Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Tea Party movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Revision to the header.

I would propose changing the word 'populist' in the lead sentence with something that is both more neutral and more accurate. If we call it 'producerist' i think we avoid the negative connotations of the word 'populist' but still keep it's meaning which i think ought be retained. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We depend on what sources say. IIRC, many sources call the movement "populist", but I don't recall ever seeing it called "producerist". Are you aware of any such sources? Will Beback talk 22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few around the block. The thing is that a publication that calls it 'populist' instead of 'producerist' is either anti-tea party, caters to an audience that wouldn't understand the word, or doesn't know of the word itself. In practice, in modern politics, the terms are virtually synonymous, which means that you wouldn't need to provide sources that label it as such. The primary benefit i'm advocating is neutrality (using the word 'populist' pulls that rug out almost instantly) although the word producerist does have the added benefit of being more 'specifically' accurate. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that says this is how the TPM is normally described. TFD (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No that is incorrect. Wikipedia should describe things in the most specifically accurate terms, even if that is not how they are popularly known. Besides in context, the article says "the Tea Party IS..." rather than "the Tea Party IS CONSIDERED TO BE." Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. (Note: I have no idea whether you and I support the same edits to the article.) We cannot report something we know to be true, unless it appears in reliable sources. It's disputed whether we may delete something we know to be false, even if it is reported in reliable sources. I think ~~should~~ such things generally should be deleted, but the guidelines suggest otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that it should use popular descriptions but that it should use the descriptions found in informed sources. Producerism is mostly used to describe views from the 19th century - Jacksonian Democracy and Populism, and refers to farmers and blacksmiths who produce, as opposed to middlemen, like lawyers and bankers, who do not. While some of this thinking no doubt is part of TPM views, we would need a source that they are producerists. TFD (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Always with the fucking sources. When will wikipedia realise that you can can call an apple an apple without having to fucking well get a source that explicitly says so... Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You should probably check out WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is a key principle of Wikipedia. We have to go with what reliable sources say even if you think those reliable sources are wrong. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Revise Mark Williams Islam comments

I propose that remove that part of the article because I fail to see how one person relates to the movement as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okidan (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Williams is the leader of one of the more important TPM groups. Will Beback talk 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, true, so shouldn't the comment go on that groups article if at all? many people may or may not see the attempt to keep this material as pov pushing. several editors for several years have questioned this material, i suggest we remove the passage until consensus. i also support asking for outside help. the errors with this article could be solved by an uninvolved editor using basic wp:policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

His comments are noted on the article about that group already. Many people may or may not see the attempt to remove or hide the material as POV pushing. Many editors for several years have questioned the attempts to purge it, and since it is still there, consensus is evident. What errors are you referring to, and whom outside of Wikipedia would we ask for help? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

good point, since it has been such a point of contention between good faith editors for years, it should be removed until consensus is reached. *outside meaning an editor from the article on Pálinka Darkstar1st (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

i suggest a simple smell test, could excluding it be seen as pov pushing? could the reverse? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. Saying simply that some "editors have questioned this material" or "see keeping the material as POV" is rather vague, and doesn't give us much to discuss or resolve. Otherwise we're left with making expressions of "I don't like it" without explaining why and charting a constructive path forward. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, i was using a wp editor as my source, Many editors for several years have questioned the attempts to purge it, thus many have questioned it's inclusion Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. Saying simply that some "editors have questioned this material" or "see keeping the material as POV" is rather vague, and doesn't give us much to discuss or resolve. Otherwise we're left with making expressions of "I don't like it" without explaining why and charting a constructive path forward. Specific concern is ...? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ah, i see what you mean, what i meant to say was i think we should remove it until consensus. the editors questioning the material are both in this section, other have in the past, i think you would agree, right? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. I'm very patient. I'll wait here for you to explain what your specific concerns are with the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

my concern, is the same as the editor who started this section, is this is a comment by a tea party group leader, not the tea party leader, therefore it belongs on the specific tea party group page, not on the main tea party page as if all tea party members share the thought of this group leader. lets take our convo about consensus to my talk page, i may not have answered your question sufficiently, as i meant to point out many* do not agree, therefore no consensus. (*see archives) Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems representative and relevant and therefore should stay. On the other hand, the article should rely more on informed third party analysis, rather than specific examples. If you can find a reliable source that discusses TPM attitudes towards race etc. then it could reply this. TFD (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We include comments by or references to a number of individuals: "Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty", " Republican Congressman Ron Paul ", "Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender ", "CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli ", "political analyst Dick Morris ", "Sarah Palin". Many of those have no formal connection to the TPM at all. OTOH, there have also been objections to scholars who refer to the movement collectively, and to polls which survey individual members. Virtually every class or type of source has been criticized. Maybe we should seek some consistent standard as basis for this article so that we're not constantly arguing over who is or is not competent to speak for or about the subject. Will Beback talk 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The original poster's concern is: "...I fail to see how one person relates to the movement as a whole." Will Beback then explained that relationship. There is nothing in our article that says or even implies "all tea party members share the thought of this group leader". To the contrary, our article conveys that some TPers strongly disagreed with that leader. With that cleared up, are there any concerns about that content that we need to address? TFD's comment above is spot on; a sentiment that I have repeatedly expressed: rather than a compilation of examples, we should be relying more on informed, third party sources about the broader issue. BigK HeX noted that such sources are scarce because the movement is still so new, but they certainly aren't nonexistent. Can anyone suggest some that we might use? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

good point Will, i suggest we limit comments/signs to only those speaking about the universally accepted tp platform, lower taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Better still, limit comments/signs to only those that convey information about the movement, and not just the platform. Speaking of platforms, is there a source citation to what that "universally accepted platform" is? Or are we still stuck with the various interpretations from the dispersed groups, organizations, self-proclaimed spokespeople, etc.? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The contract from America is very informative regarding agendas widely held amongst TP'ers. At least 10,000 times more indicative than a TP-disowned twitter tweet by a low level guy, or any TP-disowned item by any individual, the kind of crap that this article is full of. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome almost-back :-) I unfamiliar with the twitter message about the TP agenda to which you refer, so I can't comment on how it compares to other messages about the TP agenda. I've scanned the whole "Agenda" section of our article; has it already been removed from the "Agenda" section of our article and replaced with better agenda-centric messages? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that this article has a lot of wp:-nopv/wp:undue-violating crap that people put in to imply agendas which do not exist. It DOES need more material on the TPM agendas. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Those would be serious, actionable violations of policy and should be reported at ANI immediately. If you could gather up the diffs of those violations, I'll open up a section for admin review, as that is no longer a content dispute.

Regarding your proposal to expand the "Agenda" section, what other sources besides the Contract from America would you suggest? Darkstar1st appears to believe that "lowering taxes" is the one common denominator across the movement (although I note that it barely made the Top-10 cut on your CfA, far behind more popular issues like repealing recent Health Care legislation and killing Cap & Trade, etc.). Have you seen this other 10-point Platform, and do you have any idea who is behind it? (Note: there are about a half-dozen similar pages with some interesting stuff, just follow the links on that page.) Then there's this Tea Party Nation 10-point Platform; at least tax reduction is in the top 5 on this list. If you don't have access, you can see the list here as well. What would you suggest as sources for the "Agenda" section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that serious, and the "action" should be to take the crap out rather than getting someone in trouble.

On your second question, we could use tweets and any comment ever made by anyone who had any connection with the TPM as the source, as long as someone reported on it. :-) Just kidding. But seriously, any list that has been put out by a TP organization would probably be suitable. I think that it is no-brainer obvious that the two themes that are universal to all TP agendas, platforms, lists, are lower taxes and lower government spending, and that statement would be very sourcable. I think that that one your found is excellent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the TPN list on the blog is a "proposed Tea Party Platform". Will Beback talk 04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, North8000, editing by people "to imply agendas which do not exist" is serious, which is why I suggested taking it to ANI. That's a violation of one of the three non-negotiable core policies. I don't understand your hesitance to take such a matter to ANI. Surely after a herd of Admins have reviewed your concern, they would take swift action, would they not? As for your suggestion to "take the crap out", this article is watch-listed by more than 200 editors; surely that step would have already been taken.

re: expanding the "Agenda" section, I agree with you that tweets, etc., can be used, especially with URL shortening negating the length limitations. The key is to make sure the sources are reliable and significantly covered, as you noted. That's where the 2 examples I noted above fall short. I have no idea who produced the first example, and the second example is (as noted by Will Beback) apparently a first draft of a proposed platform. When you say, "any list that has been put out by a TP organization", what qualifies as an organization? What about the 5-person membership Frogwart, Oklahoma Patriots or the 11-person strong Peddleton, Ohio Tea Party? Or are you speaking only of national groups (some of whom seem to be at each others throats when it comes to who represents the "real" Tea Party). Your Contract from America comes from Ryan Hecker, a (what's the description you like to use?) "low level guy", an individual, a nobody -- not "an organization", although you could argue that Dick Armey & FreedomWorks helped. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Each time people even start taking the crap out, you put it back in. And my point was that even a statement by a 5 person sect would be 3 ways more representative than the carp that is currently in the article. *5 persons vs, one, an official statement, and a not-disowned-by-the-TPM statement. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you are kidding again! I've never put crap or carp back in, and you know it. I have sometimes reverted inappropriate attempts to delete content. Your "a lot of wp:-nopv/wp:undue-violating crap that people put in to imply agendas" mantra is nothing new (ahem ... they are both the same policy ... duh), and when I called your bluff and suggested that you post that concern on ANI, you back-peddled like a circus clown -- and we both know why. The simple fact is, when Rep. Weiner says/does "crap", he ends up with crap in his Wikipedia article; when TPers say/do "crap", they end up with crap in their article, etc. While you and I may agree that content about TPer crap could be presented better, "taking the crap out" (or burying, deleting, purging, whitewashing, hiding, censoring ... choose your favorite) isn't going to find support among reasonable editors. The TPer "crap" content is just too widely sourced, covered, studied and debated to be removed (in whole, or bit by bit as some have tried) from an article about the Tea Party movement.

Also getting old is the dizzying flip-flop between:

"The movement is decentralized with no leadership, and no individual or group speaks for the Tea Party", and this
"The Tea Party believes, endorses, supports, "disowns", rejects ______(fill in the blank)_______."

...as if they now suddenly speak with one voice. The convenient flipping and flopping is usually determined by whether the topic is getting good or bad press coverage. Bad press: Fringe, they don't represent the movement! Good press: The Tea Party unanimously stands for this! You do realize most people now see through that ploy, right? What leader of a national TP organization said, "Mind you, there is no Tea Party leadership; every Tea Partier is a Tea Party leader. But something happens when the stronger egos and personalities in a movement begin to feel a sense of ownership. And it is a crying shame." Did you know that TP leader was "disowned" by a TP leader of a second national organization? Then a TP leader of yet a third national organization said the second organization are, "a bunch of self-important folks who decided they need to speak for the tea party. We wanted nothing to do with them." I chuckle every time I see editors here say something like, "but the Tea Party disowned that!" No they didn't. Another TPer did, or a group of TPers did, but not the Tea Party.

North, just let me know if/when you'd like to get serious about actual article improvement. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think for the last few days we both have been just tossing things out and sparring a little instead of seriously discussing moving forwards. I sincerely want to make this a quality, objective, informative article; I check everything else at the door. I honestly don't know whether you want the same or if you just want it to make the TPM look as bad as possible and are engaged in a long term pov effort here to that effect. To me, 30% of the time it looks like the former and 70% of the time it looks like the latter. It's probably a mix of the two. Other than sometimes writing a bit sacastically or tongue-in-cheek, everything I've said is exactly what I think and want, there is no manipulating or hidden agenda on my part. This article is has been in a junk state too long. Maybee let's try one more time to jointly move forward, and if that doesn't work go out for an RFC or get more eyes on this somehow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Had you simply signed that last comment after the second sentence, and left it at that, the door would have been left open for some forward progress. But no, apparently you couldn't resist falling back into your old mantra: "...om...om...you want to make the TP look bad...om...engaged in a POV effort...om...om...editors inserting crap to imply agenda that doesn't exist...om...intentional POV editing...om..." Now it is getting close to being absurdly comical. Take your concerns to WP:ANI already, so we can put an end to it. All of that incessant droning is making it impossible to take seriously your sentiments about improving the quality of the article and checking everything else at the door.

Do you recall my "crap in the Rep. Anthony Weiner article" analogy a few paragraphs above, where I compare it to our TPm article? I think you missed my point. Do you honestly think POV-pushing editors are inserting crap into his article just to make him look bad, or is it just possible that stuff is now in his article because he actually did some crap that makes him look bad? Now go to that article and try to delete that "crap", as you did here, by claiming "It was just a lowly twitter tweet!" When you fail at that, try deleting that "crap" by claiming "It has nothing to do with his political agenda/platform/views!" When you fail at that, try deleting that "crap" by claiming "But that was just one incident, or just a few incidents, and it is fringe and isn't what he stands for or is about, and the lamestream media is only reporting on it to make him look bad!" Good luck with that. You would have more success simply handling the "crap" in an encyclopedic manner.

Please keep your "you just want to make the TPM look as bad as possible and are engaged in a long term pov effort here to that effect" insulting and unhelpful bullshit to yourself. I'm the one that suggested replacing the current laundry list of unflattering incidents with an encyclopedic treatment of the issue, remember? If I had even the slightest intent to make the TPM "look bad", this article would be bloated with similar incidents by the TP darlings; the Obama = chimp photos emailed in Orange County, TP-favorite Rand Paul's charming comments on the civil rights act and Ron Paul's revealing statements made during his discussions about "race wars", Tancredo's highly-applauded racist statements at TP rallies about whom should be allowed to vote and "english-speakers", Paladino's racist comments, the disruptive tactics encouraged and used at the townhall meetings prior to the health care legislation votes, the white supremacists and militia extremists walking in lockstep at the TP rallies and cross recruiting, the bricks through the windows of democrats, the actions of specific TPers at anti-immigration rallies, TPer Bruce Majors warning Beck Rally attendees to avoid the black parts of town - oh, and I would be sure to stuff the article full of colorful Tea Party rally photos showing "Barack the Magic Negro" and Obama-with-bone-through-nose signs, White Pride t-shirts and gun-violence threat banners. Just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. No, North8000, it isn't POV-pushing Wikipedia editors making the fledgeling movement "look bad", or making Anthony Weiner "look bad". Once you get over that hurdle of understanding, and cease attacking the intent of editors, we can move forward. I've nothing else to say on this matter, or in this thread. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid responding on the nastier stuff. But on your analogy, the analogous situation isn't putting info on the bad/embarrassing stuff that Weiner said/did into the Weiner article, it would be putting a big section on the bad/embarrassing stuff that Weiner said/did into the main US Democratic party article, plus sections on anything bad sounding that that any Democrat said or did (that made the newspapers) into the main US Democratic party article. That is what has happened here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?

There's a template that refers to a "Criticism" section, but no such section. Is that what's intended? Jo3sampl (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. There was a criticism section at one time, but that criticism has since been integrated throughout the different sections of the article. I've removed that template for now.

I've also removed the single uncited sentence described here; feel free to return the content if a source is obtained. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, but not ready to fully take the plunge back in here. On that last removal, removing "Paris is the capital of France" type material just because nobody cited it is not right. Something is needed to counterbalance that obviously false statement which says that a guy who adamantly promotes lifting the trade embargo with Cuba is an isolationist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I can find numerous sources to cite that convey that Paris is the capital of France. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a more appropriate example: Can you find a source that says that Obama is not a right wing extremist, or where he said that he is not a right wing extremist? North8000 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point is that one cannot prove a negative. However we do not need to if we can find descriptions that are mutually exclusive, e.g., that Obama is a liberal, which is a separate category from the extreme Right. Similarly we do not need a source that a poodle is not a horse, if we provide a source that it is a dog. If sources say someone is a Buddhist, we do not need a source saying that they are not Christian. TFD (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, as I haven't tried. But if someone inserts that content without proper sourcing, and a source is then requested (or if another source appears to contradict it), then it, too, will be removed until a proper source is cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, my point is that if statement is no-brainer false, that people/sources do not make contravailing statements disclaiming that falsehood. North8000 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss politics (just articles on politics), but let me break that rule for a moment with an aside. There are often multiple terms that describe the same, or nearly the same, concepts. Sometimes these distinctions have careful reasoning. I suppose there's a big difference between Leninists and Trotskyists if you are one, but many of us who aren't would simply call them both "communists". In this case, it appears that the term "isolationist" may be seen as having a negative connotation. If I understand correctly, Libertarians view the difference between an isolationist and a "non-interventionist" is that the latter supports free trade while the former prefers protectionist trade policy. To outsiders that could seem like a small difference. I sympathize with the desire to get these minor detail correct, but whatever we write needs to be sourced rather than basing it on our own understandings and rationales. Will Beback talk 10:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

or you could say, one is constitutional, and the other is not. btw, did you post this in the correct section, this convo is also relevant to the mead section . Darkstar1st (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But plank #8 on a TP Platform by a national group says:

Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other free trade agreements. For America to remain a viable economic superpower, the country must have a manufacturing base. Not only do we need a manufacturing base to employ Americans, we also have crucial infrastructure components, such as power generators that are no longer made in America. If these components were destroyed in a terrorist attack, America could be crippled until we could get replacements, assuming that we could.

Should it be noted that Ron Paul is anti-Tea Party? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron paul supports repealing all free trade agreements. TFD (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He's in favor of free trade but not free trade agreements? That makes sense from a libertarian perspective, since those agreements require all sorts of laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. But it also makes it clear why a political scientist would characterize that position as "isolationist". Will Beback talk 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, plz read the nafta agreement, then read the def of free trade. NAFTA weighs in at over 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates. (Under true free trade, there is one tariff rate—0 percent.) Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the U.S. government was mostly financed by tariffs and custom dues in its first century. The Founding Fathers did not appear to support free trade. Anyway, we're getting off topic here. Will Beback talk 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

no problem, i will bring you back to your earlier point, favor of free trade but not free trade agreements, yes rp is in favor of free trade, the founders were not part of your question. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we please get back to the topic, as it is not clear how this discussion relates to the article. As I understand it,Walter Russell Mead refers to "Paulites"' "neo-isolationism". Paul himself refers to "non-interventionism". However, this is a direct quote from Mead, and the two terms appear to be synonyms, meaning to "stay out of entangling alliances"[1] - isolationists could support or oppose free trade. What are the recommendations for changing the text? TFD (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

i have proved mead is wrong. he does not understand the difference between the two, his comments should be stricken, perhaps entirely. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/06/09/noninterventionist-conservatives-go-mainstream/ "It’s been a banner week for non-interventionist Republicans." Darkstar1st (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mead has not been proven wrong. He makes no assertion about Ron Paul's views on intervention. Instead, he discusses what he calls the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. We have no sources which contradict Mead on that. Mead is a highly qualified scholar writing within his field of expertise. We've previously agreed on compromise language to address the concerns of some editors that Paul himself believes in the form of isolationism known as "non-interventionism". It's bizarre that editors would propose deleting such a good source at the same time as they're complaining about the lack of good sources. Will Beback talk 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

also bizarre is the inability of so many to understand the two are fundamentally different, not at all synonyms. isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies. Jefferson/Washington, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to define "isolationism" or "non-interventionism", we're just here to report what reliable sources say about the TPM. Will Beback talk 17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, that is precisely why we are here. a rs has been proven wrong by the paul in paulite, now we should remove the un-rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Darkstar, and where wp:ver / wp:nor are widely misapplied. That's what we do as editors. Meeting wp:ver / wp:nor is a condition for inclusion, not a mandate for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the meaning of the terms "isolationist", "neo-isolationist", or "non-interventionist" then there are other articles for that. Our task here is just to summarize what people write about the TPM. We can do that even if have no idea what the terms mean. If a respected scholar writing in a respected journal wrote that the TPM favors "widgetism", we'd report that. Will Beback talk 21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1-2 days ago Xeno deleted the compromise wording that you are referring to, so now we're back to square one, minus several hours of our lives which we will never get back. Sincerely,15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Xeno deleted it because no one ever added a source for it, despite repeated requests. See the end of #removing mead's incorrect analysis of the tp policy, above. Darkstar1st found a source that we can use for slightly different wording. Will Beback talk 16:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

More than 3 weeks ago, a sentence was tagged as "citation needed", and an editor requested here on this talk page that a citation be added. He was ignored. 2 weeks ago, an editor reiterated the request for a citation, and was again ignored. 1 week ago, another request was made that a citation be provided, and that was ignored. Apparently, no one has enough hours in their lives to do a little required leg-work. The tagged sentence was removed. Now the question appears to be not whether RP holds a non-interventionist viewpoint (evidence says he does), but whether that conflicts with or negates Mead's assessment regarding neo-isolationist attitudes -- which apparently was the intent of placing the following parenthetical statement right in the middle of Mead's: (Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.){{Citation needed|date=May 2011}} There are plenty of sources now on Darkstar1st's talk page to support Paul's non-interventionist views, but do they support the phrase "however ... rather than an isolationist" that someone inserted? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that reliable sources use the term "isolationist" as used by Darkstar1st. In fact the link I provided said, just as Mead did, that Jefferson was an isolationist. In any case, since we are reporting Mead's words as opinion, it does not matter what we think of his use of terminology. TFD (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

this is the problem tfd, mead does not understand the difference, therefore is incorrectly using the term. do you not agree the terms are fundamentally different? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The party line is that they are two separate things, but notice that this book from the Cato Institute acknowledges that it is incorrectly labelled "isolationism", or as reliable sources, including this book state, proponents prefer to call it "non-interventionism". We do not change direct quotes because we do not like the writer's terminology, which in this case happens to be generally accepted. TFD (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

tdf, was that a yes or no? while you and the above authors may not know the difference, it has been described quite simply above: isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies. unless you disagree with this statement, the opinions of these authors is flawed. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If the opinion of an expert is flawed, and if another good source reports on that flaw, then we can include that view too. We don't get to say that, based on our personal interpretations, a source is wrong and therefore must not be included. Will Beback talk 21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that to be an incorrect interpretation of the guidelines, but, even if it were correct, we would need to quote Mead, and we don't Wikilink within quotes. If Mead wants to define terms such as "neo-isolationism" so that the "Paulite" camp has that as its philosophy, that's fine, but we don't want to imply that we understand what he means. I don't understand what he means, if he's at all accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st's suggestion seems to be to delete the entire section. At least that's what my reply addressed. The wikilinking is another issue. Is that your explanation for the {content} tag? Will Beback talk 02:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that the issue? If policy says we cannot Wiklink then we cannot. Can anyone provde a link to the policy? TFD (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Will Yes, that's my reason for the {{content}} tag. If the section is clearly marked as Mead's opinion, and we do not make assumptions as to what his words mean (i.e., no wikilinks) , I don't really consider it necessary to point out that the opinions are clearly false. Darkstar1st does seem to think it necessary. If we have wikilinks, or if there is some implication that Mead knows what he's talking about, then we do need rebuttal, even if not reliable.

@TFD We cannot wikilink within quotes. However, in this instance, we cannot paraphrase, because we don't agree as to what Mead may mean, so we must quote — hence, no Wikilinks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Shall we de-link all of these terms that quote Mead? Shall we de-link other terms found in quotes or that quote sources elsewhere in the article? Will Beback talk 03:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that when Mead refers to "isolationism" he means to use the term the way it is normally defined. The fact that the Cato institute, the Unification Church and the local Marxist party may define terms differently need not concern us. Is there any policy that says words in quotes cannot be linked? TFD (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's part of the Manual of Style guideline, not a policy, and it isn't absolute: WP:MOS#Linking. Note that older versions may have been more explicit. In general, don't wikilink within quotes when there is any chance the Wikipedia article might convey something different than what the quoted person meant. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Neo-isolationism" probably has enough sources for an article. that seems like a better solution than arguing over the link. Will Beback talk 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An aside: I just came across a couple of articles that describe the neo-isolationism of the Bush administration. I was surprised until I saw the dates: 9/4/01 and 9/7/01. Will Beback talk 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

neo simply means new, there is no difference in the terms, a new article would be identical to the current term. the difference from non-interventionalism, is isolationalist do not trade with other countries. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need to establish that there is an commonly agreed meaning of the term. But the statement that isolationists do not trade with other countries is merely an attempt by the Cato Institute et al to redefine the term, a way to distance themselves from the isolationists of the 1930s, some of whom opposed free trade. Robert Taft however did not. What united them was opposition to involvement in the war in Europe. TFD (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Socialism or just plain antisocial?

Some comments on a few of the points made above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... no links? I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Astroturfing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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 Wikipedia editors. Below, North8000 writes: "We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives." I agree which is why this material is important to keep. Will Beback talk 12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editor. You have to pay to see the article which I didn't do, so that's why I asked if somebody knows the answer to that question.North8000 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia editor. I'm not out to criticize anybody, I just thought that if those were written by a Wikipedia editor, we could solve this by scaling back the wp:editor-written summary, and leave the overall material in. I might just assume that and do that, don't hesitate to revert me (no hard feelings) if someone does not like it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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,[2] but that was added without explanation either.[3] 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 [4] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). 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 [5] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors who say it is wrong and therefore the summary of it must be deleted. I contend that that is the wrong standard for judging a source to be unreliable. This is a high-profile article, having been excerpted in the New York Times. If no one in the real world has objected to it then we are on especially shaky ground to decide, on our own, that it is incorrect. Will Beback talk 23:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Excerpts from 23 mainstream news sources in which Ron Paul is called an isolationalist

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

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 Wikipedia 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:

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 Wikipedia article. If you can please provide reliable sources that specifically convey that Mead's terminology usage is "folly", then we can cite them and move forward.

"we also purge wp of incorrect text by rs"

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

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia articles cited above by others). Because of this distinction, Mead was wrong in calling him an isolationist. Therefore, phrases need to be changed in this Wikipedia article or Mead's assertion should be completely removed. There is no reason to cite a person in a public encyclopedia who is clearly using an incorrect term. This should be removed or fixed. Also, isolationism and non-interventionism cannot be subsets of each other in either order. This is because of a direct contradiction dealing with free trade. Neither term is more general than the other due to a strict contradiction. Gweb214 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Gweb214

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 Wikipedia. :-) C'mon folks, lets either take it out or put in offsetting material which corrects its error on that one point. Sincerely, 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia standards, has given his opinion which we clearly attribute to him. We cannot decide, on our own, that the source is incorrect and replace it with what we believe to be correct. Please remember that the source is not talking about Paul himself, but rather about those Tea Party members whom he describes as the Paulite wing of the Tea Party movement. Will Beback talk 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia. "Paulites" and Ron Paul do indeed have a "neo-isolationist" approach to military involvement in other contries, and an isolationist stance definitely prohibits military involvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia -- 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 Wikipedia, 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)[6] 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 Wikipedia's definition? Methinks Paul's personal interpretation of "isolationism" causes confusion in more than just the reading of Mead's assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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.[7] 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 [8] 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 [9] [The New York Times]
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 [10] 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)

.."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)

I don't know why I type like Guido talks. I haven't seen Guys and Dolls in years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The trial's result would help clarify the validity of Gladney's disputed claims that he was attacked. I think that is significant enough to merit mention, again, as I said, probably pending the results. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:32, 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)

I noted that I was in the process of rapidly improving, balancing and citing the material which, and was clearly doing so when you deleted the material. I fact I was entering an edit removing the word thugs when your uncalled-for removal had an edit conflict with it. And I had entered 4 balancing edits within the preceeding 7 minutes, a process which you interrupted. This is material covered in several RS's. If there is an arrest and charges, there is no requirement for a final court disposition for coverage in WP. What is going on here! North8000 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The links I posted above were some of the few I found that were actual news pieces, instead of opinion pieces. The main problem is, with a highly sensitive subject like this, you're going to need to get your entire edit properly written before adding anything. Adding such non-neutral text like that without any citations is going to get someone to immediately revert, without waiting for any fixes you had in mind. I'd suggest either writing up your entire, balanced text before adding it, or putting a version here for discussion before adding anything. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not post POV text and add balance later. Try writing your complete addition off-line or in your sandbox. However, I fail to see how this story is relevant, as it appears to have received zero coverage in mainstream national media, and even Fox News Channel is now ignoring it. TFD (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as the standard is consistent with the stuff that is already in there, (e.g. twitter comment, propane grill line cut by an unknown person etc.) that's fine. But I'm not OK with a double standard. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you use the presence of poor standards to justify bad edits. Rather, identify text you believe should be removed. TFD (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is the responsible of the editor deleting text to make a good faith effort to find a source 1st. It was also your responsibility tdf to add the balance you sought rather than delete the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure not applicable if the editor believes it doesn't belong in the article in the first place.TMCk (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It does certainly belong, especially in the article's current configuration. I'll rework it off-line and put it in. This article has a history of slow motion POV warrioring, most notably via a double standard for material to be inserted. That particular section is the worst case in the article for reasons which I will not repeat here. If my insertion gets reverted, it's time for more eyes here via an RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think this incident is important? TFD (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more important and more relevant than the other items in that section, and would bring at least a shred of balance to it. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

why do you think there are so many people trying to balance the article? I haven't heard anything about this being a cheerleader article for the tp. there never seems to be any mention of pov pushing the other direction. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think that the racism section(s) of the article are a bit out of balance in their current configuration, but make sure whatever you end up adding doesn't contain unsourced accusations of SEIU being "thugs". That is definitely unencyclopedic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Balance does not mean we balance pro and anti-TP views, but that we balance various mainstream views. No mainstream views of the TP are positive. TFD (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"No mainstream views of the TP are positive." Are you serious? North8000 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you're just dead wrong there. The very size of the movement belies your statement. Plenty of mainstream conservative commentators have positive views of the Tea Party movemennt. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I said mainstream. TFD (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you might want to step back from this, as your biases are a bit strong. If you don't consider any conservative commentators to be mainstream, you will not be able to edit or discuss this article in a neutral fashion. Fox News is obviously a mainstream conservative news and commentary source, as are newspapers like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. If you can't conceive of any conservative views as being mainstream, you've compromised your ability to edit political articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No mainstream conservative views of the Tea Party are positive either. And please learn to distinguish between news reporting in "conservative" media and commentary. TFD (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I specifically stated news and commentary. And I believe you're confusing the Republican establishment, which do not like the Tea Party movement at all, with conservative commentators. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Aquitted.[11] The jury did not believe Gladney and the trial has not been covered in major national media. TFD (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With that result, we can now discuss whether the information is worth adding. I would say there are two angles. Similarly to the small town Tea Party guy, we could probably dismiss this as an isolated incident. Alternately, it could be included to show that the accusations of racism and violence in the other direction were without merit, at least in this case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disparage "small town" Americans like that. You'll find that most real Americans come from small towns. Could someone fill me in on the racism element of this Gladney story? As for incidents of racism in general, we should probably note that each of them are isolated incidents - even those not in this article. It shouldn't be hard to find a TPer on record as describing each one as an isolated incident in various reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot include it to show anything, unless we have a source that makes the connection. BTW, the defense lawyer has "received death threats from Tea Party members, who had Gladney speak about the incident at Tea Party gatherings". But I would not include that either. TFD (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(Pssst ... it was Molens who received death threats, not the lawyer.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)