Talk:Isolationism

message: I added a couple of sources to this article. I redid the introduction based on a reliable, relatively non-controversial source: World Book. I also added a quote from George Washington's Farewell Address in an attempt to start a rewrite of this section.--TGregory (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved.

message: In the Face the Nation interview with Ron Paul (lots of Youtube videos of it for those who missed it), he referred to Neo-isolationism and I was wondering if it was notable enough to be included here?
I know he definitely didn't invent the term as searches turn up lots of other places it was used except there's no wikipedia article on neo-isolationism and if you heard how he described it, it does fit in with this article. 
--Trailing (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-isolationism

message: How is this part of a series on discrimination? That's idiotic. News to you: ALL countries are isolationists.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.37 (talk) 16:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
This article should be completely rewritten, as "Isolationism" was (and is) a pejorative smear word that has made its way into common usage.  An article on "non-interventionism" would contain most of what is included in this article, whereas an Isolationism article should deal with that term exclusively.
To call Jefferson's sentiments "Isolationist" are especially absurd, seeing as he calls for peaceful exchange between nations (rather than hostile isolation).
Paul 16:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Paul.  I've rewritten the non-interventionism article, and intend to move the examples of "isolationism" in  this article to the non-interventionism article, and to replace the term "isolationism" with "non-interventionism" where appropriate. Hogeye 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: isolationism as its used is mostly a smear world, but it wasn't always, like stated in the comment below, it was sometimes a stated policy, 'splendid isolation' was a conscious policy decision in great britain. see my last entry in the discussion page for comments on this. Brianshapiro
Would anybody object to a section for british isolationism? "splendid isolation" from the conflicts and alliances of the european continent until the massive strength of germany forced britain into alliance with the french and russians in order to retain the balance of power. SRP 15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: what?

message: Needs some work, eh. Isolationism in China = See China? Also, "Britain isolated herself within the Empire" is a contradiction-in-terms. You're not exactly isolated when you're administering to a quarter of the planet. Marskell 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eek

message: I don't think there's any dispute that isolationism was a pejorative term in the WWI era.  In a previous version of the article it was claimed that just before WWII "isolationism" was not pejorative.  Is there any evidence of this?  E.g. Did America Firsters call themselves isolationists? My impression is that the label is generally used only by opponents, but I could be wrong. Hogeye 07:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative? 

message: It seems whoever wrote this is not staying objective.  When giving examples against, you should also give examples supporting.  Else do not tell readers what to consider, as if it requires being said to consider an event or the past.  Just say it, don't spray around argumentative statements like "one must consider."
"One must consider..." is where this article goes into an argument.  Stay objective, please, or as objectional as possible when describing the failures or faults of "isolationism."
Also, general, sweeping statements like "isolationism has always been a debated topic." Has it ALWAYS?
Could someone please verify how long isolationism stayed in effect in Japan for? Inferno 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stay objective. 

message: Wouldn't North Korea be considered isolationist? --LeoNomis 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Korea in general has some history of isolationism due in part to being conquered by outsiders on occasion. I think it was called the Hermit kingdom for a time.--T. Anthony 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some information from the Foreign relations of North Korea page. However, this shows that in fact North Korea is isolated, but not isolationist (according to the definition on this page). It has continued to seek diplomatic relations with many countries...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: I think this article is about isolationism as a state policy, not racial isolationism. I would reconsider attaching the "this is part of a series on racial segregation" box in the upper right. If someone wants to create an article titled Isolationism (racial), go ahead, but this article is on isolationism as political policy. ~ Rollo44 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial isolationism 

message: I would say american isolationism ended with Truman. Participation in the World Wars was seen as something temporary. Quote from Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman: a life (1995): "The principal accomplishment of Harry S. Truman... was to change the foreign policy of the United States, from abstention to participation in the affairs of Europe and the world... the truth is that until 1947, in the midst of Truman's first term, the principal American way with foreign policy was that of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe... that the interests of humankind... lay in nonintervention in, abstention from, the affairs of the Old [World]... Americans of this time deemed participation in the world wars a temporary proposition... President Roosevelt told Stalin at Yalta he did not expect American troops to remain in Europe more than two years." Vints 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-interventionism ended with Roosevelt and Truman, not Wilson. Wilson got reelected with his slogan, "He kept us out of war." But that's besides the point because America has never been an isolationist. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman 

message: Isolationism is also a term used in art and music, an example being the Isolationism compilation of ambient music released by Virgin Records in 1994. heqs 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point - this needs to be addressed in a separate section or under a different term. To ignore isolationism in art and music, as well as the mental state (I believe it is defined in the DSM IV psychiatric handbook) leaves out a huge area of knowledge.
WinkJunior (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isolationism in Art/Music and as a Mental State 

message: I added some to the US section, to 1) expand it. (aka: expanded that more than just Washington thought that isolationism (militarily, at least, but also economically somewhat) was the way to go) And 2) add a section about the US's current position on isolationism.
Hey, what do you think about adding [Mercantilism] under "see also?"
Constitutional texan 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US part of article expanded 

message: :This page seems to be going in the right direction but it has some issues with neutrality and sourcing. In the introduction, there is a large quote which could be paraphrased and Cuba could probably be taken off the list of isolationist nations, especially since with the normalization of US-Cuban relations. There may also be some neutrality issues in portraying nations that engage in isolationist foreign policies as non-Western and/or at a lower living condition. The Bhutan subsection could use some more sourced information and would make a good example of how some nations use isolationism to preserve culture (it should be noted that isolationism can come in different forms i.e. cultural, economic, etc.). The second paragraph in the China section also could be sourced since there is a lot of information used without any citation. Finally, the phrase "a tragic fact that separated families and loved ones from each other over the course of many years" under the Soviet Union subsection could be rephrased since the current wording carries an opinionated feel. Perhaps the word "tragic" could be removed. Thank you for reading these suggested edits. --Nolanrose (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Edits

message: There seem to be two definitions at work in this article:
#The definition in the lead: "the foreign policy position that a nation's interests are best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance". This is the dictionary definition.
#An invented definition implied in the article of any policy that leads to a country's isolation.
The USSR was clearly not isolationist according to the dictionary definition.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isolationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808082014/http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/pdf/gac/0211power.pdf to http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/pdf/gac/0211power.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1. I want to improve the introductory sentence to better grasp the essence of what isolationism entails. Currently the introductory sentence is ambiguous and difficult to understand for the neutral viewer of the page. 
2. I aim to address motivations behind isolationism. Isolationism is a broad term and understanding it requires a deeper understanding of motivations behind isolationism. By using examples, sources, and research, I will be able to properly describe the pattern we see that leads to isolationism. This way, the article will ensure impartiality while touching upon the motivations that will enhance our understanding of the topic. 
3. Entirely rework the section 'isolationism by country'. This section is weak and lacks any application of a theoretical framework. I want to look at North Korea, Russia, Iran, and the United States and use each of these examples to elaborate on the theoretical framework and also expand on motivations behind isolationism. 
4. I want to rework the structure of the article. Currently there is no coherent structure to the article and the way it is laid out seems random. I will structure the article as follows: 
- Introduction
- Characteristics 
- History
- Examples
- Variations of Isolationism
- References  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uva honeybadger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned revisions/edits (7/5/2020) 

message: Do you mean that the article's theoretical framework could be improved with reference to Iran's benefiting from a reduction in trade imbalance debt?  I think yes.  (Thus the theoretical framework on the Wikipedia page can reference Cialdini's book "Influence" with respect to the "reciprocity rule.")  However, non-cash iterative gestures only benefit isolated countries after they fully open up and start trading again.  So I'm not sure that should appear in the article about isolationism.  That may make sense in a new article about trade peace.  However, if Iran were to call for peace talks for Palestinians (a group they very much want to experience peace, and who they very much want to experience the economic progress that can result from such talks), that may be more relevant because calling for peace talks could result in a full opening up for Iran to the global economy, with bipartisan US, European & Israeli support for JCPOA.  That level of unanimous support would be a new enjoyable experience for Iran.  That's much more important and relevant to the article. 2600:1700:FB80:AB0:447:CB06:FE21:C631 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to your question above 

message: There would be great prestige in leading on peace.
A public call by Iranian leadership for Palestinian peace talks would immediately enhance the Iranian government’s prestige both within the area and globally.
(Imagine the best public relations for the Iranian government in the history of the country.)
The Iranian people care about peace and want peace for the Palestinian people.  The Supreme Leader of Iran loves peace.  It’s wonderful to quietly hope to one’s self for peace, however much more beneficial to speak up and call for peace talks. 
Remember, both political parties in the United States, Europe & Israel support peace for the Palestinians, and hope to invest tens of billions of dollars to improve their standard of living.  There is also a multi hundred billion dollar opportunity for the Palestinians to participate in the global economy over the next decade.  
But more important to Iran, and more immediately, both political parties in the United States, Europe & Israel would support Iran’s prosperity - and full participation in the global economy.  (JCPOA.)  Why not let the Iranian people enjoy the trillion dollar opportunity over a decade (perhaps much more)?
Russia might benefit tremendously too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB80:AB0:315B:5E48:EB2D:B16B (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opportunity for Iran 

message: Is Islam humanity’s most peaceful religion?
Is there great significance to the title Islam (and slam)?
Is peace what Islam is really about?
Wish you peace and success.2600:1700:FB80:AB0:6876:28B:823C:115E (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion, peace & isolationism 

message: China
“China, as a good friend, partner and brother of the Palestinian people, is a staunch supporter of Palestine-Israel PEACE.”
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-28/President-Xi-Jinping-pledges-support-to-Palestine-LYNjj9HXZS/index.html
“ China is ready to work with the international community to push forward the Palestine-Israel PEACE TALKS and strive for an early realization of comprehensive, just and sustainable peace in the Middle East, said the president.”
Russia
“ Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday backed a Palestinian proposal for a Middle East peace conference, saying at the UN that it could be held at ministerial level in spring or summer.
Recalling that Moscow had backed Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas' idea for international talks in early 2021 when he first proposed it in September, Lavrov offered ideas about who could be invited.
"We propose holding an international, ministerial-level meeting in spring-summer 2021," Lavrov told a videoconference UN Security Council meeting about the Middle East.
Participants would include Israel, the Palestinians, the four members of the so-called Middle East diplomatic quartet (Russia, the United Nations, the United States and the European Union), along with four Arab states — Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, Lavrov said.”
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/26/russia-suggests-middle-east-peace-conference-a72739
2600:1700:FB80:AB0:D189:ED30:3B84:56B1 (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: A+

message: Iran has support for improving relations from liberals in the US & Europe.
However, Iran lacks support for improving relations from conservatives in the US & Europe.
Iran also lacks support from Israel.
All it takes is one tweet from the US for Iran to love its relations with the United States, Europe & Israel.
All it takes is one tweet from the US for Iran to love bipartisan support.
The Palestinians may love the possibility that peace can result from peace talks.
If not now, when?
2600:1700:FB80:AB0:ECDD:E35E:F789:9D4D (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: If not now, when?