Template:Controversial (politics) Template:Pbneutral

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attention!!! This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction: No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large. This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. For more information, see this page.

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:

And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.

Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.

This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.

99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest

But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.

Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This? Video: Tea Partiers, Sponsored by Big Oil, Speak Out Against Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine). 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good is an anti-reliable source. If something appears there, it makes it even less likely to be accurate. Still, there may a reliable source for the fact that some TPmms (Tea Party movement members) are against subsidies for and/or against Big Oil, although you haven't yet produced one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is anti-reliable, can't find it: WP:anti-reliable ... ? 99.181.156.238 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, founder of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, says ending that ethanol subsidy would amount to a tax cut for everyone else. "Mr. Norquist says that violates the pledge," he says, "but when you look at what tax-payers have to pay [in higher food and energy costs], it's a tax reduction."

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin calls to eliminate energy subsidies this one is from Politico.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol and this is from the LA Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in Sarah Palin too? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Reason (magazine)'s Reason.com ... Mitt Romney's Embrace of Ethanol Subsidies is Enough to Make Tim Pawlenty Look...Less Bad! by Nick Gillespie; May 31, 2011 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time

One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman (Jr.), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.

from GOP presidential contenders are cooling toward global warming (Denver Post) 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy subsidies hard to quit for GOP candidates on Politico.com and In an Era of Partisanship, Who Are the Grown-Ups? by Katie Howell of Greenwire on the New York Times published: June 8, 2011. 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb

In 2010 Exxon Mobil Corp., the most profitable company in the world, earned over $30 billion in profits on gross revenue of over $350 billion and paid no U.S federal income taxes. In fact, the industry receives over $4 billion per year in direct taxpayer handouts to promote drilling - as if the energy industry needs to be motivated to drill. This contradiction is obscene. (New York Times)

Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor

The targeted tax breaks for the top five oil companies – Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips – account for about $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years, or $2 billion a year.

99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:

Fred Upton, who was first elected in 1986, discussed the decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Let’s face it — it is a bad idea,” he declares.

from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...

Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From June 26, 2011; The San Diego Union-Tribune's SignOnSanDiego: Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies by John H. Reaves. 99.35.13.202 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented on most of your references, but this one does not say much of the Tea Party. It might be appropriate in other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party. Ron Paul and his supporters are the Tea Party, those that have joined the Tea Party after Ron Paul's original Tea Party still endorse the key planks of his platform: Limited Government, Lower Taxes, Cutting Spending, and stopping unconstitutional wars. If people disagree with one of these, they cannot be considered Tea Party, as they (planks) are all brought together by the Constitution, which Paul ALONE made popular in 2007-2008 primaries until the Present 2011 Presidential run. Bachmann jumped on the band-wagon and is not a TRUE constitutional conservative. Everyone saw the popularity that Ron Paul enjoyed and they are trying to steal the platform from him. This wiki article does a disservice to the Tea Party. (SJT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbobrains (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although true, we have an allegedly reliable sources that there are "Paulite" and "Palinite" wings of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(At least when it comes to foreign policy perspectives.)   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dr paul himself has proved mead is wrong in his essay. perhaps there are more errors as well given this oversight. i suggest we remove the flawed essay in its entirety. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

missing from the section is pauls view on trade. rp would trade with NK, syria, libya, and anyone else still in the axis of evil. rp feels isolating the people ruled by dictators only makes them more likely to follow a tyranny as it is the only source of food and medicine. instead we should continue trade and the people themselves will overthrow corrupt governments. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we quote Mead, we must use his terminology. TFD (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read Darkstar1st's comment as a suggestion that we should completely remove Mead's comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latest addition to the section quoted Ron Paul as to what he thinks should be important foreign policy issues for the Tea Party. That would be a fine source for rebutting comments about his policies in those areas; it does nothing to disprove an analysis of what his followers (in general) seem to believe. In both religion and politics, people are notorious for voicing belief in and support for a concept or specific leader while simultaneously performing and supporting specific actions and positions diametrically opposed to some of the leader's positions. E.g., the current and previous chairmen of the Republican National Committee have both voiced disagreement with theories of Obama's non-Hawaiian birth; that in no way means that sourced comments such as "many [most?] Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the U.S." have been proven false. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, i am for removing mead entirely. mead either does not know the difference between the terms, or the voting record of rp. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. There's also a more general challenge here. In reality, once you get off of the main "platform" of the TPM, you have a diverse bunch of people (mostly conservatives and libertarians, with each of those terms themselves being diverse) with an equally diverse range of opinions on other topics. Attempts to say "they think this about XXXX" are likely to be problematic unless XXXX is one of the tenets clearly on their agenda. I suppose talking about it as a dicotomy is less problematic and at least hints at the diversity, but again, not in a manner that was clearly erroneous as this was. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the paragraph. Mead is a notable and qualified commentator. the claims here that the material is erroneous is unsourced and is just the opinion of Wikipedia editors. Below, North8000 writes: "We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives." I agree which is why this material is important to keep.   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could just drop the erroneous parts about Ron Paul. ? North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mead refers to "trends" by large groups of people, not specifically to Paul's politics, although he does choose to name subgroups after Paul and Palin -- probably not a good practice in the long-run. Politicians are known, individually, for their shifting stances — especially on foreign policy — while large groups tend to be more stable in their defined demographic. Mead's essay studies large subsections of the tea party movement, not a particular politician. Does anyone know if Paul has responded directly to Mead's analysis yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic is correct, in that Mead is not talking about Paul, per se, but rather about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Since this is a view attributed to a distinguished expert, we need to be careful about asserting that it's erroneous.   Will Beback  talk  18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "personified by Ron Paul". Is this written by the Wikipedia editor or by Mead? Besides accuracy issues we have BLP issues. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the issue. Mead is a highly respectable source, writing about the TPM. No one has shown that he is incorrect. It's fine to add other views of the TPM's foreign policy. However this article is not about Ron Paul. While Paul may be an important ideological leader of the movement, he is not the movement. Even if we found conclusive proof that he is not isolationist, which we haven't, that would not alter the Mead material on the "Paulist" wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) Will, first we have the question of whether or not those statements are from Mead or from the Wikipedia editor. You have to pay to see the article which I didn't do, so that's why I asked if somebody knows the answer to that question.North8000 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only we knew.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are ron pauls own words not proof enough? do you have any proof he is an isolationist. his voting record of opposing trade embargoes should be proof enough. regardless of your opinion of the sources relevance, many here have objected to its inclusion. would you be willing to remove it until a replacement source or additional source be located? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, no, Paul's words are not sufficient to determine his own stance, much less the views of the TPM. Politicians often say one thing and do another so they are not definitive sources for their own policy positions and activites. Second, this is not about Paul himself but rather about the TPM. We can add more sources if we have other views of the TPM foreign policy, but simply adding material about Paul's foreign policy views would be inappropriate for this article. That material would belong in the Paul biography or in Political positions of Ron Paul.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul may prefer the term non-interventionism and it may be more accurate/neutral. But we should stick with what the source says if we are reporting it. TFD (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my previous question, and, I feel, an important point. Is there ANYBODY here who can answer the question.....did Mead actually say that....particularly the strong statement "one personified by Ron Paul "  ?

I answered you above, obtusely. See this.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that whole section and I don't think that it answers my question. Narrowing it even further to help sort this out, my question is were the specific words "one personified by Ron Paul" written by Mead, or by a Wikipedia editor. I'm not out to criticize anybody, I just thought that if those were written by a Wikipedia editor, we could solve this by scaling back the wp:editor-written summary, and leave the overall material in. I might just assume that and do that, don't hesitate to revert me (no hard feelings) if someone does not like it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added one word to soften it up. Then I did some checking. Ron Paul even advocates ending our trade embargo with Cuba! The implied "isolationist" statement about Paul is clearly wrong. And no, we don't have to put in stuff that we all know is wrong. The world is full of clearly wrong stuff in "RS's" that is not in Wikipedia. I think that the Mead source and material is good for this article. Will, you have access to the source.....what do you think of rewriting this to use Mead material other then the Ron Paul stuff? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about Paul. It's about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Show me which trade embargoes the TPM has policies on and we can add that.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has any relevance whatsoever. The fact is that Mead called the Paulite wing of the TPM 'neo-isolationist', and User:North8000's opinions about Cuba, and User:Darkstar1st's opinions about Ron Paul, have exactly zero bearing on that fact. The dubious template needs to be removed immediately. I've already removed it once, but was of course immediately reverted by one of our resident foreign policy experts. — goethean ॐ 22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see anyone provide any sources which dispute Mead's characterization of the Paulite wing of the TPM. Since it's presented as an opinion of Mead's, I'm not sure how the "dubious" tag applies. Is the dispute whether Mead said that, or whether Mead's opinion is correct? If the latter then that's a non-starter since it's the opinion of an expert.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will scroll up to view the primary source RP, stating in the 2008 fox debate he is an non-interventionist. since the two terms have such a degree of variance, meads opinion should be reconsidered in favor of a different source. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing about Paul that might be informative. We're not. We're writing about the Paulite wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so a paulite operates contrary to paul? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something we need to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is rp not a rs about paulites? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does Ron Paul say about the Paulite wing of the TPM? I haven't seen any sources for that.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, please review the definition of isolationist, and rp voting record, no rs needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't about Ron Paul.

I think it would be acceptable to add a parenthetical comment to explain. something like "(Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.)" What would we use as a source for that? I saw a mention of a 2008 debate, but I don't see a link.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. thx for meeting in the middle, kudos in the true spirit of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, addressing only older statements. Will, you are making up stuff. Specifically, what you are saying is that something being said in a "RS" mandates inclusion unless a explicitly says that it is wrong. That is faulty on several levels. Nowhere in WP does it say that. Second, source typically don't spend their time explicitly7 addressing false statements. Finally, NOBODY has come forward to even say that the words in question were even written by Mead vs a WP editor. As it stand currently, the faulty argument is built upon a faulty argument that is built upon a faulty argument. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making up anything, and I consider that an uncivil accusation. I don't see where anyone has provided sources which show that the cited article is an incorrect source for the author's opinion, or that the author's opinion of the Paulite wing of the TPM is incorrect. If I've missed it please provide it again. As for the accuracy of the summary of the source, which exact phrase are you questioning?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one I've explicitly asked about about 4 times, and, after multiple requests, you won't even answer whether or not the source actually said it. It's "one personified by Ron Paul" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the author does not use the word "personify". The relevant passage may be this: "The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. Ron Paul represents an inward-looking, neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy that has more in common with classic Jeffersonian ideas than with assertive Jacksonian nationalism." If there's another word that's better feel free to suggest it.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's good material, and even making a good point, but he erred in his choice of words (neo-isolationist) with respect to both Ron Paul and the libertarian types within the TPM. Non-interventionist would have been more accurate. Still have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's about the TPM, and an attempt at summarization/analysis, which makes it better than the crap that 70% of this article consists of. My gut feel is to tweak the wording a bit to emphasize that these are Mead's opinions. And leave it in. But if we're going to have incorrect statements about Ron Paul in here, then correct ones on that topic are also appropriate. Then I think we need to find some more quality material for that section so that this isn't nearly the only thing in it as is presently the case. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that this is Mead's view. I don't buy the assertion that he is mistaken. Let me suggest an analogy. Let's say Senator Jones calls himself a progressive. A political science scholar writes that the "Jonesian" wing of the Democratic Party is liberal. Would we say that the scholar is mistaken, since Jones calls himself a progressive rather than a liberal? I don't think so.

There are a number of newspaper op-eds and and commentaries on the TPM foreign policy. It'd be great to add more views.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on folks, I was told there was a source for Paul calling himself a "non-interventionist". Does it exist or not? If we can't find a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking for this since the 13th. If 30 days pass without a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, did you ever look for a source? see above where i answered your concern by explaining RP said those very words in the debate last election. you seem to be changing your story a bit, 1st you wanted a source about the paulite wing, now you a source about paul? a google search of ron paul turned up several sources stating he is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, here is one http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html the same could be said for the tp foreign policy as a whole, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/165445-rand-paul-and-the-tea-partys-foreign-policy there is a chance that you may or may not be pushing a pov consciously or sub-consciously. would you consider taking a break from this article for a month? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that needs a source is the one added as a compromise: " (Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.)" Neither of the links you've provided seem to say that. The RealClearPolitics piece discusses Paul as a non-interventionist, but it does not say that Paul calls himself one. At most, it could be used to say that "A freelance writer based in New Jersey has called Paul a non-interventionist", but that'd be silly. Is RealClearPolitics even a suitable source? The Hill blog says that Paul "bristled" at the term "isolationist". It's a better source but it still doesn't say outright that Paul calls himself a non-interventionist. Maybe it's unsourceable. I did look and I couldn't find one. No big deal - as soon as we find a relevant source we can add back the sentence.

As for my editing of this article, I haven't touched it since May 19. I don't think I've caused any problems so I don't see any need to intentionally stop editing it.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so the 2nd link in google: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas, ron paul Darkstar1st (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. We could summarize that source as saying something like "Paul says that the proper foreign policy is non-interventionism". It has nothing to do with the TPM, but would be added just to show a potentially different side of what Mead calls the "Paulite wing".   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objection I'll add that text using the Antiwar.com article as the citation.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not true that we need to include relevant words of a respected commentator if we know that they're wrong. I made an attempt to fix it, by unlinking isolationist, as Mead, if accurate, clearly means something by "neo-isolationist" which has absolutely nothing to do with our article or the standard definition of isolationist, but Will reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to link it as a redlink neo-isolationist, indicating we have no idea what it means. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR, we don't get to decide which sources are right or wrong based on our own person interpretations. I see that the term is now linked to Grand_strategy#Neo-Isolationism, which is fine. If there's no objection to the text and source posted above I'll add those.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the {content} tag? The edit summary says it was placed in lieu of reverting the deleted {disputed} tag,[1] but that was added without explanation either.[2] What, exactly, is being disputed?   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparent that this discussion has moved to #Criticism section? below. I'll add the proposed text and then let's close this one down so as to keep from splitting the thread further.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will lets keep the convo up here under the correct section header. it was your comment on jun 9 that moved it down to header concerning a separate issue. isolationalist does not have a negative connotation, like racist and the other med-slinging found in the crit section. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to Ron Paul as a isolationist needs to be remove. The source you need is any Ron Paul speech but he has specifically address the claims of isolationism but denying that he is an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There are plenty of "experts" that don't like Ron Paul and deliberately smear and distort his views. He is the leader of the modern day tea party movement, everything else is "astro-turf." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbobrains (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Nth time: nobody is calling Ron Paul an isolationist. Rather, in a discussion of foreign policy views of the TPM, an eminent scholar said there are essentially two different perspectives within the movement. Those who tend to follow Paul have one view while those who tend more to follow Sarah Palin have a different view. The material in question is about the views of those TPM members. The views of Ron Paul himself are covered in different articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will, other editors here dispute differentiating a paulite and paul. since the rs is being contested, we should find an additional source or remove the text for now. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP is based on what reliable sources say, not on what WP editors think. If the community wishes to require two sources for every assertion then this suggestion would be appropriate. You may recall that you agreed, as a compromise, to add an aside explaining Paul's personal view. Therefore there's no reason for anyone who can read to get an incorrect impression. The editor above seems to be mostly complaining that any politician besides Paul is considered to be significant within the TPM. Is that your view as well?   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will your opening statement and ending question conflict, please rephrase lest we confuse others, or take it to my talk page. not all rs on a topic are included in each article, this specific editor is being challenged by editors here. evidence refuting the text has been presented, yet none supporting. unless this change, i will place the tag on this section. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This ("The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism" by Walter Russell Mead [3] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

correct, that is the rs being challenged. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This ("The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism" by Walter Russell Mead [4] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). I'm still waiting for a citation to a source that challenges Mead's findings. So far, all I've seen are sources that talk about Paul, and nothing about Mead's assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i meant editors here including myself challenge meads findings. the source supporting was paul himself, the sources supporting mead, nill. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I already surmised that certain Wikipedia editors challenge Mead's findings. Let me know when one of you gets published. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ver is a condition for inclusion, not a mandate for inclusion. Material known to be false should be left out or taken out.....this is our job as editors. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, NPOV requires that we include all significant views. If a source said that Napoleon died in 1932, then we wouldn't include that as an obvious error. But if we had one that made a reasonable argument that he died in 1820 instead of the usual date of 1821, then we'd include that as a possible alternative explanation. In this case, there is not a single source which says that Mead's assessment of the foreign policy views of the Paulite wing of the TPM is incorrect. Once we find one we can add that view too.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

several sources refute mead, the single most important being paul himself. you wouldn't call napolean a frenchman when we all know he was Corsican, nor would you call paul an isolationist when he himself has refuted that claim and instead is a non-interventionist. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly where this discussion started several weeks ago. If Paul has commented on Mead's article then we can included that. Nobody is calling Paul an isolationist, and if they were it'd be irrelevant to this article, which is about the TPM. Can we please stop going in circles on this? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of finding an source that specifically comments on the wrong source is not a requirement. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand that comment. Could you rephrase it for me please?   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. When you said: "source which says that Mead's assessment of the foreign policy views of the Paulite wing of the TPM is incorrect" you were in essence saying that in order to leave material out, one had to find a rs that specifically addresses the source in question, and I was in essence saying that such an assertion is incorrect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's clearer. Here we have an article written by a credentialed expert that was published by the leading journal on the topic. We also have a handful of Wikipedia editors who say it is wrong and therefore the summary of it must be deleted. I contend that that is the wrong standard for judging a source to be unreliable. This is a high-profile article, having been excerpted in the New York Times. If no one in the real world has objected to it then we are on especially shaky ground to decide, on our own, that it is incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not object to every error (in this case one wrong word) in other sources, nor do they address issues where the answer is obvious. So you are laying a minefield for keeping in an obvious error. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search of "isolationism" in Google books or scholar will show that this term is accepted by scholars, while a search for "non-interventionist" will find that that is the term that isolationists call themselves. To "correct" Mead would be to insist on a highly POV usage of terminology, which has been pointed out to you many times. TFD (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on a few of the points made above:

• "The first thing to go should be the twitter section." --North8000

I've seen reference made to a "twitter section". There isn't one. There is, however, an incident where a TP leader and organizer expressed racist sentiments while attending the health care reform protests. While he did use Twitter as his media selection to post the slurs on a Springboro Tea party site, the media vehicle he used isn't at all germane to the issue. In my opinion, misdescribing it as a 'twitter section' is merely one part of a multi-pronged attack routine attempting to minimize the relevance of content (usually followed by descrediting the source, and finally by trying to distance the source from the "real" TP movement). We also do not have a "cardboard sign drawn with crayons section", but we do have another expression of racist sentiments by a TP leader/organizer. We don't have a "lol blog post on teh interwebs section", but we do have another expression of bigoted and racist sentiment by a TP leader/organizer. The reason these are issues is because of the message, not the choice of media used to convey it.

• "My first case in point in this article would be the section about the twitter comment." --North8000, but then we added the N-word slur incident,
• "A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections..." --North8000, but then we added the cut gas line incident,
• "But I forgot to include the propane grill damage..." and "My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved." --North8000

Okay, so we're up to 3 incidents and counting. Am I to understand these to be North's candidates for transferral to the proposed Criticism and/or Perceptions sub-article? Homo Logica, on the otherhand, has listed at least 10 — not just incidents, but whole sections — to move over, but adds, "it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article."

I may need a little help to understand the direction of the discussion, as well as any shared goals we are trying to achieve. Are we discussing moving just 3 incidents over, and "improving" the other content here? Or if we are discussing a massive transferral of content, do you intend to retain but "summarize" individual incident content here, such as the Thomas, Robertson, Williams, etc., sentiments? I don't see either of those as actual solutions to the real problems outlined above, just a relocation of the problems.

• "The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated"." --Homo Logica

A little clarification seems to be needed: All three of the "incidents" ("spic" slur, "nigger" slur, and the severed gas line) are from the health care protest part. As are the "homo" slur, the "schlomo" slur, the "liar and crook" slur, the "faggot" slur, the swastikas notes, the spitting incident, the “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can” gun violence threats; the brick through Rep. Slaughter's window, etc. While they are all from the 72-hour period of protests surrounding the March 20-22, 2010 Health Care Reform votes, some confusion has been generated by giving some incidents their very own sub-header in the article. As for the "unsubstantiated" misnomer, all of the incidents do have multiple first-hand eyewitness corroboration; but I think the label is supposed to allude to the lack of additional audio/photo/video recording evidence, which all of the other incidents have, to support the "nigger" slur incident. (Because just that one particular slur would be so out of character at those protests, right?)

• "In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife." --North8000

'Or wrote something racist', like Sonny Thomas did about "spics"? Looking at the presently cited source entitled Racial slur by Tea Party leader hits home, I can see why you might feel the source is only talking about that one bad apple, and not about the Tea Party. Would it satisfy your concerns if we replaced that source with a more detailed follow-up report source by the same award-winning investigative reporter, and more broadly titled it, Springboro Tea Party tries to weather controversy, where it explains the relevancy by detailing the following about the movement:

National group tries to organize — While the local controversy unraveled, officials from Tea Party groups around the country met in Minnesota to form a federation designed to coordinate the messages communicated by local groups such as the Springboro Tea Party and counteract charges of racism and disorganization undermining the national message. John Green, director of the Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, pointed to the Reform Party, formed by Texan Ross Perot, as another grass-roots political group that encountered problems because of its decentralized organization. “There’s no control,” Green said. Still, Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. In 1998, Jessie Ventura was elected Minnesota’s governor as a Reform Party candidate. Can the Tea Party overcome controversies such as the one in Springboro and match or surpass the Reform Party’s accomplishments? “Nobody knows if the Tea Party will be that strong,” Green said, looking ahead to November. “If the economy continued to perform poorly, the Tea Party may be a factor in the fall elections.”

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound a little direct, I am a little exasperated....six months and many hours wasted so far with no progress in the junk areas. I very much appreciate and thank you for the diligent work that you did with this post.

First a quick factual disagreement. In the twitter section, one of the sources said he "tweeted" that and the other said he posted on a twitter page, which is the main place where twits and tweets go. There is no indication that it was anything above a lowly tweet, one of the zillions of tweets done by people participating in the TPM, specially selected because it sounded bad.

What I propose is those three junk sections out, by whatever method. They are not ABOUT the TPM. They are about things a few people said or did that have nothing to do with the TPM's agenda, selected just for inuendo purposes because they sound bad. If they stay, then both sides should be covered. One side is that they are somehow indicative of the TPM = reporting them as if they were info about the TPM as the article currently does....the other side is that the selection and over publicizing of negative sounding but irrelevant or non-indicative material illustrates the type of tactics that their opponents are using. The latter would also be sourcable. And I think that the material and source that you described at the end of your post is good....the kind of stuff that I was saying that should replace the current junk with.

What the TPM movement is about is it's agenda. Finding stories about comments by participating individuals that has no relation to the TPM agenda is NOT information about the TPM.

Again, for emphasis, sorry if I sound a little direct, I am a little exasperated....six months and many hours wasted so far with no progress in the junk areas. I very much appreciate and thank you for the diligent work that you did with this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct is good, and the exasperation is understandable; no apologies necessary. On the "factual disagreement" you noted between sources on Thomas' racial slurs, there is no conflict: both are correct. He texted his statements to the Springboro Tea Party twitter webpage, which also placed them on the Springboro Tea Party main website via a live link (both have since been scrubbed). His apologies for the slurs were also posted on the Springboro Tea Party website (also now scrubbed). I don't see any sources that refer to a "lowly tweet", or that speak in any detail whatsoever about his chosen method of posting his text messages. All the sources, without exception, focus only on the statements he made and the repercussions of those statements — not the vehicle through which he made them — so our use of those sources should reflect the same.

“Certainly, the tweet from Mr. Thomas in which he used a racial slur was enough for me to remove myself from any connection with him. But just today, someone pointed out to me the links on the Tea Party page. I do not want to have my name associated with this organization,” Oda said in an e-mail on Tuesday, April 6.

I also do not see in any sources conveying Thomas' slurs were "specially selected because it sounded bad", so perhaps you could provide a link to support that. I'm fairly certain Thomas' statements didn't just sound bad; they are bad. They were 'selected' because it was a news story that state senators and other political notables were cancelling their scheduled appearances at a political rally because of them. If you are implying there is some doubt about Thomas' racist sentiments, reliable sources also note photographs of him in his "White Pride" T-shirt, and his other posted statements such as:

Let it be on the record, I detest and denounce any Fed, State or local gov’t interloping in my healthcare decisions whatsoever! I’m 110% against any of this fucking ObamaCare and will not acknowledge that son of a bitch either until he proves he’s a legally binding person who sits in that office. There’s a reason it’s called the White House."

To your other point, I must admit confusion as to why you have selected and labeled as "junk" these particular 3 of the many similar content items. You say they are "things a few people said or did that have nothing to do with the TPM's agenda," but that also applies to the other items. I'm also confused as to your suggestion, "If they stay, then both sides should be covered," which sounds to me like expansion of a section that already takes up 21% of the article, and which Homo Logica has described as putting "WP:UNDUE on some of the more sensationalist events, which detracts from the rest of the article, making it not WP:NPOV." (Note: my objection is not against properly covering all sides, but against unproductively expanding an already mishandled large section.)

Yes, the "Tea Party movement is about it's agenda." But this isn't the Tea Party movement. This is a Wikipedia article on the Tea Party movement, and as such it will contain information on the TP agenda (in as much as we struggle to ascertain exactly what that is), AND on it's origins, it's significance, it's history, it's notable (for good or for ill) personages, it's influence, and significantly held opinions about it from across the spectrum. When you state, "stories about comments by participating individuals that has no relation to the TPM agenda is NOT information about the TPM", I can only reply: Wrong - this article is not just about the TPm agenda. Perhaps "TP Agenda" should be the focus of a spin-off daughter article? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Antisocial ... Antisocial behavior? 99.43.138.160 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the title of this section is about. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess Anti-socialism ~ Criticisms of socialism. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did kind of leave that up in the air, didn't I? The title of this section came about as I was reading Homo Logica's comments above where s/he contemplates naming a sub-article Perceptions of the Tea Party, and I was reminded of past discussions on what the related section of this article should be named. It morphed between variations of 'Racist behavior', 'Racist and Homophobic behavior', 'Bad behavior', 'Racism, Anti-gay, Anti-semetic, Islamophobic and violent behavior', 'Inappropriate behavior', 'Controversial and bigoted behavior', etc., and I remember thinking "it all sounds antisocial to me". So my guess would be: both. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i know, lets call it "behavior unanimously condemned by the tea party that is included in this article to push a pov that has nothing to do with less tax, the only issue the tp unanimously agrees". Darkstar1st (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a reliable source that conveys any unanimous position held by the tea party. A collection of such sources would be very handy. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, I think that the probably the most obviously pervasive items in the TPM agenda are reduced taxes and reduced government spending. Is there anybody who doubts this? On the other hand, you are trying to claim that behaviors and agendas universally rejected by the TP are agendas or attributes of the TPM!!! North8000 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... no links? I see.

So... behaviors by the TP are universally rejected by the TP. Ooookay.

Oh, and a routine correction (I should make a template for this): I am not "trying to claim" anything. When I convey to you what reliable sources have conveyed to me, please don't confuse me with the source. Alrighty? I have faith in you; you can do it!

Saying the TP agenda is reduced taxes and government spending is about as specific as saying, "the TP agenda is about politics", and is hardly exclusive to the TP. Sources like this one (thank you for digging that up, Darkstar1st) are constantly confounding me by saying things like "Americans think Medicare is currently worth the costs ... Among Tea Party supporters, 41 percent say the cost is worth it, while 46 percent say it's not", or "Overall, a majority of Americans, 76 percent, thinks government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for the elderly, and 56 percent say the same for the poor ... Tea Party supporters, meanwhile, are split -- 47 percent say it's the government's responsibility, and 48 percent say it's not." Unanimous positions ... Ooookay. TP is about as unanimous on government spending and what taxes to cut as they are on racial and other social issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That data that you provided does not conflict with what I said on the no-brainer list of their political agenda/priorities. And the problem with the three junk section is that there is not even a claim by a RS that those tweets and spouts are indicative of the TPM. Some editor just put them in there by an editor for inuendo effect. with no RS making any claim of being indicative of the TPM. That's why those three sections are junk. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps therein lies the source of your misunderstanding. Reliable sources do not speak of "tweets and spouts" when they are conveying information about racial sentiment and the Tea Party. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting closer. Where in those three junk ones is there any RS making any such statement about the TPM? There isn't. That is the point. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer? You lost me. If what the CBS source provided doesn't conflict with your assertion, then that means both are true: Smaller taxes and government are their agenda & they have no clue what that means or what they support. I guess the "no-brainer" description is more applicable than you knew. I also still don't see 3 "junk ones" that are any different than any other "ones". I'm looking at the Robertson, Johnson, Frank, Williams, etc., incidents for something you believe is there that isn't in your specified 3, and I'm not seeing it. Could you point out this "point" you are making more clearly, please? They all look equally problematic to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps 8000 was referring to the poll being about medicare, not racism. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Xeno, I meant that we were getting closer to the core issue on the three junk ones. What I also had in mind is that when you said "I am not "trying to claim" anything. When I convey to you what reliable sources have conveyed to me" you seemed to be acknowledging the same criteria which I say that those three junk ones violate. The do not have any RS making any claim that these incidents indicate racism on the part of the movement. They are just selected for innuendo purposes....only implying that these things said or allegedly said by individuals (and rejected by the TPM) are indicative of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what separates your 3 selected examples from the rest of the examples. You say your 3 examples don't have RS indicating racism in the movement, but you can make that same claim about all of the examples. You say your 3 examples were selected "for innuendo purposes" (by the Press, or by Wikipedia editors?) and aren't indicative of the TPM, but you can apply that same statement to all of the examples. So I will repeat my request above; can you please point out what all the other examples have that your special 3 do not? They all look equally problematic to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been really buried (and will be off "the grid" next week, so if you can bear with me on a short response.) There are actuall 5 that have the particular issue that I'm taling about, but two of the (Dale Robertson and Islam ones) at first glance appear to have a top TPM official which, if such is the case, is a mitigating factor. So, for simplicity, let's leave those two out of the discussion.

I short, the difference is that the other material is ABOUT the TPM. Not that they are perfect, but they do not the glaring issue that those three have which is that they are not ABOUT the TPM. For example, if Newspaper writer John Smith writes an article saying that dog kicking is pervasive in the Mayberry Chess Club, that is a statement ABOUT the TPM. If he wrote an article saying that Larry Jones kicked a dog, and that Larry Jones is a member of the Mayberry Chess Club and the Mayberry Bowling league, that statement is not ABOUT the chess club or the bowling league. It would be bogus to put a section on the Larry's dog kicking incident into the Wikipedia Mayberry Chess Club article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making up hypothetical examples, can we please work with our actual content items? What content "ABOUT the TPM" exists in those other examples that does not exist in your chosen 3 (now 5?) examples? I'm not seeing it. They all seem to follow the same play-book:

TPer publicly says/does some "junk" that the rest of society finds offensive, and makes headlines because of it ==> TPer tries denial, then excuses, then passing blame, then finally apologizes ==> Fellow TPers quickly issue the routine form response whenever these "junk" incidents slip into the public limelight, "Every group has its fringe elements, but they don't represent the rest of the movement, yada yada..." They all fit this mold, so I'm having difficulty understanding how your selections differ from the rest. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, by the way, as I'm sure the article will still be here when schedules are less hectic. By "buried", I hope its the good kind of busy-ness, rather than unfortunate matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. "Buried" is due to trying to catch up enough to go off the grid, nothing unfortunate. Only have a few minutes today. Again, thanks for asking. I was taking a (hopefully higher plane) tact of a direct relevance/informativeness-regarding-the-TPM criteria rather than a policy based act. Possibly The "About" thing is too abstract.....I've been trying to do my best to explain. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Off-the-grid, just curious? 99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I go there and beyond too (where FM radio stations and cell phones don't reach) but this time it's tame. I'll have most utilities except internet. :-) BTW, in my mind the meaning of that term came from a different movie and is different and means: "Unrecorded, untraceable through normal means." North8000 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic ... What movies? 99.119.131.248 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the name, but the phrase and concept stuck with me. 5-10 years ago, one of the lead US male black actors played the lead role. Was with the US government and by a mistake became a target of the US government. Went into hiding while he tried to fix it. Went for help from a guy who lived in an abandoned factory. A technical and electronics wizard, who used that expertise to be completely off the radar screen and completely invisible to all information and identity related systems, and completely disconnected from any links that could jeopardize that. And he referred to it as "off the grid". Not exactly what I'm doing starting tomorrow, but it seemed like a cool way to describe it. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the film was "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith? I'm a non-editor just popping in to look at the talk page, I find Wikipedia's editing process fascinating and I think society in general could learn a lot from how everyone here interacts and attempts to find an amalgamation of viewpoints and interpretations of Wikipedia policies. I'm surprised there isn't a more concrete Wikipedia policy on whether any controversial statements or views of an individual member of a group or movement can be alluded to on that group's article... when can an individual's statement be viewed as severable, or are groups always liable for a member's or leader's faux pas? I apologize if I've just displayed an incomplete knowledge of your policies or if this is an inappropriate venue for my comment (if that is the case, please revert the above). 96.240.213.177 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Wes[reply]

Wes -- I posed your question to the WP Help Desk with "Does something noteworthy about a group member belong on a page about the group?" as the subject; here's an edited version of the reply:

I think the relevant policies dealing with this are mostly in WP:NPOV. Specifically due and undue weight and equal validity. If the member of a larger group does something that is attributed largely to and has great impact on the image of the group then it should be mentioned. In most cases, it must not overshadow the subject of the article itself (if it seems like it will, then that subtopic probably needs its own article per WP:SPINOFF). If the viewpoint of the member is very much a minority viewpoint within the group then it should be presented as such, if it is actually reflected by the majority of the group then it should also be stated clearly as such, etc. per refs as usual of course. As a general rule, if they are notable and do not have their own articles then yes they should be a subtopic to the group's article. There's also an essay on the subject in WP:Criticism. . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo3sampl (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good effort, but it starts with the premise that the incident by the individual is noteworthy. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read Mad as Hell and I did not get the impression it was a common view that the Tea Party Movement is endemic of "Astroturfing" per reference 6 (book as mentioned, text beginning at page 132). Consequentially, I propose deleting that single sentence barring additional sourcing, or evidence my interpretation of Rasmussen is inaccurate. Ikeinthemed (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, not astroturf it is impossible to be a loose affiliation of national and local groups and simultaneously astroturf. i tried this argument a few months back and was defeated by those who claim it started of as astroturf, also not reflected in the rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But we can still mention claims of such. North8000 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, began as astroturf, continues to have astroturf elements and is sonsidered astroturf by some. That is what rs say and what the article should reflect. TFD (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, it began before 2009, "tea party" was Ron Paul as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement. the rs got it wrong this time. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well say it began in 1776. It began in 2009 and no rs says otherwise. TFD (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these rs all say it began in 2008 primary campaign: ^ Smith, James F. (December 16, 2007). "Ron Paul's tea party for dollars - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence". Boston.com. Retrieved 2010-04-27.

^ "Statement on Ron Paul and "Tax Day Tea Parties"". Businesswire.com. 2009-04-15. Retrieved 2010-04-27. ^ Levenson, Michael (2007-12-16). "Ron Paul raises millions in today's Boston Tea Party event - The Boston Globe". Boston.com. Retrieved 2010-04-27. ^ Press, Associated (2007-12-17). "Paul supporters hold Tea Party re-enactment in Boston". BostonHerald.com. Retrieved 2010-04-27. ^ Don't Let Neocons Hijack the Tea Party Movement; RonPaul.com - Interview transcript; February 15, 2010 Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul supporters were not the first to make appeals to the U.S. Revolution. Note too that the Tea Party contains elements that never would have supported Paul. Notice the age difference in the two groups, and how FNC supported the one but opposed the other. TFD (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when a rs gets it fundamentally wrong, the text should be removed. Paul has said he is a non-interventionist, Mead called Paulites isolationist. the key difference is isolationist do not trade with other nations. if the tea party, which has been refused status as a political party in wp even has a foreign policy, it would be well documented. lets find an additional source to back up meads disputed claims should any exist, or remove the passage. i suggest is time for rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Ron Paul, and at no point in the article is Ron Paul called an isolationist. But, it's blatantly false to say "Nobody is calling Paul an isolationist, except Mead". Lots of people call Paul an isolationist.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Nth time: nobody is calling Ron Paul an isolationist., Lots of people call Paul an isolationist. Will these are you words, which is it? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this article is calling Paul an isolationist, but lots of observers do so in reliable sources, 23 of which are listed above. Even other Republicans and conservatives use the term. However the personal views of Ron Paul are not the topic of this article - only those of the TPM. I don't see why this is such a sticking point.   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it is inaccurate. isolationist do not trade, non-interventionist do. why is this so hard to process? an outside editor may or may not view keeping the incorrect text as pov pushing. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have processed it just fine. The text does not contain any inaccuracy. It summarizes Mead correctly. The distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism is not relevant to the article. — goethean ॐ 13:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to you countless times, reliable sources say that isolationists call themselves "non-interventionists" arguing that isolationism means opposition to foreign trade. TFD (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they are all wrong. many rs call Obama a socialist because some of his policy share socialist similarities. obama does not describe himself as a socialist, and it is not included on his article even tho many rs have claimed such. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain, John Yoo, the Republican Jewish Coalition, the Kyodo News Service, Jeffrey T. Kuhner - all wrong? Perhaps. But Mead isn't the only one who's saying it. It's a legitimate point to be made by an expert.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yet actual tea party members reject the claim.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/165445-rand-paul-and-the-tea-partys-foreign-policy "clearly bristled at the “isolationist” label, and seemed to think that liberals treated the Tea Party with “disdain.” Darkstar1st (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paul a member of the Tea Party movement? I suppose so. Anyway, we can change the text in the article to say he "bristles" at being accused of being an isolationist, if you think this blog is a good source.   Will Beback  talk  07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his father Ron, started the tea party in the 2008 primary, Rand, is in the above article. we shouldn't change it, it should be removed as inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Will describes Mccain and others using the label of isolationism as preposterous http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/19/this_week_roundtable_analyzing_the_gop_new_hampshire_debate.html skip to 9:10 Darkstar1st (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. We can add all of this to the Political positions of Ron Paul article. But none of it concerns this article, which is about the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sat through nine minutes before hearing Will say "preposterous", but he never mentioned Paul.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he was talking about the tp influence on the nh debate. (i did say skip to 9:10, see above) Darkstar1st (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we can change the text in the article to say he "bristles" at being accused of being an isolationist, if you think this blog is a good source.

I would oppose this change, because it is off-topic for the article. User:Darkstar1st has failed miserably and at ridiculous length to make his improbable and hair-splitting point. This conversation has long ago exceeded WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Not everyone's patience for this patent nonsense is as extensive as User:WillBeBack's. — goethean ॐ 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everybody here knows that the claim/implication that Ron Paul is an isolationist is clearly false. This is the guy who actively advocates ending the trade embargo with Cuba! It's time to remove or offset the false text and move on. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have covered this already. Isolationism does not mean opposition to foreign trade in relinble sources, and we are not endorsing Mead's vinws, merely reporting them. TFD (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isolationism (the Wikipedia article) does include opposition to foreign trade. Even if the conventional usage (in reliable sources) were not to include opposition to foreign trade (which is disputed), the term shouldn't be linked. In fact, I object to any Wikilinks in Mead's section, other than "obvious" ones, as his use of policy terms seems to be different than the conventional usage, as well as different from our usage. Mead is obviously a reliable source, even if his use of terms differs from mainstream usage and our usage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the piped link because policy does not allow links included in direct quotes. But Mead's usage is mainstream even if it is opposed by some. But that is all part of the attempt by some to dissociate themselves from 1930s isolationism, which was discredited after 1941. TFD (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical in the Mead section ("(Paul himself says that the proper foreign policy is non-interventionism.)"), apart from being inappropriate and unecessary, is currently cited to a primary source. This needs to be replaced with a citation to a reliable secondary source per WP:PRIMARY. 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— goethean ॐ

Primary does not apply for this. It is allowable to use Paul's own statements to contridict a secondary statement. You don't need a secondary source to state Paul's own claim, especially when it appears to contridict the claim of his views from someone else. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Need a secondary source. Mead was referring to Paulites, not Paul himself. TFD (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolutely bizarre agument to make. I am not even sure how to respond to such an illogical statement. Arzel (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for followers to have different views from their nominal leader. In this passage we're only discussing the Paulite wing of the TPM, not Paul himself. FWIW, many sources refer to isolationist elements in the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes absolutely no sense to say that they follow Paul because of views relating to foreign involvement and then say that it is not uncommon for followers to have different views from their nominal leader relating to his views on foreign involvement. If they agree with Paul regarding his foreign intervention pollicies then why would they have different views than Paul? I could understand them having different views with him regarding some other policy, but this is specific to this one policy. In fact it makes absolutely no sense to use this passage as a way to define this particular group of people as followers of Paul if their views are contrary to what paul believes regarding this policy. Your last statement could apply to pretty much every group in the country. I am pretty sure that the strong interventionalist aspect of the TPM is the majority of members with regards to Iraq and initial war in Afganistan. The bigger issue here seems to be the attempt by many to pigeonhole the people in the movement. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree claiming a paulites has a different view on foreign policy than ron paul is moronic, or deliberate. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're just summarizing reliable sources. There is no original research. Scholars and journalists typically categorize (or "pigeonhole") movements. If they do so then we should report their work. But it is not Wikipedia editors who are doing the pigeonholing in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people who agree with Paul's "non-interventionism" do so because of nativist or conspiracist beliefs, rather than the reasons advanced by Paul himself. TFD (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lies, none of the people who agree with ron paul do so because of nativist or conspiracist beliefs, Et tu, Brute! Conspiracies have been extinct for centuries. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul was supported by the John Birch Society, Stormfront, Alex Jones, Lew Rockwell and a host of others who are known for conspiratorial views. The Ron Paul newsletter was filled with conspiracy theories, which became a campaign issue. Although Paul himself has never advocated conspiracy theories, his attacks on the U.N., the fed, the federal government, etc., and other views endear him to conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more lies , None of the groups you mentioned are endeared to RP because of his attacks on the Fed. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mead statement in question clearly implies that Paul is an isolationist. Is there anybody here who can't see that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to stop using the term lies. Try to use parliamentary language. You never heard about the fed conspiracy theories? Who got to you! TFD (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider to add

• {{LibGuides|teaparty|Tea Party Movement}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.206.23 (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Fresh Air. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "neo-isolationist" to "non-interventionist" (without quotations) because Ron Paul clearly does not endorse neo-isolationism. This terminology is political slander against him and is false. This edit can be found in the foreign policy section of this page.

References: Countless sources of Ron Paul speaking of non-interventionism can be found by just Googling the term with his name. However, here are two videos where he directly explains the difference between the two words:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM" rel="nofollow">Link text</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt3-1NI45wI&feature=related" rel="nofollow">Link text</a>

Thank you!

Gweb214 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – Not what the source says; not who the source is describing. But feel free to join one or more of the three discussion on this topic above. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poppycock! several editors have pointed out the folly with isolationist. either make the argument supporting the claim, or remove the incorrect term. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We report what mainstream reliable sources say, particulary when making direct quotes, and do not re-phrase using terminology used only by adherents of a specific ideology. TFD (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we also purge wp of incorrect text by rs. rfc is the only way forward i fear. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should do that. A nice start and getting some extra eyes on this article. But need to clarify the question. Is it to remove the erroneous material in , or to make an addition that corrects the error? (my own paraphrasing of course) North8000 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to start would be to change WP policy to ensure that it was "correct" rather than neutral. TFD (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need to policy in order to strive for accuracy, but this is neither. North8000 (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do need to change policy, because it not concerned with accuracy, merely verifiability. When the experts get things wrong, there is no way to correct them. TFD (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misread it. Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a mandate for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E/C: But the only way we can determine if someone has made a mistake is through the use of... verifiable sources. So there's no way around the need to rely on sources. Some sources say Paul is an isolationist. He says he's a non-interventionist. The two concepts are very similar, so it's much like a politician calling himself a progressive while others call him a liberal. Anyway, this article doesn't call Paul an isolationist so this is much ado about nothing.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "here are two videos where he directly explains the difference between the two words"

I watched those two videos. What Paul actually explains is his personal take on what the words mean to him. He even notes that "some people don't mind the use of the word isolationism" to describe views similar to his, but now he feels it is being turned into a pejorative. He is also clear to state, "So isolationism, to me, is where you isolate yourself...", indicating he is giving his own personal definition, and not necessarily the definition widely held by others that discuss foreign policy.

• "several editors have pointed out the folly with isolationist"

I have no doubt that they have. Unfortunately, we can not cite those "several editors" in our Wikipedia article. If you can please provide reliable sources that specifically convey that Mead's terminology usage is "folly", then we can cite them and move forward.

• "we also purge wp of incorrect text by rs"

"Incorrect text" still has not been shown. The text in our article does correctly convey what Mead conveyed in his essay. Furthermore, as previously shown in the related discussion above, Mead has not misused or misapplied the terminology, despite Paul's expressed preference for one term over another. Our article doesn't claim to define Paul's views, and neither does Mead's essay.

• "But need to clarify the question. Is it to remove the erroneous material in, or to make an addition that corrects the error?"

You'll first need to point out what that (alleged) error is, and that hasn't been done. The original complaint was from folks that mistakenly assumed our article was calling Ron Paul an isolationist, or neo-isolationist. Upon closer reading, those folks realized Mead was talking about the views of Tea Partiers, not Paul specifically, and with regard to military actions and policies in foreign countries, not all interaction (trade, diplomatic, tourism, etc.) with other countries. I don't see what the alleged "error" is this time around.

Perhaps it would help if everyone reviewed Non-interventionism and Isolationism. You'll notice that both articles say they are similar, and in fact, non-interventionists are a subset of isolationists -- and as far as military actions and alliances are concerned (you know, the stuff Mead was focusing on), they are identical. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a small nit-pick on your last paragraph, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "isolationists are a subset of non-interventionists", since, as used here, they are both part of the larger group opposing military adventurism, and the isolationists are in a sub-group that also opposes free trade? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, isolationists are a subset of non-interventionists, therefore calling paul an isolationist is inaccurate, the same way describing a computer as an atm, both will give you the bank account balance, only one will dispense cash. We have 2 editors who want to keep isolationist, and many more who want to change it the term, or remove it. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Isolationists are also a subset of people. North8000 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "therefore calling paul an isolationist is inaccurate" Oh, wait ... we never called him that. By the way, the Isolationism article says non-interventialism and protectionism are subsets of it:

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements ... it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventialism 2. Protectionism

We have 2 editors that think this is the Ron Paul article, and many more who realize we are only talking about Mead's essay on the Tea Party & American Foreign Policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"By the way, the Isolationism article says non-interventialism and protectionism are subsets of it:

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements ... it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventialism 2. Protectionism "

The small quote doesn't support the conclusion you state. According to the quote, there are two sets: Non-interventionists and Protectionists. Isolationists are in the intersection of those two sets. That makes Isolationists a subset of Non-interventionists and also a subset of Protectionists. By the definition, all Isolationists are Non-interventionists; some Non-interventionists are also Isolationists. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The set elements are: (No military actions or alliances) (No trade or economic agreements) (No cultural and travel exchanges). Isolationists embrace all three elements, and are therefore the largest set. Non-interventionists and Protectionists each have some, but not all, of the elements, and are therefore subsets. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The characteristics of a non-interventionist are a subset of the characteristics of an isolationist. That does not make non-interventionists a subset of isolationists, but the opposite. Accepting your addition of a third grouping to those originally being discussed, the set elements would be: (Those who support "No military actions or alliances") (Those who support "No trade or economic agreements") (Those who support "No cultural and travel exchanges"). Isolationists are not the logical or (union) of those sets, they are the logical and (join,intersection), in that to be considered one, an object (person) must possess all three characteristics, not merely any one of the characteristics. They are therefore the smallest, most restricted, set. "Black female horses" are not a super-set of "black animals", "females", or "horses", but rather a subset of each. In the same way, "non-interventionist anti-tradeist anti-cultural-exchangeists", i.e. "isolationists", are not a super-set of "non-interventionists", "anti-tradeists", or "anti-cultural-exchangeists", bot rather a subset of each. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "The characteristics of a non-interventionist are a subset of the characteristics of an isolationist." Good.

At least we agree on the crux of the point I was making. As for the semantics, I am unfamiliar with your designation of "characteristics" in set theory, and prefer to refer to "elements" and "objects" to maintain consistency. Contrary to your assertion, the Isolationist set of elements is indeed a superset with respect to the Non-interventionist set of elements, as each of the elements of the Non-interventionist set is also an element of the Isolationist set -- that is the very definition of a superset. Conversely, every element of the Non-interventionist set is also an element of the Isolationist set, therefore the Non-interventionist set is a subset of the Isolationist set -- that is the very definition of a subset. The confusion we are having appears to stem from our respective definitions of the elements (or objects). My references to sets and subsets was with respect to the traits of Isolationism, Protectionism and Non-interventialism as the elements/objects, while your references to sets and subsets was with respect to people in those groups as the elements/objects. We're both correct within our respective definitions, and my use of '-ist' instead of '-ism' in my initial comment appears to have started the confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mead specifically discusses foreign policy and not foreign trade, the term appears to be consistent with the article. TFD (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little after 2:40 in this interview: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Scsu679_c" rel="nofollow">Link text</a> Ron Paul directly states that he is a non-interventionist. I believe that there is a very clear distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism (which can especially be seen in the Wikipedia articles cited above by others). Because of this distinction, Mead was wrong in calling him an isolationist. Therefore, phrases need to be changed in this Wikipedia article or Mead's assertion should be completely removed. There is no reason to cite a person in a public encyclopedia who is clearly using an incorrect term. This should be removed or fixed. Also, isolationism and non-interventionism cannot be subsets of each other in either order. This is because of a direct contradiction dealing with free trade. Neither term is more general than the other due to a strict contradiction. Gweb214 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

Ron Paul's opinions do not elevate to the level of facts, otherwise we would have to re-write scores of articles on politics, economics and history. TFD (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mead's opinions also do not elevate to the level of facts. Moreover, I believe that Paul's opinions are a better description of Paulites than those of Mead considering the term is based upon Ron Paul's name, character, and opinions. So why are we using Mead's opinions? It makes no sense and should be removed. Gweb214 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

It must be gratifying to have spent 10 hours over weeks fighting to keep an error in Wikipedia. :-) C'mon folks, lets either take it out or put in offsetting material which corrects its error on that one point. Sincerely, 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What would that error be? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not presenting Mead's views as facts but as opinions. The reason they are included is that he is that is a noted expert on foreign relations, which Paul is not. TFD (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes "noted experts" can misuse words. There is no reference information that shows a "Paulite" refuses free trade. Therefore, since the argument breaks down to arbitrarity and opinions, there is no reason to demonstrate an opinion that is opposed to that of Ron Paul (which Paulites are named after). An unjustified opinion should not appear in a public encyclopedia. Gweb214 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

From United States non-interventionism: "Non-intervention is similar to isolationism. While isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies." Ron Paul is extremely pro–free trade and not a big advocate of sealing the borders, so calling him an isolationist is inaccurate. I assume reliable sources use both so we should go with non-interventionist which I assume (but don't know for sure) is the majority. Also there is little evidence that "Paulites" have significant different views than their namesake. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is calling Ron Paul an isolationist, so your concern is misplaced. Also, please note that "Paulites" is a term created and defined by Mead in his essay, to describe a particular set of views held by some Tea Partiers. Finally, please note that Mead refers to Paulites as isolationists only with respect to military actions and alliances, not trade and economics, which is basically the same thing as calling Paulites non-interventionists. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no reference information that shows a "Paulite" refuses free trade." Fair enough. But it's also true that, either in the article or in this discussion, there is no reference information that shows a "neo-isolationist" refuses free trade.

By the way, I think Darkstar1st sort of alluded to the possibility above, but has anyone noticed that Mead specifically identifies Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, as his exemplar of the "Paulite" wing (and, unlike Palin vs. Palinite, arguably attaches the person to the wing). Since the full article in Foreign Affairs is behind a pay-wall, this shorter version from The New York Times can support these comments.

(Does anybody have access to the full article? A direct quote on views beyond one-word descriptions, and maybe a quote showing what he means by neo-isolationist, would be extremely helpful to this discussion.) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have online access to the original essay published in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts here with out violating too many copyright laws. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "neo-isolationist" does not refuse free trade, can't we just substitute the word non-interventionist, remove quotations as in to paraphrase Mead, and appease everyone here? Gweb214 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

No, we can't. The source, which is highly reliable by Wikipedia standards, has given his opinion which we clearly attribute to him. We cannot decide, on our own, that the source is incorrect and replace it with what we believe to be correct. Please remember that the source is not talking about Paul himself, but rather about those Tea Party members whom he describes as the Paulite wing of the Tea Party movement.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question about Mead naming his "Paulites" after Ron or Rand, he mentions Rand just once in his essay, in a section discussing Tea Partiers' conflicting views on military actions in the "war on terror" and the Arab/Israeli conflict:

Other prominent political figures associated with the Tea Party also send a contradictory mix of messages. The Texas congressman Ron Paul and his (somewhat less doctrinaire) son, the newly elected Kentucky senator Rand Paul, come close to resurrecting isolationism. The conservative commentator Pat Buchanan echoes criticisms of the U.S.-Israeli alliance made by such scholars as John Mearsheimer. Palin, on the other hand, is a full-throated supporter of the "war on terror" and, as governor of Alaska, kept an Israeli flag in her office.

Before you start screaming "but Paul isn't an isolationist omg!!1!1", please recognize that Mead is only referring to views about military foreign policy, so he is actually quite accurate. Mead later refers only to military foreign policy again when contrasting "Paulite" and "Palinite" views:

...Paul and his followers look for ways to avoid contact with the world, whereas such contemporary Jacksonians as Sarah Palin and the Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would rather win than withdraw. "We don't need to be the world's policeman," says Paul. Palin might say something similar, but she would be quick to add that we also do not want to give the bad guys any room.

Note again that Mead isn't speaking about trade agreements or cultural exchanges -- he's only talking about war. Our Wikipedia article seems to make that clear as well. One suggestion for making it clearer still, however, would be to add the single word "military" to the existing sentence, so that it reads:

"Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach that seeks to avoid military foreign involvement.

Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interventionism and non-interventionism that define military involvement. Isolation adds an extra connotation to the term that is not true of "Paulites" and, therefore, should not be used in their description. Gweb214 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

I appreciate that you have your own personal definition of the terms, but in this particular instance, we should defer to the terminology used by Mead and Wikipedia. "Paulites" and Ron Paul do indeed have a "neo-isolationist" approach to military involvement in other contries, and an isolationist stance definitely prohibits military involvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you allow an educated elite to peer down at you from an ivory tower and tell you how your world works. My definition is in line with the Wikipedia definition that has been cited over and over again. If you look at the article on isolationism, the first paragraph says that isolationism asserts two views, non-interventionism and protectionism. Non-interventionism is the portion of the term that we have been dealing with. Non-interventionism takes into account all the relevant military views of isolationism. However, the problem with the term isolationism is that it asserts protectionism too. Protectionism is clearly against both Paul's and Paulites' views. If there is one thing that the Pauls and Paulites hold more dear than non-interventionism, it is free market economics. This form of economics completely opposes protectionism. Therefore, Mead either did not understand the word he was using in its entirety or did not complete proper research on the Pauls and their supporters. In both cases, Mead was incorrect in his characterization and, thus, should not be quoted or needs to be revised. Gweb214 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

Educated elite peer across at me and tell me things all the time, and you are correct when you say that I allow as much.

• "Therefore, Mead either did not understand the word he was using in its entirety or did not complete proper research on the Pauls and their supporters."

Incomplete; there is a third option to your either/or assertion: Mead used the term "neo-isolationist" only to specifically refer to the military foreign policy views held by the Paulites he was discussing. Since we both agree that (to use your words) "Non-interventionism takes into account all the relevant military views of isolationism", then Mead was very correct in his characterization of Paulites views on such matters, and there is no reason that he shouldn't be quoted. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the 2 points which we are stuck, support for an rfc, and how should we word it? all answers other than support or not support will be moved to the comments sub-section Darkstar1st (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rfc wording

comments

I guess we need to have the proposed remedy. The most simple one to just take it out, that probably doesn't even need an RFC. We have been trying to find ways to solve the problem while keeping it in but 2 people have been blocking all of those. North8000 (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need to define what the problem is. We keep asking, but the same 2 people keep giving the same song and dance instead of an answer, while forgetting that this isn't the Ron Paul article. Mead has given a scholarly evaluation of certain foreign policy views held by the Tea Partiers, and that content has been well cited and accurately conveyed. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are just again arguing your side of the dispute (including the unhelpful "song-and-dance" insult) rather than helping to formulate the RFC which is what this section is about. Now, back to the work at hand. Here is a start:

The problem (according to the folks that feel that there is a problem) is that there is a content item which erroneously implies that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Persons on one side of the dispute want to either take it out, or add sourced material which says the opposite. The persons on the other side of the dispute feel that there is no problem and that it should be left as-is, I.E. don't make either of the proposed 2 changes. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about, "Should we exclude reporting the opinions of prominent academics who do not use Ron Paul's terminology?" TFD (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nowhere near to describing the current question. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North, your proposed RFC question wording falsely asserts that "there is a content item which erroneously implies that Ron Paul is an isolationist". The content actually implies that "Paulites" are "neo-isolationists" with specific regard to military involvement. That difference appears key to resolving this. Also, I have yet to see anyone produce "sourced material which says the opposite" about "neo-isolationism", so it is inaccurate and premature to claim editors are against such information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul also opposes U.S. membership in supranational organizations and most treaties, including trade agreements. TFD (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free trade agreements are a titling trick, real free trade requires no government involvement. These agreements are actually managed trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minority view. See Free trade area. — goethean ॐ 20:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a majority view NAFTA-which is, I should stress, not a free trade agreement. Noam Chomsky http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_FreeTrade.html Darkstar1st (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not refer to them as free trade agreements, but merely as trade agreements. TFD (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to describe the difference of opinion, and the difference in the preferred outcomes for the RFC, you are basically arguing the one side. Clarifying it:

Differences of opinion on what is currently in there

• Group 1 says that the above implies that Paul is an isolationist. Group 2 says that it does not. And, that even if it did, such such does not matter because it did not explicitly state it.
• Group 1 says that Paul is clearly not isolationist. Not clear what, if anything, Group 2 is asserting on this question
• Group 1 says that based on the above, the material implies something which is clearly wrong. Not clear what, if anything, Group 2 is asserting on this question
  • Group 2 seems to be asserting that the WP article and the Mead article are about groups – the Tea Party and sub-groups thereof – and that what Paul believes or defines himself as individually is irrelevant.Fat&Happy (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in Desired Results

• Group 1 wants to either have item or the disputed portion of the item removed, or to put in a counterbalancing statement (probably from Paul himself) which says the opposite. Group 2 does not want any of these changes to occur. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Group 3 believes the term "neo-isolationist" is not clearly understood and is ill-defined in Wikipedia, requiring addition of Mead's definition of the term. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with group 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If that says that Mead did not actually mean isolationist, maybe that is the answer to this whole thing. Does anybody know if it does? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Already explained above (see where I quoted his essay). The context in which Mead uses the terms "isolationist" and "neo-isolationist" in his essay is always that of military foreign policy (War on terror; Israeli/Arab conflict; response to threat of nukes in Iran & North Korea, etc.), and not all forms of foreign interaction. Yes, Mead did actually mean military foreign policy isolationist. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should mention that Mead is only talking about a wing of the TPM (not about Paul himself), that Mead is an expert on the topic of PoliSci and wrote in a journal devoted to foreign policy issues, and that many other reliable sources refer to Paul as an isolationist.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everyone would "make their case" as a part of the RFC discussion. This is just to define what the questions are.

It's best to include as much background as necessary in the original statement. Otherwise when involved editors try to fill in the gaps they begin bickering and accuse each other of hogging the floor.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But most of the debate here has been via spun versions of background, so that would subject the prep of the RFC to the same dispute. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products. Isolationism is arming both sides of a conflict, only to discover that you’ve made two enemies instead of keeping two friends. Isolationism is trying to police the world but creating more resentment than gratitude. Isolationism is not understanding economics, or other cultures, but clumsily intervening anyway and creating major disasters out of minor problems.

On the other hand, those of us who oppose using the taxes of American citizens to prop-up foreign governments or American corporations are derisively called “isolationists.” There are indeed some people who are isolationists. They call themselves “fair traders,” though. Exactly what this means is open to debate. All too often it involves letting the government determine what is and is not “fair” in the private trading between individuals who live in different countries.

Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/ Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This material deals with both the question at hand, and, him being one of the most prominent TP'ers, as good of a partial indicator as anything on TPM agenda, i.e. good article content on that topic. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be good material for the "political views of Ron Paul" article. I don't see what it has to do with the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a decentralized & diverse movement, I guess that one could say that such means NOTHING is indicative of or can be said about the movement, in which case we could blank the article. But unless we do that, such statements by Paul are as indicative of the movement anything. Lets see, would that be more indicative than a twitter comment by a local TP'er that was disowned by the movement? Oops, we have have that in the article now! North8000 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Paul writes, "people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist". In other words, Paul acknowledges that Mead's definition of the term is generally accepted, but does not like it. But neutrality prevents us from writing articles from the perspective of Ron Paul supporters. If you think that we should, then you must change the policy. TFD (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a plausible reading of Paul's views on Mead. Paul notes that others wrongly attack the philosophy as isolationist. That could mean they don't understand the philosophy, isolationism, or the connection. Two of the three don't support the assertion that they could rationally believe that Paul's position is isolationists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, TFD gave a straw man construction version of the concept of including counterbalancing material, i.e. editors "writing articles from the perspective of Ron Paul supporters". Why do you insult us like that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one except Ron Paul and his supporters object to the term, and even they acknowledge that that is how it is normally used. Why then should we use their terminology and assume that Walter Russell Mead, who happens to be a professor of foreign affairs, the editor of a non-partisan magazine about foreign policy and one of the country's leading experts on foreign affairs, is wrong? Even if he is wrong, the guiding principles are reliable sources and neutrality, not truth. BTW, look up strawman argument, because you do not appear to be using the term correctly. TFD (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Ron Paul or TP supporter, and I object to the term "isolationist" referring to Ron Paul or the "Paulite" wing of the TP. I'm not sure what "neo-isolationist" means, but if Mead said it, we can quote him, as long as we don't imply that we know what he's talking about. (I don't think it's a proper use of the term "straw man", but it is an example of an improper rhetorical technique.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my use of "straw man" was correct but we digress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way justified in making this assertion but I believe that Mead's use of the term "neo-isolationism" refers to the revival of the isolationist movements against England throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. However, these events, with modern definitions, should probably have been characterized as non-interventionism anyways. Overall, Mead is trying to make the point that there are some people who have historically revived enthusiasm to remove alliance entanglements and military involvement around the world. The problem is that he included the term isolationism which implies protectionism. Protectionism is clearly not the viewpoint of the Pauls and Paulites. Therefore, whether he meant to imply protectionism or not, Mead chose a controversial and, in my opinion, blatantly incorrect term to represent the Pauls and Paulites. I believe that the prefix "neo" is only serving the purpose of showing that it is a modern and revived movement and has nothing to do with the definition of isolationism. Therefore, we can take the definition of isolationism at face value, understand that it does not represent the Paul's and Paulites' views, and remove or rephrase Mead's incorrect words. Gweb214 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214[reply]

"Isolation. A policy that a sovereign state may adopt in order to refrain from any alliances, particularly of a military nature, with other states." "Isolationism. The policy of isolation; lack of external relations." "Neo-Isolationism. Recurring isolationist practices." (Dictionary of politics: selected American and foreign political and legal terms, pp. 247,330)[5] It has nothing to do with protectionism. Robert Taft for example was an isolationist. TFD (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of this section, Darkstar1st quotes Ron Paul as saying, "Isolationism is arming both sides of a conflict, only to discover that you’ve made two enemies instead of keeping two friends. Isolationism is trying to police the world but creating more resentment than gratitude." Shouldn't an Isolationist arm neither side in a conflict, and shouldn't an Isolationist not try to police the world, according to Wikipedia's definition? Methinks Paul's personal interpretation of "isolationism" causes confusion in more than just the reading of Mead's assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is being rhetorical, claiming that the neoconservatives are the real isolationists, because they isolate the U.S. from other countries through their foreign policy. TFD (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Goethean's one word edit resolved this 20,000 word issue well enough? North8000 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. He made it clear that Mead was addressing military issues, not trade policy.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer to remove the adjective isolationist from paulite. isolationism and military cannot be parsed, as half of isolationism is trade(protectionism), not military. it would be like removing ice from cream, neither, on their own, would fit well in a cone. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st: do you think that you understand political science terminology better than the editors of Foreign Affairs magazine? — goethean ॐ 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]