Template:Controversial (politics) Template:Pbneutral
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conservatism Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole
From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:
And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.
The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.
Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.
99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.
- I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:
- If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them. Will Beback talk 04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them. Will Beback talk 04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website. Will Beback talk 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome. Will Beback talk 23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?
99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.
- And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...
99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."
- Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?
- I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome. Will Beback talk 23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website. Will Beback talk 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)
Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?
by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest
Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.
- How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest
- This? Video: Tea Partiers, Sponsored by Big Oil, Speak Out Against Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine). 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Good is an anti-reliable source. If something appears there, it makes it even less likely to be accurate. Still, there may a reliable source for the fact that some TPmms (Tea Party movement members) are against subsidies for and/or against Big Oil, although you haven't yet produced one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is anti-reliable, can't find it: WP:anti-reliable ... ? 99.181.156.238 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- 'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:
99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, founder of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, says ending that ethanol subsidy would amount to a tax cut for everyone else. "Mr. Norquist says that violates the pledge," he says, "but when you look at what tax-payers have to pay [in higher food and energy costs], it's a tax reduction."
- Sarah Palin calls to eliminate energy subsidies this one is from Politico.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol and this is from the LA Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is this in Sarah Palin too? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- From Reason (magazine)'s Reason.com ... Mitt Romney's Embrace of Ethanol Subsidies is Enough to Make Tim Pawlenty Look...Less Bad! by Nick Gillespie; May 31, 2011 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time
from GOP presidential contenders are cooling toward global warming (Denver Post) 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman (Jr.), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.
- Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time
- Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:
- 'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Energy subsidies hard to quit for GOP candidates on Politico.com and In an Era of Partisanship, Who Are the Grown-Ups? by Katie Howell of Greenwire on the New York Times published: June 8, 2011. 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb
In 2010 Exxon Mobil Corp., the most profitable company in the world, earned over $30 billion in profits on gross revenue of over $350 billion and paid no U.S federal income taxes. In fact, the industry receives over $4 billion per year in direct taxpayer handouts to promote drilling - as if the energy industry needs to be motivated to drill. This contradiction is obscene. (New York Times)
- Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb
Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor
The targeted tax breaks for the top five oil companies – Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips – account for about $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years, or $2 billion a year.
99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:
Fred Upton, who was first elected in 1986, discussed the decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Let’s face it — it is a bad idea,” he declares.
- from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...
- Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
.."NO Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party" .. goes somewhere else?
There is NO Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party. Ron Paul and his supporters are the Tea Party, those that have joined the Tea Party after Ron Paul's original Tea Party still endorse the key planks of his platform: Limited Government, Lower Taxes, Cutting Spending, and stopping unconstitutional wars. If people disagree with one of these, they cannot be considered Tea Party, as they (planks) are all brought together by the Constitution, which Paul ALONE made popular in 2007-2008 primaries until the Present 2011 Presidential run. Bachmann jumped on the band-wagon and is not a TRUE constitutional conservative. Everyone saw the popularity that Ron Paul enjoyed and they are trying to steal the platform from him. This wiki article does a disservice to the Tea Party. (SJT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbobrains (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although true, we have an allegedly reliable sources that there are "Paulite" and "Palinite" wings of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- (At least when it comes to foreign policy perspectives.) Will Beback talk 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
removing mead's incorrect analysis of the tp 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Will, please review the definition of isolationist, and rp voting record, no rs needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:50, 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)
- is rp not a rs about paulites? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 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)
- so a paulite operates contrary to paul? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:19, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks. I'll have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 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)
- 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)
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,[1] but that was added without explanation either.[2] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ok, so the 2nd link in google: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 9 June 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)
- 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)
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 [3] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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 [4] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). I'm still waiting for a citation to a source that challenges Mead's findings. So far, all I've seen are sources that talk about Paul, and nothing about Mead's assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Incorrect. This ("The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism" by Walter Russell Mead [4] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). I'm still waiting for a citation to a source that challenges Mead's findings. So far, all I've seen are sources that talk about Paul, and nothing about Mead's assertions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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 [3] in the Foreign Affairs journal; pages 28-44) evidence supports the text. I've seen nothing that refutes Mead, only stuff about Ron Paul specifically (some of which has been added parenthetically to that section). Xenophrenic (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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'd guess Anti-socialism ~ Criticisms of socialism. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the title of this section is about. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 24 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Off-topic ... What movies? 99.119.131.248 (talk) 01:03, 28 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)
- This Off-the-grid, just curious? 99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:01, 27 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)
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
shouldsuch things generally should be deleted, but the guidelines suggest otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 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
- 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)
- You would need a source that says this is how the TPM is normally described. TFD (talk) 03:20, 31 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
- 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Ron paul supports repealing all free trade agreements. TFD (talk) 21:03, 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)
- 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)
- 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"[5] - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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"[5] - isolationists could support or oppose free trade. What are the recommendations for changing the text? TFD (talk) 13:19, 10 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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.
- 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)
- "American exceptionalism"
- total war
- unconditional surrender
- Jeffersonian
- "neo-isolationist"
- "liberal internationalism"
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
^ "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)
Nobody is calling Paul an isolationist, except Mead
when a rs gets it fundamentally wrong, the text should be removed. Paul has said he is a non-interventionist, Mead called Paulites isolationist. the key difference is isolationist do not trade with other nations. if the tea party, which has been refused status as a political party in wp even has a foreign policy, it would be well documented. lets find an additional source to back up meads disputed claims should any exist, or remove the passage. i suggest is time for rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ron Paul, the aged libertarian, made much of the unwisdom of Americans prosecuting foreign wars they could not afford, from Afghanistan to Libya. [..] The strain of political thought represented by Paul tends to strict isolationism.
- A new woman is on the block: bye bye Palin; Seven candidates are jostling to lead the Republican presidential bid but no one is really grasping the baton James Fenton. Evening Standard. London (UK): Jun 17, 2011. pg. 14
- Between Romney and Pawlenty was Ron Paul, the maverick libertarian isolationist who attracted a cult following on the internet in 2008.
- THE NIGHT THE RIGHT TURNED SERIOUS; Written off as 'seven dwarves', the Republican contenders showed some formidable talent. Toby Harnden reports from New Hampshire Toby Harnden. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Jun 15, 2011. pg. 19
- Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is well known for his isolationist views and criticism of the Federal Reserve, said the US needed to unwind "a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years."
- Republican contenders attack Obama Richard McGregor. FT.com. London: Jun 14, 2011.
- Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world.
- [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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)