Talk:Mises Caucus
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mises Caucus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
"radical" versus "paleolibertarian" in intro
[edit]The source in the Reason article talks about "paleolibertarian" and that is the more widely used description, and the link to paleolibertarian is much more relevant in explaining the ideas associated with LPMC, while the generic "radical politics" article link has nothing to do with the particular ideas here. Radical is also not NPOV, because much of the criticism of LPMC is that it is less radical than other libertarians and the current Libertarian Party platform on some issues. 108.18.105.63 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV does NOT mean we whitewash information to make all sides of an external debate equally satisfied. It means we reflect the sources without adding our own spin. The Reason article does not call the caucus paleo, it says Tom Woods defended Rothbard's use of the term. It does, however, make clear that the caucus considers itself more radical:
- In doing so, the nation's third-largest political party swatted down what was supposed to be the most contentious challenge at its biennial national convention—to a leadership that was considered by various critics to be too operationally incremental, too ideologically tepid, and too (in the words of Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods at a nearby New Orleans rally Saturday) "SJW-friendly."
- it also emphasizes repeatedly opposition to "woke", including quotes from the caucus's own members saying that's a focus for them. it is also much more what they are known for. If paleo isn't sufficiently supported the source, the source plainly does place equal or greater emphasis on anti-woke. It belongs in the intro given their own emphasis on it and the emphasis on it placed by all the relevant sources. 108.18.105.63 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't in conflict with my position. I have no problem with including their culture war stance. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
A more recent Reason article indicates that while some people say the Mises Caucus represents a more radical vision, others claim that they water their libertarianism down to appeal to the right. Given this dispute, describing them as radical in the introduction would present NPOV problems: https://reason.com/2022/05/29/mises-caucus-takes-control-of-libertarian-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B431:A900:48F3:F86D:3684:6CF3 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)