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Googling around, it looks like this North quote comes from 1976. He said "I am not convinced yet, one way or the other". He may well have made up his mind some time in the last 37 years, and a much more recent source will be required for inclusion here. The full quote concerning Zundel is "reasonable (though not necessarily irrefutable) pieces of historical revisionism". StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why his view can't be included if we make clear the year in which it was stated. We don't have to use the term "holocaust denial", though it would be entirely appropriate ("skepticism" equates to denial in the academic definition of the term). Steeletrap (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an article by Mark Ames which points out North once praised the work of Paul Rassinier and other Holocaust deniers in 1976, although I don't know if North still holds those opinions:

http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/   79.97.164.232 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. He must have made his mind up, as he is associated with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute, who have no time for deniers. They will look at facts they dig up which are outside the mainstream, while not going along with some of the deniers conclusions. Rockwell and the late Murray Rothbard once issued a joint plain statement on the German governments murder program - "The holocaust happened". 213.205.251.177 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every thinking person that busies itself with the Holocaust sooner or later will conclude that there are several serious issues with that narrative. 105.8.4.63 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)