Talk:Tom Woods: Difference between revisions

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.

intended as part of the first section of the article

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".

References

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)

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)

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)

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)