Talk:The Paranoid Style in American Politics

Starting up
Don't know if anyone will ever find their way to this page, but I've started it up... Comments? Anyone? Bueller? MastCell 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What's up with the writely link? Is the text the same as here? Tom Harrison Talk 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like it... MastCell 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * notability?? reliable sources?? seriously, we have an article on a single op-ed? Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

google scholar: 476 times devoting chapters Peter Knight, probably the preeminent scholar on American conspiracy culture, devotes some time to it in one of his books.

The above is just a quick link dump, use or ignore at your discretion. (thanks protonk) Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

CBC
The Sunday Edition did a piece this morning on modern recurrence of the essay's themes; this link is not currently valid, but it will be as of next week (check the timestamp on this message). Think it'd be a useful source? DS (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. Always good to get a non-american view on this sort of thing. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's up; there's a link so you can listen to a stream of the show. The relevant section is in the first hour. DS (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Goldwater section
There is simply no reason for a long reference to Goldwater here. Goldwater is mentioned only once in the essay, on the first page, in passing. As it stands, more than half the lede is irrelevantly devoted to Goldwater, first with a fragment sentence, "Written when the conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) had won the 1964 Republican Presidential nomination instead of the moderate Nelson A. Rockefeller (1908–1979) of New York state, which liberals denounced as the advent of extremism in politics." This is not sourced and is incorrect, as the essay was first delivered as a speech in November 1963. The statement beginning "which liberals denounced" should itself be sourced if it was even relevant, but bears no relationship to this article, as Hofstader did not denounce the Goldwater nomination in the essay. The next paragraph, which is devoted entirely to a description of Goldwater's policies, has no place in a lede, see WP:LEAD, and would not be relevant elsewhere in the article either, given that "Paranoid Style" is not about Goldwater. So what we have is an irrelevant and unsourced intrusion into the article, similar to some of the examples given in WP:COATRACK. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hofstadter wrote his article because Goldwater had won the nomination. Goldwater was of course a great statesman and is widely respected. What Hofstadter was writing about was the movement that backed Goldwater that was able to defeat the Republican establishment. TFD (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hofstader says in a very brief preface to the essay that it is a "revised and expanded version" of a lecture delivered at Oxford in November 1963. So it could not have been written as a result of Goldwater's nomination, which happened in July of the following year. Hofstader on the first page of the essay mentions Goldwater as an example of "how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority". He never mentions Goldwater again, in 37 more pages of case studies of the "paranoid style". So the statements about Goldwater are 1. unsourced 2. incorrect 3. not relevant and 4. offend WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK because they take up more than half of the lede. Please, while you're at it, explain to me why the existing lede, which says, "Hofstader reacted to Goldwater. Goldwater was a presidential candidate who did x and y and z and so forth" differs from the following WP:COATRACK example postulating an article about XYZ:


 * "George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, and… (many following paragraphs all about George with little if anything to do with XYZ)."


 * I am sure we can find some middle ground here, if we try. But the lede as it stands is unbalanced, unprofessional and just plain incorrect. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Goldwater did not win the nomination until 1964. However Hofstadter was writing about a trend in U.S. politics which included the Goldwater campaign. I think your issue is not that the description of Hofstadter's view is incorrect, but that you disagree with it. The way to balance that is to find a source that criticizes Hofstadter's view. TFD (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * valid points and I tried to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with Hofstader, quite the opposite. I just felt devoting more than half the lede to Goldwater was a coatrack. I am comfortable with the edits made by Rjensen.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the sentence fragment starting with "Written". We really don't know when it was written--it might represent a couple of years of work--so I changed it to "It was originally presented" as I am comfortable in saying the November 1963 speech was "on the verge" of Goldwater taking control (the folliwng July).Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Two sections: Reviews and Historical Applications
I changed the name "Reviews" to "Legacy" and added a reference to a couple of relatively recent articles citing Hofstader. I will be back to expand this section, as Hofstader still gets mentioned and discussed frequently and the article would benefit from more information on how influential the essay has been.

I moved "Historical Applications" above "Legacy" but think the section is garbled and redundant. It mentions two viewpoints but doesn't explain what the second one is, and covers some of the same material as the preceding paragraphs. I think any unique content in this section could be merged into earlier ones. The whole article has quotes from the essay which are perhaps a little too extensive and could use some shortening, paraphrasing and more secondary sources as well. Your thoughts and comments please. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of OR
I removed the OR added by Rjensen and restored a previous good version. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I also removed an editorial interpretation of a primary source. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section
I am expanding this section, in order to provide more recent examples of where this application was initially applied incorrectly. This is not so much a criticism of Hofstadter's methods or a takeoff on conspiracy theory, but rather actual documented instances where Hofstadter was incorrect in his thinking and in his theoretical work, or where those who applied Hofstadter's theories were incorrect. 10stone5 (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The Paranoid Style in American Politics → Paranoid style analysis (politics) – This article has been widely influential in its field, but having an article on an academic essay is not ideal. The essay has been widely influential and the article should not be limited to discussing the essay - the content of the current article is mostly about analyses by other scholars who have been influenced by the essay and not the content of the essay itself. A broader title would be appropriate. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The single essay is covered well enough by sources to get a dedicated article, and nothing currently prevents writing the article which the nominator desires; nor would this article need to be deleted if the proposed article was written. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The subject matter is intertwined with the essay. No reason to move; no reason to fork. The Afd discussion reflects the current consensus on this. -Location (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD doesn't reflect the consensus on moving to a different title, since that wasn't discussed at all. I am going to be source checking this article thoroughly to confirm that the sources are actually about the article, and not about subsequent work that simply cites the article. You can see from previous comments on this talk page that WP:OR has been a problem on this page, which I also have concerns about. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You certainly interpret the lack of discussion on "Rename" different than I do. My interpretation is that if editors wanted to recommend "Rename", then they would have stated that in the Afd. Let's ping them and find out. -Location (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I interpret lack of discussion as something that wasn't discussed, but pinging them is a good idea.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you. Per the above discussion, I am pinging you for feedback on the request to move/rename. -Location (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Paranoid style analysis" isn't a thing. The essay was notable on its own anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I am just pointing out that content like this is not about the essay and it needs to be removed if this article is narrowly about essay, and not broadly about the theory: "Historians have also applied the paranoid category to other political movements, such as the conservative Constitutional Union Party of 1860. Hofstadter's approach was later applied to the rise of new right-wing groups, including the Christian Right and the Patriot Movement"
 * "Paranoid style analysis" was used by Dentith, but it could be Paranoid Style Theory. But I reviewed the above source before the AfD, and it is a separate analysis, not only based on Hofstadter's work. This essay is only one citation of many used for the analysis. We don't write articles about books or academic essays by creating WP:SYNTH based on sources that have cited the article in an independent analysis. Imagine if we did? It would be a disaster. I don't know if editors would rather remove it, or broaden the scope of the page (and I am indifferent either way, as long as it resolves the issue.) Seraphim System ( talk ) 14:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ...having an article on an academic essay is not ideal.
 * Why not? &mdash; goethean 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as the scope is clear, it is similar to a page about a book. I dont think we distinguish between the two in our notability guidelines. But what is should not be is a petridish for WP:OR, as I explained above. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As noted in the AFD, the essay is notable in its own right. Its subsequent academic treatment is perfectly relevant on this page. If there is enough subsequent treatment, that could get its own page too. However, until there is enough, the proposed new title or some reasonable variant could be redirected to this one. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the current content is appropriate for the page. Can you show me examples of similar articles? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also have you actually reviewed the sources? Quotes that you think support your position from the source will be helpful here. I will post the ones I am concerned about at some point. Maybe I will post about this the OR noticeboard or RfC, I am not sure if it is OR, I will need to take closer look at sources and ask for advice from uninvolved editors. I think it's fine to keep the page but the two topics are completely different, not suitable for a redirect and one is not a suitable or policy-compliant title for the other. This is a page about an essay, not the analysis of other essays or books that have used that essay (and many others) as a citation. Of course, correcting this will require careful review of all the sources. Maybe I should have posted the RfC before the move discussion, and just reviewed the problematic material instead, but I wanted to see if editors would prefer a move before proposing possibly significant revisions to the article. Seraphim logic.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What does the essay actually say?
I came here to see what the content of the essay was, and came away knowing nothing about it, but plenty about its applications and legacy. 76.119.114.192 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, I came here to say that the article should include a section simply stating a clear summary of the content of the essay. JohnMason (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm neither an administrator nor editor for this article, but if the subject of the article is considered a primary source, then WP:RSPRIMARY (as you're undoubtedly aware). That stated, a synopsis section is almost required, WP:SS, so I retitled the "Historical themes" section as "Synopsis and themes" with an "empty section" or "section needs expansion" (?) heads-up for users. I'm sure someone out there will put it at the top of their priority list. If anyone has an additional recourse or resolution, fire away. Bustamove1 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)