Talk:George Grant (author)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Mormon or Presbyterian?

Part of the article says Grant is a Presbyterian and part says he is a "Mormon reconstructionist". Surely he is not both a Mormon and a Presbyterian.

Section title

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)

"Legislating immorality" content

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: [1] 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)

Primary Source Documents

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)

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)

RFC for Legislating Immorality content

The consensus is to add:

Grant is a prominent figure in the Christian reconstructionist movement in the United States, and has been noted for his extreme conservative views, particularly on the topic of homosexuality.

to the lead because it is reliably sourced and due weight. There is no consensus for or against adding:

Grant wrote approvingly about past executions of gay people in his 1993 book Legislating Immorality.

to the lead. There is no consensus about whether it would be WP:UNDUE weight in the lead so there is no prejudice against discussing this further.

Cunard (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do these sources [2] [3] [4] warrant writing that George Grant wrote positively about past executions of gay people in his 1993 book Legislating Immorality? Benny White (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The talk page discussion is quiet, but the issue has showed up at least once before in the history (see addition and reversion in 2015), so I'm looking for more input. This diff contains proposed wording for the content. Benny White (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this information is relevant to the subject and the sources provided are reliable (particularly the NYT article). However, I don't think the linked diff is ideal in terms of how it integrates that information into the article (especially the addition to the intro). The tone of the article veers from fluffy biography of some generic pastor to, wham, advocates executing gay people. Ideally the article should ease us into that with context. Two of the secondary sources you cited above mention that he's a leading figure in Christian reconstructionism. That seems like useful information. Colin M (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Good points about the abruptness and the Christian reconstructionism info. I didn't find a whole lot more information to ease the transition, but here's something for the lead, with two more sources:

Grant is a prominent Christian reconstructionist. He wrote approvingly about past executions of gay people in his 1993 book Legislating Immorality.

Body text would be added as well, probably mentioning that Reason in 1998 quoted Grant as saying "It is dominion we are after." Thoughts on further improvements? Benny White (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that looks good. Though I would lean towards not specifically mentioning the executions thing in the intro, and going just a little more general. e.g.: "Grant is a prominent figure in the Christian reconstructionist movement in the United States, and has been noted for his extreme conservative views, particularly on the topic of homosexuality." The intro is supposed to be a broad summary - mentioning one section of one book (of apparently 60+ that he's written) could give the impression of WP:UNDUE weight. The exception would be if that statement was so outrageous that it has been a dominant theme in RS coverage of the subject. But I'm thinking that's probably not the case. Based on some googling, it seems like this guy has written a lot of controversial stuff e.g. [5] Colin M (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks like good wording for the lead. However, I'm on the fence about whether to also add the "executions" sentence after it. One one hand, it is one book (that we know of). On the other, three of those sources mention that content prominently in relation to Grant (it's almost the only reason the NYT source mentions Grant), and it might be beneficial to clarify what "extreme" means in the lead... Benny White (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Should be included as per the rs coverage, leaving it to others to determine whether in the lede, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Colin M and Atlantic306: Thanks for commenting. Seems there's clear consensus to include the information, except there's no consensus on the "executions" sentence in the lead. I'm new to the RFC process; should I go ahead and add the RFC closure templates, or wait longer? Benny White (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's ping @HermBavinck:, the user who originally objected to the material under discussion, and give them a couple days, in case they want to chime in. If there's still no further activity over the next few days, I would say, sure, be bold and re-add the material. You can also remove the {{rfc}} template, but you should not do a formal closure (with {{closed rfc top}} and a summary of consensus), since that should only be done by uninvolved editors. (Most RfCs don't need formal closure anyways). Colin M (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week so I'll add it. Benny White (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased sources

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)

Notability tag

Mentions in sources aren't what is needed to establish notability. Significant coverage is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

True. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" according to WP:N. The five sources mentioned () include multiple sentences about Grant and confirm some other details in the article (the King's Meadow, Coral Ridge, and anti-abortion info). Benny White (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• Using them to confirm details isn't an issue and I understand that significant coverage doesn't mean it has to be the main topic. But you can't add up a couple of sentences here and a couple of sentences there to equal notability. If there was true significant coverage, we should be able to show a single source and call it significant coverage. If it takes a supporting cast, then it wasn't significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• The second SPLC source merely mentions his name. Not even a quote. There merest of mentions. The first SPLC source mentions him and using a single sentence quote. Not even close to significant coverage. The Op-Ed piece from a non-notable guest author is a single bullet point and truly wouldn't count as a RS. The Reason source is 2 mentions, most of which is a quote from the subject Grant. ditto the NYT article. None of these are significant coverage....and you can't add them up. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..." Couldn't hurt to get a third opinion tho. Benny White (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Multiple mere mentions don't add up. Also, don't some of these actually quote the same quote? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That WP:BIO bit doesn't specify a minimum amount of detail per source, and I think there's enough information in those sources to establish notability. The fact that the same topic is covered in multiple RS (with their own commentary, at different times) makes notability more likely.

Seems unnecessary to leave a maintenance tag on if it's already been discussed, so why not start an AfD? That would establish consensus one way or the other. Benny White (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• First, you act like the tag is some huge deal. It's not. Tagging it can actually encourage people to source it fully. Here you are, looking stuff up aren't you? Second, no amount of mere mentions add up to notability, no matter how you try to twist BIO. The rest of that sentence says "... trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Trivial coverage= mere mentions. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, life got busy. Fair enough; those are about the only RS I've found but let's see if other editors find more. If not, I'll probably start an AfD after a few months to get consensus about whether the existing sources establish notability. Benny White (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding some more info to the entry, but would also support AfD. Don't believe that a pastor who occasionally makes the news for a stance on homosexuality rises to the level of notability Jimstevens25 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I started an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Grant (author). Benny White (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)