Talk:Anthony Woods

Advertisement

This page reads like an advertisement and was created and largely edited by one user, Zallen27, who has only created and edited this page - possibly someone affiliated with the candidate's campaign. Nhgrrl (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on which parts of the article you feel read like an advertisement. Better yet, change the article to something more NPOV yourself. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Over Reporting of Homosexuality to the Army

This section has a strong flavour of WP:SYNTH. It constructs an argument strongly implying that he got his MPP then announced he was gay to avoid the associated military service. Has any reliable third-party source explicitly put all these bits together (including the analysis of costs, who it deprived of going on the course, etc etc)? No. This argument sources to a couple of comments in a magazine forum, one anonymous, and neither of which analyses the costs and background in such detail. WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR, I think, as well as a WP:BLP issue. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I'm not really fond of the Todd Hertling cite in particular... A comment on a blog-type story does not a reliable source make, no slight to Mr Hertling. If this isn't Original Research, someone somewhere citable must have made the connection. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Even with it removed, I have put together a timeline of his departure, and backed it up with the cost of his departure. Casprings (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But you don't "back it up" with any costing, unless that backing-up-by-costing is in a previously published analysis of the situation. Original research again applies. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You did? Thats commendable, but still is original research. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The lack of actual news stories is because he is rather new to public life. However, I am now simply stating Army policy, Army cost, and the cost of a Harvard Education. These are not unverifiable, nor are they weak. They are clearly stated by either Harvard or the Army. These are Primary sources.

I would for a second to look at your policy on primary sources.

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

The sources are now clearly being used to make a descriptive claim, which is easily verifiable, once you look at the sources. The sources are legit, and I believe I have used them in a responsible way.

I do however, concur about the blog post. That is why I re-added the section in the means I did. The inserted paragraphs details the cost of his decision to the Army and the nation. That is again backed up by official sources from either the Army or Harvard. Casprings (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A better place would be in the original article summary of his life. Some understanding of the cost, to both him and the Army adds context to the article without adding bias. Casprings (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how the Army Pay scale for 2008, the Army Housing benefit for 2008, Army service obligation and Harvard tuition are "unverifiable". They are clearly linked and sourced. Casprings (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that they are unverifiable. Please read WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNTH, and my explanation on your Talk page. If you use a basic source X (say, a news item), you can't use information you found at sources Y and Z (even if verifiable) to reinforce arguments made at source X unless source X uses them in exactly that way. This applies to edits such as this: if no reliable source has raised a possible breach of DOD 1344.10 regarding Woods, then it's original research to add it as editorial commentary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The DOD pay scale and a statement of his salary and benefits during his time at Harvard is not "unverifiable" The edit did not try to job to come to a conclusion. It tried to state a set of facts that are easily verified by DOD. Moreover, the cited DOD reference is of importance when understanding his decision to work for Mr. Patterson. Casprings (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It still looks to me like OR by juxtaposition. I've passed it on to the WP:BLP noticeboard.

However, I've removed the DOD breach part. It's definitely original research to add negative editorial commentary. If the source says "X did job Y" you do not add "Z says that might be in breach of some regulation" (however verifiable) unless the source has already put those details together. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Over Reporting of Homosexuality to the Army

Moved to Talk for discussion:

The US Military sent Woods to attend the Kennedy School of Government to obtain a Master in Public Policy (MPP). The MPP program is a two-year program. Currently, Harvard estimates the costs of attending the program for one year to be $66,610 for direct and indirect costs. The complete program, using the current estimate, would be a total cost of $133,220. Woods graduated from the program in the summer of 2008.

Military students incur a three for one active service obligation for time spent pursuing a Master’s Degree. In other words, for every one day spent at Harvard, under normal circumstances, Woods would have had to serve in the Army three days. However, shortly after completion from the MPP program, Woods reported to his supervisor that he was gay. Despite his stated desire to return to serving his country, the military discharged him the following December with an honorable discharge. Woods had to repay $35,000 to the government.

However, this is much less than the cost of the two year program, which is currently estimated to be $133,220 for direct and indirect costs. In addition, this does not take into account his Army salary and housing benefits, worth an estimated $80,000 a year or around $160,000 for his complete time at Harvard. Moreover, Woods would have received federal benefits, such as free health care and federal leave days, during his two years.

This is in addition to the fact that the Army sends limited number of students to this program. Woods was on a path to becoming a professor at the United States Military Academy. The Academy has limited number of slots to send future professors to the Harvard program. In effect, Woods going through the complete program, deprived another officer of the opportunity to obtain a MPP from Harvard and deprived cadets at the United States Military Academy of a professor with a MPP from Harvard.

The timing of his revealing of his homosexual nature is a point of controversy among his former military associates.

The section references the timeline of Mr. Woods and the facts associated with his departure to from the Military. Moreover, Todd Hertling is a Army Captain, which can be verified by a name search on google .http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Todd+Hertling&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 The bias here is in the article, which reads like a Campaign bio. Casprings (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is unsupported though. Both of those sources do not mention anything relative to the sentence they are supporting, except maybe in the comments from the peanut gallery of the internet. Whether *we* can verify that Mr Hertling exists doesn't matter. There is no vetting of Mr Hertling's comments by any external review. It is essentially as if I put in something to the article and quoted Raymond Luxury Yacht, an influential New York banker who conversed with me in email.

I will fully support that the article reads like a campaign bio, and likely was written (my supposition, entirely) by the subject himself or someone in his office. That being said, it is sourced with a good collection of reliable sources and a candidate for congress is notable to the point that the article would likely withstand an AFD discussion. Just because the article may be too positive doesn't mean people have the mandate to add negative, poorly sourced material (not saying that you are a single purpose account or anything). Syrthiss (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur about the blog entry. However, the current edit, simply adds context to the story. And it is backed up by Army and Harvard sources. This got me into this. However, this is kind of fun. I think I might start adding to some of these articles.Casprings (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Resolution of including payment of 35K AND content that puts that into context

I have edited again, and I think that I have taken what you have said into consideration. I have added facts that are relevant, but have refined from using that to advance any argument. I believe that I have simply added context to the repayment of $35K and I have added an important fact to Mr. Woods employment by Mr. Patterson. Casprings (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If the overall result presents a picture detrimental to Woods' motivations, in a way that is not explicit in the original sources, then the mere juxtaposition amounts to making an argument. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section - it comes down to this - for something to be notable for inclusion in a BLP article, a reliable third party has to report on it. The costs simply are not of interest to us until someone else reports on them - using the primary sources is out. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. The amount that he had to repay the government, $35K, was a secondary source. The primary sources were simply used to put that amount in context, at least in the last edit that I did. There is a lack of material on Mr. Woods because he is new to the public. I see nothing wrong using a secondary source, and then using primary sources to feel in some of the substance behind that fact. That is what I at least attempted to do, in my last edit. I think a better edit would have been a rewording instead of a complete removal.Casprings (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

re-examining the source, there is another issue that needs to be managed, it's written before he was discharged, do you have a more recent source that indicated that he actually *did* have to pay the money back? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/021849.html

That is another link However there is one other issue. I would doubt that he has repaid the amount now. More then likely, the Army charged him 35K and he will pay over time. That is normally how it would work, unless he had 35K in the bank. Maybe another way to reword it would be to say that he was charged 35K by the army for repayment of the education. There is no way to confirm or deny that he paid it. Casprings (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have included the above from my talk page. I will assume, that there are no other issues with the edit. I will now reword, place the new source in, and repost. Casprings (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted: your change is just a mild rehash of exactly the same original analysis. As I've said repeatedly, if no reliable source has previously compiled this costing information, it is original research. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anthony Woods.

I have to ask this: do you understand WP:NOR? Information from different sources mustn't be put together in a way that presents a novel argument (in this case, a costing analysis that reads as showing that he made a profit from the army). If a reliable source makes this analysis, fine: until then, it's not. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the argument. And there is no question that is what I was trying to do to begin with. My first revisions are a clear attempt to make a argument by putting together facts. This is the first time I ever edited here. However, this edit is not an attempt to do that. It is an attempt, to state a fact that is from a secondary source. Then it is an attempt to add to that fact. As far as making an argument, which makes the argument more. Stating that Woods had to pay 35K and including nothing more or stating he had to pay 35K and then at least adding substance to that? In one, you get a view that Woods is a Victim. In the other, you at least get a full idea of the reason behind the charge. The addition of facts is needed. I would also argue that Cameron Scott agreed with the decision. Or at least seemed toCasprings (talk)

But the important point is that these facts have not been mentioned in reliable articles about Woods. Biographical articles here are built only from what has been previously written about people. Check out the example given at WP:SYNTH, which is about exactly this point: creating a novel analysis by juxtaposing sourced biographical material with a found background source.

I've no idea where it appeared Cameron Scott agreed: - it comes down to this - for something to be notable for inclusion in a BLP article, a reliable third party has to report on it. The costs simply are not of interest to us until someone else reports on them - using the primary sources is out is a pretty clear no. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott stated that" re-examining the source, there is another issue that needs to be managed, it's written before he was discharged, do you have a more recent source that indicated that he actually *did* have to pay the money back?" This implied, that the other issues had been worked out I don't see that I am making an argument here. I am placing facts into the story, but that does not lead to an argument. In other words, I am not saying fact A, then fact B, then Fact C and then leading you to conclusion E. What I am doing is saying, here is fact A, from a secondary source. Here is some facts, A,B, and C, that you need to understand in reference to fact A. A reader can draw his own thoughts from that. A valid thought would be that the "Don't, Ask, Don't Tell policy leads to great cost for the United States. If I am creating an argument or it appears I am, then I would suggest that there needs to be a re-edit. Woods was charged $35K from the army. That comes from a secondary source. There has to be a way to include that, but to include information that puts it into contest and doesn't create an Argument. That is what I have attempted to do. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you still don't have a third party source that comments on this matter? we really need someone (a journalist etc) to comment on this before it becomes notable for our purposes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony 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/20091019140853/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elect-results/cd10-results.htm to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elect-results/cd10-results.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)