Talk:Tom Woods

Original research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on Text Deletion

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

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

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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