Talk:Tom Woods

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)

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/enwiki/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 [[1]]. User:STUBB05 (talk) 13:05, 24 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)

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".

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)

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. 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. 

• 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)

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:

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:

• https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/in-case-you-were-wondering/
• 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,[11][12] and has been a contributor to its newsletter.[13] His association has generated criticism[14] but Woods asserts his involvement with the group has been limited [15]

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,[16] and has contributed to its newsletter.[17] His membership in the group has generated criticism[18] 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)

Stubb05 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)STUBB05