Talk:Tom Woods/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original research?

There seems to be some original research here that we need to clear out or source. As interesting as a comment like this is:

• When speaking informally at a short conference of the Mises Institute in October of 2004, Woods suggested that maybe he could label himself as "Rockwellian" instead of libertarian or conservative.

can we really say that it is verifiable? And where do we find this critique of Woods?

• He has directed the attention of students to scholarship questioning the value of antitrust legislation and collective labor legislation. He exposes students to the scholarly writers who are critical of Roosevelt's New Deal. He has shown a willingness to discuss unflattering information about a variety of enormously popular American politicians and some popular American wars.

Overall there is a very sympathetic approach to the subject. Perhaps if we remove the unsourced material it will be NPOV. -Willmcw 20:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Will, to be honest, I was hanging out with Tom earlier today, so I am loathe to get into too much substantive editing myself. He's a friend, so I'm more or less sticking to clean-up, wikification, and re-formatting for this article. I actually talked to Tom about this entry when I spoke with him this morning, and he wasn't particularly excited about the present content, anyway. I did source the "bestseller" claim (which is readily verifiable), and I'll work on finding some more sources for some of the other claims. I was unimpressed by the claim about "common confusion" about Woods' political ideology, so I reworded that part of the article to make a slightly weaker claim ("source of confusion for some") that, given the position of the earlier contributor seems necessarily true. Please do what you can to improve the NPOV of the article from your outside perspective, and we'll work on building a better article! Dick Clark 21:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The cruft was apparently added by an anon IP editor who presumably attended Woods' seminar. I've removed all of it. I'm not averse to adding a paragraph on his ideas, but we need to find a 3rd party source to characterize them, or a good source in which Woods describes his own ideas succinctly. Let's build this article up from sources. Editors might add informative articles about him or interviews with him to the external links which we can work from. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Will, the previous bit about Woods calling himself "Rockwellian" is from the Mises Institute Fall '04 Supporters Summit. I believe the germane remarks are available via the media archives which are linked from the bottom of this article. Woods told me that he was more or less joking about being called Rockwellian, although he says that it is more or less true. I am not sure that the quote does much to express Woods' real position, so I am in favor of keeping that "fun fact" from cluttering the article Dick Clark 16:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I restored the aforementioned material for the time being until a proper replacement or sourcing of its text is developed. It's good to have sources, but (1) anon edits are NOT inherently bad and (2) a deficit of sources is not a valid excuse to wipe out an entire article. Rangerdude 23:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's more appropriate to remove the unsourced, POV info until sources are found, as that process may take a long time. No, there's nothing inherently wrong with anon editors, but since they have to name it's hard to refer to them otherwise. Yes, lack of sources is a valid excuse for removing info. -Willmcw 23:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete - The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased." Rangerdude 23:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The principal reason stated for removing the info is lack of source and apparent original research, which also happened to be POV although that is not the chief problem. Can you find a source which says what he told his students in the seminar? If so then we can keep that info. -Willmcw 00:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As usual, Will, you seem unable to make up your mind as to how you wish to justify your political agenda pushing. You have previously asserted the basis for your removal now to be (1) that it was POV since it came from a first party source, (2) that it was added by an anon IP editor, (3) that it's "unsourced," and (4) that it is "original research." While it would be reasonable to edit or change individual portions of the article for reasons (1), (3) and (4), I stand by my contention that your decision to wipe the bulk of the article, as added by the anon, clean in its entirity on any of these four reasons is illegitimate. Why? First, WP:NPOV clearly indicates that the lack of neutrality in an article is NOT a legitimate excuse to delete it and also generally discourages mass deletions of material in general, including non-POV reasons of "determining whether some claim is true or useful," which seem to underlie your "unsourced" claim. Second, even if the entire passage needed sources etc., there is still plenty of factual general info about Woods - e.g. the fact that he's supportive of Austrian Economics, his critiques of various historical issues, his differences with the modern Republican Party - that's valid and proper for this article. Third, consensus simply does not appear to exist for the overhaul you seek, thus you are violating wikipedia's operating principle to push your POV. Rangerdude 04:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

We can't add what we don't have sources for. You'll see I went out and found a source for one of the assertions, and added it back myself. If you can source other parts and add them back then that'd be swell. Also I never said that the material should be removed because it is POV or written by an anonymous editor, I simply pointed out that it was also POV material and that it was added by an anon (rather than any named editor). Unsourced, original research does not belong in Wikipedia, which is why I removed it. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you do not seem interested in abiding by Wikipedia:Consensus and have quickly turned to revert warring as your means of protecting a mass delete that amounts to some two thirds of the entire article, I've requested comments and posted an incident board notice in hopes of getting some outside input. Rangerdude 05:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? I asked around and another active editor disavowed involvement. It appears to me just two editors disagreeing. -Willmcw 05:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The other editor asked you to "do what you can to improve the NPOV of the article from your outside perspective" and indicated an interest in collaborating on major changes ("we'll work on building a better article") - an interest I've also since indicated here. Instead you went in and wiped out 72% of the article and revert warred when I responded that such a major unilateral edit was improper and detrimental. Rangerdude 07:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw this report on AN/I so I thought I'd come take a look. I would suggest that Wikipedia:Cite sources has all the information necessary to resolve this spat. The sourcing policy says that when there is a factual dispute, the disputed information should be moved to the talk page until sourcing can be found. When sourcing is found it can be added back in. (Disputed information which, if verified, would remain in an article, should be placed on the article's talk page—this gives other users the opportunity to find sources to support it, in which case the information could be re-inserted into the article proper.) And, WP:Verifiability gives very explicit suggestions for what to do with text that is unsourced and therefore unverifiable -- it essentially says you should move it to the talk page until a source is found. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:Cite may indeed be of some use here, however as I'm reading it that clause requires the "factual content" to be specifically disputed. Willmcw has simply declared 2/3rds of the article improper without any specification of what he finds factually wrong with it and wiped it clean. It would thus seem to follow that, should he wish to delete that content, he should list the specific sentences within it he wants sources for here on the talk page. Rangerdude 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not only of "some use," it's inherently relevant and is official policy. As far as I can see, he's said the sentences he is disputing are based on the fact that they make assertions that are unsupported by citations. Therefore, they need sources. Whether it's one sentence or a million, 5 percent of the article or 75 percent, if that disputed portion all needs sources, it's removable until such time as a source can be produced. If it were a smaller amount of text -- a sentence or two, scattered around -- it might be possible to use the {{fact}} tag (which adds a subscript saying Citation needed, but in this case I think it's too much text to do that with every sentence. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Katefan, WP:CITE is a guideline whereas the NPOV section I cited indicating that it's improper to use POV and fact disputes as an excuse to delete is official policy. WP:NPOV therefore takes precedence. It should also be noted that even if WP:CITE could be twisted and contorted to justify the removal of 72% of an article, its stipulations require that the text NOT be deleted outright but rather it "should be placed on the article's talk page" and a discussion initiated about what sources should be added and where. Willmcw did nothing of the sort. Nor has he said that he's disputing "sentences" - he blanket deleted over two thirds of the entire article asserting the same set of non-specific reasons. Saying "this article needs sources" or "this article is POV" or "this article is original research" (all three of which are claims Willmcw has made above, contrary to what he now purports) then wiping the thing clean simply isn't sufficient. While I agree that sources could benefit this article, it's of little use to say that or to delete the majority of the text without giving ANY specifics of where he'd like the sources. Rangerdude 22:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're right, WP:CITE itself is a guideline, but that's mostly because what it outlines is the style editors should use with citations used to demonstrate that artile claims are verifiable. However, regardless of how sources are presented, having them isn't optional (which you can find in verifiability, which is an official policy. That same requirement is also clearly outlined in the first portion of no original research, which is also official policy. Saying "this information needs sourcing" when it has none is entirely proper. And if a source can't be provided, it must be deleted -- as per official policy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice and all, Katefan, nor do I disagree with the value of either the policies you cite or the guidelines. But you've still managed to avoid several issues at the center of this RfC.

1. WP:NPOV - a policy - clearly indicates it is inappropriate to use either a POV contention or a factual dispute (both of which are reasons Willmcw claimed as his posts and edit descriptions demonstrate) as an excuse to engage in mass deletion of content.
2. WP:CITE, the guideline you give, says that if lack of sourcing is used to dispute some text, that text should NOT be deleted outright but rather removed to the talk page where it can be specifically discussed and corrected. Willmcw did none of this.
3. WP:V similarly gives a specific procedure for verifying content under the header "suggested procedure for verifying content." This procedure emphasizes (1) using the talk page to investigate specific content questions, (2) moving any disputed content to the talk page rather than deleting it outright, (3) fixing it by adding sources and doing the work yourself to add those sources, (4) providing waiting times, and (5) obtaining participation from other editors. Again, Willmcw did none of this.
4. Contrary to your assertions, there is not so much as one word in any of the policies you cite that reasonably indicates somebody can come in and make a blanket declaration that the better part of an article's content is bad and then delete it without specifying why. Much to the contrary, all of the policies cited above emphasize using the talk page, seeking consensus and group participation, and taking the initiative to fix any perceived problems yourself by adding sources and revising the existing text. Most discourage blanket deletion outright and none gives sanction to blanket deletion as a first option, which is essentially what Willmcw did.

Given your past history, personal biases toward the editor in question, and personal history of mutual animosity with myself, I am inclined to conclude that your neglect of these issues is driven not by any attempt to foster consensus or objectively evaluate the deletions that occurred but rather appears to be driven by an intent to justify Willmcw's action independent of the merit or lack thereof. That being the case, I am of the belief that it would be of greater value to this article and this RfC to get the take of other editors without the distorting lens of the personal history that exists between the two of us. Rangerdude 22:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I came here as a result of your strange report on WP:AN/I, not from the RFC. Beyond which, nothing compels me to give my opinions beyond those I choose to give. The only reason I came here is to help you better understand WP's mandates about verifiability and sourcing, which I assume I have. As to make a blanket declaration that the better part of an article's content is bad and then delete it without specifying why. Willmcw said it was unsourced, not bad. It was unsourced. It was deleted. Simple. You can throw stones about our pending RFAr all you like, but really it has nothing to do with anything. Policy is policy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, rather then spending all of this time complaining why don't you spend a little time doing research, as I did, in order to substantiate the material you want included? Arguing over what percentage article was original research and the history of editors does not improve the article. -Willmcw 22:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Meet your obligations under WP:CITE and WP:V to post and specify the sentences you are contesting on the talk page, thereby soliciting input to find sources for them, and I'll happily participate. Wiping out 72% of the article with no specification and demanding somebody else "fix it" though simply doesn't cut it. Rangerdude 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are some sentences posted at the top of this page. You can start by finding sources for those. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Text Deletion

I posted an RfC regarding the mass text deletions being advocated above by User:Willmcw but being contested by myself. This dispute has produced extensive revert warring and began earlier this evening when Willmcw mass deleted approximately two thirds of the existing text on this article[1], complaining it was from an anon IP edit and implying it was POV. He has since also claimed lack of sources as a reason for this deletion. I contested, citing WP:NPOV which discourages using "lack of neutrality" and disputes over content as an excuse to delete something entirely - especially without talk page discussion or consensus. There has been no talk page discussion on what is wrong with the deleted content beyond Willmcw's unspecified blanket declarations that it is POV or anon IP or unsourced etc. Revert warring has unfortunately resulted despite cites of WP:NPOV and suggestions that the text be discussed and edited rather than deleted.

Willmcw has wiped out the disputed section, comprising about 2/3rds of the article text, three times now:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

The resulting article is a tiny fraction of its former length and detail. I attempted to restore it twice and posted protests of the deletion here on the talk page, decided to seek community input as a revert war was developing and the editor seeking the deletion gave little regard to obtaining consensus for his proposed change. Any input is appreciated. Rangerdude 04:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Before I edited the article is was about 787 words, now it is 404 words. Is that a tiny fraction? Is that 1/3? -Willmcw 05:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here are the real word counts as calculated by MS Word's counter for a copy of the article:

• Word count of article before Willmcw's arrival [5]: 808 words
• Word count after Willmcw's deletions [6][7][8]: 224 words

808-224=584 and 584/808 = 72.3% of the article deleted in one click. Even with Willmcw's later additions after three deletes and a revert war, which he now purports to bring us to 404, 808-404=404/808=50% of the article deleted. Of course, what he added later is in many cases different in content from what he removed and thus would've been unrelated new additions had no deletion occured, so the full loss is closer to the 72% figure. Rangerdude 06:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and add back any material that you can find sources for. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE and WP:V the burden is on you, as the one contesting the text, to specifically list the items you believe to have insufficient sourcing, are POV, or contain questionable facts. Both indicate you should post these lists and text excerpts on the talk page, where they can be individually discussed and collaborative efforts can be made at sourcing them. Wiping out 72% of the article though and saying "go ahead and find sources" though is insufficient under these policies though. Rangerdude 22:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

See the top of this page. -Willmcw 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The top of the page shows only two short sentences. You deleted 72% of the article. Either restore the parts of the article you deleted other than those sentences or place the remainder here with explanation per the explicit instructions of WP:CITE and WP:V. Rangerdude 03:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I count four sentences, but I'm sure that you'll show me I'm wrong. In any case, I made it clear what material I was talking about. -Willmcw 03:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your recurring anal retentiveness aside, the point still stands. You quoted only two short excerpts on the talk page when Wikipedia policies clearly indicate you have the responsibility to post and explain on the talk page the remainder of the 72% of the article you deleted. As to your excerpts, the second is sufficiently sourced with Woods' book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Rangerdude 04:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You are calculating edits to the tenth of a percentage point and yet call other editors "anal retentive"? Please stop your personal remarks about other editors, they do not help improve this article. -Willmcw 04:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Will, as you well know I originally estimated your deletion at about 2/3rds of the article based on a glance at the diffs. You introduced this business about percentages when you posted a word count that falsely portrayed your deletion's size as being much smaller - which I corrected by calculating the actual count and percentage. As to personal comments, one should not try to pick specks from another's eye when he's got a log protruding from his own, and in the realm of personal comments you've exhibited your broadest of branches in practically every end of the forum that you've stalked me to and then some. Rangerdude 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, if you'd like to add this page to your laundry list of complaints at WP:RFArb, you're more than welcome to. I'm not sure how Willmcw was stalking you, however—the history of the article seems to indicated that he edited it before you did...and moreover, that you showed up a scant thirteen minutes after his first edit to the page.

We're all experienced editors here, so the whether or not Willmcw moved the deleted text to the talk page is moot—it's very straightforward to find. For your convenience, I have quoted the removed section below. Please feel free to improve the article by reinserting any relevent material for which you can cite an appropriate source.

This is the beauty of Wikipedia—if someone doesn't follow the precise letter of a policy, it's often very easy to fix. Badgering Willmcw about copying the text to this page is a waste of time when it's so easy and straightforward–and polite and nonconfrontational–to copy it for yourself. Trying to reinterpret Wikipedia policy to avoid the need to cite sources is silly when it's more productive to actually find sources for statements and claims. Build an encyclopedia rather than picking fights. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the copying. -Willmcw 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

Thomas Woods' political and ideological leanings are a source of confusion for some. He at times has referred to himself as a conservative and said that he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq "for conservative reasons." At other times he refers to himself as a libertarian, is severe in his criticism of today's Republican Party, and makes clear his fundamentally rooted and near total disagreement with the types of politicians who are commonly described as conservative today in the United States.

When speaking informally at a short conference of the Mises Institute in October of 2004, Woods suggested that maybe he could label himself as "Rockwellian" instead of libertarian or conservative. "Rockwellian" was a reference to Llewellyn Rockwell, the founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Woods is affiliated with, and has lectured at, the Mises Institute, a private scholarly organization devoted to furthering scholarship and education in various disciplines related to the Austrian School of economics, as represented by economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.

In articles he has written dealing with the political spectrum of Americans, Woods makes a sharp distinction between what used to be called a conservative thinker, like Richard Weaver or Russell Kirk, and what Woods and others call " neoconservative" thinkers. It is clear that Woods' sympathies lie with the former. In articles, lectures and interviews Woods traces the intellectual and political lineage of both the older conservative, or paleoconservative, school of thought and the neoconservative school of thought. Of the latter he writes "the neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary." "Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. They generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus." (edited and added back)

Thomas Woods expressed dismay that his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History was reviewed as if it were aimed at defending the beliefs of American conservatives in general. In particular he was disappointed by reviewers who likely had not read the book, who in numerous cases tried to associate the book with leading pundits of popular American conservatism, like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Woods spoke about this confusion the Austrian Scholars Conference of the Mises Institute in 2005, suggesting that many of his critics "have such a problem making distinctions." Woods went on to explain to the audience that the views he actually would be willing to defend were "an older tradition... that isn't maniacally focused on war, that's focused on decentralization of power."

Amongst people who write about history, Thomas Woods has often ended up as an intellectual counterweight, drawing the attention of students toward the viewpoints that have been disregarded and marginalized by many of those writing about American history. When writing about the American Civil War, he directs attention to the less flattering portrayals of Abraham Lincoln and arguments in favor of the political rights of the southern states. He has directed the attention of students to scholarship questioning the value of antitrust legislation and collective labor legislation. He exposes students to the scholarly writers who are critical of Roosevelt's New Deal. He has shown a willingness to discuss unflattering information about a variety of enormously popular American politicians and some popular American wars.

Verifiability is the standard that I use when presented with some truth claims which I do not dispute (i.e. I have yet seen contradictory truth claims) and yet these claims present a point of view. Here the point of view is that Thomas Woods is a good historian, wise, etc. I'd like to see these truth claims backed by secondary sources (i.e. newspaper and magazine articles, and other books). I am not assuming bad faith on the part of the author, but I think it's original research which I cannot verify.

So don't tell me you heard Woods being critical of the neocons, cite an article where Woods himself is critical of neocons. You might also note that the New York Times got it wrong when it tagged Woods as being a neocon. I'm a big fan of Woods by the way, a member of Conservative Wikipedians, and a Catholic blogger. patsw 17:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Yes. It's obvious. patsw 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Nothing to copy into this article, really, other than to include Woods' full name. Dick Clark 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Need we say more? Эйрон Кинни 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

American anarchists

Why is Woods put in the category of "american anarchist"? Discusses would seem to put him into either the conservative or libertarian camps, but nothing I seen would indicate anarchist.

Woods is a libertarian anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist, as indicated by his comments by which he self-identified as a "Rockwellian" (referring to Lew Rockwell; I've also confirmed today with a phone call to Tom, although that is not acceptable as a primary source on Wikipedia). There is a long tradition of American individualist anarchism which is unrelated to Anarcho-communism, and is, as you suggest, ideologically closer to paleoconservatism or libertarianism than it is to that leftist anarchism which is typically characterized by an anti-corporate, anti-globalist mentality. Dick Clark 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an anarchist

Unlike Lew Rockwell, for example, Woods is not calling for an abolishment of the state. He is calling for an adherence to The US Constitution, which makes him a minarchist like Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.134.177.9 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that a reliable source for Woods's anarchism (or lack thereof) needs to be provided.70.59.84.135 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In this critical source, Woods is described as "anarchist" and calling for the "abolition" of the state. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

League of the South "founder"?

I have again removed the mention of Woods being a founder of the League of the South. There is a very real WP:BLP concern about this assertion because (a) the original assertion was made in very negative, POV language that seemed designed to defame Woods rather than offer an informative tidbit that would increase the article's usefulness and (b) Woods said the following about the mention:

Some 45 people were "founders" of the Southern League (later the League of the South); that simply means you attended a meeting in 1994! Thirteen years ago! My connection with them has been almost nonexistent. You may as well say I founded the chess club at Suffolk Community College (which I did, by the way).

So Woods says that he was at a meeting where some attendees conceived of the League (or a nascent version of it), but that he has had little or nothing to do with the organization since. This objection by the extant subject of this article is certainly enough to indicate that for this information to be included we need multiple, independent sources for the assertion as per WP:BLP. The subject contests this assertion, it is controversial, and it should be removed as is explicitly stated in WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. DickClarkMises 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight plays a role in this as well. DickClarkMises 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How about listing him as one of the 45 founders of the group, then? His involvement with them is important - their philosophies and opinions flavor his book and other writings. It should be noted in his entry. 12.17.65.29 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Has someone notable said this about Woods or is this your original assertion? We need to have multiple reliable, verifiable sources of some notability to make this claim on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you or I think it is important. What matters is that this claim is verifiable. So far I see no evidence of that. DickClarkMises 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IT is quite important but then you don't want to admit he's a member of a racist group. You are completely unqualified to protect this article. You show your bias with your own name I say that wikipeda removes you for obvious abuse of your power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.241.197 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The LOTS association has been remarked on by several reliable (and unreliable) sources:

• http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007450.html#more
• http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/21/last_of_the_confederates/
• http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html
• http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5246&R=EBF7EA
• http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_4.pdf
• http://www.reason.com/news/show/36170.html
• http://www.reason.com/news/show/32253.html
• http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/01/31/3995/
• http://atheism.about.com/b/a/143957.htm

It would be a disservice to the reader to exclude all mention of LOTS. Instead, there should be a a short mention of the matter, giving the subject's explanation as well as referring to the controversy that his limited involvement has generated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, I can't argue with those sources. I think your solution is the right one. DickClarkMises 23:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this:

• Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South,[9] and has been a frequent contributor to its newsletter.[10] His association has generated criticism[11] but Woods asserts his involvement with the group has been limited.

Is that sufficiently neutral, verifiable, and accurate? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, I think your version is good, with one suggested revision. I think the word "frequent"--a form of which is used in the cited source, and one of the others that you listed above (the atheism.about.com source)--may be a bit subjective, and in a way which may advance a particular POV. If we can find some list of articles from Southern Patriot, we could just say "...has contributed (X articles/over X essays/etc.) to...", or perhaps even still use the word "frequently." I honestly don't know how many articles he has written for them, but would feel uncomfortable with that word which two sources highly critical of the subject use for emphasis, unless we can find a number and determine whether that seems frequent given the number of issues of the newsletter. So far I've been unable to find an archive of the thing, but I'm still looking, so maybe one of us will find the answer. This would also allow us to determine the years for which he wrote/has written for them. What do you think? DickClarkMises 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Good points. The subject has also been described as a member, and as a speaker. Lastly, I don't see where the subject has actually characterized his involvement, other than the quote above. So how's this?

• Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South,[12] and has contributed to its newsletter.[13] His membership in the group has generated criticism[14] but Woods asserts his involvement has been limited.

Is that OK? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. DickClarkMises 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the section on Woods' reception in academia

It actually includes no information on Woods' reception, or lack thereof, by reputable mainstream academics in academia. In most cases, from what I have read, the reception has been poor for those bothering to look. I must tell you, The Von Mises Institute is not highly regarded even by libertarians in the Reason and Cato circles. A best selling book, if he has one, has little to do with a positive reception by academia. I understand we will have Von Miseans here and they will have an agenda they want to promote. I don't have a problem with that. I think the more exposure to the light of day the better. The problem here is that, as Tom G. Palmer of Cato has observed, Von Mises himself would probably have nothing to do with the Von Mises Institute today. I'm almost loathe to wade in here but I felt this one issue was worth mentioning. I could supply some links to to various opinions I have come across but why not just let the Miseans add something relevant there. As of now, it's heading without any substance. 76.103.124.31 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions of the Mises Institute are not germane here. The Institute is by definition an academic organization. This is true no matter what Tom Palmer says. However, I would agree that the section header could be better. What is your suggestion? DickClarkMises (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You Dick Clark are hardly one to defend the guy considering your name. As well as the fact your a libertarian I'd suggest someone obviously not biased be given this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.214.127 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Hmm no response seems like I'm on to something about you not being allowed to continue the article.

1: Personal estimations (not opinions) is OK here as far as they regard the articles and their writing style, we almost never discuss anything else here, except as sometimes making some personal estimations of the quality of sources, but the posting style must try to estimate the value of institutes as sources,

2. Personal attacks are forbidden! Personal attacks on DickClarkMises is a special case of personal attacks, and so Mr IP 96.42.214.127 violates the rules of wikipedia.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OP's main objection was that the section "Reception of Woods's work in academia" has nothing to do with woods's reception in academia. I would provide examples of critical reviews of his work, but I could find only one: http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/15048.html. It seems as if Woods isn't taken seriously enough by real academia to merit any real attention, positive or negative. Rather, it seems as if the only people who review his work are Austro-Libertarian lackeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.174.211 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing the title of this section from "Reception of Woods's work in academia" to "Reception of Woods's work." The Von Mises Institute is not an academic organization, despite it what might like to think. It's a libertarian think tank. It also is not part of Auburn University, although it is located just off campus and has hosted programs on campus. (I'm a faculty member at Auburn.)Doktadinal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

libertyclassroom.com

Gerard Casey's contribution to libertyclassroom.com is neither on history, economics, or politics at the moment. His contribution is in logic, which is a branch of philosophy. [15] It is "educational" by definition, i.e., relating to teaching and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squash12 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 League of the South material

Within the last few days there has been some editing about Wood's participation in the League of the South. (Also see earlier discussions, above.) I tagged the media matters cite as needing a better source. Well, here it is: [16]. From what I read, it is a blog comment. I do not see anything that indicates it is a newsblog, submitted by someone under the editorial control/supervision of a RS. With this in mind, the allegation as to Woods is non-RS and subject to BLP scrutiny. I am removing it, and the countering comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich; I disagree, as Media Matters is often cited as an RS by this community. However, here is a better citation, from Max Boot of the Weekly Standard, regarding Woods's League of the South membership and participation. It is more detailed than the Media matters link. (for instance, it observes that Woods is actually a "founding member" of the League and that the League counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants." I will restore the material tomorrow with the new source. Steeletrap (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do review the discussion from a few years ago (above). I have not looked at it carefully, but think it may be helpful. As for mediamatters, I looked for Fredrick as being a staffer or regular contributor, but did not see anything that described who he is. (We simply have a general description of what the blog covers.) With that in mind, I erred on the side of caution, figuring that you or other contributors would weigh in. Have at it! – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Woods' explanation on LoS

At this diff SPECIFICO removed Woods explanation of his relation to League of South, in italics.

He played no day-to-day role in the organization and was not responsible for politically incorrect statements he heard were on the League’s web site. He wrote that as an Armenian, he saw no reason why Anglo-Celts should not be "allowed to preserve their culture". Specifico's rational was remove gratuitous self-serving comment from primary source.

From what I've read from SPLC it looks like the main thing that got the League in trouble was stuff on the website. If he - a busy prof and best selling author with much higher quality material to review - wasn't reading it, it seems like a BLP violation, removing perfectly rational explanations of behavior, thus making the guy look bad. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As per my edit summary restoring the material, I agree. Primary source is not the issue – his statement about himself is appropriate and it serves, properly, to explain his involvement. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What about BRD? Out the window with that? Please see TFD's thougtful analysis below. You should undo your edit and use talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Duh? You are asking about the BRD cycle in the very window that was started by Carolmooredc! TFD is adding thoughtful remarks. What are yours? Please add them. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your personal disparagement, "Duh". I thought my point was clear enough. You undid the revert, when per BRD you should have left it in place whilst we discuss. It's not good form to reinsert the reverted content and justifying yourself with the statement that your opinion is "correct". This is really very disappointing after you've been warned repeatedly about edit war behavior. My flight is boarding soon. I hope that I'll see that you undid your edit, per BRD and removed your Duh, per GS/5 Pillars. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:BLP#Balance, the relevant parts which read: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. ... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.... Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Your removals emphasize a guilt-by-association impression editors and deny subject ability to defend himself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

Criticism sections are poor style and should be avoided, per WP:STRUCTURE. Controversy sections should be about actual controversies, not criticisms. In a controversy, previously unknown actions come to light, various people comment, there is media coverage, and ultimately the person involved weathers the storm or resigns. For example, the Southern Avenger's connection with the LS and his previous writings created a controvesy which led to his resignation from Rand Paul's staff. (Whether or not that section is properly written is beside the point.)

There is no need to write, "historian Max Boot criticized Woods for being a founding member of the League of the South. First, before criticism is introduced, we need to explain its significance. Also, it would be easier to just write, "Woods was a founding member of the League of the South."

TFD (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree per Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 and its linked WP:Criticism essay. I put on {{Criticism section|date=November 2013}}

I think it deserves a paragraph in chrono order of his life, probably after publication of his first best seller? Have to check.

Obviously this is also an issue in Thomas DiLorenzo so made a section linking here which people can deal with as they please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The LOTS material is not presented in a balanced way. The article subject has put out a dozen books, including some bestsellers, and yet a significant portion of the article focuses on one obscure aspect of his bio: some guilt-by-association stuff from twenty years ago. This does not accurately represent Woods' coverage in third-party sources, and it violates our policy on biographies of living persons. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Anarchism

Is there a reliable source confirming that he is an anarchist? I've never heard him claiming like that. Since he's converted to Catholicism, he describes himself as a conservative. Tashi _{Talk to me} 22:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No there aren't. But there are some libertarian theorists and authors who call him (Woods) a "neoconfederate sympathiser" and not a libertarian. (I'll update the article as soon as I can). --Xhonas Reaksionari (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and it is linked to in the introduction paragraph. Further, if you include claims of a living person being a "neoconfederate sympathiser[sic]," you better be backing this up with a lot of evidence. I Use Dial (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No there is not. You inserted a YouTube video fragment, from an unknown period of time, in an unknown context, which didn't mention Anarcho-Capitalism at all. --151.37.99.132 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 September 2016

In the first paragraph, 'podcast' would better be written 'podcasts.'

Stubb05 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Views

Abolitionists

In an essay for the Southern Patriot (the League of the South's journal) Woods characterizes nineteenth-century abolitionists as "utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality".

Bill of Rights

In an article for the Southern Partisan magazine in 1997 Woods writes: "The Bill of Rights, moreover, erroneously invoked by modern Civil Libertarians, was never intended to protect individuals from the state governments. Jefferson is far from alone in insisting that only the federal government is restricted from regulating the press, church-state relations, and so forth. The states may do as they wish in these areas."

Jake Jacobs, a conservative author and historian critical of his view writes: "Dr. Woods a passionate defender of States' Rights and Secession ironically treats States' Rights as if it were an object of religious veneration-a form of Southern state worship that is bizarre and creepy and in the end not a true representation of classic consistent libertarianism but a discombobulated cacophony of orchestrated academic chicanery that under the guise of limited government advances the tyranny of The STATE over the glory of liberty from Government control".

References

|}

--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN Again, I have read the secondary sources you are quoting and they do not corroborate what you are attempting to justify. The other articles you reference are do not qualify as RS: The Jake Jacobs articles, etc. At this point, I can only assume you are purposefully engaging in lying about the author's positions. Your claims that regarding LOTS have been discussed extensively above and yet you ignore the evidence shown. According to Wikiepdia p policy, “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful “ I will immediately remove the submitted changes, if you continue to cite the sources you have here, accordingly to Wikipedia policy. If you do make the above changes without changing your sources, I will again a request for page protection to Wikipedia. --STUBB05 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN

1. You edited the page without waiting the 24 hours that you stated that you would wait.

2. You did not wait for a consensus to be reached on this page.

1. You posted libelous material and did not address my concerns with your spurious sources.

For this reason I am requesting page protection. --STUBB05 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Note from an interested bystander -- I was considering reverting a revert of GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN, decided not to, and then apparently inadvertently hit the rollback link. While I reverted myself, I feel like GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN has the better case, but the edit warring and unfocused discussion make me reluctant to get involved. I would suggest an Rfc, but first you need to get a clear and concise statement of what factual issue is at dispute (i.e. Should Woods be classified as a neo-confederate?)Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN Below is a item by item critique of the sources cited by GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN. As shown below all the sources that GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN cites either do not even claim to substantiate the allegations made or are tabloid journalism with no citations whatsoever. If GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN desires to make the claims he has made he must find RS to back up claims. The behavior of the GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN is reckless and without excuse. If such claims are made they must be backed up by RS. This is suggestive that GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN has fabricated all such claims with the singular purpose to besmirch Woods and his character.

1. "About Thomas E Woods". 2003-07-16. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

A website that archives previous posts online. Makes no claim to be a RS.

2.Young, Cathy (February 21, 2005). "Last of the Confederates". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

Author makes the claim that Woods was a founder of LOTS but cites no sources. NON-RS. Tabloid journalism.

3.Young, Cathy (2005-06-01). "Behind the Jeffersonian Veneer". Reason. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

http://reason.com/archives/2005/06/01/behind-the-jeffersonian-veneer

Author makes the claim that Woods was a founder of LOTS but cites no sources. NON-RS. Tabloid journalism.

4. Muller, Eric L. (2005-02-02). "A Bigot's Guide to American History". AlterNet. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

http://www.alternet.org/story/21139/a_bigot%27s_guide_to_american_history

This author claims that Woods was a founder of LOTS but cites no sources. NON-RS. Tabloid journalism.

5.Woods, Thomas (1995). "Copperheads". Southern Patriot. 2 No. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1995): Page 3–5.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

6.Woods, Thomas (1995). "The Abolitionists". Southern Patriot. 2 No. 5 (Sept. - Oct. 1995): Page 36–37.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

7.Woods, Thomas (1996). "Battling Cyberhate". Chronicles. 20 No. 5 (May 1996): Page 49.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

8. Woods, Thomas (2003). "Book review of "God and the World" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger". Chronicles. 27 No. 5 (May 2003): page 28–30.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

9.Woods, Thomas (1997). "Christendom's Last Stand". Southern Partisan. 17 (2nd Quarter 1997): Page 26–29.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

10. Woods, Thomas (2001). "Sitting Amidst The Ruins: The South Versus the Enlightenment." (Cover Article)". Southern Partisan (2nd Quarter 2001): Page 16.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

11. Woods, Thomas (2002). "Book review of "Revolt from the Heartland" by Joseph Scotchie". Southern Partisan (Sept. - Oct. 2002): Page 31–34.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

12. Hague, Euan. "Essay: The Neo-Confederate Movement". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 2015-07-31. Arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical, Southern Partisan began publication in 1979 and was established by two men who subsequently became leading neo-Confederates, Clyde Wilson and Thomas Fleming.

Archived webpage with no citations. Page makes no claim of being authoritative. Attempted to find original post. Link to original article defective. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

13.Muller, Eric (January 30, 2005). "Thomas Woods' Southern Comfort". American Constitution Society. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. It would include Dr. Woods' insistence that nineteenth century slavery abolitionists were "not noble crusaders whose one flaw was a tendency toward extremism, but utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality." It would include Dr. Woods' endorsement (in an essay appealingly entitled "Christendom's Last Stand") of the view that whereas those who sought the abolition of slavery were "atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, [and] jacobins, those who owned slaves were "friends of order and regulated freedom."

http://web.archive.org/web/20160304055409/http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/guest-blogger-thomas-woods-southern-comfort

Author of the article makes the claim that Woods was a member and founder of LOTS. However, all links to the original articles of such are defective. Tabloid journalism.

14.Thomas, Woods (1997). "Christendom's Last Stand". Southern Partisan. 17 (2nd Quarter 1997): Page 26–29.

After reading this literature, it does not pertain to any claims made by contributor. Suspicious that contributor fabricated claims.

15. Jacobs, Jake (December 5, 2014). "Thomas Woods' 1861 Secessionist-Libertarianism": A defense of a slave-civilization gone with the wind!". Renew America. Retrieved 2016-09-14.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jacobs/141205

The author makes the claim that Woods was a member of LOTS but cites no sources. Tabloid journalism. 66.18.115.10 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05— Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by Stubb05 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) Upstream aren't required to cite their sources. Is helpful if they do, for a number of reasons, but is not requirement and not how we judge if publications are considered to be reliable purveyors of information or not. (also: please simply use four tildes ~~~~ to properly sign your posts) -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@User_talk:Dsprc If contributors are making libelous claims about currently living person, they better have citations to back up such claims. What you are claiming is ridiculous 66.18.115.10 (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

Upstream have no such requirements. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:V. The contributor has included references which they believe back their statements and have made no "libelous" claims so far as I see. Drop the stick. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

• @Kleuske: Which sources specifically are deemed unreliable?
• @Stubb05: What additions specifically are deemed libelous? If "neo-confederate" is at issue, no such claim was made about subject of article. Instead, they're of linked parent article. What is inaccurate in presentation? Please note Wikipedia is warts and all.
• GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN && IP contributor 151.X.X.X : Am offering to reword content so more neutrally presented, if that's OK?

Please try to keep replies short and concise to better stay on-topic, resolve disputes and work toward consensus. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.politicalresearch.org, which is a political action website. The ref is (amongst others) used to support a claim of Woods being racist.
• http://web.archive.org/web/20030806065705/http://www.southerngrace.biz/ " Mission: To provide the best dining experience and service that is available from a Personal Chef service in South Texas to individuals and families using fresh ingredients and preparing meals in my clients own home, thereby, bridging the gap between the food clients know they should eat and what they actually have time and energy to prepare."

Although I must admit the revert was also intended to get GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN to discuss the matter, instead of bluntly reverting. Kleuske (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kleuske. Only these are perceived as non-RS? And fair enough... :) -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hatting counter-productive screed

Reply to Kleuske. 1. You say: << http://www.politicalresearch.org, which is a political action website. The ref is (amongst others) used to support a claim of Woods being racist. >> --- That's not true. As I explain below, I didn't use that source to characterize Woods, but just to describe the League of the South, where Woods wrote and participated. Furthermore, even if that source is non-RS that doesn't give you the right or the legitimacy to remove all the paragraph, since there were other reliable, primary and secondary sources characterising the LoS as "Neo-Confederate". So the error, here is yours, who removed different paragraphs en-block without checking the other sources. 2. You say: << http://web.archive.org/web/20030806065705/http://www.southerngrace.biz/ " Mission: To provide the best dining experience and service that is available from a Personal Chef service in South Texas to individuals and families using fresh ingredients and preparing meals in my clients own home, thereby, bridging the gap between the food clients know they should eat and what they actually have time and energy to prepare.">> --- You seemed confused. I did NOT use this source in this article. Check again. :) Edit: The source, a primary one, is this: http://web.archive.org/web/20030716091722/http://www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/14_thomas_e.htm where Woods is characterised as: " a founding member of the League of the South, and lives in New York with his wife." But still, even if this archived page is NON-RS, there were other sources demonstrating that he was a co-founding member. (Just check the archived pages of his articles for theLoS journal.) My Full explanation: If this article (Tabachnick, Rachel (November 22, 2013). "Nullification, Neo-Confederates, and the Revenge of the Old Right". Political Research Associates.) from PoliticalResearchAssociates is considered Non RS then remove it. There is no problem with that. I used that article as a reinforcement for another source that demonstrated the author had paleoconservative tendencies. Even if you remove the article from PRAssociates there still is another one, a primary source (article of the author himself). I dont think theres anything controversial about that. The second time I used the article from P.R.Associates was to describe the LoS as "neo-confederate": pro-secession neo-confederate League of the South,. I only used this supposed Non-RS article from Political Research (Tabachnick, Rachel (November 22, 2013). "Nullification, Neo-Confederates, and the Revenge of the Old Right". Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2016-09-14.) but also the primary source citing T. Woods as a cofounding member (http://web.archive.org/web/20030716091722/http://www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/14_thomas_e.htm) as well as other secondary sources: Young, Cathy (February 21, 2005). "Last of the Confederates". The Boston Globe. + Young, Cathy (2005-06-01). "Behind the Jeffersonian Veneer". Reason. + Muller, Eric L. (2005-02-02). "A Bigot's Guide to American History". AlterNet. All these sources, primary and secondary were not used to say that the author as a neoconfederate, or whatever, but just to say that the Journal where he wrote was the journal of an organisation considered as a Neo-Condeferate. As simple as that. Furthermore, there was removed a lot of other well-sourced content, en-block, with the other part of the revert. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC) For clarity there are the paragraphs edited by me: Woods is sympathetic to paleoconservatism and although not an economist himself a proponent of the Austrian school of economics. Woods was a co-founder and member of pro-secession neo-confederate League of the South and he wrote different articles for the Southern Patriot (the official magazine of the LoS). Woods has also contributed articles for the Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute) and the Southern Partisan called by the SPLC "arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical". ===On the Abolitionists=== In an essay for the Southern Patriot (the League of the South's journal) Woods characterizes nineteenth-century abolitionists as "utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality". === On the Bill of Rights === In an article for the Southern Partisan magazine in 1997 Woods writes: "The Bill of Rights, moreover, erroneously invoked by modern Civil Libertarians, was never intended to protect individuals from the state governments. Jefferson is far from alone in insisting that only the federal government is restricted from regulating the press, church-state relations, and so forth. The states may do as they wish in these areas." Jake Jacobs, a conservative author and historian critical of his view writes: "Dr. Woods a passionate defender of States' Rights and Secession ironically treats States' Rights as if it were an object of religious veneration-a form of Southern state worship that is bizarre and creepy and in the end not a true representation of classic consistent libertarianism but a discombobulated cacophony of orchestrated academic chicanery that under the guise of limited government advances the tyranny of The STATE over the glory of liberty from Government control". References --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• @GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN: Relax. See that "please try to keep replies short and concise" part above? This right here is exactly what we're trying to avoid. Dumping a screed isn't going to help and is counterproductive. If continue then we leave the status-quo intact and move on.
• We will address your last "en-block" point in time, but no resolution is possible if acting cross toward one another. If you could please answer my initial question, with simple yes or no, that would be most helpful. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the length. The only article which might be NON-RS is from PoliticalReseach (I don't know if editors in Wikipedia have listed that site as such). Even if it's NON-RS, there were other sources, as I've explained above. As for your question: I'm ok with neutrality, but I also think that neutrality doesn't mean that we should hide content just because some people don't like what primary and secondary sources tell. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. :) We will get to the others, don't worry; no rush. Absolutely; we do not remove content simply because some object. We're "warts and all," not censored. I agree there are some sourcing issues; can work toward addressing those.
• Still awaiting Stubb05's answer to perceived libel question (am currently unconvinced, but willing to rework the text) and for others to weigh-in should they choose. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN The rest of your sources are NON-RS that I have followed. Your references to print matter, which I personally have viewed, do not even reference what you are claiming. This is what is classified as libel. --User:STUBBS05 (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Stubb05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 16:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ALCON: Without noting that this discussion was underway I reverted to Globalist's version. (Per my edit summary, I thought the sources cited were reliable. This is a different editing question than whether they were cited accurately.) More importantly, I've asked for page protection. Having now noted this thread, I ask editors to leave the article as is and focus their discussion on the particular sources and as to how the sources are presented. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Srich32977 This attempt to protect a complete and utter misconstruing of the facts cannot be tolerated. This reference to Max Boot claiming Tom Wood was a member of the league of the South is spurious. The link makes no such claim. This inclusion of Jake Jacobs is a tirade, which doesn’t help the reader know the author’s positions. In fact, it doesn’t present them accurately. Thomas Woods has written extensively on abolitionists. The portion included takes out of context an entire position. The entire needs to be presented or this an attempt at denigrating this author needs to be excluded. Frankly, its articles like this that Wikipedia is so mocked. User:rampantbattleship (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC) — rampantbattleship (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 16:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also noting that at this point, srich32977 is edit-warring to keep contentious material in the article. Interesting. _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Interesting thought process.) How is the material "contentious" if the sources, primary and secondary, are used correctly? Anyhow, I agree with @Srich32977:, let's debate about the sources individually and the use I made of them; I'm willing to have a constructive debate about that. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If the source is unreliable, then the material cannot be used 'correctly.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is only one source which might be non RS (PoliticalResearch). Other are primary sources of his articles published in different magazines/journals of neoconfederate organisations. (These primary sources were used ONLY to demonstrate that Woods wrote for those for those specific organisations and journals.). Most secondary sources were used in order to describe the organisations for which he wrote articles, as "neo-confederate". (Again: The secondary sources were used to describe the organisations not him directly.) --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN I have followed all your links. They are not RS. Because the author is still alive and this is libel, and the page still contains the allegation that he is a neo-confederate, which you have yet to prove. I am editing this now. — Preceding STUBBS05 comment added by Contributions/STUBBS05 11:35 22 September 2016 — Stubb05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 16:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Can continue arguing or can work toward consensus. @Stubb05: Please answer my above question addressed to you. "...all your links..." doesn't cut it; particularly when cited sources such as Reason, Boston Globe et al are reliable. Article content never stated subject was neo-confederate, only that subject co-founded a group which others have labeled as such. Others are entitled to their opinion, and we will cover them (within reason) whether you (or your little sock/meat-puppet) like it or not. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This user Stubb05 is again removing sourced content without discussing in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&type=revision&diff=740677546&oldid=740648824 There is a discussion opened about the sources. But nobody seems to have any substantial argument about most sources I used. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN: Since "neo-confederate" seems to be at issue, and that you concede PoliticalResearch is non-RS (I think some use is acceptable), would you also give me SPLC and Renew America as activist organizations and thus also potentially not reliable? (acceptable under certain use, such as properly attributed opinion, but not matters-of-fact) Southern Grace is also not up to snuff either. Is purging these, and reworking text so as to make sense without them acceptable for you? -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

1. I didn't concede that the article from PoliticalResearch is non-RS. I said that I'll change my mind if s.o. brings proof of that source being non RS (especiall for that particulat use I made of the article).

2. I don't see the problem calling those organisations and their journals/magazines neo-confederates, or having a neo-confederate agenda, if they are largely recognized as such by reliable secondary sources. Even their respective article on wiki contains such characterisation: The League of the South has been described as a white supremacist and white nationalist organization.[5][6][7][8] The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the League of the South as a Neo-Confederate hate group.[9] (This is my wording on the Thomas Woods article: Woods has also contributed articles for the Chronicles (publication of the Rockford Institute)[10][11] and the Southern Partisan[12][13][14] called by the SPLC "arguably the most important neo-Confederate periodical".[15]. As you can see I just neutraly reported what a secondary source said about that magazine. Isn't this a neutral use of a secondary source? I think it is. )

3. There is no doubt that Thomas Woods was a founding member and wrote different articles for the LoS journal/magazine. The sources are there, just check them. (Ask me if you want me to put those sources here again).

4 Re-wording is ok, but without spinning facts as accusations from evil adversaries. Neutrality doesn't mean we have to downplay facts (sustained by multiple secondary sources) just because some people don't like them. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is issue with actual language used by some of these sources which may compromise credibility. We will see how consensus evolves with regard to reliability. (Additionally, one could consult WP:RS/N for opinions--of whatever random volunteers are active--on what may or may not be reliable publications) I ask about these in particular because we can make due without them. Some other stuff may have to go as compromise; will draft out revision for review when I've a bit more time.
• 4: Fair enough. My intent is to properly attribute, as with SPLC "periodical" statement. Preaching to the choir on neutrality. :) -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN '

1. Whether you concede it or not, it is not RS. Refer to Wikipedia's policy on using articles such as these.

2' I contend the author's associate with LoS, as claimed by you, is at worst a lie and at best an ignorant claim. The Mises Institute was also referred to as neo-confederate and there is no substantiation to this claim.

3 You are wrong on this. It is libelous to claim that Tom Woods was a founding member of LoS. Refer to his own statement on the mattter.

4 Again refer to 2 and 3. STUBBS05 ^[talk] 11:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC).  Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubb05 (talk • contribs)

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN Before making edits refer to the entirety of the talk page. I have copied this paragraph from above to further my point: "The LOTS material is not presented in a balanced way. The article subject has put out a dozen books, including some bestsellers, and yet a significant portion of the article focuses on one obscure aspect of his bio: some guilt-by-association stuff from twenty years ago. This does not accurately represent Woods' coverage in third-party sources, and it violates our policy on biographies of living persons. DickClarkMises (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)" ^[talk] 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dick. You are free to add other sources about the author... I added only those I found. If you find others you are free to add them, without removing the sources I found, primary and secondary. Thnx. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Additionally one may wish to familiarize themselves with WP:COI... -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALISTLIBERTARIAN Again your sources are not RS and do not not satisfy Wikipedia standards of citation sources. Please refer to [[17]]. User:STUBB05 (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)