Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Term

Isn't Paleoconservative more often a term of derision used by Neoconservatives against conservative opponents like Bob Novak, than an active branch of conservatism? One should be careful to distinguish terms used by other people about one from the terms used by the people themselves. ALthough, of course, terms of derision often stick and become associated with groups (see Whig and Tory). But I tend to think this should be tightened up some. john 23:05 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ita to the comment above... also, the 'ex-marxist' and 'ex-liberal' bit is a bit funny. By whose definition of Liberal and Marxist are neocons ex-anything? I will remove this bit until someone can defend it. Graft 01:36 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that a Limey like me is commenting on American politics shows that I've got an interest in politics that is not altogether healthy, however...

1. Paleoconservatism is self defined

Chronicles, which most recognise as the premier paleo publication actually hosted a round table discussion entitled "What Is Paleoconservatism?" So it's certainly a term widely used by the Paleos. In fact the term Paleoconservative originated among conservatives who opposed the neo-conservatives, and the term was to define themselves from the "neo" (that is "new") Conservatives.

2. Neo-conservatives are (mostly) converts from the left

The very term neo-conservative was a badge pinned on them by former colleagues on the left because they were "New" conservatives ("neo" is the Latin for new). Some of the Ex-Marxists who are now seen as neo-conservatives are David Horowitz, Marvin Olasky, Norman Podhoretz, Joshua Muravchik, Irving Kristol, Midge Dector and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Most other neo-cons came from a more conventional liberal background (like Daniel Moynihan and Bill Bennett). There are a few second generation neo-conservatives whose conservatism is not by any means "new" as they have never been outside the conservative movement. Either due to family connections (William Kristol), a general aggresiveness on foreign policy (Paul Wolfowitz) or just plain laziness from journalists are lumped in with neo-conservatives.

The former neo-conservative journalist Michael Lind says of neo-conservatives "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."

JASpencer 27 May 2003

3. Re the addition of text recently termed POV and deleted, to what in particular do you object? Have you read the historians mentioned or the primary sources to which they refer? The text presented reflects common knowledge among intellectual historians of the period. The coda on the conservative movement is, again, non-controversial. One should be aware of the ongoing intellectual struggle within conservatism, which has received significant press from left and right, before charging anyone with promulgating a mere POV.

Lastly, JASpencer above is correct that paleoconservatism is not a term of derision and is often used by paleocons to describe themselves.

4. Seward Collins was an important, often overlooked figure in the development of early 20c American conservatism

The continual removal of Collins from the list of Americans who played a role in the development of what became known as "paleoconservatism" is a historiographical error. Collins's quarterly journal, The American Review, was intrumental in popularizing the work of both the Southern Agrarians and the English distributists, both of whom favored policies and philosophies central to paleoconservatism. He should be included in this article if it is to be useful to the general public in their research on a key topic in American intellectual history.

Neutrality dispute

This page is marked as "neutrality disputed" but it looks fine to me. Who disputes the neutrality of what specifically? - NYK 08:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay then I will remove the proviso. - NYK 02:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral or not, the opening paragraph is lousy writing. "as espoused by the Republican Party elite", "as expressed in National Review and the Weekly Standard". Imagine how this would look to, say, a South American teenager who has not heretofore taken much interest in US politics. Unless you already know about intellectual trends in the Republican party and American political magazines, this is meaningless - and if you do know that much, you probably don't need it explained to you. --JdwNYC 00:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I would certainly dispute the neutrality of this page. "Isolationism" is a scare term. It applies to some who call themselves paleoconservative but hardly to all. Many paleoconservatives were supportive of US involvement in Viet Nam but not in Yugoslavia. Most opposed the Iraq War, because they believed it not in the US interest. Adams wasn't opposed to the Barbary Coast Wars. When the dragons attack Americans they need taming. They don't need slaying simply because they are dragons.

I note that someone has in fact fixed that problem, and I withdraw my above remarks. It looks pretty neutral to me now.

The section on paleoconservatism and immigration is still not NPOV - it still seems like advocacy to me.

  J. E. Pournelle, Ph.D.

Just in case someone wonders, 68.66.75.82 _does_ in fact check out as an Adelphia Cable ip in JEP's physical neighborhood. It's him. and _he_ put his name back in the list of PC's... Rick Boatright 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- T.S.Eliot? Why? Not every highly-educated anglophile is a "paleoconservative." And paleoconservative taste in verse ran more to James Whitcomb Riley wouldn't you say? Wetman 06:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On Nock I think it should be added that Albert Nock was an individualist of sorts. The refernce to him in this text seems to imply that he himself shared the paleos views when, in fact, he was against the State.

Eric Margolis a paleocon?

Eric Margolis does not have the parochial, isolationistic views generally associated with paleocons (for example he fervently supported the Kosovo War, which was opposed by most paleocons) - he identifies himself as a "Eisenhower Republican" and is hostile to the neocons mainly out of pro-Muslim sympathies. GCarty 16:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dinos aren't paleolithic

The phrase, association with the dinosaurs through terms like "paleolithic" is unfortunate, because the dinosaurs (with the exception of birds) were long gone in paleolithic times. If one wants to use the word 'paleolithic' for purposes of making fun of people (I'm not discussing whether this is appropriate or not), why not make the associations with early humans? They were probably not more stupid than we are, but at least there were humans alive in the paleolithic. Tjunier 09:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Jerry Pournelle.

Well, Jerry's friday response to being listed in this list was "Hmmmm." That doesn't exactly sound like a disagreement to me. As to him fitting this group, he has always self-identified as a "Burke" conservative in the english traidition of conservatism. He certainly, over and over in his Chaos Manor posts is derisive of neo-cons. Why then, do you remove him. His credentials here seem as good as anyone ELSE on this list. Rick Boatright 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because we're not an original source of such assignments but rather report the research and views of others. If some publication has described him as one, that's a different matter. If none has, I have some doubt that he'd qualify as a prominent example. I wouldn't say that he is derisive of Neoconservatives so much as commenting on the US acting as an imperial power. Some of his views do seem to match some of those attributed to paleoconservatives. Jamesday

Is this the "response" we're talking about? [1]. That response certainly is non-commital. Has he been called a paleoconservative by anyone else? -Willmcw 21:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I find this fascinating. I hadn't asked to be placed on the list, and I hadn't asked to be removed from it. I presume there are those who like playing such games. I do not consider myself bound by any political group, but I certainly have more affinities with Burke and Kirk than I do with Leo Strauss and the neo-conservative movement. I do not know who placed me on the list, biut I found it interesting that I was there. I do not know who took me off it, but I find that even more revealing.

  Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D.

I wonder if you might not originally have been added by the correspondent who told you about it, for your name was added only a few days ago. Are you aware of any publicatons which have identified you as prominent for your paleoconservative views? I'm trying to determine whether you're prominent for those views, and thus merit inclusion in a list of prominent paleoconservatives, or not. Jamesday 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that Jerry Pournelle did update his "View" page to discuss whether he is a paleoconservative or not: [2] In a nutshell, he says he agrees with paleoconservative views more than not, but not 100%. With that reservation, he seems to be a reasonable addition to the list. I see that someone has reverted the edit that removed him, which seems appropriate. He hasn't created an account on Wikipedia, but I can verify that he did write the comments signed by his name on this page (I have exchanged email with him today, and the IP address matches). --Steveha 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he made the edits. I do wonder whether he qualifies. Have any sources cited him as a prominent paleoconservatve? Google turns up just one, a reader comment at Reason online: "Would you characterize yourself as being of the Lew Rockwell, Jerry Pournelle paleoconservative school?" [3]. That just doesn't appear to me to qualify him for this list. Prominent in a variety of other ways, of course, but I don't see anything to indicate that he's prominent for this reason. Even one well known publication saying he is could change that - I just didn't find one doing it. Jamesday 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the principle that the people on these types of lists should be well-known for their political views. If we have to scrounge around for a source and even (effectively) ask the subject then they probably shouldn't be on the list. Trying to parse a subject's political views and decide on our own which category to place them in may be original research. -Willmcw 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Much more in common with the left?

I take issue with this statement: "As a result, in matters of modern foreign policy paleoconservatives actually share much in common with the American left, and have opposed much of the Bush administration's post 9-11 policy, especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

It would certainly seem that way. However, the paleoconservative approach to foreign policy is based on an entirely different philosophy than the left's. Most paleoconservatives believe in noninterventionism as the general rule of what is in our best national interests. Some on the left share this view, but most prominent liberal politicians and thinkers seem (to me) to advocate multilateralism--that is, interventionism is okay as long as it serves some allegedly noble cause (i.e., for the purpose of stopping a genocide) and as long as it has broad international support. No one who calls himself a paleoconservative is such an internationalist.

Taft

This sentence seems a bit odd, not to mention the historical placement is totally off:

". It should be noted that Taft and the paleoconservatives upheld the principle that politics stops at the water's edge and supported World War II once the US was involved"

What??

I imagine someone thought that "isolationist" was inappropriate and replaced it incorrectly. -Willmcw 05:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Move this article to Paleoconservatism

The current title refers to the ideology and not an individual member of said ideology. Some examples include the article about assassination, which is not located at assassin (the one who carries out the act), nor is the article about despotism located at despot. Even similar topics, such as conservatism, are not located at conservative, for example. --tomf688^<TALK> 01:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Paleocon Magazines - which ones?

One WP editor says the Weekly Standard is the PaleoCon Mag and another WP editor claims National Review is Paleocon. I believe neither magazines are. Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are not Paleocons, and neither are their pubs. The article claims that the Weekly Standard is relied on heavily by Cheney and the Bush Administration - hardly paleocons.

The true Paleocon mag is The American Conservative [4] that is inspired and that Pat Buchanan is/was involved with. You can tell by reading the list of their contributors and their "about us" section of their page. Rhallanger 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up POV regarding immigration

It's important to include the immigration topic, so I tried to remove the POV rhetoric and make it factual. This article is about American paleos, not Europeans, and we can drop the discussion of Muslims in Europe as irrelevant and misleading. Rjensen 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay-- I tossed in the European immigration stuff-- and I concede you ground that it is extraneous... Can the Wiki editors we drop the neutrality dispute now? RS

Dispute

Why is neutrality disputed all of a sudden? Because there is a lot of talk in background? Everything seems cleaned up and going in more clear direction. I never recollect reading National Review and Weekly Standard were ever paleocon. Isolationism may be pejorative, but when paleos- write books like Isolationism Reconfigured, than I say we our passed the pejorative stage where there is shame in embracing quote-unquote isolationism. Though, Buchanan's book Republic, Not an Empire concedes America never was isolationist-- it advocates disengagement, strategic independence, instead of reckless interventionism overseas.

Old Right hated Japan

Re: Foreign policy concerns... "In the 1930s the Old Right hated Japan and were less reluctant to go to war with that country..." I have great difficulty understanding the merit of this statement, or why it was inserted. It doesn't even make sense. It should be dropped. RS

The sentence means that isolationism was focused on Europe and the the isolationists were much more willing to go to war with Japan. That is what they said in 1941. So how should we rephrase this? Rjensen 07:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there were a significant number of isolationists... In hindsight, many do not approve of the provocation FDR done with Japan and the intrigue surrounding Pearl Habor, which Robert Stinnett documented in his book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. Hate is too strong of a word anyway. 71.51.11.50 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual Precusors

I think it is better to flip America and European precursors, and present the American ones first- since paleoconservatism is essentially an American movement. RS

Paleoconservatism and Civil Society

They did not support the Religious Right's efforts to federalize the Terri Schiavo case in 2005. On the other hand they joined with other conservatives in denouncing Kelo v. New London, even though the Supreme Court came down on the side of local decision-making.

Not to cast dispersion on the validity of this statement... but it is related civil society, and digging into nuances seems to be a bit extraneous. While states' rights obviously means paleos do not support federalizing the Schiavo case in Florida, all the same I do not recollect paleo speakers coming out in opposition to the Christian Coalition-Family Research Council crowd advocating the federalizing of the case. It seems extraneous IMHO. RS

The Schiavo case divided conservatives and the article just says which side the paleos took. That seems reasonable enough considering the enormous attention that case received. I do find it strange that most paleos opposed the Supreme Court in the Kelo case. The Supreme Court said states and local governments can make their own decisions, and the Feds will not intervene. That is the Supreme Court came out for states rights and the paleos said, not this time" Rjensen 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough-- It should stay... though I italicized the case ;)

The reference in this section to "sociologist Robert Nisbet" gives a link to a totally different Robert Nisbet. This should be corrected. Theoldanarchist 07:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Prominent paleos

• Virginia Abernethy
• Ezola Foster
• Alan Keyes
• Kevin Lamb
• Michael Peroutka
• Pat Robertson
• Peter Viereck
• American Conservative Union
• The Constitution Party
• John Birch Society
• Council of Conservative Citizens
• [http://www.amren.com/ The American Renaissance]
• The Occidental Quarterly
• Council of Conservative Citizens

All of these were removed, with the notation (Many of those listed were either anti-intellectual third party and/or racist activists, and some like Pat Robertson or Alan Keyes shouldn't merit discussion) Is it impossible to be racist or third-party and paleoconservative at the same time? -Willmcw 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, Peroutka is paleo-. I may not have voted for him. By your exemption of third party candidate rationale, are you going to take Buchanan off too, because he had a third party run on the Reform Party ticket in 2000? I think you get my point. I don't understand your rationale. Other than that-- I agree with some of your other removals. Rsetliff 09:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone can give specific reasons to keep these people and groups off the lists, I'll restore them. -Willmcw 05:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater and Foreign Policy

Goldwater late in life became something of a libertarian, but from the late 1950s to the 1980s he was one of the two or three most prominent paleos in national politics.

Interesting fact about Goldwater, but all the same, it seems extraneous to amplify the previous sentence anymore. After all, the section is about foreign policy. And even referencing his prominence in national politics at the time may be extraneous. The paleo- movement may have been lending support to Goldwater, but his prominence as a paleo- figure is questionable. He tended to echo classical liberal themes, and was a conservative no doubt in much same way as Reagan. Conservatism is not an ideology as Russell Kirk says, and paleoconservatism was more of a movement-- very insular, defined by certain characteristics, even narrow at the early twentieth-century. I think one of its defining hallmarks is its non-characteristic interventionist foreign policy. That paleos- make alliances (i.e, paleolibertarians, Goldwater camp) is conceded, but I think we are reaching a stage where too many are fishing for new paleos-. I think we should stir clear of more exceptions to non-interventionism place in here, because it is becoming a misplaced emphasis away from non-interventionism, and it deemphasizes a vital pillar of paleos. The remarks about Taft are on the mark. Perhaps now it should be trimmed a little. Rsetliff 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.11.50 (talk • contribs)

Is isolationism central to paleo thought? It was important in the 1930s and 2000's, but they did NOT talk much about it during Goldwater's heyday (about 1958-1970s). They DID pay close attention to Goldwater and he was their leader in Washington. We'd best not ignore that. It has been explored in numerous books (Perlstein and McGirr, for example) Rjensen 00:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rsetliff 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think paleos- were that prominent in the 1960s... I do not think it was the case that they all tossed out their non-interventionism, but the paleoconservativism was marginalized. Rick Perlstein's book Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus gives a rather objective account of the Right in the 1960s. Given that paleoconservatism really took form in 1980s in reaction, and traces its roots to the Old Right anti-New Dealers of 30s and 40s... this all remains argumentative. I just think there is a inaccurate trend of moving away from emphasis on non-interventionism in foreign policy.

The paleos were not especially prominent in the 1960s, true. But they were there. These people did not suddenly appear aged 55 years old with no past history. Pat Buchanan's father was a leader of the isolationist movement around 1940. Rjensen 14:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Intercollege Studies Institute

Paleoconservatism has recently become the principal operating philosophy... was changed to Paleoconservatism is the principal operating philosophy... ISI has not been wavering since its impetus, so I think this rearticulation is for the better. Also, earlier, someone kept saying they are anti-market... this does not make sense given their statements on their web site. Their principles of a Civil Society say:

Free Market Economy - Allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of a free society, and also the most productive and efficient supplier of human needs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.11.50 (talk • contribs)

Immigration Policy

There is also an alternative school of thought among paleocons on this issue, especially among its more libertarian element, who, while not exactly celebrating "open borders", are opposed to the notion of an American nationalism which is definitive to the Buchanan view. Authors such as Clyde Wilson and Thomas DiLorenzo often use the term "nationalism" to describe the outlook and policies of Lincoln and his predecessors in the Federalist and Whig Parties. In the modern context, they often use the word "nationalism" in a context not at all unlike that of most on the left.

This statement is extraneous, and its applicability to immigration policy is highly questionable. Moreover, while I understand what the poster is trying to say... the context of nationalism has more to do with nationalism vis-a-vis federalism as it was framed in the constitutional debates of 1787. It was basically the idea of a wholly national polity (i.e., like that advocated by monocrats/nationalists like Hamilton, McClurg, Paterson, Wilson) versus a federal polity and the idea of divided sovereignty. Clyde Wilson might criticize Madison for having his cake in eating it too-- for his having it both ways in Federalist #39- (i.e., it is a federal act, it is a national act)... But all the same, none of this is relevant to immigration. Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn said, "Patriotism not nationalism is the ideal attachment." Yeah I agree. Why can't paleoconservatism be seen for its uniqueness, instead of constant parallels being made with the American Left? Rsetliff 09:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pleasae sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes ("~"). Thanks, -Willmcw 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My grievances

1) Do I really have to explain why its absurd to count Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes as paleocons?!!!

2) As for the others on the list, I again stress that simply being to the right of George W. Bush does not make you a paleocon. People like the CCC and the Constitution Party are far more nationalistic than most paleocons, and are typically a lot more anti-intellectual. If one were to argue that, say, The Occidental Quarterly isn't exactly anti-intellectual, its emphasis on the pseudo-scientific study of race is, in stark contrast to paleoconservatism, not rooted in a rejection of modern American nationalism which is fundamental to paleoconservatism.

3) It is thus also that my additional comments on immigration are far from superfluous. The same caveat is very well acknowledged on trade, they are practically one and the same issue, i.e., economic nationalism.

4) Just to make a final qualification about the racist and other activist groups, notice that I have not denied the relationship, namely that I left the comments on Francis and his association thereof untouched. I am merely submitting that it is misleading to identify far right activist politics as necessarily paleoconservative, to say nothing, once again, of the regular Christian right, which if anything of course is in very active collusion with the neocons.

Jacrosse 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we really do have to explain ourselves, this isn't a one-editor project. I didn't add most of these names, but they should not be removed without comment. (Likewise for all deletions on Wikipedia). You'll see that I posted a question above asking for an explanation some days ago and I did not get any response giving reasons for deleting the names. Let's discuss these folks.

Worth removing: Alan Keyes is described in our bio of him as "neo-conservative." So he goes for that reason. Pat Robertson isn't described by anyone that I can find as "paleo" either. So we can remove him too. The Consitution Party seems to be thought of more as theocratic than paleo. Peter Viereck is occasionally described as a paleocon, but perhaps not notably.[5]

Worth keeping: Paleoconservatives like Buchanan, Gottfried, et al. are known to be concerned with maintaining the integrity of American culture. That is very much shared by the Occidental Quarterly,[6][7] Virginia Abernethy, Kevin Lamb, Samuel Francis. /intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=532, and OQ other contributors. Abernethy has been called "an anthropologist at the center of the paleoconservative intellectual movement for over 30 years".[8] Francis and Abernethy have also been involved with the CoCC, which has been called paleoconservative too.[9][10]. The JBS is apparently called paleo by some sources.[11]. Foster might be on the list belong due to serving as Buchanan's running mate, and JBS membership.[12]

There's more to discuss, but that's a start. Willmcw 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose on the Birch Society I jumped the gun, they are more down the line paleo, they even endorsed Kerry in the last election. But, without necessarily casting a verdict on any of the individuals in question, there is still a major difference between being concerned with the integrity of culture and being a nationalist, meaning, in this context, associating the culture with the state and nation. This is clearly not the view of the libertarians and neo-Confederates. Finally, the reason I'm reluctant to include Abernathy and Lamb is that they, and the groups they represent, don't to me seem to have any distinguishing political views beyond being racists.

Jacrosse 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A word about Peter Viereck - it would be at a minimum highly ironic to count him as a paleocon, as he first distinguished himself in the 50s as probably the first "anti-paleocon", promoting himself as the acceptable right half of the "vital center".

"It is thus also that my additional comments on immigration are far from superfluous. The same caveat is very well acknowledged on trade, they are practically one and the same issue, i.e., economic nationalism." All the same, they are not related to immigration issue. The caveat deals with a constitutional feud over the nature of the Union. that is what DiLorenzo and Wilson are talking about... i.e., the Webster-Story-Lincoln nationalist school versus the compact school. That is the context of Wilson and DiLorenzo's assessment of [i]nationalism[/i]. That nationalist school adherants were generally beholden to Whig economic nationalism, excepting Andrew Jackson is a novel fact, but not relevant to the article. It goes all the way back to the constitutional debates. Hamilton, Paterson, McClurg, James Wilson, et al., wanted a wholly national polity, while others wanted a federal polity, including the misnamed Anti-Federalists. Nice history, but superflous and extraneous to immigration all the same. How Wilson and DiLorenzo are related to Leftist interpretations is simply beyond me... when as many Leftists in America (i.e. Gary Wills) are beholden to the nationalist school and esteem Lincoln as neocons do. If this really interests you-- do a stub article on some nationalist topic.

Of course its related to immigration, because attitudes about immigration are key to one's concept of nationhood.

Jacrosse 16:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

During the Cold War a few paleoconservatives supported overseas commitments as necessary to the defense of the United States against communist aggression. Though Senator Taft and most paleos opposed NATO almost from the impetus, and this was a central issue in the contest between Robert Taft and Dwight Eisenhower for the 1952 Republican nomination, Taft lost, and his death early in 1953 deprived the Old Right of its most articulate leader, coupled with the death of Chicago Tribune editor Robert R. McCormick in 1955.

This is good information, but the grammar and syntax really need to be changed. This is almost a paragraph, and just ONE SENTENCE! McCormick is most definitely relevant to the paleoconservatives; perhaps reference to late Bob McCormick could be moved to Paleoconservatives in Modern America. I will leave it at original poster's discretion to change it around for a month, before I touch it. I esteem the content thereof, but it needs to be structured better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.11.50 (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Do as you like! Jacrosse 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heck, I'll just live it alone now...

John Bambenek

In what circles is John Bambenek considered a "prominent" paleocon? As far as I am aware, he writes chiefly for a college student newspaper. -Will Beback 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He has organized, among other things, the campus ISI [13]] chapter, he's been a faculty-staff advisor for the conservative newspaper on campus, and he's written a few articles on conservativism in general.

That's swell. But in the scheme of things that doesn't raise him to the same level as the other entries. Every campus with ISI has an organizer, etc. There are probably 100 college or graduate students of equal or greater prominence. Not to put him down in any way, just noting that he is not particularly prominent. -Will Beback 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A Google search does not bring up any instances of other people referring to Bamabaneck as a paleoconservative, prominent or otherwise. Please provide some indication that someone besides yourself thinks that he is a prominent paleoconservative. -Will Beback 22:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is looking increasingly like self-promotion. Please don't use Wikipedia as a way of gaining more attention for yourself. -Will Beback 06:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Will BeBack: Did you mean to delete the John Birch Society when you were reverting that uncommented text deletion earlier? If so, why? If not, I'll be happy to add it back. Dick Clark 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. JBS has a paleo base. 71.53.200.133 04:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Category

Why have we added this article to Category:Terri Schiavo? The connection seems tenuous. -Will Beback 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite an accurate Description of Paleoconservatism

The Paleo-conservative movement, in contemporary terms, is non-interventionist with regards to its foreign-policy philosophy. In this respect, Paleo-conservatism is not opposed to multi-laterialism, but opposed to the Neo-conservative philosophy of uni-laterialism. Neo-conservatives are not in favor of internationalist agreements and treaties and so forth; rather, they advocate the imposition of America's political will upon other nations, through force, if necessary. Paleo-conservatives were opposed to the invasion of Iraq while Neo-conservatives strongly supported the preemptive war, and conceived of a Straussian 'Nobel Lie,' in order to acquire public support for the colonization of Iraq.

Russell Cole

I disagree Russell, paleos are by no means supportive of multilateralism. They tend to favor disengagement from the world, though maintenance of diplomatic relations is assumed. At most, some paleos, might support a hemispheric defense concept like the Monroe Doctrine. Rsetliff 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious Right

I've wrote a considerable part of this overall article, and broke it down into subtopics adding five topics. I'm generally satisified with the direction it has taken, and its veracity particularly in contrast to the main article on conservatism which is lacking considerably.

However, the Religious Right tends to be more associated with the Christian Coalition, mainstream evangelicals like Falwell, and they tend to be more acclimated to neoconservatism. Read Ralph Reed's Active Faith if you doubt me. It's not to say that paleos are not religious Christians-- most are-- but there conservatism is more reflective and imbued with Burkean influences, and they tend to disparage the incessant obsession with values promotions by the religious right. Paleos may see a broader spiritual problem in America, and that won't be remedied merely by butressing the number of GOP politicians that espouse their support for family values and the sanctity of life. Moreover, the so called Religious Right are peculiar reactionaries and do not fathom that the blurred lines between society and state are at the root of a lot of socio-cultural problems. They are against the liberal conception of a separation of church and state, but what they propose is hardly any better, such as G.W. Bush's so called faith-based initiatives. As such this statement should be removed:

They are not closely tied to the business community but often are to the Religious Right. Neoconservatives, by contrast, are more consensus-oriented, pragmatic and lend their support to a more activist internationalist foreign policy.

The second part I could hardly disagree with-- but it's tied to the first statement. Rsetliff 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Move NPOV In Opening

In terms of media, paleoconservatives typically agree with sentiments expressed in The American Conservative and Chronicles. They disagree with sentiments expressed in the Weekly Standard and, since the early 1990s, National Review.

Bias, unverifiable, and assumes too much about the reader's knowledge of these publications. Removed. Anything else need to be taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrueSora (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That was poorly-worded, but I think the editor was trying to say that The American Conservative and Chronicles are the leading Paleocon journals. If those are not he leading journals, then what are? -Will Beback 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Core beliefs

The section on core beliefs fails to mention a single core belief. What thought processes were being held at mind when it was written?

This sounds American

Not sure how to go about this, but it feels like it needs some rewriting so that it comes from a more neutral pov. Consider:

Where immigration allows foreigners into a nation, it then becomes a domestic policy concern. Cultural cohesiveness and some degree of cultural homogeneity are considered indispensable to paleos. Granted, many paleos are apt to celebrate differences and vibrant regional cultures in America, but many are opposed to multiculturalism and runaway Third World immigration. They see our border problem averse to our interests as it threatens to displace the historic European cultural homogenity of the United States in the next half-century.

'our border problem' hardly sounds like an encyclopaedia. Does anyone feel up to fixing this? ManicParroT 09:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed that. However since this appears to be a chiefly-U.S. movement it will inevitably be biased. If there is more non-U.S. material available please let us know. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Change America to United States

Referring to the United States of America simply as America is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; It is a colloquial use that is hardly used outside of the USA.

Citation needed!

When did Issiah Berlin write about paleocons? 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Amount of Citation Requests

There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of requests for citations in the "Intellectual precursors and modern expositors" sections. I mean, does anyone really doubt that Mel Bradford is connected to paleoconservatism?

Plastering the article with citation requests like this is a really irritating and lazy approach, in my view. I should remove them all and request that if anyone has a problem with what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case by case basis.

Maybe someone has gone on the rampage trying to make a point.

-Yakuman 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)(language borrowed from the talk section in the Peter Hitchens article).

If you want to use a banner, that's fine. But I'm going to insist on the custom of a week's time to provide sources before removing content. That's a lot of content. I'll start removing all the content that has been tagged for more than a week in about an hour.-Psychohistorian 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with this for today as we're both probably heading into 3RR teritory, but do you agree to mediation by a third party?-Psychohistorian 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer someone who knows something about the paleoconservative movement. Say, Paul Gottfried or Thomas Fleming. It seems that wikipedia policy can be an excuse to hide an agenda. For example, you keep trying to rewrite history, literally, by saying that paleos are neutral on gay marriage. That is just nuts. Paleos will let San Francisco be San Francisco, within certain limits. Gay marriage is something that paleocons say WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED had the conservative movement not "sold out." 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Yakuman

Paleos For Gay Rights?

I require sources for content. I'm neutral on whether that source says that paleos are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage. All I care about is that it is a reliable source. Instead of protesting that I want this article to abide by policy, why don't you find a reliable source which says that paleos are anti-gay marriage? -Psychohistorian 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is written for the intelligent layman, not to appease one person. You used a quote from an unknown personality, then tried to claim that it had something to do with gay marriage. That's not a reliable source!

Then you go crying for a mediator [14], claiming that I posted "unsourced and highly emotionally charged content in the article." Look, I've posted TWO sources to support the thesis that _paleos tend to oppose gay marriage_. TWO sources does not equal unsourced!

If you wish to obsess over footnotes, can't you do it with a topic that isn't political, like, say the comic book articles? If you insist on demanding citations for EVERY PROPER NOUN in every sentence, then I think you're going to be disappointed.

Your talk page seems to suggest that you started here on the 7th of this month. Perhaps you should gain more experience around here before you start hacking and slashing at complex material. Yakuman 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Abiding by policy isn't exactly "complex material". I fail to see why some people have so much trouble with it. You've got three sources for one piece of content. Okay, you've got countless more pieces of content to go.-Psychohistorian 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to drop to your level of making this personal (e.g. "crying for a mediator"). If you can't abide by policy, that's your personal problem. -Psychohistorian 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is how far you intend to pick at nits. You're claiming to enforce policy, but...

WHERE DOES POLICY SAY THAT EVERY PROPER NOUN MUST BE SOURCED?

And you make it personal when you accuse me of doing what I did not do. Hey, I only wrote a small amount of materal -- and only in recent days, so don't yell at me about it.

For example, when you have an opinion stated 1.) by Pat Buchanan, the most prominent leader of the movement and founder of one of its major magazines, 2.) by Thomas Fleming, editor of the movement's OTHER major magazine. and 3.) in a roundtable discussion in Fleming's magazine about the definition of the movement,

...it is fair to say that the movement TENDS to support that opinion!

The point is not whether or not you accept this opinion. The point is whether or not a specific group TENDS to think in a certain way. To that extent I have presented credible evidence, which you apparently refuse to accept.

Next I guess you will try and demand demonstration that paleos support the right to own handguns, which is equally silly. Gee, how come I never run into this sort of nit-picking when I write about video games?

P.S. Psych, here's the article for the Arrested Development TV show ---->[15]. Lots and lots of text with very few citations. Go harass its authors and see what you get. Yakuman 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about sources you provided AFTER I pointed out that the original claim was unsourced. Every claim needs to be sourced or it can be removed by anyone. THAT'S policy in black and white. My fault so far is that I haven't just deleted all the unsourced comments, though I've said I would. I'll do that now. -Psychohistorian 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Psycho Historian Gets The Scissors

You didn't answer the question!

Where does policy say that every proper noun must be sourced?

Yakuman 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You should learn to look policy up for yourself, but since you don't seem able to do that yet, here's the relevant policies, "It is essential to the quality and integrity of Wikipedia that all articles be based on information collected from verifiable sources. Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly...The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." from WP:NOR

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors...The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic...Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long," WP:Verifiability -Psychohistorian
Quoting policy does not answer the question. You are demanding cites on EVERY COMMON NOUN and you refuse to discuss the point. Look at the neoconservatism article. It has a fraction of the cites present on this article and I see no controversy over the lack of cites. I see nothing in the above quotes which states that EVERY COMMON NOUN must be cited. Yakuman 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole doesn't do you any favors. You keep insisting that I'm insisting on a source for every proper noun, but that's not true. Take the following sentenc, "They see the neoconservatism as a movement of empire-builders and themselves as defenders of a lost republic, pointing to Rome as an example of how an ongoing campaign of militay expansionism can destroy a republic". EVERY COMMON NOUN would include "neoconservatism", "movement", "empire-builders" "defenders", "republic", "Rome", "example", "campaign", and "military expansionism" in that sentence. I've not asked for sources for all of those. I'm trying to figure out how anyone with an education which includes reading comprehension skills could miss that fact.-Psychohistorian 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Every Proper Noun

1.) Okay, I meant EVERY PROPER NOUN. You want EVERY PROPER NOUN sourced.
2.) I had a run-in with those mediators you picked (on another subject) and got a screenful of defamation and threats[16]. Is this the best conflict resolution you could find?
3.) Why do I keep thinking there's either a political agenda or an harassment campaign at work here? Yakuman

• Its still patently obvious that I'm looking for every claim to be sourced, not every proper noun.
• If you had mentioned that you don't find those mediators agreeable earlier, we could have gone through another route. I'm still fine with going another route. But I've found the RfC course to be incredibly -slow-.
• I don't know why you keep thinking there's either a political agenda or an harassment campaign at work here. Paraonoia? I'd like to point out that I'm not the one who chose to make this personal with comments like "whining to mediators" and referring to my username as "Psycho historian".-Psychohistorian 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Yakuman's edits largely reflect reality; Psychohistorian's largely do not. For instance, Pyschohistorian has removed paragraphs listing prominent paleos, claiming that they are unsourced. And yet I had provided the text identifying Donald Livingston, Thomas Fleming, Chilton Williamson, and others are editors for Chronicles, which this article acknowledges as one of the two chief paleoconservative publications. Likewise, Psychohistorian removed the reference to John Randolph as someone paleos admire, even though the Rockford Institute sponsors the John Randolph Club, which holds an annual meeting.

I think it's time that someone from Wikipedia step in here.

Scott P. Richert

Executive Editor

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Your point is?? Please review the policy I quoted above. It doesn't matter if you are Einstein talking about relativity. You still need a reliable source. Policy is very VERY clear on this. As for bringing in someone from Wikipedia, I've already requested someone from the Mediation Cabal. -Psychohistorian 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Being the editor of one of the two chief paleocon magazines (as Thomas Fleming is) isn't evidence that he is a prominent paleoconservative? That's ridiculous. And I see nothing whatsoever in the policy you quoted that would require additional sourcing for that claim. --Scott P. Richert

The relevant part of the policy follows,

""No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." -Psychohistorian 02:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, your citation of the policy does not prove your point--far from it. What is the unverifiable knowledge that was cited? That Thomas Fleming is editor of Chronicles? That's pretty simple to verify. That the editor of Chronicles would, by definition, be a prominent paleoconservative? That ought to be obvious, since this article itself acknowledges that Chronicles is one of the two chief paleocon journals.

You're not simply abiding by the rules, as you claim; you're misreading them for reasons unknown (at least to the rest of us). --Scott P. Richert

I suggest that my original suggestion stand: if anyone has a legitimate problem with what has been written, let them raise the issues here on a case by case basis. Of course this may mean that Psycho will troll away, demanding multiple citations, as he did with gay marriage. Next we'll be proving that paleos support tend to support handgun ownership. Then we'll be proving that paleos support tend to support the death penalty. On and on, ad nauseum. I can't find any section on wikipedia that demands that level of citation, except for similar demands being presented on the Peter Hitchens page.
Yakuman 07:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an infrequent editor of this page - and nothing to do with administrators or the mediation cabal, but I do believe that every fact quoted should be cited if there is a request to do so. WP:V states quite clearly:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Source material is being challenged and removed, quite rightly. Heavy citation may be more time consuming, but it is a far better safeguard for the reliability of a Wikipedia article than any alternative.

I'm not ruling out the idea that the citation requests and removals are motivated by less than noble ideals, however this is only a short to medium term problem. The facts will come back properly cited as other editors come on board. If they can't be cited then they don't belong here.

JASpencer 07:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A link to a source showing Fleming as the editor of Chronicles is sufficient to show that he's a Paleo. You, Mr. Richert, haven't given us that link. Unverifiable information is information given which does not have a source with it. And, incidentally, Yakuman, can't go around creating your own policy (as you are trying to do with your 'suggestion'). We have to use Wikipedia policy.-Psychohistorian 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, in fact, Yakuman is right--you are demanding a citation for every proper noun, even ones that are as easily verifiable as typing "Thomas Fleming," "editor," and "Chronicles" into Google. (That returns 22,800 links, by the way.) If that's not a recipe for bloat in Wikipedia, I don't know what is. --Scott P. Richert

Specifics being questioned

The above discussion seems to be getting nowhere - the best way to do this is determine what specific facts are being disputed, and then citations can be brought up for them. Could Psychohistorian please explain what specific details are questioned? And to everyone, remembebr to focus on content, not on the contributor. The only way we can get anywhere here is to remember that we are all here to build an encyclopedia and to assume good faith of one another. Just because you have had a disagreement with someone does not mean it's vandalizing; it just means we are trying to improve the encyclopedia in different ways. On a side note, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core concept of Wikipedia and if certain details are discussed, it is indeed the responsibility of those who add the information to find a citation. Now, could Psychohistorian please elaborate as to what specific facts are disputed? Cowman109^Talk 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a HUGE amount of claims in this article which aren't sourced. I figure the best way to address the issue isn't to list each item, but to go through the time to add (in some cases re-add) {{Fact}} tags to the article itself. That will take some time, I'll start doing it tonight.-Psychohistorian 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the best thing would be to start with the major disputed facts and work down from there. The citation needed tags should obviously not be in every sentence, but it may be good to work slowly instead of all at once. Cowman109^Talk 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How about focusing on one section at a time. Then we don't have to get into the subjective issue of what is and what is not a "major disputed fact" and can just focus on what is sourced and what isn't? -Psychohistorian 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources marked 1, 2, and 3 do not support the claims they are being used to support.-Psychohistorian

From an outside, neutral position, I'm not sure from looking at source 1 whether Buchanan is a neoconservative or a paleoconservative from the context. The second citation doesn't even look to have a place, so it should probably be removed unless it supports something. Source 3 does not explicitly state the publication's label either. Could we get another opinion on this, though? Cowman109^Talk 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1.)That Nation article contains the line "Kick the bejesus out of the neoconservatives" in the first graf, so I think it is pretty clear. Source 2 refers to the two leading periodicals. Again, these issues don't even need footnoting because they are obvious, but I am trying to make peace with someone who seems obsessed. This whole article could probably stand with maybe 25 footnotes, total. Anything else is overkill.

2.) Cowman109, if you are part of certain self-proclaimed "cabal," please note my previous objections in re conflicts of interest and incivility toward me personally. This group filled my talk page with threats and spurious charges of "vandalism.". Yakuman 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking to "kick the bejesus" out of neoconservatives does not make one the most prominent paleoconservative.-Psychohistorian 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Psycho, you are jerking our chains.

• You have no factual challenges, expect for one misguided attempt on gay marriage.
  
• NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations you demand enforced.
  
• You demand verification for facts that are not seriously questioned, such as that Mel Bradford or Garret Garrett influenced paleoconservatism. Virtually everything here can be found referenced in the Gottfried, Raimondo or Scotchie books. They are already listed in the bibliography.
  

Come clean. What gives? Why did you pick this article for a pedantic rampage? I submit that your challenges are not serious.Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "You have no factual challenges" - it isn't incumbent upon me to create or offer any factual challenges.
• "NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations you demand enforced" - yes it is and it has been quoted in this discussion page
• "You demand verifications for facts that are not seriusly questioned" - if they aren't serious questioned, then it should be extremely easy for you to source them. Do so.

I assure you, I'm very serious about having this article comply with policy.-Psychohistorian 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid all this - can we please just assume good faith of one another and recognize that we're all here to improve the encyclopedia in some way? All we need here are specific details that are questioned, and then we can go about verifying them. Psychohistorian is right, however, that we must strive for verifiability, which states that unsourced material should indeed be removed if it is questioned. Wikipedia has come to a point where it is no longer about how many articles we have, but the quality of each, and it must be made certain that information is verifiable. However, we can't just go say the whole article is unverifiable (in which case it would end up in WP:AFD). So, please, let's try this again - what specific facts are disputed? Oh, and Yakuman, I am a coordinator of the Medcab, an informal mediation initiative - and I honestly don't know who you are or why you have a grudge with us, so hopefully that settles that. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 02:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1.) There are 111 citations -- and one nihil obstat from a specialist -- on this article as of now. The George W. Bush page, the most disputed page here, only has 54 cites. The accuser refuses serious discussion, other than to demand MORE citations. This is silly.

2.) Cowman: You coordinate something called a "cabal." That is the online equivalent of a star chamber. I explained on my talk page why I believe your group lacks civility, good faith and credibility. You will claim that the name is merely a joke, but my point stands. Yakuman 09:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

" I also believe my role in the Paleoconservatism conflict is a bit muddy, since I debated him and reversed his vandalism. Most of the content that upsets Psychohistorian is not my contribution. So I'm really not the person to defend those statements", Yakuman.

Hey, that's fine. As per Wikipedia policy it is the obligation of the person who added the unsourced content or the editor who wishes the content to stay to source disputed content. If you neither created it nor wish for it to stay, then you're right, there's no need for a dispute between us. We can remove the unsourced content and the issue is closed. You reverted the article version after I removed all unsourced content, so I assumed you did want the unsourced content to stay - which means it is your obligation to source it. If I've misread your position here and you don't want the unsourced content to stay, then, like I said, there's no issue. -Psychohistorian 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, we can't just go say the whole article is unverifiable (in which case it would end up in WP:AFD). So, please, let's try this again - what specific facts are disputed? " I assure you, noone has said that the whole article is unverifiable. There is, however, a HUGE amount of unsourced claims in this article. As a result, the list would be very long indeed if I were to state, on the discussion page, which claims are unverified. The most efficient way of doing that is to put statements in the article itself. To put those tags in all sections of the article where appropriate all at once would be overwhelming. Consequently, I think the best thing to do is to hammer out each section at a time. The very first section has been started and there are "sources" added there which neither you nor I believe actually support the claims they are used to support. So, we still need to hammer out that section.-Psychohistorian 14:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychohstorian, you take the issues of citation to an extreme, pure and simple. Here is a quote from you on an entirely different article:

Kiyojute Ryu Kempo's homepage has been removed from the web. It was on the web when this article was created [1]. The homepage contained the FAQ. However, its removal from the web renders much of the content in this article unsourced. That content will need to be identified and removed or an alternative source will need to be found. "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." (from the Wiki policy page).[17]

Here's your extreme: __Even if a fact is sourced, but the source page is taken down, it is therefore unsourced and presumed unverifiable__. You're not seeking verification. You're obsessed. You seem to get into footnote fights everywhere you go. See----->[18] and [19] In one month, you've been in a lot of hubbub. Remember, you are NOT the adjudicator of policy. NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations you demand enforced. I have no obligations, period. I'm not getting paid for this. Yakuman 22:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Questions for Psychohistorian

• The George W. Bush article contains no source for the fact that he is the US President. Does that need a citation?
• The United States article contains no source for the fact that the capital is Washington, DC. Does that need a citation?
• The Elizabeth II article contains no source for the fact that she is queen of the UK. Does that need a citation?Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

British Paleocons?

Can palecons or neocons really be translated properly outside North America? Isn't a British paleocon like a Spanish Gaulist? JASpencer 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Salisbury Review" and "Right Now" are the UK equivalent of paleo. Malcolm Muggeridge was pretty much the prototype paleocon pessimist, which may be why the neocons tossed him down the memory hole. Lord of The Rings is essentially a paleocon allegory, but don't tell the fanboys that.23:07, 28 August 2006 Don't forget Evelyn Waugh. Or Graham Greene, especially The Quiet American. (UTC)Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note to pedantics: I have no plans to add Graham Greene's to the article, so I don't need sources. This is only my opinion.Yakuman 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to deal in citation requests for now. After this has settled down I'll return to the wording. I think of the Paleos as being an essentially American phenemona, like the neocons. JASpencer 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Paleo is basically what is not left-wing, not neo-con and not authoritarian. That's a whole lot of territory. Yakuman

Well that's not what the introduction says: "Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) refers to a branch of American conservative thought that is often called the Old Right." My emphasis. JASpencer 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're raising a fair point that derseves some serious thought. Tell you what, except for cites and making Psycho behave, I'll hold off on that "Foreign Echoes" part, but we should come back to this subject. I'm not disregarding you at all. Yakuman 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a RfC on whether all disputed content in Paleoconservative needs to have a source

one one side of the debate,

• "NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations you demand enforced"

from Yakuman

on the other side of the debate,

• WP:V states quite clearly: "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

from JASpencer

NB. As I've been quoted here I do think that there is a problem with over aggresive deleting. Can't the deletion be done gradually? JASpencer 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the discussion is whether or not sources are even needed. Yakuman has stated countless times that they are not (see his quote in this RfC). Once we can establish that they are needed, we can discuss what a proper rate is for putting them in or deleting the unsourced content. There was no aggressive deletion until after the {{Fact}} tags and source tags were repeatedly removed.-Psychohistorian 00:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, you have phrased this RfC as "whether all disputed content . . . needs to have a source." "Disputed content," however, is not the same as "unsourced content." By your own phrasing of this RfC, the question should be confined to disputed content--in other words, content that someone argues runs counter to reality. And yet you removed a reference to Thomas Fleming as a paleocon luminary. Are you claiming that you believe that Thomas Fleming is not a paleoconservative? If so, what is your evidence to the contrary? If not, then there is no dispute, so it did not need a source. That, it seems to me, is the crux of the concerns about your overaggressive requests for citations. --Scott P. Richert

By the way, I have no objection whatsoever to requests for citation on truly "disputed content." For instance, Tim Long has just posted Tucker Carlson's name in the list of prominent paleoconservatives. The only place I've ever seen him referred to as a paleocon is on this page some time ago, and that reference was later removed. I can say with absolute certainty that I know no paleocon at all who considers Tucker Carlson a paleocon. Therefore, I've added a request for citation. That, it seems to me, is a reasonable use of the citation request--not throwing after virtually every name mentioned in the body of the article, as you had at one point. --Scott P. Richert

Disputed content is not "content that someone argues runs counter to reality". Disputed content is any content that is disputed. I am disputing the content on the grounds that it doesn't have a source and, so, is against Wiki policy. -Psychohistorian 11:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To dispute is, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, to "question whether (a statement or alleged fact) is true or valid." Psychohistorian, if you write that the sun comes up in the east, and I put after that statement, do you really believe that that makes the statement disputed? I've seen nothing in Wikipedia policy to indicate that that is what is intended. Again, if you have actual grounds for a dispute--in other words, if you have reason to believe that a statement is not true--then bring them up and discuss them on this page. To fail to do so, even when requested to do so by Cowman, whom you brought into this as a mediator, makes it very hard for the rest of us to continue to assume your good faith.

On a related note, what is your interest in this article? Have you made a study of paleoconservatism? Has your study of paleoconservatism convinced you that every proper noun that you placed {{Fact}} after is, indeed, not verifiable?

I'm happy to debate things that are truly disputed. But this debate has actually wasted a lot of time and effort over things that anyone who is even slightly familiar with the topic of this article would not dispute. There are things that I think need to be cleaned up in here--for instance, portions of the article tend to conflate paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism, which are two related though discrete phenomena--but I haven't been able to spend my limited time and effort to try to sort them out because I've had to engage in an increasingly pointless debate over sourcing items that reasonable people who are even slightly familiar with the topic consider common knowledge. --Scott P. Richert

The issue is remarkably simple. Does WP:Verifiability (one of the three pillars of Wiki policy) state, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.".

Note, this says nothing about any semantic game regarding the definition of "disputed". If the policy does say this (and I encourage you to read the entire policy yourself as you don't seem to have done so yet), does it have the words "..just kidding" behind it? As for my own personal interests, I'm neutral with regards to paleoconservatism. I'm not neutral on the issue of making this article comply with policy and moving this article towards featured article status.-Psychohistorian 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You used the word "disputed," but you don't want to discuss what it means? Perhaps I should follow your lead and put a after every your every use of the word. : )

As for your remark that "As for my own personal interests, I'm neutral with regards to paleoconservatism," that's not at all what I asked. I'm not questioning your neutrality; I'm asking why you're interested in this particular topic. Out of the over one million articles on Wikipedia, I think it's safe to say that I'm neutral on pretty much all of them. It's also safe to say that I'm completely uninterested in most of them, and, therefore, I would never bother sticking flags in them. (And I certainly would never presume to stick flags in ones that concern topics I've never studied.)

Of the ones that I am interested in, however, I know why I am interested, and I can offer reasons for my interest. That's all I was asking: What's your interest here? If you have no particular interest in the topic and have no independent knowledge of it yourself, why are you distracting those who do have an interest from their attempts at making the article better? --Scott P. Richert

I used the word "disputed", but I have rested my case on policy. I'm not looking to get dragged into an off topic arguement. The relevant arguement is about what Wikipedia policy is. I came to this particular topic through a couple of links which started out in the Center for Immigration Studies article. I was browsing out from that article (I browse around on Wikipedia and have worked on a variety of articles) and stumbled across this one and realized just how much of a mess it is. Is this relevant somehow? "Why are you distracting those who do have an interest" - am I distracting you by working on making the article verifiable and policy compliant? If thats the case, then I question what your goals are here. -Psychohistorian 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem, then, that you are not assuming good faith and are, therefore, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps it's time that an administrator step in here. --Scott P. Richert

I'd be very happy for an admin to step in here. I've already made a request for one to step in. In the meantime, I am following the advice of a member of the mediation cabal as well as the advice given to me by the Village Pump to do an RfC. The advice given on the issue by neutral third parties from the outside, so far, has been that this content needs to be sourced.-Psychohistorian 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of this debate agree that articles should be thoroughly cited. We're arguing over the extent of citations on an article that already has over 100 of them. Yakuman 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

-Psychohistorian 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment 2.0

• I did not say that sources are not needed. I submit there is an extraordinarily high number now, probably more than necessary, and that what Psychohistorian wants is overkill.
  
• I submit that if anyone has a legitimate concerns what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case-by-case basis.
  
• I submit that Psychohistorian does not have legitimate concerns. He wants every possible proposition sourced -- short of the reality of the material universe and the existence of other minds.
• A living, breathing professional paleocon has no major problems with the article. While I realize that Wikipedia ordinarily does not give priority to specialists, I submit we should take his word for it, at least in this present dispute. Yakuman 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't up to you to decide what a legitimate concern is. It is up to you to abide by policy.

And, as already mentioned, what an authority on the subject has to say has no bearing unless it can be sourced. In short, you all are making a deliberate attempt to ignore policy. I am trying to make sure this article is compliant with policy. That is the debate - whether this article has to comply with Wikipedia policy or not. -Psychohistorian 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not debating policy. We're arguing over the extent of citations on an article that already has over 100 of them. You say you want "countless" more. That's overkill. Yakuman 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are debating policy. One doesn't judge "thoroughly" by the number of citations. One judges it by whether all claims are sourced. -17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"All claims" to you means "countless" citations. Your word. Yakuman 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

I came here from the Village Pump post, not the RfC. If a citation does not support the article text, then the citecheck tag is appropriate. Also, I agree with the demand for thorough citations (although flexibility on the time frame would be more realistic). Featured articles must be cited thoroughly and every article should aspire to that standard. Durova 13:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Include sources: Responding to the RFC, I don't think there's any question that you need to include sources. There's only one specific example above, so I'll use that. If Psychohistorian asks for a citation that Thomas Fleming (author) is a paleoconservative, WP:V requires that someone provide a cite or that the statement be removed. (In addition, if Fleming is alive, WP:BLP also requires this.) Even stating that he meets the definition for a paleoconservative, and therefore is one, might be WP:OR, as it requires a logical inference. There are some statements that might fall within common sense, but that one doesn't. (Frankly, if someone asks for a cite that the sun rises in the east, it shouldn't be hard to provide one, which is why I just marked the sunrise article as unreferenced). TheronJ 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "thoroughly" mean?

Both sides of this debate agree that articles should be thoroughly cited. We're arguing over the extent of citations on an article that already has over 100 of them. Hope this helps. Yakuman 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thoroughly" means -thoroughly-. Its not judged by how many citations there are. It is judged by making sure that all claims are properly sourced. The article does not cite all its claims and you have consistently removed tags which point out that fact. What's more, several of the sources which are in the article right now don't support the claims you are using them for. -Psychohistorian 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"All claims" to you means "countless" citations. Your word. Yakuman 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment was, "You've got three sources for one piece of content. Okay, you've got countless more pieces of content to go". There are countless unsourced claims in this article. You need to provide a minimum of enough citations so that every claim is properly sourced. That's policy. We have an RfC on whether or not this article needs to comply to policy. The response has been "yes".-Psychohistorian 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the above. He claims that this article needs countless citations. 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You need a citation for every disputed claim of fact. If Psychohistorian disputes countless facts, then you need countless citations. TheronJ 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial Description

Two items for discussion:

1. "Anti-authoritarian" may not be an entirely accurate description of paleoconservatism, because paleos, while opposing the centralization of political, economic, and social power, are also concerned with the tendency to undermine legitimate authority. This was, in fact, the central theme of the January 2005 issue of Chronicles, which we titled "The Twilight of Authority"--a reference to the book of the same title by Robert Nisbet.

2. While paleoconservatism has some (indeed, many) roots in the Old Right, it is not entirely accurate to say that it seeks to "revive" the Old Right. As many paleocons (most notably Sam Francis and Tom Fleming) have argued, paleoconservatism has its own set of concerns that overlap with, but are not completely identical to, those of the Old Right. --Scott P. Richert

Thanks! Hey, I make a small change to reflect some of your verbiage. As to anti-authoritarianism, I see your concern. Here's my thinking: I'm using the current Wikipedia definition, which is "opposition to... [the] concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people". I felt calling paleos "right wing" instead of "conservative" is more clear. So I needed need some adjective modifying "right wing" to distingish paleocons from people like Oswald Mosley, William Joyce, and Willis Carto. As always, this is a work in progress, so discussion is good. Yakuman 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. Using the current Wikipedia definition, "anti-authoritarian" seems an accurate description. (And we all know I'm all about semantics!) --Scott P. Richert

I've added James Kalb to the list of paleocons because he 1.) identifies himself as a palecon, 2.) was active on the newsgroups in the 90s, writing several FAQs reflecting paleo ideas, 3.) ran the old "Tuesday Night Traditionalists" club in New York City and 4.) writes paleo articles for Modern age. Yakuman 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Polish encyclopedia article that backs up your claim re: Kalb. Feel free to use it. (By the way, the article is also a good second source for many of the things that Psychohistorian has previously challenged.) --Scott P. Richert

Psycho wants countless citations, which is not humanly possible. Yakuman 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Citation

By the way, if anyone requires an appropriate citation for a claim made and is having trouble locating one, post the specifics here. I've got 30 years of back issues of Chronicles at my disposal, and much of that content is not available online. I've also got an extensive library of other paleocon publications (though, admittedly, my library does not contain "countless" items). It might take me a little while (depending on my schedule) to get back to you, but I'll do my best. (Please don't ask about things you just think might be true, or about things that you believe are not true; for the sake of my time, please confine your requests to things you're certain are true but are having trouble sourcing.) --Scott P. Richert

That's generous of you. I just want to point out the obvious that unpublished content can't be used as a source in this article. -Psychohistorian 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What part of the reference materials that I mentioned could possibly be considered unpublished? Or is there some policy of which I'm unaware against citations of materials that aren't available in electronic form? --Scott P. Richert

It seems back issues not reprinted online are "unpublished" sources. BTW, Thomas Fleming owes me a beer, even if he turns out he edits "Commentary" instead of "Chronicles." Yakuman 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found a factual error. The Old Right could not have opposed "the Immigration Act of 1965 and the civil rights laws of the 1960s" because it died out in the 1950s with Taft and McCormick. Yakuman 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion in itself. A lot of folks (adherents and critics alike) use terms such as "Old Right," "traditional (or traditionalist) conservatives," and "paleoconservatives" interchangeably, and yet it seems more proper to regard each as representing particular eras of 20th century history, with overlapping sets of concerns. And with overlapping figures, in some cases--Russell Kirk, Henry Regnery, and James Burnham have all been described, at various times in their careers, as Old Right, traditionalist conservatives, and paleocons. (Burnham just barely made the latter category, because paleoconservatism, as a named phenomenon, begins in the early 1980's.) Obviously, none of my remarks here are for citation, but it's an argument that I could make (and properly cite!) after the hubbub on this page dies down. --Scott P. Richert

Do the paleos really claim the ex-Trotskyite cold-warrior Burnham as one of their own? JASpencer 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rockford Institute awarded Burnham the Richard M. Weaver Award (one of the Ingersoll Prizes administered by the Institute) in on December 8, 1983, and his acceptance speech was published in the April 1984 issue of Chronicles. He was perhaps the chief influence on the thought of Sam Francis, who wrote a book (Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham) on Burnham. Sam was strongly critical of Daniel Kelly's James Burnham and the Struggle for the World, which tried to remake Burnham as a neocon. --Scott P. Richert

Thank you. JASpencer 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)