Talk:George Grant (author)

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: To me, the heading "Opposition to homosexuality" seems too soft for someone who's supported executions for gay people. I think "Anti-homosexuality" carries a more accurate implication, but am open to other ideas as well. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Benny White (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title 

message: For a recent edit that removed information about one of Grant's books writing positively about past executions for gay people, the summary argued that information should be based on directly reading the primary work. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is important here. It states that "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible", and that "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves". While it couldn't hurt to cite the primary work as a supplement (personally, I don't have access at the moment), it would be difficult to use it much in the article without a serious original research issue.
On the other hand, reliable secondary sources agree that Grant wrote positively about executions for gay people; it's not a fringe viewpoint. I found another source that looks reliable:  Further, two of the three sources do quote part of the book. With appearances in several news articles at different times, I believe this fact warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Benny White (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legislating immorality" content 

message: Attributing beliefs to an author from disputed secondary sources is hardly an objective standard for journalism. The three secondary sources cited are all partisan opinion pieces. Because the issue of homosexuality hardly represents a significant aspect of Grant's work, because the book in question is more than two decades old, and because it is not quoted at all, this is a matter that should be left out of this article.  Alternatively, delete the whole article altogether. 
In thirty years of knowing Grant, reading several of his books, and hearing him speak on multiple occasions, this topic has never even been mentioned. So, to drag him into this fray hardly seems fair or reasonable.
Let the author speak for himself rather than relying on ideological partisans making disputed assertions.
:The Moscow-Pullman Daily News source is an opinion piece; I made sure that was clear in the source title and didn't use any information that was exclusively found in it. The other two sources (the New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center) are considered reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which reflects current editor consensus. (The Daily News looks reliable overall, but doesn't seem high-profile enough to show up on RSP.) RSP mentions that the SPLC is considered a "biased and opinionated" source, so it couldn't hurt to attribute information from it and the Daily News piece. However, both agree with the Times source, which doesn't require attribution, so I'm not sure that's necessary.
:As mentioned above, secondary sources are the foundation for Wikipedia articles. We could use a primary source as a supplement, but not as the basis for this content, since doing so would require prohibited original research. Reliable secondary sources specifically mention Grant for this topic, which I think justifies its inclusion. Benny White (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support its inclusion. He authored multiple books on this subject, and it is a biography. It has nothing to do with being partisan, rather, an objective view of a person's body of work. Also, source [1] does not seem to support the content immediately preceding itJimstevens25 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Source Documents 

message: Sources like Theonomy: a Reformed critique, which is described as "controversial literature" in WorldCat and sounds like it's from the same viewpoint as Grant (Christian reconstructionism is described as a Reformed theonomic movement), would be considered biased. (Possibly not reliable either.) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources, that doesn't mean they have to be excluded, but they have to be balanced with other reliable sources. If those sources exist then we could go ahead and include the material (following NPOV) but otherwise, we should probably leave such content out: "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Benny White (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sources