Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Add http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_48/b4205120106907.htm book Griftopia ?

Add Interview with a Vampire Squid in BusinessWeek by Sheelah Kolhatkar? Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi's new book Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America uncovers a new class of grifter responsible for maiming the economy ... regard the TP movement, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Goldman Sachs, and Rick Santelli. 99.27.175.180 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Confidence tricks are perpetrated by a "grifter". 99.190.90.242 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, a book review cannot be used as a reliable source for the accuracy of the material in the book, only for notability and critical response. (For what it's worth, referring to the top 1% as the "grifters" would violate Wikipedia policies, even if from a generally reliable source, which this book doesn't appear to be.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Add The Sun (magazine) http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/419/brewing_up_trouble interview with Chip Berlet by David Barsamian

Add Brewing-up Trouble: Chip Berlet On The Tea Party And The Rise Of Right-Wing Populism in current The Sun (magazine) interview with Chip Berlet by David Barsamian. 99.102.180.27 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps the word "populism" in the lead could be linked to Right-wing populism, to avoid any misconceptions. Dylan Flaherty 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a good model to navigate this article towards, out of the mess that it is - Part 2

Here were the two ideas from the early November discussion for a model:

• From North8000 It's Democratic Party (United States) This shows the type of content that should be in an article on an organization. Not like the dumb stuff that constitutes 50% of this article. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• From Digiphi: "......the African_American_Civil_Rights_Movement. Not because the two movements are ideologically similar, but because the topics of their articles are categorically similar, and the CRM page is very well done.

We need some sort of a compass to navigate this article out of the mess that it is. I think that Digiphi's idea is better than mine. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So what's next? Do we change section title headings, rearrange content? Where do we start?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A better idea is to discuss what makes the article "a mess" and address them directly instead of invoking vague derisions. BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any reasonably balanced treatment of the article's subject will be seen as too critical by its fans/followers. I disagree with the assertion that the TPM is "categorically similar" to either the Democrats or the AACRM. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are examples of overall coverage of the subject. This article is loaded with thousands of words like "this guy said this" and this guy said that this guy said this". North8000 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly to PrBeacon, I'd disagree with the proposed comparisons, with the most obvious difference being that those subjects have decades of history and scores of even tertiary sources from which to form a stable encyclopedic article. I'd add that the recentism of this article's subject matter alone is what forces the "this guy said this..." material, since there is a lack of tertiary sourcing and accepted conclusions on the subject material here. So long as we choose to have a detailed article on political subject material with little history, news articles are likely to form the bulk of the sourcing. I doubt whether there is any "fix" for that (even if it is a problem). BigK HeX (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there BigK, nice to see you. I don't think Digiphi means to duplicate here. It's more of a guideline in organizing the sections. The flow of importance, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to wait and see what Digiphi is proposing. It's kinda hard to tell whether it'd be an improvement at the moment, although I'd guess that there are reorganizations that would be a large improvement. BigK HeX (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Let's see what he's got in mind. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. First, PrBeacon: do you know what categorical means? Where we're talking about articles, it means their topic categories. And I don't like the Democratic Party page, although it's so-so in quality because, categorically, its way off the reservation. The CRM article is categorically similar, and is a well done page which would probably be a Good article if someone cleaned up that section in the middle. It's a good model to lean on when asking ourselves what fits and what's inappropriate for this category of article. The fact that its topic is old and dated is specifically why it's good. This article should be treated the same way by editors, objectively and not like an ideological hot potato. If good solid content gives readers the impression that it's a hot topic, then that's fine, but we shouldn't aim for that in our editing. Also, I don't see anything wrong with using "X said this" content where it happens to be the most appropriate, but yeah, case-by-case a lot of what's in this article now does suck. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, maybe you could give us a sample of how the article should be organized. It might give everybody a better idea of what you have in mind.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

D- as we've had no previous exchanges I'll give you the benefit of (some) doubt and assume you didn't mean to be patronizing -- but it sure as hell comes off that way. Perhaps it's from the way I quoted your words. Whatever the case I should think we could disagree without resorting to presumptuous slights. So then: in at least one historical sense, the Tea Party is tantamount to a political fad. That may and likely will change, but issues of due weight should be considered in the meantime. BigK has sufficiently explained a couple of major differences that preclude TPM from being treated either as an established political party or movement in the encyclopedic sense and not just the party brand. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought up the "model" idea in the first place. A part of that would be for a general comparison to see how trashy this article is. I'd compare it the the National Enquirer style, except that the National Enquirer has progressed to a much higher level than this article. I mean, just as an example, a 710 word section on a unsubstantiated accusations that some unidentified person person in the TPM said something racist?! I mean, even if it was proven and on videotape, it would still be undue weight what one person in a multi-million person movement did, especially when the TPM organizations involved always condemn the behavior. And this is in an article that doesn't even cover the 2006/ 2007 beginnings of the movement! North8000 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was only that one person with the sign, then we could claim undue weight and move on. But we also have reliable sources on "white power" groups bragging about how Tea Parties are great recruitment zones, and hard statistics showing that partiers are much more likely to be racist than the average American. It's not a lone data point, it's not undue weight. It's just a well-documented example of something that is demonstrably real. Dylan Flaherty 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about one leader with a sign, or about one leader tweeting about spics, or about one or more protesters shouting nigger (substantiated by eyewitnesses, mind you), or a few protesters shouting "homo commie" and "faggot", or about protesters faxing swaztikas, or about racial signs and slogans at rallies, or about the multiple polls that indicate significantly more racial animosity among TPers than the general public, or about the white supremacists, anti-immigrationists, and fringe militias co-habitating within the movement. It is about public perception, as well as cold hard facts. Having said that, I do agree there are sections of the article that could use considerable work. I also agree that no action by an individual should be construed as representative of all of the tens of thousands in the movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly proportionally more America-haters in the Democratic Party than in the country as a whole, with RS polling data to support it. And probably a few people at DNC rallies with nasty looking signs signs to that effect. (But hating America is not what the DNC is about.) Do you think I could put a few thousand words of such polling data, pictures of guys with nasty signs, and quotations of such accusations into the DNC article? (And make that article as junky as this one?) North8000 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly? I, for one, doubt this very much. I don't know a single American, whether Democrat, Republican or whatever, who is an America hater. I can very much understand disagreeing with the DNC, but that's no license to demonize them. Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, including when I said "But hating America is not what the DNC is about". What I meant is that by pure math, certain miscreants will have a tendency to join certain movements more than others. And that such alone, especially when the group disavows their agenda, and the numbers are small is not germane, in compliance with wp:undue or suitable for WP articles, and so is kept out of better done articles, such as the two proposed as models. But such has been welcomed in this junk article to the tune of about 2,000 words.

I think that some real quality coverage of the issues raised by Xenophrenic WOULD be in order, but not as the junk collection as those sections are now. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

North, argument by analogy requires there to be some sort of analogy. There isn't one here, so it flops. Dylan Flaherty 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment - the Democratic Party (United States) is probably not a good model. That article is about a formally organized party, while this article is about a popular movement.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I thought the analogy was pretty obvious, but maybe not. North8000 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Populist

Just exactly HOW is the TP movement "populist"? I strenuously (and I mean strenuously) object to this, because none of its ideas or origins are "populist".

Look up populism in any political science textbook. The TP movement is the exact opposite of populist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.175 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See "right-wing populism". TFD (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party is nothing but populist. It seeks to stop the elites destroying America with unsustainable debt for elitist items like corporate bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, public union giveaways, foreign aid and giveaways to illegal aliens. Many of us are libertarian and/or isolationist who want to see the military industrial complex gutted and the war on drugs ended, neither of which the Bushama elite would ever willingly do. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Antipluralist antihistorical is not anti-elitism. TP is funded by Billionaires who don't want to be regulated from polluting ... that is Elitism of Superclass Wealth. See the Koch family for example. 99.155.158.225 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We are a grass roots movement. The elitists Democrats are funded by billionaires and millionaires like Soros, Huffington, Marc Rich, Ron Burkle, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Wall Street, banks and the public employee unions. The people, united, just teabagged the elitist Democrat party for 70 seats, a bunch of governors, and thousands of local officeholders. That is populism my friend. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism usually combines a middle class base with elements of the elite. TFD (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You know this would stop coming up if it was explained with a line in the lead instead of slapped on as a label, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We need good sources that describe them as populist, etc., and so far no one has provided any. TFD (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hightower is populist. He says the Tea Parties are not populist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.175 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hightower is a socialist elitist who kisses the behind of the globalist, corporate, Wall Street, public union bailing out elitist Democrat party which just got massacred for 70 seats. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Populism contains many strands. The key element is the "people" against the "elites". Where they differ is who are the people and who are the elites. One may believe that the people are white men in Kansas and the elites are minorities in New York City, or one may define the people as the "middle class" and the elites as the bankers. Left or right it is the same because it blames problems on the ethics of the elite rather than on the structure of society. TFD (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There was substantial discussion which resulted in the word being in. I think a month or 2 ago. I'd start by reviewing that. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the Tea party be described as a Poplist movemnt or should the article describe the TPM in a different but similar way, or not describe them in that way at all.--01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some research, and "populist" is a term often used to describe left-leaning views. This means that the usage here, while not wrong, might still be misleading. If we could say the same thing in clearer terms, I'd favor that. For example, how do you feel about a phrase about having "a stated aversion to what are seen as political elites"? Dylan Flaherty 03:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see above: #Consensus for lede/lead (subsection 10.1: suggestions for wording line about populism)]. We already are having this discussion. It would have helped if the archive discussion above pointed to the ongoing discussion instead of ignoring it. Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's getting a bit unmanageable, so I've combined these two sections, which were on the same topic. Dylan Flaherty 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Populism is "left-leaning?" Sounds like more original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I agree. This discussion should be back where it was since it also involves the rest of the lede/lead as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reading an article about populism on this unreliable blog site called "Wikipedia". Maybe you've heard of it? Anyhow, here's what it said about the TPM:

Much of the Tea Party movement has used populist rhetoric, particularly in areas and states where Democrats are in power. For instance, in New York, Carl Paladino and his conservative-populist Taxpayers Party of New York have used the motto "Paladino for the People" and have attempted to woo common people to vote for them by pitting them against the state government and the special interests that have influence in it.

In other words, populism is a way to appeal to people to cross party boundaries, by giving them a common enemy among the "elite". Dylan Flaherty 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...Got a link? —Digiphi (Talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. Dylan Flaherty 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=( I wanna read the blog. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what's your point? —Digiphi (Talk) 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my point was quite clear: we need to describe the TPM as endorsing an explicitly populist platform instead of claiming it "is" populist. Think E′. Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source

I was googling to confirm something when I ran into the following link: http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=135:tea-party-leaders-attack-constitution&Itemid=104

This is from a site that is unfriendly to the movement, which means it's not neutral, despite being a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. Maybe if we added a link directly to the report, here, it will make everything kosher, or kosher enough. You think?

Also I think you're noticing that the site/organization is pushing an obviously unfriendly campaign against the tea party scene. You're right. But maybe it's alright as a source if it's just reporting on the popular consumption of a new report. I think the question is whether the Institute for Human...whatever is what we'd consider a good source for data referenced anywhere. Also, the site "Teapartynationalism.com" is a product of the Institute for Human whatever, so that may be worth considering. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfriendly doesn't mean nonfactual. If we could only use sympathetic sources, then KKK would be a hagiography. Besides articles, this site has interactive maps of where the Tea Party members are. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. So we both feel the same way. Why have you brought this up? Is there something you think should be done? =Digiphi (Talk) 08:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes: let's use it as a source where appropriate. I haven't seen anyone else providing maps showing the concentration of movement members, have you? Dylan Flaherty 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see how we're not aligning here. I agree at least half-way with your feeling about the source you listed above. However, the report is in article, and a back-up secondary. See footnotes 200 and 201. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of the Tea Party outside of the United States?

Seems relevant but I don't see that information here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As with anything on Wikiepdia, we should only report what we can find in reliable sources. There are many articles on the TPM in UK and Canadian newspapers. But we have to be careful about engaging in synthesis or original research when summarizing them as a whole. The ideal sources would be those that draw conclusions on their own by saying things like "In Freedonia, the TPM is regarded as..." It's hard to fiond those kinds of sources though.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't run into anything explicitly about how non-Americans see the TPM. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Dylan's name seem to change color every other time he types it? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We could start with what's mentioned here, which is interesting (to me at least) since it's the opinion of a European monarch and current head of state. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A British tea party effort attempting to replicate U.S. efforts is discussed here and here. Both of those sources are indeed blogs, but I think that as "news blogs" by credited news organizations there shouldn't be a sourcing problem. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, that stuff about Dylan's sig is uncool for this page. Let's just not.

If you get sources about a British (or otherwise) political movement with a "tea party" title, regardless of its ideology, you should make a wiki article for it. I'd help with that. If it's relevant it could show up in the See Also, and if not, then in the Disambiguation. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

uncool for this page. Let's just not It's a honest question as to whether or not the color tone is changing (and if so how do you do it?) I don't see how you or anyone else could interpret it as a personal attack. Please AGF.

It's not that I'm interested in other countries and their own tea parties, I'm interested in what those other countries think of the U.S. That's why I consider the Prince of Liechtenstein's opinion to be notable (of course one can disagree with me on that). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, you could open a new section. I've read about the spread of the Tea Party movement to the U.K. Might be a good idea to add it.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Until I changed it, my signature was the default color; a shade of blue. Since I changed it, it's been a cursive font in green. If you're seeing more than one shade of cursive font, you might want to get your eyes checked, or at least upgrade to a browser that doesn't fool with you by randomly changing colors. It's strange of you to comment about this, but I won't take insult if none was intended. Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The view of the Prince of Lichtenstein is not notable. It is interesting that the richest, least democratic European monarch would identify with them, but we would need a source that explains why this is relevant. TFD (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It may well be notable, but is it representative of anything? Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a current Head of State, which I think by itself makes it notable. I find it interested in an ironic sense-- how can a blue-blooded royal support a movement based off of the American Revolution. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

He is not speaking as a head of state. In any case there are lots of things that foreign heads of state say about many political events in the U.S. and we do not necessarily add them. Do you want to see comments by Gadaffi and others put into all those articles? TFD (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would come under 'commentaries' and the Prince of Lichtenstein would have to be involved somehow for his comment to be relevant. Queen Elizabeth could well comment, and that doesn't mean it would be added unless she were dealing with an issue that is related. When Newt Gingrich comments, that is notable because he's an American politician who is involved. Whether they are foreign or American commentators, so long as what they say is somehow connected, it's fine. Otherwise, it's trivia and not appropriate. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant

An editor added an {off-topic?} tag to this sentence with the edit summary of Cap and Trade is not strongly related to the TPm,...:[1]

• The AFP's "Hot Air Tour" organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.
  • Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen. Mad As Hell (2010) pp 150

Checking Proquest's newspapr archive, I find these sources which show a connection between the TPM and global warming, etc.:

• Georgia Tea Party hosts 'Hot Air' event: The Georgia Tea Party, along with the Cobb County chapter of Americans for Prosperity, will host an event today highlighting the economic costs of global warming alarmism. The presentation, dubbed a "Hot Air" event, will feature Patti Gettinger discussing research on new federal environmental requirements, followed by a live webcast from Mexico.
  • County by county Janel Davis, Tucker McQueen, Mark Woolsey, D. Aileen Dodd, et al. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Dec 2, 2010. pg. B.4
• In September, the Center for American Progress Action Fund surveyed Republican candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races and found that nearly all disputed the scientific consensus on global warming, and none supported measures to mitigate it. For example, Robert Hurt, who won a House seat in Virginia, says clean-energy legislation would fail to "do anything except harm people." The Tea Party's "Contract From America" calls proposed climate policies "costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." Even conservatives who once argued for action on climate change, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, have run for cover.
  • Republicans Make a High-Stakes Bet on Climate Change Bracken Hendricks. Valley News. White River Junction, Vt.: Nov 30, 2010. pg. A.6
• At the national level, efforts by Democratic leaders and the Obama administration to include a cap-and-trade scheme as part of a national energy policy were contested in Congress, with opponents branding it "cap-and-tax" and Tea Party followers singling it out as a symbol of what was wrong with Washington. But the controversy over cap-and-trade has percolated down to the states, where it became fodder for some candidates in the midterm elections and sparked anti-RGGI rallies in New York and New Jersey, organized by Americans for Prosperity.
  • States Diverting Money From Climate Initiative; [Metropolitan Desk] Mireya Navarro. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 29, 2010. pg. A.22
• The [tea party and other like-minded groups]' agenda also includes measures to evade anticipated federal environmental rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming. A bill filed by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, would exempt residential buildings from federal cap-and-trade legislation, which congressional Democrats have pushed but not passed.
  • tea party takes aim at leveraging its influence JULIAN WALKER. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Nov 29, 2010. pg. A.1
• On the other side, a study of the 98 new Republican Congressmen by a think-tank concluded that almost half were climate change sceptics. Marco Rubio, Florida Senator-elect, typified the attitude of the influential Tea Party group when he said: "I don't think there's scientific evidence to justify it."
  • Don't let US stall progress on climate, world is told [Edition 2] Ben Webster. The Times. London (UK): Nov 27, 2010. pg. 33
• Even before the elections, Virginia's activists plan to push an ambitious agenda during January's legislative session. How incumbents vote on the issues will help determine which face tea party challenges in the months ahead. [..] Some activists will also push for the elimination of the state's corporate income tax and for a bill that would make illegal in the state a federal cap on power plant emissions - the centerpiece of cap-and-trade proposals.
  • Tea party invests at local level in Virginia Rosalind S Helderman, Amy Gardner. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 26, 2010. pg. A.1
• Vigilant conservative voters and "tea party" activists are irked at such companies as General Electric and Johnson & Johnson that buoyed President Obama's agenda by lobbying or through advocacy ads. Sixty percent of the conservatives and 81 percent of tea partiers, in fact, say they are less likely to buy products from companies that actively lobbied to pass health care reform, the stimulus plan or cap and trade, says a new survey of more than 800 voters by the National Center for Public Policy Research and FreedomWorks.
  • INSIDE THE BELTWAY Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Nov 24, 2010. pg. A.2
• "America seems to be drifting backward," Nigel Purvis, a former climate official with the US State Department and now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, wrote in a policy paper. He noted that anti-climate-change policy became a "defining principle" of the conservative Tea Party movement that gained clout in November's elections.
  • FEATURE: Obama's losing battle: Chances drop for US climate action Chris Cermak. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 26, 2010.

And that's just from the past eight days. Baased on these, it seems pretty clear that, as one source says, anti-climate-change policy became a "defining principle" of the conservative Tea Party movement.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirming research. One of the claims I keep bumping into is that the anti-environmental aspect reflects the influence of Koch Industries. Dylan Flaherty 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else, I'll remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes once the lead was unfrozen.

Let's stop doing that, as was just done by one person. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I went through them. Restored one sentence (with a large amount of references in it) plus removed 2 added words. Left most of the changes as-is. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any question about the fact that the original Tea Party involved destruction of goods that were stolen. I qualified this only because I learned that non-Americans were interpreting it to mean that the colonists took the tea which they had legally bought and paid for, and then dumped it in protest. As this is not the case, I am restoring "stole". I am certain that this is consistent with BLP, in that the protesters are long dead and the statement is factual.

I'm also merging in the redundant sentence so that we keep the references but don't repeat ourselves, as well as avoiding repetition and not repeating ourselves repeatedly in repetition. Dylan Flaherty 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes. While I did explain them in edit comments, I would be more than willing to discuss them further here. I'd also like to note that I'm at 1RR on "stole". Dylan Flaherty 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly OK with me. But, so the Americans go aboard a ship and throw the British's tea overboard. And you feel the need to add that such constituted "stealing" the tea? That's not even in compliance with the common meaning of "steal", much less useful for the article. I'm at 1RR too on that. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that they dumped the tea. It wasn't stolen, it was relocated to the water. I think a prosecutor would call it vandalism, not theft. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then let's call it vandalism. Dylan Flaherty 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of the tea party was a protest. It wasn't vandalism per se.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

They took the tea, and dumped it into the water. If someone has a psychological need to restate the obvious, it would be that they DESTROYED the tea. Trying to torture some verbs (e.g. stole, vandalized, pilfered, transported-to-the-water, lowered-to-sea-level, submerged, salinated, raised the water level of the harbor, polluted the harbor, brewed weak tea in the harbor water, changed the color of the water a bit, reduced the availability of tea to the starving children in India, violated future EPA dumping regulations, traumitized the fish etc. ,) are silly and have no place in the article. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. The Boston tea party came about because the colonists were upset, some would say pissed, that the British Parlament was making an end run around them by adding on the tea tax just to prove to the colonists that they could tax them. The colonists said no, albeit perhaps more forcefully than just a simple 'no.' And said they wouldn't be taxed without representation. When we edit out that bit about the representation, we edit out the main point, the heart and soul of the Boston tea party and the starting point for the American Revolution, and by extention, the rationale for the start of the Tea Party movement. The TPm peeps feel that the bailout was against their wishes and that their reps in the house and senate failed them.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this morning the article said "destroyed". I changed it because it was misleading. I did not add anything about "taxation without representation" because the TPM opposes taxes that they do have legislative representation behind, so that can't be the commonality. The commonality, as any Partier will tell you, is in the notion that taxes are too high and/or unfair. Dylan Flaherty 02:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The "taxation without representation" refers specifically to the Boston Tea Party. The commonality is in the minds of the Tea Party movement members. They believe it is the will of the people that is being ignored as there were multiple protests prior to the signing of the bailout. The Tea Party movement takes it name from it, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At this moment, it says:

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."

First, there are some grammar problems due to negation, but those may be fixable. Second, there is the logic problem: nobody can claim with any credibility that current taxation comes without representation. We can argue that our representatives should lower our taxes more, but we can't deny that we have representatives that are freely elected. The success of TP-endorsed candidates shows this quite clearly. Contrast this with taxes set by the British Crown on the other side of the ocean. There is no comparison. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As for stole/destroyed/vandalized, we're back on "destroyed" and I'm not touching it due to 1RR. What I recommend, however, is that we avoid the issue by speaking in terms of actions, not legalities. The colonists "seized British tea and dumped it in the ocean" in protest. Unless there is strong and reasoned disagreement, this is what I'll change it to in a day or so. Dylan Flaherty 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems the spirit of the thing is what they're claiming. Sure they have representatives, but the reps aren't doing the will of the people, according to the TPm peeps, because those 'reps' voted for the bailout of the banks even though the people were saying no. So they're claiming "no taxation without representation." They mean, 'the will of the people.' Or put another way, "No bailout, or we'll vote your asses out." Which they've done. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan. Regarding "no taxation without representation" A statement by others has to be taken by it's intended general meaning, (plus simply the fact that it they often say it.) Plus, slogans are too short (and thus imprecise) to be suitable for logical dissection and then building "compare and contrast" type debating points upon the logical dissection as you are doing. Plus that's not our job here. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to decide whether it fits, and right now, it doesn't. It's logically strained and grammatically awkward. It needs to be fixed, and the easiest way is to remove the slogan. Dylan Flaherty 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the content question is here....in the article right now it is not used for the current TPM. In your last post you completely switched your argument from your previous one which I was addressing, so you were misxing my addressing of your previous argument with your new one. But again, I'm not even sure what the content question is here. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll break it down into speaking points:

• The original Boston Tea Party is an inspiration for modern Tea Partiers.
• The reason the BTP is a source of the inspiration is that it was a "direct action" in protest of taxes.
• There are non-analogous elements as well, such as taxation by a government in which we had zero representation.
• In describing the link, we need to emphasize the parts that fit.
• We also need to make sure we explain the nature of the original incident: property destruction.
• Finally, it has to read well.

Clearer? Dylan Flaherty 14:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000/Malke that the Tea Partiers see the no taxation as analogous to their protests. I disgree with Dylan's claim that property destruction is at the heart of the TPM/BTP analogy. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with the view you oppose, too, which is why I never said it.

Yes, Tea Partiers see the rejection of unfair taxes as analogous, but the basis for unfairness cannot be the same. After all, we're full citizens, not colonists, and are therefore represented in the legislatures that pass the tax laws. It may well be that a few partiers are ignorant of history and believe that the old rallying cry still applies; if so, they are simply mistaken.

Likewise, the Boston Tea Party was a "direct action" in the form of property destruction while current Tea Party protests are non-violent, so there is no analogy. Having said that, in describing the BTP, we must be accurate. Dylan Flaherty 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party is both notable and verifiable as being the result of protest against the British Parliament levying a tea tax. Earlier, the colonists had vigorously protested other taxes which the British Parliament in response then reduced or removed. The colonists were upset that they were being made to carry the burden of Britain's war debts which did not in any way involve the colonists. However, the Parlament levied the tea tax, a small pittance, in order to show the colonists that it still reserved the right to tax them at will. There is no notability or verifiability or reliable sources to show otherwise.

It is both notable and verifiable that the Tea Party movement members consider their situation analogous to the colonists. They protested vigorously against the bailout to the banks, etc., believing it was not their place to carry this burden. The Tea Party movement started as a revolt against an unfair tax burden. There is no notability or verifiability or reliable sources to show otherwise.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To Dylan, I had indicted that it was not clear what the issue is with respect to article content. In response, you recapped the points that you are debating, but still never said what the specific question is with respect to article content. You seem to be debating that the modern TPM should not use the phrase "no taxation without representation", which seems two steps removed from what we are doing here. First, at the moment, the article does not have any reference to that phrases being one of the modern TPM, it only uses it to describe what what they said in the 1700's. Second, if the article DID say that the phrase was in wide use by the modern TPM, the question would be whether the statement-of-use is accurate and suitably sourced. It would not be our job to argue that the modern TPM should not use that phrase. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever tried to tell the TPM what it's allowed to do. If some partier were to invoke the "no taxation without representation" slogan, they would be free to do so, and those of us with some knowledge of history and government would be free to point and laugh.

What I have suggested is that this slogan is not the common element that unites the TPM with the BTP, so we have no reason to highlight it in the lead. I would appreciate it if you were to address this specific argument. Dylan Flaherty 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now the content question is clear. I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I do think that, if we are going to put in even one explanatory facoid about the 1700's TP, "no taxation without representation" would be it. This would be just a factoiod about the source of the name, not a claim that the situation is analagous. In fact, it could even be background information that could lead some readers to decide that it is NOT analogous. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained, I don't believe it fits well in the lead. Currently, it isn't even grammatical, but were that fixed, it would still stick out. Dylan Flaherty 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good thing I own land!

Ok, what should we do with this? Dylan Flaherty 06:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably nothing should be done with it. It is not at all clear that this guy is notable. Wikipedia should be better than accepting and amplifying the media fetish of taking people who call themselves leaders of the tea party when they say dumb things. Amy Gardner's wonderful piece in the Washington Post points out how few followers this guy has. About 1.5% of tea party groups claim affiliation with this guy. (and less than 5% claim affiliation with the dreaded Koch family) MBMadmirer (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See, that's clearly the wrong answer. Whether he would be notable on his own is irrelevant given the fact that Tea Party Nation is notable and he was speaking as their founder. As for your interpretation of the significance of his 1.5% share, you should look at your own source and do the math correctly.

Of the 647 groups asked, 272 stated that they were independent and 208 were affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, leaving only 167 up for grabs. Of these remaining groups, the 27 held by AFP and the 25 by FW are the two largest blocs. Given this, the 9 held by TPN no longer looks insignificant.

Even then, we're missing data and would not be justified in jumping from organizations to head count, as the sizes of these organizations vary from tiny to huge. Given that more than half the groups had fewer than 50 members, while only 39 groups had over a thousand, we can determine that the latter had more people than the former! In short, your argument from statistics is full of holes you could drive a Tea Party Freedom Bus through. :-)

We already mention Phillips' bold statement in Tea Party Nation, so there's no question of whether Wikipedia should report it. The only remaining question is the extent that we should report it in this article. I suggest that it deserves a one-liner in the appropriate place. Dylan Flaherty 10:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Wikipedia should take con-men at face value and promote and amplify them by making them stand for a whole movement. You are right and I was wrong that he is notable for wikipedia purposes. The media writes about idiots and that makes them notable... That's not wikipedia's fault ;) MBMadmirer (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, you were in no position to rule on who is a con man as opposed to a genuine leader, so I'm going to politely continue to disregard your original research. Dylan Flaherty 10:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that you should be accusing people who are trying in good faith -- albeit sometimes frustration -- of being con-men. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia. I am trying to have a constructive conversation about this.MBMadmirer (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, you were the one who accused Phillips of being a con-man, with no stated basis. I've simply noticed that there are newspaper articles about his traditional views regarding voting. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this article is 60% junk (vs. enclyclopedic content) is because people have been flooding it with narrow and weak material selected just because it looks negative relative to the TPM. We need to start looking for quality sources with quality analysis and coverage of the a whole lot of major angles, issues and aspects on the TPM, and then start putting in enclyclopedic content and taking out the junk. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the odd impression that you think anything that fails to make the movement look perfect is "junk". The biggest mystery behind the TPM is not its funding, but what it actually stands for. Here, one of their leaders speaks up and gets the attention of newspapers across the country. But, to you, that's just "junk". Dylan Flaherty 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said before, what I am calling junk is narrow and weak material, in severe violation of WP:undue. I mean really, taking the one section as an example, 710 words on vague allegations that somebody said that somebody in the millions of people in the TPM said something racist?! I would like to see the good, the bad and the ugly all covered in a much more enclyclopedic and informative manner. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not factual. The issue isn't that one random person is a racist; that would be undue. The issue is that there is a pattern of racism, and this is hardly my own research. Let's not pretend this is just my imagination. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In a week this will be considered forgotten and insignificant, but more importantly will have not been considered at all relevant to an encyclopedic description of the Tea party. Much of these scandals (don't get me wrong, some may be controversial or outright wrong) make a buzz at the time but seem insignificant after fading away. Think of Riogate in the '92 presidential election; if something like that happened today it would almost certainly be put in the article on the election, but today it just seems trivial. Yaksar (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. But it sounds like some people want it to happen that way. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In case any one is curious what I really think about the reality of it(not that such is relevant to article content) , it's that anytime you scoop up several million people into an organization you are going to get a few people of every bad type, including racists. It's possible that certain racist types, seen that the TPM is sort of a "reactionary" organization may be trying to make it their home. Some of them rear their heads, along with some "plants" by TPM opponents. Racism is not the part of TPM platform, and TPM leadership always takes a strong stand against racism, including kicking people out who practice it. An opponents of the TPM will, of course, try to find every possible bad incident, even one guy saying something, to amplify and publicize. Such is the way of things. Finally, I think that I'm not really sure of the situation here, and would like to find an intelligent article to learn more about it from, such as this article could be.

With respect to article content, I think that we should find some quality sources that actually reviewed/investigated / overviewed the "racism" angle, and the we should create create good overage of similar type, using them as sources. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are incidents of racism, but they come from fringers, not part of organized, tea party groups. Not part of an organized platform. The Tea Party groups themselves don't espouse racism. Their focus is on the bailout, fiscal policy reform, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can back that up with reliable sources, you are free to add that to the article. Dylan Flaherty 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that's the type of analysis that we need to look for and then build material around. That would also meet WP:undue. A much higher standard than that that let all of the junk into the current article, but let's aim high. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry: I assure you that I will hold your proposed sources to high standards with regard to reliability. Dylan Flaherty 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000: there are reliable sources that show Tea Party members speaking out against the fringers. And I believe Kate Zernike of the New York Times has mentioned that she's attended meetings where nobody knew who she was and she never heard any racist rants, or saw any suggestion that racism was part of the agenda. It's always been about the money.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Dylan Maybe even do it retroactively and do some serious housecleaning!  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold removal may well lead to equally bold restoration. A better path is to dispute things here and gain a consensus. Dylan Flaherty 19:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, gays in the Tea Party?!

This article looks at an interesting little turf war in the ongoing battle to define the Tea Party. Probably still too insignificant, unless there are further developments. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but not shocking article. More evidence that the TPM has both conservative and libertarian types (who conflict on social issues) in it. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that it's Tea Party Nation responding which isn't really a tea party. GoProud seems to have support from Tea Party Patriots, which is a real tea party group. But I don't see why gays can't be part of the tea party movement. It's fiscal policies at issue, not social ones. Also, CNN appears to have only put up the letter from GoProud. I didn't see anything from Tea Party Nation.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article linked above doesn't correctly link to Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips' letter, a copy of which can be found here. You'll note that TPN claims to be part of the "mainstream Tea Party movement". Is there an official programme that I can review to see just who is and isn't "really in the tea party" movement on any given day? I'm guessing there is not. Here is a video of a CNN discussion with both of the letter writers, and their opposing views on this issue: CNN 3-Way Discussion Video. It appears Phillips disagrees with you, Malke. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, who determines who is in the party? Perhaps to the larger point of so many national factions-- a term by the way which does not appear in the article, only in one of the reference titles [2]. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Tea Party movement determines who counts as being in the Tea Party movement. It's like asking who determines who gets to edit Wikipedia, except without Jimbo. :-) Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's like that at all. Seems like some groups who consider themselves a part of the national movement are trying to decide who else in the movement doesn't belong, and vice versa -- with several factions claiming ownership and/or seniority. As the lead even says, "The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups." [3] If you're saying this isn't true, then there are clear problems with public perception. The section entitled "Composition of the movement" could therefore be improved by describing this divisiveness and struggle for group identity. Further into the article we have another example: "efforts by white nationalist groups and militias to link themselves to the tea party movement.^[203][204] White nationalists have attempted to recruit new members at Tea Party events. Steve Smith, Pennsylvania Party Chairman of the white nationalist American Third Position Party, has called Tea Party events 'fertile ground for our activists.'^[205]" -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, if you can replace those superscripted numbers with reliable sources, then these things do belong in the article. Dylan Flaherty 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That part is already in the article. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

talk page concerns

For the record I think it's important enough to note here that one editor has tried to remove this section three times [4] [5] [6] (for alleged WP:Forum violation) and it's been restored by three different editors, including me, per WP:TPG. I invited the editor to post her objection here, yet she continues to argue about it elsewhere. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Twice it looks like but the third was also a removal based on the same reasoning. You should chill out on the reverts of the talk page, Lucy-marie. I get the frustration and have removed comments from talk pages for being to forumy before myself. However, these are not clearly forum-like discussions. Multiple editors are commenting on the issue and attempts at sources (not sure if they are RS) are being presented. Maybe try changing the title of the subsection to something a little less snarkey? In regards to the populist revert, that is very similar to a talk page discussion I started here and the archives show several of them. We are addressing it again below. One option if it appears to forum like (which I disagree with in this case) would be to collapse it as seen here.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Lucy has gone a bit overboard, so I've removed the markings. Dylan Flaherty 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to discuss individual editors. Discussion should be contianed to talk pages of indivduals as is currently being undertaken.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie#TPM talkpage I trust my comments are sufficient but for those interested you can see the wiilink to the discussion referred to. Alternatively, we could open up a talk page of this talk page to discuss edits to the talk page but that seems silly. FWIW, I have modified the section header.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a relevant comment that was deleted: Antipluralist antihistorical is not anti-elitism. TP is funded by Billionaires who don't want to be regulated from polluting ... that is Elitism of Superclass Wealth. See the Koch family for example. (Per a 99 IP User) 99.190.91.106 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of those are words, but they don't form sentences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deference? See Talk:Plutocracy 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Koch founded CSE, which was indeed the precursor of both FW and AFP.

I've created this section to give Rubin and others an opportunity to raise any concerns they might have about this. Dylan Flaherty 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, unless I'm seeing it wrong, you removed the direct statement about the founder of FW, and substituted a statement about who founded it's precursor? And that's a "correction"? Shall we "correct" "George Washington was the first president of the USA" to "King George was the King of the precursor organization to the USA"  :-) North8000 18:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

North, you are most definitely seeing it wrong. Rubin removed a statement about Koch from a paragraph that's solely about the Koch's, and substituted a statement about someone who took over later, which is irrelevant. His change would be like replacing "George Washington was the first President of the USA" in a paragraph about the founding of America with "Barack Obama is the current President of the USA". My correction was to restore the focus of the paragraph and remove an intentional distraction.

In short, the stated reason by Rubin was false. Along with edit-warring, this has become something of a pattern. Dylan Flaherty 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the real question is whether it is relevant and whether it is more appropriate to note Dick Armey's role as the current chair. Especially when David Weigel at the Washington Post has reported that the Kochs do not give money to FreedomWorks and Armey. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Armey heads FreedomWorks or that we should mention it when appropriate. However, a paragraph about Koch is not the appropriate place. Dylan Flaherty 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So you want the paragraph to just be about Koch? That seems like an WP:UNDUE issue unless we put more information in the section about other groups. It seems to me that there are 4 groups mentioned and candidates. In graf 1 there is TPP and TPE and candidates. In graf 2 there is AFP and FW. What do we know about the funding of FW? (all I know is that Koch says that they haven't given them money since the split). What about a sentence about Campaign for Liberty and Tea Party Nation and other organizations? Would that be reasonable? Then in a paragraph or sentence or two on FW, we can add as a parenthetical that it was founded by Koch. In some ways, I suspect that this focuses the most on Koch because the Koch-AFP relationship is the best understood. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like a paragraph about Dick Armey, feel free to add it. However, this paragraph is about Koch. Dylan Flaherty 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan,I was just looking at the one sentence. You changed "Dick Army founded FreedomWorks" to "...Koch also founded the precursor of FreedomWorks". I think that that says more than I could say. North8000 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's called framing, in that you ignored the history of the paragraph. Try again. Dylan Flaherty 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but it was accidental.....I was just looking at the diff. Now I see...the broader context (e.g.of the paragraph) is to gin up the Koch connection as much as possible, so instead of telling people who founded FreedomWorks, we tell them who founded the precursor organization to FreedomWorks.  :-) North8000 20:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To reply to one of Dylan's assertions above, the paragraph is about the Kochs, even though much of the "information" borders on a BLP violation. However, the association of FreedomWorks with Koch is so tenuous as to constitute an WP:UNDUE violation unless the fact that Koch is not an officer of FreedomWorks, and, in fact, has no discernable connection with FreedomWorks since it's been a separate organization, can be sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubin, we've gone over this a few times now, so I'm just going to remind you that FW did not sprout up from buried teeth. Rather, Koch created CSE, giving it over $5 million before it split into AFP and FW. This is not "tenuous", and I'm hardly the first person to bring it up. We have reliable sources, but ultimately, Koch Industries is at fault for this connection becoming news. They overreacted by spitting out an unsolicited press release denying any connection (and very visibly overstating the lack), which was a fine case of the lady doth protesting too much. You seem to want us to publish that press release as fact, or better yet, obey its commands by omitting any mention of the connection. How is this in any way neutral? I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. Dylan Flaherty 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this exact one should end up, but the general topic of starting to apply a wp:undue lens to content in this article. A person gave money to an organization which was a precursor to an organization that gave money to one of the 1,600 TPM organizations. North8000 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The first step to resolving this is to do good research and stick close to the facts. No, it's not that Koch "gave money", it's that he founded the CSE and gave it millions. After the split, he continued to fund the AFP half, and AFP has directly supported the TPM. It's less clear how much control/funding Koch has for FW, but his company put out a less-than-candid press release proactively, which has raised doubts all around.

No argument that ignores the facts can carry any weight here. Dylan Flaherty 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite. There is no relationship between Koch and FW after the split. There is no evidence the press release is "less-than-candid", only assertions by politicians and columnists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The press release is full of half-truths that are entirely deceptive. It claims they "have no ties", without mentioning the fact that Koch founded CSE, put Armey in charge and had Armey split FW off . It also says that the Koch's did not provide funding "specifically to support the tea parties". No, not "specifically", but we have video of David congratulating his AFP about their success in organizing Tea Party protests. It is a masterwork of PR bull, and we have sources to prove it.

Rubin, I realize that you're an unsuccessful candidate for office under the Libertarian ticket, but that background is not an excuse to violate WP:NPOV here. I politely suggest that you either work with us towards a consensus or consider taking a break from these articles until you've regained some measure of objectivity. Dylan Flaherty 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, Lets not get nasty or go ad hominem. North8000 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have toned down my words. Dylan Flaherty 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't know (or has a common misconception) about a press release, it's a tool used by public relations firms and therefore unreliable for controversial/editorial info. From RS/N Archive 19: "it falls under the WP:SPS portion of WP:V -- it may be used to establish non-controversial facts" -PrBeacon (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct. However, it is true that Koch has nothing to do with FW after the split, and the implication that he (or, in fact, any Koch or Koch enterprise) had something to do with it is clearly WP:UNDUE without some countering statement, even if only for his own claims. Placing Koch in a more prominent position with respect to FW than the real founder of that organization is clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we know for a fact that Koch's AFP and Armey's FW both support the TPM. Is this was "nothing to do with" looks like? Rather than pretending this is a bizarre coincidence or positing conspiracy theories, the sensible thing to do is to recognize that the two halves of CSE, while now separate, were launched from the same place and in similar directions, so we should expect them to work together on such projects as the TPM. As for countering statements, we include the "proactive" Koch press release. Do you have any points that might be valid? Dylan Flaherty 05:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Work together? Have you read the statements? Especially the Armey response in the Weigel piece? It sounds like A LOT of personal vitriol there. I don't think that you can get anywhere near that assumption. MBMadmirer (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has taught me anything, it's that people who don't much like each other can still work together towards a common cause. Whether Armey and Koch love or hate each other seems not to matter one bit to the fact that both AFP and FW support the TPM and move it in the same direction. We also have no data on the specific disagreements and no confirmation that this is more than just posturing to distance the two in the public eye. In short, none of your original research holds up. Dylan Flaherty 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Work together" means a lot more than both supporting and working towards the same end. North8000 13:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any points which might be valid? For that matter, do you or any of the sources have evidence (or even claims) that AFP and FW work together, rather than separately supporting different aspects of the TPm? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, the actual claim made was that they had "nothing to do with" each other. You're moving the bar, Rubin. Supporting the TPM together does not resemble "nothing". Dylan Flaherty 14:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar note....press releases are an official statement by the organization that released them. The context and specifics determine whether they are reliable or not. A major organization making an official statement of fact about itself is usually accurate/reliable. But you usually have to look really close (for wordsmithing etc.) to see what they really said vs. the intended impression of what they said. North8000 12:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. PrBeacon quoted the precise rule for this, which is that they're self-published sources and can only be used in very limited ways. At one point, we falsely stated that a newspaper independently endorsed the claims in the release, when in fact it merely reprinted it (and then took issue with it). Fortunately, we've fixed that error. Dylan Flaherty 14:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.198.209.36, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Tea Party is a political movement containing Republican and former Republican party members 12.198.209.36 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? is putting it mildly. North8000 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm untranscluding this, as it seems like a clear no-go, it's a vague unclear statement, unsourced as pointed out, and no clear indication of where it should go. This article is well-watched, so feel free to keep discussing, but I don't think the template and consequent category listing is needed anymore. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's some truth to this, but no basis for this particular statement. I think we've covered the Republican connection quite fairly, so this isn't needed. Dylan Flaherty 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Record the lead discussion / mediation process results for posterity

It looks like we have settled in on the first three paragraphs and the end of our mediation / discussion process. IMHO the fact that this came out of work/discussion by many people for many weeks should give this extra weight and stability. North8000 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is a political movement in the United States that has sponsored locally- and nationally-coordinated protests since 2009. Its platform is explicitly populist and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian. It endorses reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots, but it has so far endorsed Republican candidates. The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

The topic of inclusion and context of inclusion of "grass roots" was significantly debated, and the center of the discussion. The topics of inclusion and context of inclusion of "populist", "libertarian", "conservative" and "astroturfing" we also specifically debated. Other areas were not significantly debated but non-controversial changes were made

North8000 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Add Jill Lepore in TimeOut Chicago "The revolution, revised"

Add Jill Lepore in TimeOut Chicago's Issue 298 11-17.Nov.2010 The revolution, revised: An expert in early America ensures the tea party isn’t the only one writing history by Julia Kramer 99.190.88.30 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are links to the book on Google Books and Princeton University Press: [7][8] I will read what is available but it would be a reliable source. TFD (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links ...

Lepore traces the roots of the far right's reactionary history to the bicentennial in the 1970s, when no one could agree on what story a divided nation should tell about its unruly beginnings. Behind the Tea Party's Revolution, she argues, lies a nostalgic and even heartbreaking yearning for an imagined past--a time less troubled by ambiguity, strife, and uncertainty--a yearning for an America that never was. The Whites of Their Eyes reveals that the far right has embraced a narrative about America's founding that is not only a fable but is also, finally, a variety of fundamentalism--anti-intellectual, antihistorical, and dangerously anti-pluralist.

This alone has me interested. 99.102.181.110 (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that quote is not usable, as Lepore doesn't call the TPm "far right", but it appears that Lepore's book, and any academic papers, would be reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not rushing to use this source, as we have many others, the blurb from above may be found at http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9389.html, so it should be entirely reliable as a description of the book's contents. Dylan Flaherty 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, is anyone suggesting using the content of the blurb to support content? — Digiphi (Talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. This section started with the 99. anon <redacted> placing a request to add a reference, without giving an idea why. And the blurb appears to be from the publisher's advertising section, so cannot be considered reliable other than in an article about the publisher or about advertising. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a page from the Political Research Associates (PRA), that provides links to sources about the Tea Party. According the them, the Tea Party was "spawned as astroturf, [then] morphed into a constellation of actual grassroots right-wing populist movements".[9] TFD (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have evidence that PRA is reliable? (We don't don't even have evidence in the article Political Research Associates that they are credible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(I see I'm attacking my own position. Still, that appears not to be a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and has been discussed on the RSN noticeboard.[10] However the usefulness of the page on the PRA website is the numerous "links to sources about the the Tea Party", each of which would have to be evaluated separately for reliablity. For example the first link under "Demographics" is to a CNN article about a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey about Tea Party supporters, obviously a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments made below are wholly off topic and relate to who funds what political party , the origins of the term populism and the definition of "right wing populism", and do not directly relate to the Tea Party article at hand. If a discussion is desired on the term populist being in the article please start a new discussion on that issue and do not stray in to areas which are not directly related to the Tea Party article at hand. Comments which are of a forum nature, or are inappropriate, or are off topic may be deleted or redacted without warning. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. See below. Dylan Flaherty 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And deleted comments may be restored without justification. Comments by LM above are based upon a misunderstanding of talkpage scope and discussion of issues related to the article. Please see Talk page guidelines. Not every post has to be about specific edits, as long as they relate to improving the article they're fine. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Add reference book The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History ISBN 978-0691150277 from Jill Lepore, for example in contrast with an ideological opposite, the "liberal Tax Equity for Americans (TEA) Party, in the 1970's", Christen Varley's Climate change denial example, Boston Herald's Howie Carr's calling "liberals moonbats", anti-intellectualism and populism with Richard Hofstadter's Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963) and The Age of Reform: From Bryan to FDR (1955) on history as conspiracy, Howard Zinn's You Can't be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times (1994), and Tony Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic: Dispatched from the Unfinished Civil War (1998) with David W. Blight's Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (2001). 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.148.84 (talk)

Horwitz's Confederates in the Attic is a great book but I'm wondering how that's related to the TPM. I havent read it in awhile though so there might be something relevant.. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Forbes connection

I haven't seen any mention of Steve Forbes' connection to the Tea Party, here or in the archives. Yet he is on the board of Freedomworks and has been linked to TP politicians like Rand Paul. Oddly enough, Forbes magazine reports Bill Maher's oft-repeated question of late (I first heard it on his HBO show in October) [11] "Why is it everything they want is what Steve Forbes wants? It is a to-do list for a billionaire." And it's either incongruous or disingenuous for Forbes to run articles like [12] "The Misinformed Tea Party Movement ... For an antitax group, they don't know much about taxes." This connection is relevant to the discussion of the group's populist branding, so I thought about posting this above but that thread seems to have gone stale. Note I am also posting this on the Steve Forbes page. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it just means that his magazine has its own editorial board and doesn't simply act as his mouthpiece. I think we've dealt with the populist issue by avoiding endorsement, but there's no reason to omit mention of Forbes from the article. He's certainly showed up in enough articles on the TPM. What, in specific, would you like to add? Dylan Flaherty 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the whole article yet so I can't say how or where it should be incorporated. But I've noticed the debate on 'populism' includes objections about using the term to describe a movement that is (at least) partially funded by fat cats. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, although I think we sidestepped part of this by reporting it in terms of the TPM's statements, rather than our judgments. Having said that, if we have reliable sources that dispute the claim of populism, as by arguing that they are underwritten by GOP insiders (Dick Armey, for example) or fat cats (Koch and Koch and company), we would have to consider these in order to balance the article. The key would be to avoid undue synthesis. We would need a reliable source noticing this apparent disparity and pointing it out in relation to the notion of populism. Do we have that? Dylan Flaherty 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kistlerjm9, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Recently a tea party news organization has been established. http://teapartyreport.com is solely dedicated to bringing the latest news and information about the tea party movement!

Kistlerjm9 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Has there been any coverage of this in third-party sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Great find, Kistlerjm9. I'll look for reliable sources. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like there's no original content, but there's an RSS feed that links to news about the TPM (including critical views) and a directory of organizations. On the whole, it looks like a potentially valuable resource for anyone with some interest in the TPM. Because it has no content of its own and does not seem to exert much editorial force, I'm not sure that we need a RS to vet it as a RS. Please take a look and tell us what you think... Dylan Flaherty 05:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm going to close the edit request for now for this reason. elektrikSHOOS 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian, I Think Not

In the intro paragraph it says that they are Republicans and Libertarians. Although the first tea party protest was done by Libertarians the movement has been taken over by the far right. In the paragraph that explains their ideology, it says they are against gay marriage, and open migration. Libertarians are for these things. Also, issues like the legalization of drugs, and the end of censorship is not part of their platform, both of which are a big part of Libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 (talk) [13]

It's both conservative and libertarian, so the agenda largely reflects where the two overlap. Some parts are more conservative, other parts are more libertarian, but both apply about equally well. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's response is correct. North8000 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 'libertarian' a nebulous, somewhat subjective umbrella term? I know libertarians who would not agree with the OP's characterization, especially on the social issues. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OP's characterizations are a bit off, actually. For example, Libertarianism says is not necessarily in favor of open immigration and isn't so much in favor of gay marriage as for replacing civil marriage with contractual. But, yes, there are multiple forms of libertarianism, which is why I clarified the term in the link just now. Dylan Flaherty 08:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me just note that Rubin's recent edit, where he changed the conservatism link in the lead to point to the American version was a positive change. Dylan Flaherty 16:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Discussions On The Lead

I think that most of the lead is stable, thanks to all the work we put into it, except for the second paragraph. It has three issues:

1. As it stands, the capsule description of the Boston Tea Party is confusing to non-Americans. In specific, it makes it sound as if colonists went into their own kitchens, removed the British tea that they'd bought, and destroyed it as an act of protest. That's highly inaccurate, yet it's what the sentence implies. It would be easy to change it to be unambiguous, and that's what I recommend.
2. The point of bringing up to BTP is to show how it inspired at least the name of the modern TPM. To this end, it's not clear that "No taxation without representation" has anything to do with it. After all, they have representation: the partiers are American citizens who have the right to vote for Sarah Palin, Rand Paul or anyone else who promises to cut their taxes.
3. Even if some argument were made for keeping the quote, the current phrasing is grammatically awkward, to the point of making me cringe. It must be fixed, one way or the other.

Now, it would be less than helpful for me to complain without offering an alternative, so here's a replacement paragraph:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians.

Feedback? Dylan Flaherty 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I added wording to avoid implying that every item in the lead was specifically decided ini the process. So, for example, my "record for posterity" does not imply that the wording about the original Boston Tea Party was specifically decided. Regarding your proposed change, maybe you have a point on that clarification needed, but your revision has less content. I think that a few key factoids about the original BTP are useful and appropriate, including the ones that are in the current lead. The "no taxation....." part doubly so. Once for being a key factoid about the BTP, the other because of the modern TPM having that phrase in mind, even if it is not a fully analogous situation. North8000 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the major issues of the lead have been resolved. As for the quote, I am against strongly against hiding facts. If we can find sources to confirm that "no taxation without representation" is currently a TPM slogan, we could have it read:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians. Their rallying cry of "no taxation without representation" has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement.

Better? Dylan Flaherty 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's a possible reference: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty. Dylan Flaherty 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you overall. But I think that "is a current slogan" is an overstatement, and a little off the track of its reason for inclusion. North8000 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We have citations for it being a current slogan. What other reason for inclusion do we have and what supports it? Dylan Flaherty 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's true and have cites, I'm cool with that. Other reasons for inclusion: it it a key factoid about the 1773 BTP which is being mentioned. Also, the TPM generally considers the situations to have some similarities. North8000 13:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note, the 1773 factoid was good to have.

This edit is not accurate: "The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians.. Their rallying cry of "no taxation without representation" has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement."

This sentence, "dumping tea found on British ships. . ." makes it sound like they just came upon the ship, and randomly decided to destroy the tea. That's not what happened at all. As far as the Tea Party movement using "no taxation without representation" as a slogan, that's not exactly accurate either. They have named the movement after the 1773 Boston Tea Party because they have similar issues, etc. This paragraph should go back to the way it was. It seems this is an "over thinking," which leads to synthesis. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

1. If you have alternative phrasing for "found on", feel free to suggest it.
2. The slogan usage is cited, not OR/SYN.

Anything else? Dylan Flaherty 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Google search results for Tea Party movement slogan/notability:

• "Tea Party movement slogan no taxation without representation." Search results: 6,850

• "Tea Party movement slogan take our country back." Search results: 204,000

A "MyFoxNews" citation can't change history. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably should go back to where it was and then work out the new wording. Regarding Dylan's change, looks like Dylan is for, me neutral, (both have flaws) and Malke against. Considering that this is the lead of a 1RR/probation article, we should be double careful about changes. North8000 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of being for or against. You can't rewrite history. The colonists were not protesting the tea tax. They were really protesting Parliament's assertion that it had the right to tax the colonists. The tea tax itself was a mere pittance. It was the taxing itself. That is also what the Tea Party movement is protesting. The para, as it reads right now, is synthetic.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to say here. The paragraph is very clear about the notion of "no taxation without representation", indicating that it was as much principle as money that mattered to the BTP, and links to the full article on the BTP. On the other hand, we have no reason to believe this is true of the TBM, as it is associated with the notion that, despite having representation, our taxes are too high and are spent on things that, in principle, the government should not be spending on.

As for the WP:OR with Google, I don't see how it contradicts "has become a slogan". If we have good sources for "Take our country back", we can probably find a place for it somewhere. Dylan Flaherty 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To Malke. I thought that the BTP was to protest the tea tax itself. I learn something new every day. North8000 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The original edit had a perfectly acceptable sentance to summarize the Boston Tea Party, considering the event itself was linked to the BTP article. Any further detail can be found there if the reader wishes. Rapier (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the previous version was ungrammatical and did not draw the connection between the BTP and TPM. It had to be fixed. Dylan Flaherty 22:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rapier. Previous edit was better. Let's get back to it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to alternatives, but we can't regress to a broken version. Come up with an acceptable variant and we'll hash it out. Dylan Flaherty 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor quibble on readability: the 'ocean' part sounds odd, since it was in the Boston harbor -- which is a part of the bay and thus pretty far from the ocean proper (though technically connected, of course). And I think "into the harbor" is enough since Boston is already mentioned. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What does "Dressed like Indians" have to do with the subject? This seems like very minor extraneous information that has really nothing to do with the motivation for taking up the basic idea of the BTP. Furthermore the actual Tea Party article implies that this was a minor aspect. From Boston Tea Party "That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians,". I say we remove this non-important connection otherwise it has to be expanded to correspond to the actual facts. Arzel (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

These are both thoughtful, reasonable suggestions, so I have implemented them. I won't claim it's perfect now, but I think it's better. Dylan Flaherty 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The source being used to claim that the Tea Party movement uses the slogan "no taxation without representation," doesn't actually say that. [14]. It's just the newscaster recalling the slogan from 1773. If you watch the tape, you'll notice no one from the rally is saying it. Nor do the protesters appear to have signs with the slogan. Also, the ships were not British. They were American. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no America, except as a British colony. The ships belonged to the East India Company, a British firm. Dylan Flaherty 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was known as America. The British Parlament called it "America." After the tea incident, it became the United States of America. And the ships were American. The Beaver, the Dartmouth, and the Eleanor were American. Only the tea was owned by the East India company.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS. Dylan Flaherty 21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a better source than that, such as an academic one, but as a compromise, I've removed mention of the nationality of ships themselves, as that's not really the issue. Dylan Flaherty 03:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, I looked up a few other sources and all detailed accounts of the incident say that the ships were owned by colonial merchants, sort of caught in the middle. That would explain why the ships themselves were not destroyed. I suppose there is a fine line about colonial ownership etc., which might be argued either way. Rewording it to avoid the confusion is a better solution. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The following strikes me as an unsupportable assertion that probably requires a copyedit treatment...

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement...has so far endorsed Republican candidates.

How exactly, does this "movement" itself endorse a candidate? While it is correct that many notables have ascribed to the general principles of the "Tea Party Movement" platform and have, themselves, endorsed candidates (eg. Sarah Palin), the notion that the "movement" itself does the endorsing is specious. There is no "single voice" that can authoritatively speak for "the movement" and any suggestion otherwise is a media concoction of convenience. Even moreso (and, perhaps, more importantly), it is the individual candidate's declaration of support for the TPM "platform" that establishes the association, not the other way around. Anyone else see a problem here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The movement is made up of groups. The groups endorse candidates. So saying that the movement endorses candidates is just a shorthand way of saying that TPM groups endorse candidates. We can also add that candidates have signed onto the Tea Party Agenda. This shows why a definitive list, compiled from already identified sources, of TPM candidates is overdue. We've discussed it before. It really wouldn't be much work.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Start on a Route out of Junk Status

Previously 2-3 articles on organizations were mentioned as models to help navigate this one out of it's junky nature. Until Wikipedia can fix things so that contentious articles aren't eternally unstable, I have decided that my life is too short to try to help fix bad ones by spending hours on each sentence. But if would could get a consensus here to start upgrading this into a neutral, good quality informative article, then I'm be game for helping.

One example (and a good place to start) is the "racism" angle. A careful read of even this junky article would make its clear the racism isn't a theme or agenda of the TPM. The fact that opponents have to dig so deep, trying to make headlines (or give massive coverage here) out of each time one person of the millions in the movement says something racist, followed by the TPM disavowing the person who said it says much. This article massively violates wp:undue by doing the same:

• Saying polls find that the majority to TPM people are white. Duh! Is this supposed to imply something for the gullible? Since the majority of USA is "white", any group that represents a cross-section of Americans is going ot be "majority white"

• Implying that a poll saying that a majority of TPM's say it's not the job of the US government's to assure that blacks succeed shows racism! Another implication for the gullible. Duh! It's a view held by many (pervasively by conservatives) that government's job is to gaurantee OPPORTUNITY , NOT SUCCESS. Whether it be for green, black, white, tan or purple people.

• (healthcare protest) 710 words dedicated to unsubstantiated claims that somebody said that somebody (of the zillions there) said something racist.

• One leader of one of the over 1,600+ local chapters puts an ethnic slur on TWITTER and this article gives that about 100 words?!

So, on one side (IMHO) we are dealing with TPM opponents trying to invent/gin up the racial issue as a tactic. But, on the flip side, there is the little-covered issue that I have been hearing/reading about of various reactionary types (whether it be the ones who see black helicopters, or racists etc.) trying to make the TPM their home, and presumably might try to get theri agenda into the TP agenda. So this "racial" portion would be a good place to start. Could we possibly get a consensus for major changes somewhat as implied by the above? Let's find USEFUL, INFORMATIVE INTELLIGENT sources the meet the WP "RS" criteria, which analyze / overview this area. And develop coverage from them And massively cut back on the overblown massively wp:undue quantity of coverage on these off-beat individual incidents or alleged incidents? Again, if there is a consensus vaguely along the above lines, I'm up for working on this. Otherwise not so much. Sincerely North8000 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Specifically on the racial polling point - your comment is true, except that the polling shows the splits are beyond the overall demographics of the US. I think the demographics sections does a decent job of giving an idea of the makeup of the TPM. What could be interesting is to add to the comparison of that - compare the demographics of the TPM not just to the US as a whole but also to the republican and democratic parties. Even batter, if more data comes out, expand that to include additional demographic data (income, etc).

A reorg in general could also be helpful. There's a section called "Views of supporters" - okay, why not just "views of the TPM"? It's hard because there is no true single view, but there are general areas - taxes, health care, government size, etc - put those as their own sections and move the views/comments from various sections into that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just focusing on the racial topics (gotta start somewhere) and so was not commenting on the polling section as a whole. I think that I agree with you on the polling data, but context and data would be needed to accomplish what you said. For example instead of saying "the majority of TP'ers are white", give percentages compared to the population as a whole. North8000 16:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some quick comments on the above opinions (from an article-improvement position):

• A careful read of even this junky article would make its clear the racism isn't a theme or agenda of the TPM.

It is good that the article makes this clear. The race issue elements discussed in the article should remain focused on where the TPers differ significantly from the rest of American society, as demonstrated not just by events, but by actual studies and polls.

• ...each time one person of the millions in the movement says something racist...

Millions, or tens of thousands — as more recent examinations into the actual size and extent of the movement seem to suggest — aren't being represented by the few examples given in this article. However, views by the movement on general race issues are. Obviously when racism is the subject, no "deep digging" is required, as incidents of that nature are by their very nature sensational and tend to generate their own headlines. It is interesting that when numerous examples make their way into the article, an objection is raised that the article is becoming a laundry list; yet when the examples are trimmed back to just a few, they are misinterpreted as an exhaustive list that took effort to create.

• Saying polls find that the majority to TPM people are white. Duh!

I agree with you that the article shouldn't convey that. The sources convey that the TPM demographic is significantly more "white" than the American demographic, and our article should clearly convey what the sources do. ("Duh!" stories don't usually have news articles written about them, while "Huh?!" stories usually do.)

• It's a view held by many (pervasively by conservatives) that government's job is to gaurantee OPPORTUNITY , NOT SUCCESS.

Reliable sources indicate most Americans agree that the government should do what it can to guarantee equal opportunity, while the TPers are significantly less inclined to agree, and our article should convey this. If the sources are being misrepresented to indicate this has anything to do with "guaranteeing success", it should be corrected. (BTW, an interesting discussion on this subject can be found in this book.)

• (healthcare protest) 710 words dedicated to unsubstantiated claims that somebody said that somebody (of the zillions there) said something racist.

I don't see the section to which you refer. There is, however, a section dedicated to substantiated reports of racial slurs, and anti-gay slurs, and anti-semitic slurs, all from the healthcare protests. That section is longer than it should be because some editors also wanted it to include a conspiracy theory about secret Pelosi-concocted efforts to fabricate a "racism incident".

• ...(IMHO) we are dealing with TPM opponents trying to invent/gin up the racial issue as a tactic.

Are there reliable sources that you could direct me to that support this opinion of yours? I am also unsure of what qualifies as an "opponent" of a movement. I am aware of skeptics of what the TPers purport to espouse, but skeptics aren't "opponents". Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I generally agree with what you've said here. Dylan Flaherty 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan, I agree with the majority of what you said. And also wish to bring up two points of confusion. When I was talking about views role of government guaranteeing opportunity vs. success, I was talking about the article's mis-use of that poll data, which was easy to do considering how badly worded the question.

When I was talking about opponents wanting to gin up the race angle, I was talking about trying to get a perspective for content, (and for seeing the obvious massive wp:undue violations) not to insert that statement into the article. North8000 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that we're in agreement, given what you just said. Are you suggesting that the TPM movement has not been rightfully associated with racism? Dylan Flaherty 02:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The core of what I'm saying is that currently, on the topic of racism or alleged racism, the article right now is mostly a bunch a random junk which massively violates wp:undue, plus massively mis-using primary source, and is lacking intelligent coverage. And that we should fix that. Find quality sources that analyze this intelligently and objectively, and go wherever they take us. North8000 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's start with:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/03/20/tea_party_racism

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39940.html

http://www.politicolnews.com/tea-party-racism/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/naacp-tea-party-race-debate-heats-sarah-palin/story?id=11153935

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/politics/main6694191.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/naacp-tea-party-race-debate-heats-sarah-palin/story?id=11153935&tqkw=&tqshow=WN (dupe)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_538750.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203169.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/naacp-releases-report-extremism-tea-party/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0714/Nasty-tea-party-NAACP-racism-feud-Who-s-right

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/14/is-the-tea-party-racist

Enough for now? Dylan Flaherty 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know. It's going to take some time to thoroughly read those. Sincerely, North8000 12:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Many good sources in the (and 4 that were just editorials) None except 3 EDITORIALS by anti-TP people say or claim the TPM is racist, and one pro-TP editorial says it's clearly not racist.

Quick summary:

• 1, #4. #9 Editorials by anti-TP people
• 13 Editorial by pro-TP person
• 2 Basically takes polls on reverse-discrimination questions, and mis-implies from the results.
• 3, #5/#7(duplicated) #6,#8,#10 #12 Good articles. General exploration of the issue, no conclusions.
• 12 94 Pages of material, focusing on "nationalist" angle. Did not read it all yet. Could be a good source of info, whether biased or not.

(had to take number signs out from the beginning of each, pretend that they're there)

Sincerely, North8000 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplication. I've gently crossed out my own line. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this forgotten? Dylan Flaherty 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, what I said at the beginning was: "I have decided that my life is too short to try to help fix bad ones by spending hours on each sentence. But if would could get a consensus here to start upgrading this into a neutral, good quality informative article, then I'm be game for helping." Wasn't sure whee we ended up on the "consensus". As the person that I most frequently "lock horns" with here (hopefully in a friendly way!) then if you are game with such an effort, than I'd also be game. But again, my life is too short to try to get to that end via. line by line debates. North8000 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV adjective

A recent edit removed "unprompted" from "Koch Industries issued an unprompted press release". This word is entirely neutral and is the result of a hard-earned consensus that cannot be ignored by a single editor. Unless some compelling argument is made here (not in an edit comment), this change is slated to be reverted. Dylan Flaherty 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You stated previously "[Koch Industries] overreacted by spitting out an unsolicited press release denying any connection..." If they were reacting, something prompted their reaction. The word unprompted casts aspersions on their motivations. I don't see how anything could be more neutral than simply stating they issued a press release. It's purely factual when phrased that way. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is defined in terms of our sources, not your beliefs. One source states:

"Koch Industries, a major backer of myriad right-wing causes, issued an unsolicited statement last night in advance of Tax Day claiming..."

It also uses the word again:

"She said the unsolicited statement was prompted because..."

I think this is very clear. We compromised on "unprompted", based on some people feeling that "unsolicited" was too negative, yet that's precisely what our source states.

It's clear that we need to restore either "unprompted" or "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Every press release is prompted by something. Besides, I see no support for "unprompted" in the ref. DF, please quote the ref that supports "unprompted". Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict and I wrote this before the last two responses: Hello Dylan, I don't know about the hard earned consensus part....I don't recall any discussion on the term. Second, I think that about 90% of press releases are "unprompted". So, what is the meaning / purpose / intent of using that word to refer to this particular press release? IMHO by the norms, use of the term in this context would tend to mean "unusually pro-active", or "it was very unusual /significant that they did this press release without being a response to anything". IMHO if such is really the case, the the term is informative; if not then it is POV wordsmithing. North8000 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The point being made by our sources is that it was conspicuously strange for Koch to issue a denial when there has been no specific accusation. This is not my OR, it's in the original, so we must honor it. Dylan Flaherty 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's another source which accepts this word:

"Rachel points out the bizarre unsolicited letter that Koch Industries to Talking Points Memo..."

The usage here is not original, but it's endorsed. Dylan Flaherty 22:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's yet another that picked up on the original story, showing that we are not giving it undue weight. Have to love tertiary journalism. Dylan Flaherty 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

It also uses "unprompted". Dylan Flaherty 22:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not in the article, your choice of words here is beyond POV. "Accusation" refers to wrongdoing, and you are assigning that word to refer to the subject of giving money to Freedom Works.

I didn't have time to read and analyze the referenced material Is there some REAL meaning / informative value to "unprompted" or is it just swipes by an un-objective un-reliable "RS"?North8000 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The term is accurate and neutral. Dylan Flaherty 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple things. First, Crooks and Liars, TPM, and The Huffington Post are all left wing sites, and all of the linked stories are commentary rather than straight news reporting. Second, examine the context of the HP story:

"In the aftermath of the Greenpeace report detailing Koch Industries and Koch Foundations' funding of climate denial organizations and front groups, David and Charles Koch have refused to address key questions about their destructive role in funding groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Cato Institute. Instead, Koch Industries attempted to distance themselves from last week's tax day tea parties, even going so far as to send unprompted emails to news outlets including Talking Points Memo:"

That is clearly indicating that the press release was a reaction to some other event. Also, unsolicited is not congruous to unprompted. Unsolicited means unasked for. It doesn't mean without cause. Unprompted in the article text casts an inappropriate value judgment. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that you highlighted a number of words in that quote, but did not highlight "unprompted". That seems like a selective reading combined with original research, so I'm going to have to disregard your conclusion. It doesn't help that you didn't offer an argument against "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about that word, I didn't feel it was necessary to point it out in the text again. I was pointing out the context, which indicates that there were events that lead up to the press release being issued, specifically, the Greenpeace report. As for unsolicited, I defined it. Its definition is not synonymous with unprompted. Finally, unsolicited is a loaded word in this context as well, since press releases are not something that is solicited for in the first place. Simply stating they issued the press release is as neutral as the sentence could be. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your original research and personal opinions, but I still feel more comfortable following our sources. Our sources saw fit to highlight the odd nature of the press release, in that it was a premature denial. It's akin to Obama putting out a press release today announcing that he didn't have Palin murdered, only for Palin to go missing two days later and be found dead; the timing is significant and suppressing it is hardly neutral. Dylan Flaherty 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the timing is significant. Hence, the word unprompted is inappropriate, as something prompted the press release. I've made my points and will let others continue this. `—Torchiest ^talk/_edits 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with "unprompted", then I'm sure you'll accept "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If your point of view relies on left-wing sites with a predisposition against both Koch and the TPM, then I sould say that your suggestion is not acceptable. Furthermore, I don't see why you insist on adding a POV to the section when it is already quite neutral. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if we have to choose between our sources and you -- and we do -- then we go with the sources. If you have a better source, bring it. Otherwise, it's just your WP:OR against a WP:RS, and that's a losing move. Dylan Flaherty 01:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

False. It's not the job of people opposing adding POV from Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace to find a better source. Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace simply may not be used as WP:RSs in this context, and context is key. It's your job to find a RS for adding what is apparently your POV/OR. Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace is not adequate in this case for that purpose. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace aren't our sources for this. You're wasting our time by arguing against a straw man. Dylan Flaherty 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you not provide them as RSs for your soapbox? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The question remains: what are you talking about? Dylan Flaherty 03:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You want diffs for your own edits above? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party as Republican marketing tool

Dylan, I rewrote that paragraph for the reason I gave: that neither source says anything about "marketing tools". I'm still not sure what the original intent of the paragraph was. Did you write it? If so, maybe you can explain what you were trying to say. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What the source says is that "the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene". Rebranding is a marketing tool; you change your brand to attract a different demographic. In the case of the TPM, the rebranding is intended to attract conservative Democrats and independents (particularly those who lean towards Libertarianism) while avoiding the taint of W. As such, the source fully supports the text that you and Arzel removed. I suggest that you restore it. Dylan Flaherty 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to make it clear that this interpretation is not original research, allow me to once again quote that source: "Additionally, GOP leaders eager to maximize turnout this fall may do just as well by targeting the more traditional voting category of conservative Republicans as by expending energy and effort to target those who identify with the Tea Party movement." Dylan Flaherty 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, here's another section with restates some of the ideas in the first quote: "Whether Tea Party supporters are a voting segment that is unique and distinct from the more traditional Republican conservative base, however, appears questionable. There is significant overlap between Tea Party supporters and conservative Republicans, both groups are highly enthusiastic about voting, and both are heavily skewed toward Republican candidates -- although the latter somewhat more so than the former. Republican leaders who worry about the Tea Party's impact on their races may in fact (and more simply) be defined as largely worrying about their party's core base." Dylan Flaherty 20:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Marketing tool" looks like a selective interpretation. Saying that it is a related entity is fine but "re-branding" does not need to equal "marketing" in fluffy writing.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claim is unsupported and conflicts with our sources. It is trivial to source the fact that branding and re-branding are both marketing tools. Do you have an argument that has not been refuted? Dylan Flaherty 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A source does not need to be reliable, objective or knowledgable to meet WP "RS" criteria. Whatever source was used for that paragraph certainly illustrates this. "Rebranding" , "marketing tool" etc. all mean Republican control of the TPM, which is clearly false. North8000 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that Gallup Polls are known to be reliable and neutral, regardless of whether you personally agree with them. In any case, you are saying nothing about describing rebranding as a marketing tool, so I can only guess that you agree. Dylan Flaherty 21:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a big topic which could have a big discussion. But, briefly, both of those terms could only be applicable if the Republican party controlled the the TPM, which it does not, so I disagree. Why don't we start working on writing good content instead of spending a lot of time trying to game in swipes by opponents (and presenting them as fact) like this? And, no, that's not code for writing in the opposite POV, it's code for writing objective, informative content instead of the junk that this article is flooded with. North8000 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I will give this subject some time, in case someone might come up with a valid objection. Better to work things out here than create the false appearance of edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In light of the recent restoration, I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with "rebranding". Dylan Flaherty 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the meat of the source could be focussed on instead of the use of cute wording.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may have confused the meet with the condiments. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The term "rebranding" is mustard while the overall intent of the writer (to show that it is not necessarily a new party but instead a group focused on traditional republican ideals) is the Turkey. "Rebranding" simply isn't necessary to make that point especially if it starts leading the reader to believe that it is a marketing ploy. I could go a step farther and say that it isn;t even a condiment but a garnish. Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sharing your original research. However, I'm going to go with the source, instead. The language of pollsters is, not coincidentally, the language of marketers, so they use words such as rebrand and target. Dylan Flaherty 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those opposing the use of rebranding, for reasoning as stated by, e.g., North8000. Rebranding is in no ref whatsoever. Further, especially with hindsight, it is clear the GOP and the TPM are separate entities, not rebranded entities. Attempts to cast the TPM as rebranded GOP are WP:SOAPBOX. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your "ditto". As it adds no reasoning, other than contradicting our sources, it also adds no weight. Gallup is a very reliable source, so if they say the TPM is rebranded GOP, we go with that, no matter what your personal opinion might be. Dylan Flaherty 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gallup does not say it's rebranding. You do. Big difference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"[M]ore a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity" is not rebranding. It's saying it's kind of like rebranding compared to another alternative. But it's not rebranding. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you just contradicted yourself by showing Gallup does indeed call it a rebranding. Thank you for supporting my point so amicably. Dylan Flaherty 03:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Clever of you, but that is not what I said. Gallup called it more of one thing than another. That is not the same as calling it definitely that one thing. You really need to tone down on the snarkiness, and tone up on the RSs. The RS you are saying says it is a rebranding does not say that. That is your spin, and your spin only, judging by other comments here. You need to overcome this RS problem, not make snarky comments. Stick to the issues, not the editors. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It says precisely that. Please don't make demonstrably false statements. Dylan Flaherty 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says precisely that. But you said, "I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with 'rebranding'". They are two different things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that is what the writer was getting at. Furthermore, since it can be misread as "marketing" (which everyone besides maybe Dylan agrees it is not) then it warrants a change. Of course, if we cannot come to some sort of alternative solution we could simply remove the problematic line. This single source is not that important and isn't worth the hassle. THe concern regarding if this is attempting to insert "marketing" or some sort of claim of ownership by the GOP makes it even more worrisome so remove it until we have a line that isn't such a headache. Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics does include marketing. Regardless, Gallup is a highly reliable and neutral source, and it is not alone. Any attempt to remove this against consensus will trigger dispute resolution. Dylan Flaherty 04:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If I might join in the hair-splitting, the current edit reads...

...and some observers have suggested that the "movement" is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[16]

That misquotes the source. It should read...

...and some an observers have, Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll, has suggested that the "movement" is not a new political group, but simply more like a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[16]

Now that we've noted the misquote, how is it that the observation of a single pollster/analyst (with its decidedly POV contextual connotation) rises to now inhabit the lede of this article? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there are others[15] but Gallup is pretty important: it's a reliable and neutral source. Dylan Flaherty 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Power to the people!!! Ditto and all that! Dylan Flaherty 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And what is with the scare quotes on movement? We have tighter neutrality guidelines than the source so these need to go. And yes, power to the people. Consensus is that the line is a problem. Anyone care if I remove the whole thing for now? Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't explain the scare quotes. Regardless, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV for you to remove that line, so I would not recommend it. Dylan Flaherty 04:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't made note of the "scare quotes" addition but it's yet another misrepresentation of the cited source. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it won't let me post political-transcripts-in-national/al-sharpton-it-s-our-term-tea-party-aims-to-cripple-obama-so-their-term under examiner.dot.com, so you'll have to combine the parts together. Dylan Flaherty 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to remove a line that consensus and the only RS shows is POV. There appears to be agreement that WP:UNDUE is another problem. Please remove the line at your earliest convenience. After all this Talk, the only one supporting the POV/UNDUE has not adequately supported his position and consensus is against him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It would be a violation of WP:NPOV for to keep that line, so I would not recommend it. Anyone else besides Dylan (no offence, we just already know you prefer to keep it) want to keep the line? It can always be reintroduced after being touched up but right now I think we should err on the side of caution.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate fact that simply reversing a sound argument does not automatically yield a sound argument. You need to actually demonstrate how, of all sources, Gallup is non-neutral. Good luck doing that. And until you do, don't damage the article by removing this cited fact. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was just as strong (or weak) as the one preceding it. Anyways, the problems are not based on if the source is valid or not. Please see the above conversation.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that Gallup is anything but valid. Dylan Flaherty 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. It's not our job to guess what your concern is. Dylan Flaherty 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is already spelled out clearly so no guessing required. Three people have provided sufficient reasoning to alter or remove the line. Dylan still disagrees. The argument is valid but I do not think it outweighs the others. Time to remove it unless there are any other comments.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JMO, but I'm for allowing a bit more time for editor input. It is, after all, the wee hours of the day in much of the English speaking world and a little sunshine may help. I will, however, amend the current entry to correct the misquote and editorial mis-application of the scare quotes...and, even if germane, the appropriateness of this content for incorporation in the lede is still very much in question. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any arguments for exclusion that aren't already refuted, now would be a great time to summarize them. Dylan Flaherty 06:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hint: Making changes is not a good way to summarize arguments. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All arguments already appear above. By consensus, your refutation of those arguments was not sufficient to sway consensus, not even a single editor. JakeInJoisey's solution is really very good. After that extra time is over, and barring further input here that may change consensus, WP:DR might be your next step. I realize you said "DR is a failure, WP is a failure', but that does not mean it would not be a viable choice here or that the undue POV need remain unchanged. I hereby fully endorse JakeInJoisey's solution, including amending the current entry right now pending its ultimate removal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you know what consensus means. In specific, if it violates the rules, it's not consensus, even if it's a million to one. If WP:DR is so great, lead the way. Dylan Flaherty 06:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. JakeInJoisey's solution is the appropriate resolution for right now. As to "violates the rules", that's been addressed above and need not be rediscussed. The POV will now be removed, if it has not already, and, after further time has passed, the entire phrase may be removed. If you are unhappy despite consensus, feel free to go to DR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Jake, the Slate RS undermined most of what he was trying to accomplish. Dylan Flaherty 06:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you edited against consensus. I reverted. And Slate is not a RS as used in this context. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Jake... and ...what he was trying to accomplish.

Oh my. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Dylan Flaherty is correct about the consensus. AfricaTruth (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This comment is the only edit of AfricaTruth (talk · contribs) to date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Now brought down by its own boomerang and indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam links/Full protection

New to this discussion (it came to my attention as the result of a discussion at WP:3RRN), but could someone explain why the links of the TP organizations in the "external links" section have been tagged as spam by Ronz (talk · contribs)[16] and Barek (talk · contribs)?[17] This seems to be the source of the revert-warring that led to full protection. Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Dylan Flaherty 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should have posted here immediately after reverting, I apologize for the delay. I can't speak for Ronz, but here are my reasons:

It's actually more accurate to describe the links as linkspam, not what is frequently thought of as spam. As such, it would have been better of me to either remove the links, or to tag the section with {{external links}} instead of restore the less accurate in-line {{spam link}} tags which have a negative connotation which could be mis-construed to be a criticism or claim against the organizations themselves.

The argument for adding the external links to this article seems to be tied to WP:ELYES #1 "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site. See Official links below.". If you then follow the link, there are two criteria for defining an external link as an official site - I believe that the sites fail the first criteria: "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." The article is about a movement, and there is no single group of official site that controls that movement.

I believe that those links are much more appropriate in articles about the respective groups where they are true official sites for those articles. The links already exist in the articles for Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, and Tea Party Express. The only other use of those links in this article would be as sources where appropriate to support statements within this article, a use which already appropriately exists and which I do not dispute.

Granted, this is all a guideline, and discussion on this talk page can determine if consensus exists that a WP:IAR situation exists here. However, that requires a discussion - and I am as guilty as the others involved for not starting the discussion as I should have when I reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is that there's no single official TPM web site. By selecting some and excluding others, we'd be ruling on something that is beyond our ability to judge. Dylan Flaherty 02:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Barek and Dylan... There is no single TPM organization, so there's no website that could meet ELOFFICIAL.

Internal links to the respective organizations are already in the article, and each has its own official link.

FreedomWorks is not TPM. Suggesting it is in such a manner violates WP:NPOV.

While we're at it, I see a need for the links to coverage sites, but I find the Fox News and CNN pages rather poor in comparison to The New York Times' and BBC's. Given the links between Fox and TPM, I can see a case for keeping it. Anyone have good reasons for keeping CNN's? --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I can see the reasoning now. But using {{spam link}} was probably a bad call that led to the edit war. I have worked in the past with WP:WPSPAM, and implying that someone is a "spammer" for adding links is sure to generate a visceral response, since spammers are almost universally hated. Ronz (talk · contribs) says they are working on a better inline template for the future. Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz, and it appears everyone else now as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all three of the Tea Party group links should be removed, since we should not be picking and choosing any representatives for what is a last and diverse set of groups. I also think the link to the SourceWatch wiki should be removed, as it is redundant to this very Wikipedia, except it is a liberal site. I would also oppose a link to a Conservapedia Tea Party page for the same reasons. I also think the Life magazine link should go, as it's just a pointless puff piece. The rest of the news links are more substantial and are appropriately balanced left to right. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the reputation of SourceWatch as a source or external link on Wikipedia. If it's not highly reputable or redundant with Wikipedia articles or other external links, then it would be best to remove it.

The Life magazine link has lost much of it's value since the elections, and will only get worse with time. I'm not sure how valuable it was before the elections. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose removal of the {{spam link}} templates from the "external links" section and replacing it with {{External links}} at the top of the section while this is being discussed. Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You posted above that Ronz had mentioned a new in-line tag. I see on Ronz' talk-page that the suggestion for {{External links-inline}}. That might be a better choice, so that the specific links in question can be identified - at least until the above discussion concludes. Although, I'm also fine with using the {{External links}} tag - that's the one I'm most familiar with using anyways. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the page was unprotected, I went ahead and made the change I suggested. I won't object if someone has a better solution. However, I'd request that the tag not be removed until Kenatipo (talk · contribs) has a chance to come back and comment. All the best - Kelly ^hi! 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree on waiting for Kenatipo.

Note that WP:ELBURDEN recommends removal of disputed links until consensus is reached for their inclusion. That said, there are far more important disputes and problems to address than the external links, and other problems with the article will not be solved by changing external links, especially POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't wait for my input. I'm taking a break from editing for a while. Thank you for your consideration though. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I've removed them given the discussions above. I also was bold and removed the CNN link which I'd mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to remove the {{External links}} tag at this point? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, so I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

POV violation and edit-warring

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling removed a reference to a reliable source so as to be able to claim that only a single observer has concluded that the TPM is a rebranded GOP.

The mistakes described here were originally made by JakeInJoisey, but I reverted them with full explanation. I believe that Jake's edit was in good faith, though erroneous. However, by the time LAEC got involved, the error had been pointed out, so no assumption of good faith can be supported by the evidence.

I'm not going to join LAEC in edit-warring. Instead, I will point out that this change is clearly unacceptable and ask that the appropriate measures be taken. Dylan Flaherty 06:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you've been cautioned and sanctioned over this type of behavior before. Please keep your comments to content rather than making it personal to particular contributors. If you think there is a problem with a particular contributor, please use external processes like RFC rather than disrupting article talk pages with personal accusations. If your problem is with content, then keep the discussion to that alone. Kelly ^hi! 07:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:DR insists that I discuss the issue here before going anywhere else. As an experiment, I reported a similar error to WP:AN/I recently, and I think we both saw that the admins on watch were uninterested in dealing with the matter. On the whole, as much as I appreciate your advice, I'm going to stick with following the rules, instead. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The mistakes described here were originally made by JakeInJoisey, but I reverted them with full explanation.

Let's please be precisely accurate here. The content was NOT "my" edit and I made no "mistake". "My" edit was to correct the misrepresentation of the source of the existing edit to include the singular nature of the existing source, omission of the qualifying "mostly like" and the removal of the POV "scare quotes". JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Jake, there's no disagreement about the need to remove those scare quotes; I admitted it from the moment it was pointed out, and I was careful to preserve their removal. The rest of the change you made was a mistake, in light of the additional "observers", but it was still much better than LAEC's change, as his came after I had added a citation. In his case, he definitely knew he was going against our sources. You get a free pass and a healthy dose of WP:AGF, he gets a dose of harsh reality. Dylan Flaherty 13:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's false. You were just told a few comments above to stick to the issues, not the editors. And don't spun this, again, as a JakeInJoisey "mistake". No one enjoys when you spin what they do.

Your edit was against consensus, and your added ref supported your soapbox that was also against consensus, not only above, but now below as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your claims about consensus. The sources we have are very clear on this matter: we have multiple statements by notable people in reliable sources, not just one. Dylan Flaherty 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm correct. You are intentionally misleading people and continuing your tenditious editing. At the point that you defied consensus and made the edit you did, you defied consensus. Things that happened after that point are irrelevant to what you did at the time. And issues were not just the refs but also the OR that you created out of thin air to push your view. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Just to make it clear that there's absolutely no question about the existence of multiple observers who see the TPM as a rebranding of the GOP, I've dumped some sources here.

Gallup (and restatements)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/07/02/gallup-tea-party-a-rebranding-of-republicanism/

David Weigel, Washington Post, 5 Myths

http://www.slate.com/id/2263063/

http://www.freedomworks.org/news/five-myths-about-the-tea-party

Other RS:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/25/opinion/la-oe-0725-mcmanus-column-tea-party-20100725

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704462704575590510679315310.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/07/palin

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011956-503544.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/17/201024/030

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/democrats-attacking-gop-as-tea-party

I think that's enough for now, but there's more where that came from. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine (though - Daily Kos as a reliable source?) - I'm just saying, keep it to the content, not the contributors. Kapisch? Kelly ^hi! 07:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, no. Putting aside the Daily Kos for just a moment, I thought the whole point is that we're trying to determine whether, as LAEC suggests, Newport is the only RS saying this. What do you mean? Dylan Flaherty 07:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that, just as I did not do that which this whole subsection is about. Dylan has failed to achieve consensus above. He should stick to issues, not editors. Kelly has provided him with this advice. DF should reconsider his decision not to abide by Kelly's advice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If we really put those in context, they essentially say that TPM opponents (as a tactic) are saying that TPM is just re-branding / a tool of Republicans. The article should report opponents' assertions as such, not as fact. North8000 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

North, that wouldn't be context, it would be lying. Gallup is not a opponent of TPM nor is this a "tactic" on their part. It is, quite objectively, what the data suggests to someone capable of reading data. We need to simply stick to our sources, without trying to editorialize (read: distort). Otherwise, this article will sink back into the mire of POV that we found it in.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no basis, in common sense or the rules or whatever, for ignoring the existence of all of the other sources that share the observation of Gallup. Nobody has even attempted to provide such a basis, aside from the circular logic of LAEC's consensus claim. Dylan Flaherty 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with North. It is clear that opponents of TPM are trying to make any re-branding connection. It doesn't even make sense to say that the TPM is a "marketing" tool or a re-branding of the GOP. If the TPM is a rebranding of the GOP then GOP=TPM, thus you get the following insane outcome of this logic. This would imply that the GOP ran several races against itself during the primaries, it would also say that the GOP blames the GOP for not being able to take the senate because the GOP ran candidates against the GOP which resulted in the GOP having some candidates that were not as strong as GOP candidates. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Gallup poll said that there is a constituent overlap and that TP'ers usually vote Republican. There is NOTHING in there about "rebranding" or "tool of Republicans". And Dylan, you basically just said that Gallup was a source for the "rebranding" and "tool of Republicans" stuff. Dylan, how can we carry on a sincere discussion here when you keep doing that? Sincerely, North8000 16:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not say it is a re-branding, just that there is overlap in support. That is hardly surprising since the GOP is more conservative than the Democrats. The TPM is in fact a challenge to the GOP leadership and writers hostile to it, e.g., Sean Wilentz and Robert Altemeyer, have placed it in the tradition of U.S. right-wing populist movements. TFD (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arzel: suggesting that the conservative base faction of the GOP ran candidates in several races against establishment GOP candidates is pure, unfounded lunacy. That's almost as crazy as asserting that some Democratic candidates oppose actions of one of their own, President Obama! Really, stop the insanity!

North8000 and TFD also raise good points; it's not like the chief editor of Gallup actually suggested that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene, or noted that the idea the Tea Party supporters are a voting segment that is unique and distinct from the more traditional Republican conservative base, however, appears questionable. And it's not like David Weigel observed that the presence of a new political force that is not called Republican and is not tied to George W. Bush has given the GOP a glorious opportunity to remake its image, at a time when trust in the party is very low. Some liberals deride the Tea Party as a new bottle for old Republican wine. But rebranding works. (Even Coca-Cola eventually benefited from the publicity of New Coke.) Nothing in major, reliable news sources suggests the "tea party" movement is rapidly becoming just another faction of the national Republican Party, or that at this point, the tea party agenda (to the extent the amorphous coalition has one) and the official Republican Party agenda have largely merged -- because we all know that the TPers are absolutely not a vocal, conservative subset of the GOP, but actually an "opponent" of the GOP. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we repeating this discussion. So far is there anyone else who supports it? I see no problem with creating a line that says something similar but multiple editors see "rebranding" as problematic. It has been about 24hrs and no one agrees with its use except for Dylan and Xenophrenic. Can you clarify or respond to the concerns based on it being read as "marketing"? For now it should go and hopefully a line can replace it after it is worked out.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion and sources given above, is there anyone that still sees the "rebranding" sentence as problematic? Each of the concerns raised thus far have been addressed, and there does not appear to be any other concerns forthcoming. The text looks fine as it is now, but should any further concerns be raised they can be worked out. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, If one reads it closely, I think that Xenophrenic also disagrees with Dyulan.

If one reads it even more closely, it is obvious Xenophrenic was being facetious, and he agrees with Dylan and the reliable sources (and even edited the article in support of that agreement).

You've miscounted. There are only 8 votes that count, and those all come from the reliable sources. Xeno's opinion and mine have no weight on their own; it all comes from those sources. On the other hand, you have no sources, so a million of you add up to nothing. Consensus is not a vote, and reliable sources rule. Dylan Flaherty 02:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, that argument does not hold water on several levels. First,and foremost, we are discussing what the reliable RS's say, and what they say is that TPM opponents are saying "rebranding / tool of", they are not saying that such is fact. Sincerely, North8000 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not the case. Gallup, for example, is not a TPM opponent. Try again. Dylan Flaherty 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor of the Gallup Poll probably is a TPM opponent. "Gallup" may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't discount otherwise reliable sources because we guess that they might be biased.   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The current paragraph reads:

The Tea Party's most noted national figures include highly seasoned Republican politicians such as Dick Armey and Sarah Palin. Nearly all Tea Party candidates have run as Republicans. A Gallup poll shows almost 80% of Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans. Some, including Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport, have suggested that the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.

Previously raised concerns:

• 1) The "rebranding" characterization comes from just one source or person (Frank Newport of Gallup).

This concern has been shown to be completely unfounded. As evidenced by the numerous sources listed above by Dylan Flaherty, as well as others linked from within those sources, the same observation has been made by numerous distinct sources.

• 2) The "rebranding" characterization is just a tactic used by opponents of the Tea Party movement, and should be presented in that context.

This concern has been shown to be inaccurate. The observation has come from some sources that are not opponents, and based only on hard polling data. Some of the sources listed above do indeed explain that opponents have tried to trumpet the "rebranding" characterization for political gain (with CBSNEWS and Politico noting that the DNC, for example, was setting up a whole campaign to spread the word that Tea Party = Rebranded Republican Party). However, other sources sympathetic to the TPers have noted the rebranding as a GOP effort. The Wall Street Journal, for example, concluded: "But when GOP pollsters looked more closely, they figured out that tea-party voters were, in fact, Republican voters who had simply grown unhappy and found a new way to express themselves. Their natural inclination was to vote Republican, if given a reason to do so. Soon enough, the GOP chose to embrace the movement, and the tea-party message became the Republican message for 2010 ... Still, the re-branding was successful. Attempting to portray the rebranding observation as a tactic of opponents would be grossly inaccurate.

• 3) The text should not use the "marketing" word, which would be inappropriate.

This concern is moot, since the present text does not use the "marketing" word. Calling it a change in marketing focus, or calling it rebranding, express with equal accuracy what the above listed sources convey — and the wording is simply a matter of personal preference, as both are equally appropriate.
Xenophrenic (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebranding is something done with/through something that one owns /controls controls. The Republican party does not own or control the TPM. North8000 12:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

North, that's your reasoning, and if you were a reliable source, we could include it. Instead, we have reliable sources that disagree with you, and we need to go with them. Dylan Flaherty 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As discussed, it isn't the source that is the problem but the language used and the way than it could be read incorrectly. I honestly d not see why anyone would be against tinkering with it. So after 46hrs can we remove it since it is obvious that it is a problem? Again, it can always go back in after it is cleaned up. There is no reason to repeat arguments anymore and I assume everyone is bored of dealing with this.Cptnono (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cptnono: The sentence that has existed for a month has indeed been tinkered with over the past 46 hours, and is no longer a problem. Were there any further concerns, or changes you'd like to suggest? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how long it has been in. Enough editors have raised concerns with both "marketing" and "rebranding". "Rebranding" in one sense does work. Unfortunately, as soon as it is read as some form of marketing (which is what happened) it became problematic. I don't know what it should say just that it is not good enough. I explained above (before we repeated the conversation for whatever reason) in more details and I hope you scroll up and think of an altertnative based on that.18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we have multiple reliable sources that speak of "rebranding". That's the word, and it's entirely accurate. No amount of original research can change this. Dylan Flaherty 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Due

Rubin recently re-added a tag badge of shame:

In 1984, David Koch also founded the precursor of FreedomWorks, another group that organized and supports the movement.

The stated reason was:

it's clearly undue weight. Koch founded pred. of FW, which does not allow an inference that he has anything to do with it NOW.

It's actually the opposite of undue weight: we mention that Koch founded the precursor of FW because we then repeat Koch's statement that he has no connection with it, which is something of an exaggeration. Not only do we need both, for NPOV, none of this is OR. The connection has been noted all over the place: it turns out that Koch doth protest too much.

Given all of this, I don't see any excuse for the badge of shame. Unless a compelling argument is made and a consensus is formed, I will remove the badge in about a day. Dylan Flaherty 13:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that statement has even more serious problems than undue weight. It essentially asserts that FreedomWorks has a precursor organization and that Koch founded it. But it has no cite/source for either of those statements. The cite provided at the end of that sentence has nothing on either of these. North8000 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was the wrong tag. Our article (FreedomWorks) states that it (FW) was split out of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was founded by Koch. However, the article then goes on to say that CSE merged with Empower America and was renamed FreedomWorks. Both statements are sourced. It follows that it would be correct to say that Koch founded a predecessor of FW, but that statement is irrelevant in this article, even with the addition that FW supports and/or funds the TPm, and that Koch says he has nothing to do with FW and the TPm. From all the information so far reported by reliable sources, Koch's statement is accurate, not misleading, and only marginally relevant to this article, as all the statements connecting him to the movement are allegations. Emphasizing those statements which improperly allow one to infer that Koch's statements are not accurate is near to a WP:BLP violation.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like it's a totally irrelevant statement put here only for inuendo purposes. And the WP way of saying that is wp:undue. North8000 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

North, our reliable sources draw the inference that founding CSE makes Koch connected with FW. Why should we follow your non-notable original research over our reliable sources? Likewise, the claims of not specifically funding the TPM has been noted as being, if not outright false, entirely misleading, particularly given the AFP. As always, this is not a forum and we are not here to entertain arguments that are unsupported by our sources. Dylan Flaherty 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Our reliable sources draw no such inferences, only the polemical ones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling your bluff: immediately show that the sources are polemical or remove your tag. Dylan Flaherty 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated, it implies a causal link which is nothing more than original research. The sentence should be removed. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, to be original research, it would have to come from a Wikipedia editor, not one of the many reporters that Koch's spokesperson sent that strange press release to. Second, this is about causation: Koch caused the CSE to come into existence and caused part of it to merge and become FW. It's not mere correlation. Dylan Flaherty 04:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Taibbi

I removed the added section regarding Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia for lack of secondary sourcing. No current main stream articles of note are referring to this book in reference to the Tea Party. Given the magnitude of the Tea Party, we should limit book commentary to those that receive significant coverage. Otherwise this article would be littered with the comments of pretty much every author writing a political book, of which there are many. Use of the book itself is a primary source, and unless significat secondary sourcing discussing the books relevance to the TPM is submit that this commentary not be included at this time. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? Dylan Flaherty 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Or these[18][19][20][21][22][23].

I think we need to put "Griftopia" back in the article, don't you? Dylan Flaherty 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to start looking for / working on real content, not waste all of this time trying to game in swipes by TPM opponents into the article. North8000 15:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked all of those for actual ties to the TPM in the article? A google search with some criteria isn't enough. The NPR article, for example, fails. Please confirm you have verified each article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

May need to put this section on hold for a bit - please see Dylan's talk page.

It does provide context to interpret things said / arguments made. North8000 19:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While it is correct that not any comment of any political book deserves an WP entry in this article, Taibbi's book (as Dylan pointed out) receiced a lot of coverage invalidating the original reason for deleting it. Comments on Dylan's talk page are irrelevant to the subject. Please note further that Griftopia is the #1 book on Amazon in Nonfiction/Politics/US. (What other book would then deserve inclusion?) Request, therefore, to reinsert the section where it was and belongs. Ekem (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The first link (Rolling Stones) is a self plug for his book, so it doesn't count. The second (GQ) makes a different point than you were making, plus GQ is not what I would consider a reliable source for political discussion. The third (Wallstcheatsheet), well I am not sure that is a reliable source, and it also doesn't make the connection you are making. The fourth (The Daily Beast) is a pretty biased sourced. The fifth (NPR) as Ravesfire states fails. It includes an excerpt from the book, but no commentary on why his opinion is notable with regards to the TPM. The sixth (IMUS) probably makes the strongest connection, and the seventh (OEN) is a very biased source. Thus only a few of the sources listed by Dylan remotely make the connection you are trying to make, and they are not really strong sources. The book's ranking on Amazon matters little. If his opinion was really notable you would see commentary about it across a broad range. His opinion does appear to be mentioned somewhat on the left blogosphere, but even there is it not that great (probably because he doesn't trash them as much as the left would like). The TPM has recieved a lot of attention over the past year +, but Taibbi's opinion would appear to be quite minor and without enough weight to be included here. The fact that you included a specific quote of your own choosing which has not recieved any other commentary (to my knowledge) further diminishes its notability. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the removed sentence : "The first chapter of Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia is devoted to an analysis of the Tea Party indicating that their followers fail to see that they are being manipulated to do the bidding for the superrich".(Matt Taibbi: Griftopia, publisher=Spiegel & Grau, 2010, page=3ff, isbn=978-0-385-52995-2)

Let me put it straight: First you ask that "mainstreet articles of note" need to be linked to the "this book" (Griftopia) in reference to the Tea Party (saying "mainstream articles of note" gives ample room to wiggle out of any article other than perhaps the NYT), then you do not like any of all the cited links to the book (several to the gullibility of the Tea Party), and then, shifting the sign posts, it comes down, not to the book-Tea Party link, but to a specific link to my "quote", in other words, the book cannot stand as a reference on its own as my "quote" has to be referenced by the NYT or a similar opinion maker (in which case, of course, citing the book would be superfluous). This type of argumentation dismisses itself. Ekem (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The book is WP:SELFPUBLISH and a WP:PRIMARY source. Anyone can write a book and get it published, you have to establish that this book is somehow notable. The book itself is only a reliable source for the opinion of Taibbi, and I don't see anything that would claim that Taibbi's opinion regarding the Tea Party is notable in the grand scheme of the Tea Party Movement. There does not seem to be much secondary reporting in mainstream sources that would make this argument. There are thousands upon thousands of articles on or about the Tea Party Movement what makes this guys opinion weighty in respect to all of the other opinion that exists? Arzel (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I end up at the same place as Arzel but here's a way I get there from a different angle. I sounds like the source is a TPM opponent, and what it says is basically a TPM opponent taking swipes at the TPM. It might be a good limited primary source on a "here's what TPM opponents are saying" section, but certainly not as a source for information about the TPM. If we want to evolve this article out of it's current junky status, we have to start creating more real informative content. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)