Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:45, 12 July 2011

Template:Controversial (politics) Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections at the Reference desk.

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.

Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

'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)

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 , it's a tax reduction."

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'd have to agree with Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin on this one, too vague and all-inclusive to be in just the TP movement wp article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See related http://energytomorrow.org by the American Petroleum Institute. (Fossil fuels lobby). 99.181.136.35 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External link section

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)

Wikilink Fresh Air.

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

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

.."NO Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party" .. goes somewhere else?

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)

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)

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

Walter Russell Mead's analysis of the tp foreign policy

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)

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)

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

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)

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 Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the U.S." have been proven false. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

(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)

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)

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

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)

(added later) Will, first we have the question of whether or not those statements are from Mead or from the Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages editor. I'm not out to criticize anybody, I just thought that if those were written by a Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Incorrect. This ("The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism" by Walter Russell Mead 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)

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

Incorrect. This ("The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism" by Walter Russell Mead 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Nobody refers to Paul's views as isolationist? Mead and dozens of others do

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)

• Ron Paul, the aged libertarian, made much of the unwisdom of Americans prosecuting foreign wars they could not afford, from Afghanistan to Libya. The strain of political thought represented by Paul tends to strict isolationism.
  • A new woman is on the block: bye bye Palin; Seven candidates are jostling to lead the Republican presidential bid but no one is really grasping the baton James Fenton. Evening Standard. London (UK): Jun 17, 2011. pg. 14
• Between Romney and Pawlenty was Ron Paul, the maverick libertarian isolationist who attracted a cult following on the internet in 2008.
  • THE NIGHT THE RIGHT TURNED SERIOUS; Written off as 'seven dwarves', the Republican contenders showed some formidable talent. Toby Harnden reports from New Hampshire Toby Harnden. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Jun 15, 2011. pg. 19
• Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is well known for his isolationist views and criticism of the Federal Reserve, said the US needed to unwind "a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years."
  • Republican contenders attack Obama Richard McGregor. FT.com. London: Jun 14, 2011.
• Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world.
  • Expresses Concern about Ron Paul Candidacy (press release) Targeted News Service. Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2011.
• Paul is a known commodity among Republicans - he has a die-hard group of supporters but many in the GOP are turned off by what they view as his isolationist foreign policy.
  • S.C. hosts 1st GOP debate for 2012 John O'Connor. Herald. Rock Hill, S.C.: May 5, 2011. pg. B.2
• Congressman Ron Paul is a conspiracist, isolationist libertarian who ran last time and who is well regarded by the Tea Partyists.
  • The birthers' idiocy is to Obama's advantage; Activists and ideologues are out of step with ordinary votin' folk. That's what the President knows and they don't David Aaronovitch. The Times. London (UK): Apr 28, 2011. pg. 17
• Mr. Paul's isolationist positions don't sit well with most conservatives, which may explain why the congressman says that he's not prepared to make a decision yet about running.
  • Ron and Rand's Oval Office Dreams; Political bookies are taking bets on which Paul will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2012. Allysia Finley Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.: Apr 11, 2011.
• Had Obama done nothing, as the Dennis Kucinich fringe Democrats and the Ron Paul isolationist Republicans wanted, the blood of civilians would be filling the streets of Benghazi.
  • Opinionator: Exclusive Online Commentary From the Times; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 27, 2011. pg. WK.12 "-- Excerpt from "In Defense of 'Dithering' "TIMOTHY EGAN
• Rep. Dennis Kucinich is talking impeachment again, and fellow isolationist Rep. Ron Paul has suggested that Mr. Obama is acting "outside the Constitution."
  • Antiwar Senator, War-Powers President John Yoo. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 25, 2011. pg. A.17
• Paul, an advocate of isolationism, is supported by conservatives, while Kucinich is popular as one of the most liberal figures among the Democrats.
  • Key congressmen call for pullout of US forces from Japan (Text of report in English by Japan's largest news agency Kyodo) Kyodo News Service, Anonymous. BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific. London: Feb 16, 2011.
• The revolt against President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, playing out on TV screens in public areas of the conference hotel, was not mentioned by any candidates except former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Paul, arguably the party's most prominent isolationist.
  • 'Tea party' concerns top agenda; Potential presidential candidates appeal to the Republican base at an annual gathering of conservatives. Paul West. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 13, 2011. pg. A.22
• Paul, an isolationist who advocates eliminating the Federal Reserve, was cheered by a raucous, whistling crowd.
  • Conservatives aim barbs at Obama at conference James Oliphant Tribune Newspapers. Herald. Rock Hill, S.C.: Feb 12, 2011. pg. A.2
• Paul, a potential Senate candidate in Texas next year, is a longstanding critic of foreign entanglements, and probably Congress' leading isolationist.
  • Rep. Ron Paul calls Egypt a "mess" made by U.S. intervention Trail Blazers Politics Blog . Dallas: Jan 31, 2011.
• One of the most visible personalities in the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul, is a conservative anarchist, isolationist in international policy, and an advocate of the quasi-disappearance of the state.
  • Hacktivism; MEL PAÍS ÁEL PAÍS BASTENIER. El Pais. (English edition). Madrid: Dec 3, 2010. pg. 2
• Among the most prominent Bernanke critics the mainstream is essentially embracing is the libertarian and isolationist Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
  • The politics of Fed-bashing Jacob Heilbrunn. News & Observer. Raleigh, N.C.: Nov 26, 2010. pg. A.15
• Whether the reader is a National Greatness conservative, New World Order globalist liberal, Ron Paul/Bill Kauffman neo-isolationist or nonaligned history buff, "Architects of Power" almost certainly will expand his foundational perspective - and not, Mr. Terzian argues, a moment too soon.
  • The road to U.S. internationalism Shawn Macomber, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Jun 15, 2010. pg. B.4
• Mr. Paul is the son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a small-government isolationist whose quixotic bid for president in 2008 helped inspire the Tea Party movement.
  • Political structures fall in early U.S. elections BRIAN KNOWLTON JEFF ZELENY, CARL HULSE. International Herald Tribune. Paris: May 20, 2010. pg. 1
• Like Nazism and Soviet communism, Islamofascism poses a mortal threat to the West. We are engaged in an ideological and military struggle - a fight to the death. Mr. Paul's brand of isolationism is bad for the right - and for America.
  • Conservatives' isolationist dalliance; Ron Paul's foreign policy is bad for the right and America Jeffrey T. Kuhner, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Feb 26, 2010. pg. B.1
• Paul isn't a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades.
  • The Ron Paul delusion David Harsanyi. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Feb 24, 2010. pg. B.11
• Sen. John McCain was attacking Rep. Ron Paul for opposing the Iraq war. He called Paul an "isolationist" and said it was that kind of thinking that had caused World War II.
  • Days of infamy 'Smoke' and mirrors; Human Smoke The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization; Nicholson Baker; Simon & Schuster: 576 pp., $30 Mark Kurlansky. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 9, 2008. pg. R.1
• WE CAN discount Mike Huckabee an amiable Baptist preacher who will probably get his own TV channel out of this and isolationist Ron Paul, who stands about as much chance as Screaming Lord Sutch did of getting in to Downing Street.
  • REDNECK RIVIERA ; Forget the pundits. The Mail's inimitable RICHARD LITTLEJOHN has been talking to ordinary Americans about the election. They want Reagan, would settle for Blair but will probably get either Hillary or McCain Richard Littlejohn. Daily Mail. London (UK): Jan 26, 2008. pg. 14
• Frost said he likes Paul's isolationist beliefs and welcomes a retrenchment of the American military throughout the world, which he said is weighing down the U.S. economy.
  • Internet draws eager supporters to Rep. Ron Paul's long-shot run He opposes the Iraq warm advocates gold standard, vows an end to the IRS. ; RACE FOR '08; Kevin Yamamura kyamamura@sacbee.com. The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, Calif.: Jan 20, 2008. pg. A.3
• With the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich's pacificism (embodied in his wonderful slogan, "Strength through Peace") and Ron Paul's isolationism, all the candidates make national defense a priority.
  • Before you vote . . .; Some final thoughts to keep in mind as you go to the polls Mike Pride. Concord Monitor. Concord, N.H.: Jan 6, 2008.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Isolationism (the Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Insertion of Paul parenthetical

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages editors who are doing the pigeonholing in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request from Gweb214, 29 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

• "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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

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

It must be gratifying to have spent 10 hours over weeks fighting to keep an error in Misplaced Pages. :-) 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

No, we can't. The source, which is highly reliable by Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. "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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

There is a reason. It is because isolationism has a deeper meaning which applies protectionism to the views of the Pauls and Paulites. Because you label a section "foreign policy" does not mean that all extra connotations to words are dropped. It is like you have a section called "animals" and you want to refer to "people". However, instead of using the word "people", you decide to use the word "idiots". Just because the classification of "people" lies within "idiots", and the question of intelligence has nothing to do with the section header does not mean it is okay to give random extra connotations to words.Gweb214 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214

Mead specifically did not apply the protectionism part of isolationism to the group he defined as Paulites; he only applied the military foreign policy trait of isolationism to them, and correctly so. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How would the common reader ever know what definition Mead is specifically applying? To them, it looks like he is using the typical definition of isolationism, and they will take it for what it is and not source check.Gweb214 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214

To them (and myself included), it looks like he is using the typical definition of military foreign policy isolationism, correct. It's spelled out in our Misplaced Pages article, as well as in the source. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

military foreign policy isolationism is a misnomer, and a term made up moments ago. It is impossible to parse isolationism into smaller parts, the same way one would be unable to parse cannibalism into eating, and people kebobs. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(a.) "It is impossible to parse isolationism into smaller parts", says Darkstar1st.

(b.) "If you look at the article on isolationism, the first paragraph says that isolationism asserts two views, non-interventionism and protectionism", says Gweb214.

(c.) "In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Noninterventionism, 2. Protectionism", says the Misplaced Pages article.

I'll just step aside while the three of you hash that out amongst yourselves. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed, are you suggesting paulites are protectionist, was mead? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Mead is a protectionist. I said statements a., b. and c. conflict with each other, and I'll wait for you guys to come to an agreement. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

meads politics are no relevant to this section, the object was paulite, the question; is mead suggesting paulites are protectionist? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Mead scholar; which specific text of Mead's are you asking about? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with (a). However, you (Xeno) have failed basic syllogisms.

(c) reads If X is an isolationist, then X is a non-interventionist and X is a protectionist. Mead states "neo-isolationist", apparently meaning "non-interventionist". You seem to be interpreting (b) as meaning that if X is a "non-interventionist", then X is an "isolationist". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you (Arthur Rubin) disagree with Darkstar1st's statement (statement a.). I do, as well, as does Gweb214, Mead and our Misplaced Pages article. I didn't posit any conclusions, so a syllogistic structure doesn't yet exist, and thus, no failures. I just quoted Darkstar1st, Gweb214 and Misplaced Pages -- and asked for reconciliation. Just so we're clear, Mead doesn't 'state' "neo-isolationist" as a stand-alone word; he uses it in the context of describing Paulites' approach to foreign policy as it specifically relates to military intervention in other countries -- i.e., identical to "non-interventionist" in that respect. As for "interpreting (b)", I've made no interpretation; I merely quoted Gweb214 verbatim — I have no idea how you can get "if X is a non-interventionist then X is a protectionist" out of Gweb214's statement. I certainly don't see it. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

removing the protectionism from isolationism and calling it isolationism is like removing the jelly and calling it a pb and j. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No clue what you just said, or how it relates to the discussion, sorry. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

because you were not born in the colonies old sport. a pb and j is an american invention, much like the tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno said I disagree with Darkstar1st's statement. It is not that I necessarily disagree; it is that I think you need to give context to that quote, and it is being misunderstood. If I am interpreting this correctly, (a) is merely trying to get the point across that you guys (the people wanting to keep Mead's words) are trying to break up the word isolationism, use one of the assertions while ignoring the other, and put the word back together with a stripped meaning. Darkstar1st is trying to tell you that Mead (or someone interpreting Mead) cannot ignore parts of the definitions of words. That is where the whole PB&J analogy was going. Gweb214 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214

Your statement contradicted Darkstar1st's statement; that is the disagreement to which I refer. Isolationism is simply a policy of nonparticipation in or withdrawal from international affairs. Those "affairs" can include military, commerce and trade, cultural exchanges, alliances, agreements, and commitments with other nations. To refer to someone simply as an isolationist, with no other qualifiers, one would reasonably assume they are isolationist in all of the afore mentioned affairs. But to refer to someone as having an isolationist approach to military involvement, the context is clear, and no reasonable person would automatically assume that reference indicates isolationism in all foreign affairs. You say context needs to be given; well, it has been given -- it's just that a couple folks prefer to ignore the specific context, and pretend it isn't there. The fact is, when someone discusses a peanut butter sandwich as a peanut butter sandwich, it really doesn't matter if other people feel it should have jelly on it, too. That would be a different discussion about a different sandwich entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The jelly does matter. This can go back to the idiot/person analogy. Words do not lose their assertions just because they are under a section header.Gweb214 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Gweb214

A Paulite is not Paul, and Foreign trade is not foreign policy?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
• Group 3 believes the term "neo-isolationist" is not clearly understood and is ill-defined in Misplaced Pages, requiring addition of Mead's definition of the term. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

Ron Paul explaining why he opposes isolationism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

"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) It has nothing to do with protectionism. Robert Taft for example was an isolationist. TFD (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

only when wearing my tinfoil hat and armed with a dictionary. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since you are screwing around rather than discussing the topic seriously, I will consider this topic closed. — goethean ॐ 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did put your question in a way that also nastily asserted a false implied premise....that someone disputing one word that the person used is tantamount to that huge claim vs. magazine editors. North8000 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Paulites: Largely non-interventionist.

http://www.csindy.com/colorado/anarchy-in-the-gop/Content?oid=2281131 let's remove the incorrect "isolationist" label. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Which incorrect "isolationist" label would that be? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article. Lots of good material there. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, lots of interesting stuff. So much drama, though. (See the aftermath of that article.) It sounds like their next executive committee meeting will look very much like my typical large family dinners during the holidays. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? You want this article to define the Tea Party Movement as:

A banner which gave various disgruntled Republicans a rallying point and an identity, and which was easily digested by the media and the GOP. It was easily co-opted by Washington insiders.

I could probably be persuaded to go along with that. Or did you just want to pick out the parts of the article which suit your agenda and reject ignore everything else? — goethean ॐ 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

When there are conflicting sources the way we handle that is to give both POVs, not to pick one or the other. If editors think this is a good source then we can add it, but its existence is not a reason to delete other material. Plus, there is a significant difference between the reputations of Foreign Affairs and the Colorado Springs Independent, a free weekly.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But all of those pale in significance and relevance compared to twitter stuff and the cut line on the propane grill material currently in the article under such high standards. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Never heard of the free weekly newspaper before now. Unlike Twitter, which can demolish NY Congressmen; cause the President of the United States to answer questions; force the Secret Service to backpeddle about Fox News blathering, reveal the dark soul of a Tea Party leader, etc., etc., et.cet.e.ra. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Isolationists, Paul said, want to close the U.S.'s borders and cut off trade relationships with other countries.

Paul explained he's not in favor of that, but claimed he does want to dramatically decrease the U.S.'s international military presence and end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/167841-ron-paul-rejects-isolationist-label- Darkstar1st (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's some really cool stuff for Ron Paul's Misplaced Pages article. That's the second article I've read that says Paul is responding to McCain and Pawlenty's use of the word "isolationist" to describe Paul's overall foreign policy. Do you know if Paul has made any responses to Mead's more specific reference to Paul's military foreign policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The only actual isolationist in the Republican party is Patrick Buchanan. He wants to cut the country off from trade and immigration...Even Buchananites generally reject the term isolationist as pejorative. National Review July 18, 2011 Imaginary Isolationism Pat Buchanan continues not to be the Republican party Ramesh Ponnuru Darkstar1st (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand how it can be considered "pejorative" when it is merely descriptive. "Isolate" and "Isolation" are words that exist outside of politics, too, so it is quite probable that one could describe someone as "isolationist" with regard to a specific circumstance (like military intervention), without implying they are isolationist in all of their political views across the board. That's like saying "Don't call members of GOProud conservative, because it's pejorative (when the description was intended to convey only "fiscally conservative" and not "socially conservative"). Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Isolationist" is generally pejorative, conservative is generally not. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

we must rely on the rs despite what we understand. several rs have now proved mead was wrong. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

None have been presented. TFD (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, all the sources provided reinforce that Mead was correct: Paulites are generally against military involvement around the world. They are military isolationists, feeling that we don't need to be the "world's policemen". Xenophrenic (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are non-interventionists who would not be described as "isolationist", viz., progressives who tend to support supranational institutions such as the U.N., while supporting protectionism. Paul is considered isolationist because of his opposition to the U.N., etc. TFD (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

are you sure? non-interventionist do not support protectionism, that is exactly how they are not isolationist. considering opposition to the UN as isolationist is folly, the UN has little to nothing to do with trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course some non-interventionists support protectionism (some refer to them as isolationists), while others are only isolationist with regard to military adventurism, and not trade (like Paul). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul and neo-isolationist foreign policy, again

Why would anyone use that term to describe a program of peace and free trade with the rest of the world? Where’s the isolation?

But a foreign policy of trade with the world and military nonintervention is as far from isolationism as one could get. http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20110705/ARTICLES/110709837?p=1&tc=pg Darkstar1st (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at. Did you have an article content proposal? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a word search on the article you linked, and didn't see the Tea Party movement mentioned even once. The article also doesn't refute any of Mead's analysis of the Tea Party. Perhaps you linked it to show that someone has yet another definition of isolationism? "But if the word must be used, let it be used as the classical liberal William Graham Sumner used it:

“Our ancestors all came here to isolate themselves from the social burdens and inherited errors of the old world.... When the others are crushed under the burden of militarism, who would not be isolated in peace and industry? When the others are all struggling under debt and taxes, who would not be isolated in the enjoyment of his own earnings for the benefit of his own family?”"

Xenophrenic (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sumner was an isolationist. TFD (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more interesting at the link you provided, the author describes the argument about "noninterventionist" benefits as an "isolationist argument" on the following page. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

was unable to find what you meant xeno, but here is from page 2: a foreign policy of trade with the world and military nonintervention is as far from isolationism as one could get. It is telling that the critics of isolationism equate engagement in the larger world with invasions, occupations, bombings, drone missile attacks, assassinations, black-site prisons, torture, covert operations, and all the rest of the malign things associated with the so-called war on terror. For them the choice is between empire and isolation. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A word search for "isolationist arguments" on page 53 should help. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you could post the text you mean? all i see is military talk, no mention of trade or protectionism? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure: "major noninterventionist benefits" and "These isolationist arguments". And you observe correctly; Nordlinger is referring to just the military, noninterventionist, talk when he speaks of the isolationist arguments. That was my point. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This Reuters news article appears to draw the same conclusions as Mead: the TPers are not united on some foreign policy issues. There is even a Paul vs Bachmann contrast made with regard to the Afghan war, similar to the Paul vs Palin analogy. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but inherent to discussing any topic which is not a TP agenda item. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You totally lost me with that one. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that that there are only a few main agenda items which run across the TPM, (roughly speaking, what's in the Contract from America) and really only four at the heart of those (lower taxes, lower spending, less government, and fiscal conservatism) and really only two at the heart of those 4 (shrink government and fiscal conservatism). If you talk about other topics (whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better, interventionism vs. non-interventionism) their opinions will vary on those issues. So, the things that you just pointed out would be good material for the article, but they are not surprising. Probably the biggest source of those differences (and indeed, the Paul/Palin difference, and the Paul/Bachmann difference) is that there are significant amounts of both conservatives and libertarians in the TPM, groups which agree on some points and disagree on others. North8000 (talk)

That's a simple fact of politics. When one is out of power it's possible to limit oneself to stands on a few policy issues with philosophically pure positions. Once in power, it's necessary to take positions on numerous issues and it's difficult to maintain purely dogmatic stances.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I think that both things that you said are true, but I don't think that they are applicable here. What you said is more applicable to major political parties. The TPM is more like a single issue advocacy group, except with 2-3 big issues that they advocate on. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Debt ceiling

Recent news stories have discussed the stances of Tea Party politicians on the debt ceiling issue:

• For Tea Party activists, the day that members of Congress cast their votes on raising the nation’s debt ceiling will be a moment of truth, the point at which they find out who is with them and who is against them. “We’re going to see if people really stay true to their principles,” says Mark Meckler, the cofounder of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the most influential of the organizations in the country. “Those who don’t will pay the price.” With an Aug. 2 deadline for a possible default looming, Meckler’s group has insisted that members of Congress block any increase to the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. But a coalition of 130 other Tea Party groups, along with conservative powerhouses like FreedomWorks, the Christian Coalition, and the Club for Growth, are pushing a less restrictive, never-say-never approach for Republicans on the debt-ceiling debate.
  • Patricia Murphy, "The Tea Party Splinters: Republicans are under fierce pressure from the movement not to raise the debt ceiling. But Patricia Murphy finds a serious split among activist groups that is muddying the debate. " Jul 1, 2011 Daily Beast '
• What does the Tea Party want? As the debt ceiling debate rages in Washington, that should be the central question in U.S. political discourse. After all, it is the rise of the Tea Party that revitalized the Republican Party in 2009 and gave it the muscle to deliver a “shellacking” to the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. And it is the radicalism of the Tea Party and the freshman legislators it elected that is often blamed for the uncompromising stance of the Republicans in the current budget negotiations.
  • The Tea Party vs. The 'Freeloader' CHRYSTIA FREELAND | REUTERS July 7, 2011
• Congress cut short its July 4th recess and returned to Washington this week to try and reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Or, rather, some of its members are trying - a growing number of Republicans responsive to the Tea Party movement seem dead set again this. They not only claim that the United States won't suffer any negative consequences if it doesn't raise the ceiling, but that refusing will have the salutary effect of forcing the government to live within its means.
  • "The Tea Party's Murder-Suicide Pact" By Joshua Green Jul 7 2011 The Atlantic Monthly

Et cetera. This probably deserves a paragraph under the "Agenda" heading. Maybe a subsection on "economic policies" would be appropriate, covering spending, taxes, and the debt limit together.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree North8000 (talk)

agree, the incumbent gop has a big surprise if they cave on this issue. the tp is already running SEVERAL primary challengers and looking for weak links. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Continued violations may be refactored. — goethean ॐ 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

this is just a test to see if the re-factoring has begun Darkstar1st (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Gladney controversy

I see that User:Freedomthinker is trying to add information about Kenneth Gladney to this article. For such a controversial and heatedly disagreed over article, it is not going to be possible to add uncited information. Here are three articles I found, from three consecutive years, showing progress on the story. It should be possible to put together a neutral paragraph describing the events, if we can get consensus to do so.

• Union Calls for Civil Discourse Prior to Alleged Beating at Town Hall – Fox News (August 11, 2009)
• Trial date set for last summer’s “beating” involving Tea Party, union workers – Riverfront Times (July 15, 2010)
• Alleged Union Beating Case Finally Goes to Trial – KMOX (July 11, 2011)

I think this might be easier to do once the trial is completed. —Torchiest _edits 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What does the trial have to do with it? North8000 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the verdict will get coverage and make the event sufficiently notable to mention. Right now it is only attracting local news coverage. TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

either we remove all racial controversy, or include all. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no double standard. And this meets a much higher standard than items currently in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

North8000's latest addition violates various policies. We cannot call people thugs, we cannot provide only one side of a story that has not been proved in court. We cannot provide undue emphasis to a story that mainstream media has ignored. TFD (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Items with VRTS permission confirmed