Talk:Tom Woods/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protected edit request on 27 September 2016

• I would like to suggest this revision to submission made below. Refer to previous entry listed below for full discussion and argumentation behind this posting [[1]]. I further contend that the sources cited here are more reputable than the previous submission. I would suggest to include this on second line of Education and affiliations:

Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South and has contributed to its newsletter.  His association has generated criticism but Woods asserts his involvement with the group has been limited. 

References

Stubb05 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

• Include this on second line of §Education and affiliations:

Woods is a founding member of the League of the South, a Southern nationalist organization, and a contributing author to the League's journal, The Southern Patriot

References

• This addition steals desc from lede of LoS parent article and is condensed version of previous text. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:Dsprc is requesting material be added that has been shown above to be based on tabloid journalism and without any substantiation from citations or sources. User:Dsprc must address each link I have critiqued. RS must be used to substantiate claims by contributors. 66.18.115.10 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)STUBB0566.18.115.10 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

• See below. -- dsprc ^[talk]

@UserDsprc Given that these organizations referred to above are defined as neo-confederate in affiliation, it is potentially libelous to the describe a relationship between the organization and this individual, when in fact, you have no RS to corroborate your claims.

1.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.

2.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.

3. 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. 66.18.115.10 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)STUBB05

|}

• I agree with @Dsprc: rewording, even though it does leave our some info and does not mention his writing for other neoconfederate and paleoconservative journals. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN: It is a compromise--and first stab at that. The linked parent article contains additional information should readers desire. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN @Dsprc You may agree all you want until you show me at least one RS that confirms that he was a founding member of LOTS, it cannot be included as it is fabricated. Baseless accusations based on uncited, unsourced online tabloid journalism isn't proof. 2602:306:83F1:ACE0:20AE:662:221D:8D30 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)2602:306:83F1:ACE0:20AE:662:221D:8D30 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

• The sources I've included are considered to be reliable by our community standards and the language is uncontroversial. Am under no obligation nor "must" do anything. I only care about spirit of WP:RS, not your biased opinions. Content is sourced and passed verification. Whether you accept or not isn't of concern.
• Again, please learn to properly sign your comments, and to use generally accepted structure and formatting for Talk pages, as it is difficult to follow you and you're messing up the flow. If one can't get that right, how are we to give weight to claims of WP:RS, standards or other processes? Further, continued disruptive editing may result in being blocked...
• I've hatted your above statements as they add no additional information to this sub-topic of discussion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dsprc You referenced one author with two articles, neither claiming to be authoritative with no citations, obviously tabloid articles. The last you cite is yet another tabloid article. These sources DO NOT MEET Wikipedia standards. This entry is for a living person and all data must be proven to be true as it can be detrimental to their careers. You should at least be able to find a one decent reference if what you are claiming is true. Given these partisan sources you are using, I don't believe you have any desire to be objective on this matter . To repeat myself, my challenge stands that you offer one decent RS to substantiate your claim. Stubb05 (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC) User:STUBB05

@Dsprc @GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN I would recommend you read this article as it clearly lays out the sources allowed biographies of living person, as you may not be acquainted with the criteria Wikipedia:Verifiability. This Reason.com article and Boston Globe Op-Ed piece demonstrate no proof of having been fact checked and therefore do not qualify as RS. Alternet.org is in no way a RS. The burden of proof is entirely on Dsprc and GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN to show that this biography of living person should include potentially libelous material with RS. Stubb05 (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

• (edit conflict) Referenced publications are Reason magazine and The Boston Globe, a Pulitzer Prize winning publication; both reliable sources. Third is penned by Prof. Eric L. Muller[2][3] at the UNC School of Law. Publications have professional Editors and standards. Description of organization is taken from lede of parent article; if exception is taken this isn't the talk page for that--nor proper section for that matter, which should be addressed above. No one cares about your opinions of my motives, but you should concentrate on content, not contributors and not assume malice. Any objection other than you're not liking the publishers? -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• And we are to also claim The New York Times are not considered reliable as well? -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dsprc @GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN Perhaps you aren't reading my posts, so I will repeat myself: The Reason.com article and Boston Globe Op-Ed piece demonstrate no proof of having been fact checked or using citations and therefore do not qualify as RS. Perhaps you are missing the distinction between an op-ed piece and a fact-checked article. Muller published this article on an unreputable website and makes no claim that the UNC School of Law was involved in editing this or fact-checking this. When I followed your link to his publications, this is not listed as one. If it was published through UNC then simply link to their website. You now are simply are engaging in citing sources that do not corroborate your claims. You finally showed one link to the New York Times. If you desire to publish this then we should include the official statement from the author regarding this allegation. However the other three sources are non-RS. Stubb05 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Stubb05

• NYT is linked. "...so I will repeat myself..." we heard you the first time, stop beating a dead horse. Sources say exactly what the content says: NYT says a founder, others state subject penned journal articles, and contributor GL even provided examples of such articles previously. What's the real objection?
• If going to link user names, at least do so correctly... {{U}} eg: {{U|dsprc}} -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:15, 28 September 2016 (UT)

 Dsprc: You persist in using the Alternet - Muller source even though I shown it to be Non-RS. Regarding the claims made by Muller, they are flatly denied the person of question in his own statement regarding involvement and recommend leaving out due to the questionability of the source. I have submitted a revised entry above that hopefully might get us to a consensus. Stubb05 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

Upon reviewing the history of this biography, I recommend we revert to previously agreed upon entry. I also agree this be entered under Education/Affiliation section. [[4]]:

Woods was present at the founding of the League of the South,[5][6] and has contributed to its newsletter.[7] His association has generated criticism [8][9] but Woods asserts his involvement with the group has been limited [10]

I have replicated the discussion below:

Not done: I'm not seeing any consensus here yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Other source demonstrating Woods was a founder and member of white supremacist neoconfederate LoS

@Dsprc:

Euan Hague. Heidi Beirich. Edward H. Sebesta. - Neo-Confederacy_ A Critical Introduction - University of Texas Press (2008)'

Quotes:

• "Another neo-Confederate text to gain wide attention was Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Woods, a founding member of the League of the South and contributor to its newsletter Southern Patriot, was teaching at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island when he published the book. Like those noted above, Woods contends that slavery was benign." -- Page 36

• "Subsequent Southern Partisan issues continued to promote the theological Civil War thesis. LS member Thomas E. Woods Jr., for example, who would later write the best-selling Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, asserted in 1997 that this theological conflict is continuing today and that struggles against liberalism, big government, and the New World Order constitute “Christendom’s Last Stand.” " -- Page 66

• "Neo-Confederacy is also entering mainstream media venues with Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History being promoted on Fox News, and Donald W. Livingston outlining a neo- Confederate secessionist agenda in Harper’s Magazine." -- Page 313

--GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am reposting this discussion in its entirety to show that previous consensus was made regarding the proposal I've made. Also the claim that the this person states slavery was benign is preposterous. He has repeatedly differentiated the political right of nullification from the endorsement of slavery. See attached link Stubb05 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Luke Rahmoeller

Actually, your repeated insertion of an archived section is a violation of wikipedia talk page guidelines. WP:TALKCOND is right on point when it says:

"Do not unarchive (that is, restore) sections for the sake of reopening discussions that are effectively closed. Instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion of the subject."

You also are in violation of WP:TOPPOST -- I believe you've been told this before and have decided to ignore the warning. This section states

"Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation to clearly indicate to whom you are replying, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)."

I am removing the section, but interested readers can find it at Talk:Thomas Woods/Archive 1#League of the South "founder"?. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Continue to edit other users discussion and request will be submitted to have your account blocked

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN: is deleting previous entry made on this page regarding consensus on this issue. Continue this behavior and I will submit a request to have your account blocked. This is in addition to your behavior on 09/26 where you edited 3 times in 24 hours. You are skating on thin ice Stubb05 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

@GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN:Enough is enough your deleting and abbreviating ongoing discussion is unacceptable. I will submit a request to have your account blocked. Stubb05 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC) STUBB05

Proper venue for doing so is WP:AN/3. Happy Trails, -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Questionable influences

Strange seeing Rand Paul listed as one of Woods' influences. The idea that someone like Woods would be significantly influenced by Rand Paul's brand of tepid quasi-libertarianism seems pretty dubious to me, especially since the coverage of Rand Paul on his podcast has occasionally been fairly negative iirc. Also, the only time he ever seems to mention Ayn Rand is to dismiss the idea that she is a big influence on him. I'm actually not really that familiar with his books yet so I may be wrong, but is there any real reason to include those two or was whoever added them just adding random figures associated with libertarianism? Friedman also seems dubious, but slightly less so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C4A:F9B0:594F:7FCA:43AE:1B86 (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Influences lists in infoboxes are problematic if they are not summarizing material present in the body of the article. The infobox is not really a place to cite references.

Woods's position has evolved over time. The best source on his influences, but not one we would be able to use here, is an episode of his podcast where he describes his path to becoming a libertarian. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubious "influencers" continue to be added. Woods clearly reads widely, so it's not surprising that he mentions some of these people in his voluminous output. I would think that to include someone in the list of influences requires some evidence that reliable sources have said so. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas Woods. 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/20110728030111/http://libertarianpapers.org/editorial-board/ to http://libertarianpapers.org/editorial-board/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124023126/http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/index.php/about to http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/index.php/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211103341/http://www.acton.org/commentary/479_beyond_distributism.php to http://www.acton.org/commentary/479_beyond_distributism.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Hi y'all:

So, I am a Libertarian. I also am political involved. In that being the case, I do not want to edit an article for what could appear to be political reasons. However, Tom Woods is a rather controversial figure within my party. As an example, he has fought with Chairman Nicholas Sarwark Would someone (Other than me) be willing to create this section concerning this and other events? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Standalone criticism sections are deprecated. Wherever possible, these criticisms should be organically included in the body of the article where the stance being criticized is being discussed. Not all controversy is noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Woah! I am very surprised that this has gone away. Oh well. I also did not know about {{reflist-talk}}, so I am incredibly glad I asked for your insight. Regarding the pain point, maybe a section titled "Dispute with Libertarian Party" would be more appropriate? Many Thanks! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I do feel that it is rather noteworthy and readers would be best served with understanding his complicated relationship with the party. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

@Matthew Joseph Long What does your political disposition or involvement have to do with the content of this entry? And why is a dispute between Woods and Sarwark relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.231.107 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough with the White Supremacy and anti-semitism already

The place to describe the League of the South in terms of what their politics evolved into, years after the subject of this page was no longer associated with them, is on the League of the South page, not here.

Repeatedly adding "white supremacy" "semitism" or "Nazi" back into this page is not defendable as being neutral, it obviously belies a COI, grinding an axe and pushing an agenda.

Woods' views on the Confederacy have everything to do with States's rights and Nullification (as per the Constitution) and absolutely zero, nothing, nada to do with white supremacy or endorsing slavery (capital-L Libertarians, generally, as rule, do not endorse slavery ffs).

If you want to attempt to make the case that the page subject promulgated anti-black or pro-slavery views, then do it on your blog, where it's clear you are ideologically opposed to the page's subject matter and stop feigning objective neutrality that is supposed to govern a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balance66 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a restructuring of the page. With respect to the League of the South, it should be incumbent on the person who keeps putting buzzwords like neo-nazi and white supremacist back into the article to show that Woods had those views in 1994 (I am unaware of any such evidence). Otherwise, it is just poisoning the well. I am going to suggest a structure of edits in the section above that will cover Woods' views on the U.S. Constitution and associated views about nullification, secession, and the U.S. Civil War. I will try to keep most of the information but include more nuance and context on both sides. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses WP:RS to determine how things are described. Reliable sources are very clear about the League of the South's history, and repeatedly removing those sources is not an appropriate way to resolve this issue. Adding personal opinions about what capital-L Libertarians believe is WP:OR, and personal beliefs are unverifiable anyway. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not the League of the South page. If the subject of this page was no longer associated with them then it does not belong here. Otherwise, you should start updating every Democrats page with their segregationist past and Jim Crowe laws. You are judging and defaming the page subject with no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balance66 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The question at hand is not whether Woods was a founding member, which the sources show, it is rather what was the character of the organization when Woods was a member. The League's wiki page says that it was founded by Southern Historians. The link out to the League's wiki page is enough for people to follow and gain context. There is no evidence presented on Woods' current wiki page nor any I could find with a google search to suggest that Woods was a member when more extreme elements took over the organization. If he had founded a softball team and after he left the softball team they became a street gang, then the criminal behavior of the team would not reflect on him. There is no evidence that Woods holds or has ever held hateful beliefs. Therefore expounding on the League's current stances is not pertinent to the subject of this page. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism. Combining sources about the organization from the 1990s and then from the 2010s that do not mention Thomas Woods is WP:SYNTH. The 2008 SPLC book calls Thomas Woods' texts in the organization's journal "neo-Confederate". Not antisemitic or white supremacist. The SPLC file about the League of South states many times that the organization grew more extreme: Initially, it concentrated on a cultural defense of the South. But it wasn’t long before the group began seriously advocating a second secession, calling for a theocratic form of government and openly advocating a return to “general European cultural hegemony” in the South. & The group’s increasingly hardline positions and recruits drove many members away. By 2004, many of the group’s original founders — including Hill’s mentors who shepherded him through his history Ph.D. at the University of Alabama, Grady McWhiney and Forrest McDonald — had denounced him., although it notes that one of the founding members, Jack Kershaw, was a racist hardliner. That's nasty WP:BLP violation with shoddy a synthesis. These people literally left the organisation in disagreement with its increasingly hardline stances, so what is the point of adding negative information about the stances after they left? --Pudeo (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to detailing his neo-Confederate or other controversial views in more detail. The aforementioned SPLC 2008 book details him calling slavery "benign" and arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't properly ratified so "racial discrimination may be constitutional" and that the amendment is incompatible with the federal system. So that is a better starting place than Archive.org primary sources. --Pudeo (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Additions to the views section

Grayfell and I have some disagreements on the views section. Grayfell reverted several changes under the suspicion of a COI when there was none. There was also a complaint of excessive primary sources. I have added a tag to indicate that the sources need to be improved, and I aim to do that over the next several days. Grayfell also removed some references to awards and added a tag to a controversies section. Those references have been removed, and the controversies tag remains. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In almost all cases, content should be based on independent sources. The article already has an excess of primary sources, so adding more is a step backwards. We do not assume that his own musings about the world are encyclopedically significant. If reliable, independent sources do not mention these specific views, neither should the article. Even if sources can be found, they need to be summarized proportionately for due weight. This article is not an extension of his own website. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It appears the main problem would be with #5 according to you, with a bit of the others mixed in on a case by case basis. If that is true, it would make more sense to keep a large portion of the content and begin substituting secondary sources for some of the primary sources while substituting a 3rd party hosting site (libsyn, youtube) for interviews rather than using Woods' own site with notes. In that case, the BLP primary sources tag should stand temporarily while the secondary and tertiary sources are arranged.74.132.29.232 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume this space is also for suggesting edits. So I will rewrite the removed sections with more secondary sources over the next several days and see what comes of it.74.132.29.232 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the following restructuring of the Views section, which as of now looks like WikiQuotes + criticism of Woods. 1. The single, stand-alone sentence about Woods being a Rothbardian should be expanded into a small paragraph or moved further up in the article. 2. Rather than have "Abolitionists" and "Bill of Rights" subheadings, present them in the opposite order and change them to "The U.S. Constitution" and "The U.S. Civil War". The current quotes about the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into a discussion of Tom's views the Compact Theory of the Union. The Compact Theory leads to a discussion of his views on Nullification and self-determination. This sets the stage to move on to the Civil War section. The Abolitionists quote will be expanded to provide more context from the cited document in which Woods views the Civil War as avoidable. Woods' notable books on Nullification, U.S. History, and the U.S. Constitution will be cited as primary sources, and criticisms from NYT and Slate will put it into context. 3. Add a section on economics. Woods' books on the financial crisis will be primary sources, and criticisms from left and right will be included from Fortune, Culture Wars, UNC Law, and NPR to provide context. Support from FFF, AEIR, and Riggenbach may also be included. That are a lot of possible citations/support for these sections, I will try to fit it within a few sentences. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are once again multiple references to the League of the South in the article. It does not make sense to have it right at the top, because it is a minor affiliation from 26 years ago. It does not make sense to have a controversies section consisting of 1-2 sentences. I will copy and paste one of the current statements into another section in a place that makes sense. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Again, it is up to reliable, independent sources to decide what is and is not important. He founded the group, and sources discuss this. It is not "minor" merely because it's unflattering. Using his own website as justification for "both sides" false equivalence is using Wikipedia for promotion and advocacy. We do not assume there are exactly two sides, and we do not expect editors to draw these lines if there are. We summarize reliable, independent sources according to WP:DUE. Look at what reliable, independent sources are talking about, and if necessary, use primary sources to fill-in important gaps. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly up to reliable, independent sources. Therefore, as I said above, I plan to cite putative reliable sources such as NYT, Slate, UNC, NPR, Fortune, and so on. Correct, it is not minor because it is unflattering. It is minor, because it is a very small part of his professional career compared to his bestselling books, awards, PhD, etc. It should therefore be placed with less importance than these other things. Once again, I said that I plan to cite his books (externally published) to reference his views and then the critique of those views. On top of that, I even said that I would bring in views from the left and the right, because there are of course more than two sides. By taking random quotes out of context, the page is no longer neutral. It is now just quote farming for gotchas.74.132.29.232 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Works put out through reputable publishers are somewhat more likely to be reliable, but his own books are still WP:PRIMARY sources for this article. Like all of us, he has many, many opinions. These many opinions are not automatically noteworthy, and the way to determine this is through independent sources. Instead of assuming his opinions are noteworthy, start with good sources and go from there. Do not attempt to "back fill" a sloppy article with better sources after the fact, as this will be indistinguishable from spam.

For awards, a link to the organization which grants that award is also primary. If the only source which can be found for an award is the award itself or the precipitant of that award, it's a strong sign that it's just more puffery. Wikipedia already has too much of that.

His PhD is worth a sentence or two at most, unless there is some reliable, independently-sourced reason to go into more detail.

"Bestelling" is a WP:PEACOCK term often abused by the publishing industry, but which is seldom informative by itself. Regardless of that, the popularity of a book might make its existence more significant, but it doesn't make its content any less primary, nor does it negate other sources. Using primary sources to "drown-out" his more WP:FRINGE activities is a form of whitewashing or promotion.

Sources discuss his role in co-founding a neo-Confederate with such colorful figures as Michael Hill and Jack Kershaw. Having reviewed sources for the LoS, it's very clear that it was, even at founding, obvious and noteworthy that this was an extremely WP:FRINGE group which was exclusively noteworthy for its extremism. A neutral article will reflect these sources, regardless of your opinion on their importance. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot to reply to here. How does one construct a section on someone's views without introducing their views? For example, "Joe supports cause ABC (Primary source). This has generated debate about XYZ. (Secondary sources)." The primary source would seem to be appropriate in this case, because the debate follows the statement of one's beliefs. And because the statements will be descriptive WP:PRIMARYCARE. For example, Woods wrote a book supporting nullification. It would be a non-controversial and descriptive statement to say that Woods supports nullification. Then, secondary sources (e.g. NYT, NPR) will be used to comment on the impact Woods had in the area (positive or negative). I found a few dozen articles about Woods. So there will be no problem constructing the views section guided by the weight of secondary sources.

I'm not worried about changing the awards section. I don't recall touching it other than to add a wiki page link to the granting organization. For a novice, it looks okay to me. His dissertation was the basis of one of his books, and it was well received by the academic community. You are missing my general point, and it is dragging us off into the weeds. If one has a body of three decades of academic work that has generated discussion, debate, or derision which has dozens of secondary sources, those things should be front and center. Those are the things Woods is known for (according to the weight of the secondary sources). Having been a founding member of a controversial organization is perfectly fine to include in the article. But it should be given weight proportional to its importance in Woods' career and notoriety and placed in an appropriate section.

Woods' page is a place to discuss his actions, work, and ideas. Woods was a founding member of the LoS. Some members of the LoS now push fringe ideas about Jews for example. It does not follow that Woods pushes fringe ideas about Jews, which the current wording suggests. It would be a different debate if the information in the article said something about Woods being a founding member, and then the "fringe" idea actually related to Woods' current or former views. Say for example, something about secession. Nevertheless, the LoS page is the place to discuss the former and present noteworthy beliefs (fringe or otherwise) of specific members of the LoS. Woods' page is not the place to play guilt by association. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Before asking how, ask why one constructs a section on someone's views. The point is not to expand the article with indiscriminate information, it's to provide a brief, neutral summary of important information. Importance, for Wikipedia, is determined by independent source. Picking-and-choosing from primary sources to describe various opinions is arbitrary and functionally promotional. He has many opinions, but by necessity, most of them are not important for the article.

The lead is a summary of the body, but all of this needs to be based on reliable, independent sources. Instead of assuming that a particular section needs to be constructed, look at what these independent sources are saying and go from there. From sources I have seen, including primary sources, Woods promotes some fringe perspectives. The LoS's views of succession was fringe from the moment it was created, and its other founders' views on racism, slavery, etc. were public knowledge. Woods views are not as overt as those put-out by the recent LoS, but that still needs sources, and besides, it's setting the bar way, way too low. Readers of this article should have an understanding of Wood's views based on independent sources, regardless of how those views contrast with a more extreme presentation of those views. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Guided by the weight of secondary sources", which I said in my above comment, to me means that I take a look at the few dozen secondary source non-academic articles and a sample of the 1000+ academic citations he has. Based upon which of Woods' views gets the most attention from reputable authors and publishers, I will write more or less or none. My initial dive into the sources from a few days ago found that Woods' most cited ideas center around nullification, secession, the U.S. Constitution, the 2008/2009 financial crisis, and the relationship between the Catholic Church and free market ideas. I am making no assumptions at this point. That is what google scholar shows. The specifics of the LoS argument are being discussed by others in a separate section of this talk page. I am going to focus more on broadening the views section. The Conservatism portal has rated this page as "Start-Class". I would like to improve it to a C-class. My concern is that as a new user, any modifications to the article will be rolled back no matter how well I adhere to the rules. I would like to give it a try adhering to the advice that Grayfell has provided and have things move forward from there. I will try to have a draft up in the next few days.

I also plan to continue working on the Woods page as an anonymous user, and I will make a user account after there is some resolution to this so I can start working on other pages without suspicion. I don't want my account to be linked to my IP.74.132.29.232 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Now what?

@Dsprc: who opened the above discussion, @Srich32977: @SPECIFICO: @The Four Deuces: Days have passed since my edits and the respective sources (primary and secondary) were removed using a straw-man as an argument (removing entire paragraphs of sourced content and justifying the action with one alledged non-RS source). Editing the article was blocked and critics of my edits had all the time to make suggestions and/or show me why ALL the sources I used, for the specific use I made, are unreliable. I saw no arguments or constructive suggestions... except @Stubb05: saying: "Cited source is clearly libelous as it inaccurately reports the position of the person in question." Well, I for one, know that wikipedia is about using secondary sources and only talking about what they write - so I don't care if this particular user finds it "libelous" or whatever that might be.

Down here are my proposed changes - changes I had made before, but were removed. I'll personally wait some hours - max 1 day - for other suggestions and them I'll make my edits again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on removing the last paragraph in the introduction on the League of the South?

Section 4 (Controversies) already has sufficient information on the League and how he was controversially associated with them, so the last paragraph in the introduction is unnecessary. Thoughts? SwiftestCat (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the purpose of the article lead section. Everything in the lead is supposed to be described in greater detail somewhere in the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed edit regarding first sentence of the lede

Option 1: Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. (born August 1, 1972) is an American author and libertarian commentator who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.

Option 2: Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. (born August 1, 1972) is an American academic and libertarian commentator who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.

I support option one as it is the status quo edit and Woods is most often refereed to as an "author" by reliable sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 05:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say author and podcast host. That's what he's best known for. He has a PhD from an ivy league school but is no longer part of academia. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I support that change. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 08:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Need to request edit protection for this page to prevent people adding WP:SYNTH information claiming connections to Confederacy

Tom Woods words are constantly taken out of context to imply that he was pro confederacy, which has never been the case. This page needs protection added to stop this edit war of people continuing to add this false information to the page. Ergzay (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So are you here from this Reddit thread to brigade this article? Being a founding member of a neo-confederate, white supremacist organization is pretty clear on one's stance regarding the Confederacy. And that founding is properly sourced in the article. Silverseren^C 04:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether someone arrived here organically or not isn't an argument and is irrelevant. Stick to the issues at hand. As explained in the section above, any mention of it being a "white supremacist organization" in this article is WP:SYNTH. There is no evidence suggesting it had such views during his association with it, and in fact the SPLC source states that the growing extremity of the group is what caused many of the academics associated with it to disassociate themselves from it.

Mentioning it as neo-Confederate group is potentially fine, but not in the lead. When taking into account his entire body of work, the idea that this comparatively insignificant blip belongs in the lead is a bit absurd. Forrest McDonald, Grady McWhiney, and Thomas Fleming were also founding members of the group (according to the League of the South article) who all broke away from it after it grew extreme, and none of their Wikipedia articles mention their association with the group in the lead. Jonjbm (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Except that both of those statements are well-cited and noted by a number of publications and organizations that monitor white supremacist and other extremist groups. And the SPLC says that their mission statement from the beginning was for finishing what the Civil War started. Hence the term "neo-Confederate". Examples:

"Founded in 1994 as the Southern League (it was forced to change its name after a minor baseball league threatened to sue), the overarching mission of the League of the South (LOS) is to accomplish what the Civil War did not — Southern secession." - Southern Poverty Law Center

"The members carried two flags, one for the state of Mississippi and one for the League of the South, which advocates “Southern independence” and has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group’s leader has decried the “Browning of America” and called to restore a “political and social system based on kith and kin” with Europeans “at its core.”" - White supremacists gathered at Emmett Till’s bulletproof memorial to shoot a video, Washington Post

"Florida’s League of the South, a white supremacist neo-Confederate group, is hosting the event at a plush wedding venue called Casa Isabel on Saturday." - White Supremacists Are Meeting to Talk About Charlottesville in Florida. The Local Cops Aren't Worried., Vice

"In the security camera footage, eight members of the League of the South, a white supremacist group based in Alabama, gathered around the Emmett Till memorial, the Mississippi flag and the southern nationalist flag waving in the wind." - White Supremacists Flee From Emmett Till Memorial While Filming Video, New York Times

"Hill, a founding member of the neo-Confederate group, and Tubbs, a Florida-based leader, jointly filed a motion with the League of the South to be dismissed from the complaint." - League of the South files motion to dismiss rally lawsuit, The Daily Progress

I could go on and on. All of the secondary sourcing covering the League of the South calls them "white supremacist" and "neo-Confederate". That is what the sources say. As for those other articles, they likely should mention their League of the South founding in their ledes. Though they are much poorer articles than this one in general, so they need to be fixed up considerably as it is. Silverseren^C 04:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because the League of the South is well cited as "neo-Confederate" doesn't mean that you go out of your way to include Tom's involvement in the lede when he hasn't been involved in the organization in decades. Highlighting controversies in the lede is a textbook BLP issue Limitthrow (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough in terms of ledes and BLP articles. So, I agree. Instead, i've gone ahead and improved the Controversies section. It had that neutrality question tag anyways, so I went ahead and added several conservative and libertarian sources discussing Woods and his involvement with the League of the South and one non-profit doing the same. It seems much better now. Silverseren^C 03:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

While I still share some of Ergzay's concerns that the controversy section still implies he's involved in Neo-Confederate groups when he left and denounced the League of the South decades ago, I agree that the current page is much better than it was before. Limitthrow (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

We already had this discussion months ago, @Limitthrow:, as everyone can see above. You agreed with the changes. You then spent the months since gradually removing sentences here and there to try and expunge any criticism in the article and left the section on Woods' involvement with the League of the South entirely with lengthy quotes only from Woods saying how he was right. Silverseren^C 23:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I specifically said I had concerns about the LotS section, and I made edits literally a few days ago to address those concerns, the other edits have been made by other users. The fact that you specifically want the article to criticize Woods as much as possible is the problem. The article should absolutely discuss the controversy regarding the League of the South. But to make it longer than all of the other sections, and to go out of your way to use as negative language as possible? That's where the BLP issues are coming from in my opinion Limitthrow (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

How am I using as negative language as possible? I'm using quotes from the reliable sources about Woods. Those sources call out Woods for the pro-Confederacy support he plainly showed. And the positive sources toward him from his friends showcase them talking about how Woods is totally right and the loss of the Confederacy was the worst event in American history. If those sorts of statements from his friends about him makes him look bad, that doesn't make it a BLP issue. You're basically arguing that any criticism about a subject makes it a BLP issue and that's not how Wikipedia works. Silverseren^C 00:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying there should be no information that paints Woods in a critical light or that the controversy shouldn't be discussed. The issue with the section currently is that it is longer than the other sections, all it does is repeat itself and use inflammatory accusations like "neo-confederate" or "white supremacist" as many times as possible. For example: "In 2013, an article by the non-profit Political Research Associates, which studies right-wing white supremacist and extremist groups", what reason was there to even have the second clause?

Would you be willing to consider a section that shortens both quotes from Woods or praising him, and rehashed quotes criticizing him? Perhaps:

"In 1994, Woods was a founding member of the League of the South for which he has been criticized[41][48]. Woods has argued that the League has changed its politics and was not racist or anti-semitic in 1994.[49] A 2005 article in Reason Magazine called out Woods for his background in the neo-Confederate organization, stating his views meant he was not a libertarian. The author also noted his frequent writing in the group's magazine, The Southern Patriot, up through 1997 and received a quote from Woods stating that he didn't disagree with most of the views he made in said publications.

An article from 2014 in Alan Keyes' Renew America organization criticized Woods for his "secessionist libertarianism" and his ongoing involvement with members of "the white supremacist League of the South", though pointed out that it was likely he was naive in his viewpoints, but not racist. "

Limitthrow (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Page does not seem to have a neutral point of view.

Forgive me if I am not following the correct procedures. I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor. I am however very familiar with Tom Woods' work and this article seems to me like it was blatantly written by someone who hates Tom Woods. I can see that there has been some discussion, but user SilverserenC clearly has no clue what Tom Woods' views are and it seems inappropriate that they would be writing large sections of an article about him.

I've listened to literally 2000+ hours of Tom Woods' podcasts and interviews, and I don't believe I've ever heard him mention the "League of the South," and I've absolutely never heard him say or even hint at anything remotely racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, etc. On the contrary he denounces such things regularly. The fact that the largest section on his page is about the "League of the South" is itself misleading, regardless of the content of the section.

Further, the final section on COVID-19 is blatantly biased as well.

"During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Woods has been a vigorous voice of opposition to public health measures meant to control virus spread, questioning the efficacy and touting the dangers of social distancing, masking, and mandatory lockdowns. The non-partisan, non-profit science education organization Health Feedback has labeled Woods's claims misleading and presented an evidence-based rebuttal to a video of a November 7, 2020 speech delivered by Woods, entitled "Dangers of the Covid Cult."[52][53] In November 2020, the video was removed from Youtube for violation of its medical misinformation policy."

The entire paragraph is clearly written by someone who disagrees with him. It implies that he is against reducing viral spread, that his views aren't evidence-based, and that they are wrong because they were rebutted by "science," and that they are misinformation. Chemacb (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chemacb – Please focus on content, not contributors, WP:AGF, and all that other jazz (the repetition of which grows tedious on this talk page in particular)…

• While I'm a huge proponent of WP:NOCLUE, in-depth knowledge of an article's subject is not required (nor should it be) to contribute to the project.
• Rona section is mayhaps not the best prose – there's an easy solution for this, however: be bold, and fix it yourself… Just try to keep it weighted, and terse(!), when elucidating.
• Re: LoS – One can learn something new on Wikipedia every day! Subject is a founder of LoS. LoS section includes subject's own take about it's evolution. It's also relatively well sourced, and current consensus is for inclusion (section used to be smaller but now contains Woods' own position on the matter, among others'.) I'm comfortable with the weight and balance therein.
• Wikipedia is not censored – we're warts and all – WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid rationale for removal. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping Silver, since they were mentioned for some reason but not notified. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wrote the section based on what the reliable sources said about Woods. What Woods' view is or is not is irrelevant to writing this article, as we go off of what the sources say. I took care to also includes sources from his political area as well, such as the Reason article, and from people supporting him, such as his fellow LoS member praising him. How is the section unbalanced? It seems even more properly balanced now that others have added in direct quotes from Woods himself on the subject. Silverseren^C 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This page is under constant attack by political enemies.

This page is under constant attack by Tom Wood's political enemies. It should be locked at minimum until June when the Libertarian Party National Convention has concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanBrownNC (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RyanBrownNC Please see: WP:PP – particularly the project's general aversion to preemptive protection. Should one feel so inclined: relevant procedures for requesting protection are noted within aforementioned policy page (although it's doubtful to end as you expect…) -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This user is right that there were some egregious WP:BLP violations added to this article, with citations to social media posts of Woods' enemies making unverifiable claims. They've been dealt with, though. The editor who added them has been warned and the revisions have been WP:REVDELed. Protection is not the only means of dealing with disruption, and the article is being watched by responsible editors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Quotations and timestamps needed

Since the cited sources[11][12][13] within the Views -> Libertarianism section are sound recordings: time stamps to the particular moments backing such claims are requested, so as to actually verify what has been written here. It's further requested to include the relevant portions within the citation itself as a '|quote=' parameter. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

General note on citations

Please be aware: revisions which change this article's content and meaning, whilst also lazily leaving the previously cited sources intact, leads to failed verification. This creates problematic Neutrality and WP:BLP issues. Repeatedly doing so is disruptive (mayhaps indictive of tendentious editing as well), and could result in topic bans or blocking.

Please be mindful that editors including new material in the first place MUST ensure the citations given directly support whatever new contributions are made (See: WP:BURDEN).

If desired new material is no longer in alignment with what the cited source says: an entirely new source is required. Per BLP: Failure to proceed accordingly could mean the entire section is removed – not simply reverted – until the deficiencies are rectified.

Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)