Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Commentary and Controversy sections

The bulk of this article's "controversies" is in the Commentary and Controversy sections. I am not sure the Commentary section is valid since this is subject to personal opinion. I believe the Commentary section needs to be reduced or put at the back of the article. The Controversy section is valid. Possibly limiting the categories could be good. Racism in the Tea Party movement is a valid controversy. Other controversies can be debated as to their importance. Another potential controversy was who broke into Congresswoman Gifford's office, if in fact their is any Tea Party movement affiliation. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the "controversies" section is personal opinion/tactics because the linkages in there are just that. The material in there is about a couple of individuals, and, in one case, one ghost/rumor, and not about the TPM except in the minds/voices of the persons implying the linkages. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party movement is a made up of individual members. There is no established membership or actual Tea Party on the ballot, yet, to my knowledge. If these individuals support the Tea Party movement and are allowed to be at the Tea Party events, nor condemned by Tea Party movement leaders, then there is an implied association between the Tea Party movement and these individuals. The controversies that are actual rumors should be removed. The controversy over alleged racial slurs is controversial. However, controversies can be handled with fairness. The reader should decide if these controversies are bogus or legitimate. In the case of racial slurs, there is a video recording or recordings of the event. The whites were hostile and specifically targeted African American congressmen. The claim of racial slurs is the controversy. Here is the link to the story: Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress Here is the video link: Congressional Black Caucus 3 20 2010 - original video. I heard one man near the end of this video say what sounds like the n-word said in a long drawn out shout. There may have been one racial slur by the man pointing his finger. Here is another video of the same event: Congressional black caucus gets soundly booed at Health Care reform protest Congressmen Lewis and Carson claim their were 15 racial slurs. Here is the story link: Video appears to dispute lawmaker's claim of protesters' racial slurs The whole issue is controversial and should be in the article in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This should be removed:"Accusations of racism and racial motivations among Tea Party protesters have been made from early on.Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting this in talk page:

"Accusations of racism and racial motivations among Tea Party protesters have been made from early on. Various politicians, political commentators and columnists have expressed concern about racism in the Tea Party movement and in its opposition to the healthcare reform bill."

Hi, Cmguy777. I looked at the videos you linked above, and I see that they are not videos of the controversial slurs incident. Like many people, you've been duped. You may wish to review this report. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. I don't think that there is anybody with three or more brain cells that thinks that the agenda of the TPM includes racism. On the other hand, this is a topic that should be covered. IMHO it should be under "tactics of opponents" section. Find one guy who said something bad, and get it publicized, and pretend that it is indicative of the TPM. Of course, what I just said sounds POV, but what is the real story when one guy (of the zillions in the movement) says something racist (without even talking about the 710 words we have on the ghost/rumor) unrelated to any agenda or platform of the TPM, which the TPM people say is not what the TPM is about? North8000 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think that there is anybody with three or more brain cells that thinks that the agenda of the TPM includes racism."

I am in 100% agreement with you, and so is this present Wikipedia article. Nowhere in the article does it say "racism" is on the movement's "agenda". The article does, however, convey that there has been significant concern raised about racial motivations within the movement. No one with three or more brain cells would deny that, either.

As for the 710 words on a rumor you keep bringing up, I agree with you: the bad actions of one individual shouldn't be inserted into the article, and was probably done so only to cast the movement as a whole in a bad light. But you must admit, that individual's reputation for unethically manipulating and deceptively editing videos to push his POV and generate controversy (See his Sherrod conspiracy, his ACORN conspiracy, his Health Care protest Pelosi Racism conspiracy...) has garnered him some level of notability notoriety. But you are correct that he was probably added to the article on the movement just to taint it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: As for the rumor he tried to push (that the whole "slurs" controversy was a carefully crafted plan by Pelosi, the Congressional Black Caucus and associated staffers to harm the reputation of the Tea Partiers) never really gained traction as a popular conspiracy. Not like the "manchurian candidate", "birther" and "secret Muslim" conspiracies did, anyway. There were simply too many credible eyewitnesses. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Xeno. Every time that I get ready to abandon this article as a waste-of-time-hopeless-POV-war, I see glimmers of "lets just make a good accurate article" hope, as in your recent post and Cmguy777's recent post. Not that I agree with everything said :-)

On your last point, the "carefully crafted plan"/"conspiracy" is sort of inadvertent straw man description of the observation that I was making. What I'm talking about in my "tactics of opponents" post above is just doing what what nearly all political operatives routinely do.

Probably the answer to these is to cover these things precisely at both levels, i.e. not just who said what, but who said that who said what. And seek some objective overview type sources for material. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the article this The slurs may have taken place while the Congressmen were walking to the Capitol, unrecorded. The video was one where the Congressmen were walking away from the Capitol. This just adds to the controversy on the alleged racial slurs. I believe it is possible to make the article fair, balanced, and objective. I already put unsubstantiated and uncited text into the talk page. The controversy section should be refocused and narrowed. I have attempted to do that with the "You Lie" paragraph. The poles are good. The two segments on the two individuals are questionable. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Racial view polls should not be under the controversy section. Polls are not controversial, even, if there is racial bias among participants in the TPM. I believe that should be in its own section. The Health Care protest alleged racial slurs, the Monkey God sections are valid controversies. The Dale Robertson sign should be incorporated with other TPM controversial alleged racial signs. The Adolf Hitler billboard is a valid controversy. The Sonny Thomas "tweets" is a valid controversy, however, the article alleges speakers canceled to go to the event because of this tweet. Who were the speakers that cancelled speaking at this event? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Those polls were put there to imply the supposed racial bias and are thus part of the controversy. If anything the polls should be removed completely since they are limited to sub-samples of the movement. One is limited to Washington state, and the other is a non-random stratified sample of seven states. Arzel (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A controversial poll is one where bias is involved with the poll questioning. Also, is the poll scientific? If polls are not biased in their questioning and are scientific, then how can polls be controversial. The "implied racial bias" depends on how the questions were asked or worded and what the statistical analysis shows. Is there editor conscensus that the polls are unreliable or invalid? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Arzel has some good points. However they are not being made at all in the section......quite the opposite. And so the whole thing makes it currently look like the opposite of the point that Arzel is making. Anyway, Arzel, my apologies if I reverted you too fast without discussing more.  :-( Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Arzel has a point that these polls are in Washington D.C. local and Washington state. They are not national polls. A national poll is recommended. My question is whether there is editor consencus that these polls are unbiased in their questioning and are scientific?

The national and state polls are completely mixed up. These polls should have seperate State and National segment titles. The state and national polls are imcompatible. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The "national" poll is not a national poll in the traditional sense. It was a non-random (not stratified) sample of states. The authors selected seven states for specific reasons, thus it has no statistical extrapolation outside the seven listed states. It should not be listed as a national poll. Look at stratified sampling methodology for a more detailed explanation. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Arzel for the correction! I would need to look at each source for the particular poll or canvas. I only labeled National and state until these polls can be distiguished from each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably my two biggest problems are: Any cross section of America is going to be "majority white", so what is that doing in here? Second, the one which the pollster should have lost their job over is "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it," There are two completely different ways to read this question, and a very likely one is whether or not it is the government's job to guarantee success. This is absolutely opposite to both the conservative and libertarian view on the role of government.....I.E. their answer would have nothing to do with race. Both of these should go from the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

At one time there was a critical response to this aspect of the poll, but I don't know what happened to the response. Both polls should go as they limited in scope and clearly designed to prove the hypothesis. Arzel (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop the "on race, etc." on the "Canvass and polls on race, etc." segment title and incorporate other aspects of the polls or canvases. Just keep that open. Also incorporate income and party affiliation demographics or other PTM demographics. The racial, ethnic, and social opinions are valid as long as other factors on the TPM are mentioned in the article. I believe that just having "race" factors is POV. I believe these polls and canvasses can be presented fairly. Another idea, in the controversy section, is possibly eliminate any POV terms in the title segments. For example, the "Sonny Thomas racial slurs" is POV, however, "Sonny Thomas tweet" is not. Another example is "Reports of slurs at the Healthcare protests" could be "Capitol Hill Healthcare protests 2010". That eliminates POV, even though there are racist allegations in the article. Let the reader decide if there is racism in the TMP. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing "racial slur" from the sub-headers over the sections covering the racial slurs eliminates POV? Are you sure it doesn't push the opposite POV instead? There is a difference between using neutral wording to avoid POV, and whitewashing the wording to push a counter POV, and care must be taken. The content (and the headers for that content) contain the words "racial slur" not because it is POV, but because those are the very words used by the cited sources. The article should convey what the sources say, and we should leave it to the reader decide, and not decide it for them with our personal choice of words. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The new wording which you reverted twice was neutral. Also I think you just violated 1RR, not that I'm going to go running anywhere with it. Titles need to be neutral. They are too short to cover what the various sources say overall, so by that I assume you mean include the selected material from the source with a particular POV.:-). I'm going to put the new titles back....this article needs to start moving forward, climbing out of it current POV junk article status. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted only once today, back to the long-standing headers that have been present in the article. My previous edit was a continuation of Cmguy's dilution of those headers for conformity purposes — since he had only changed 2 of the many headers in that section. Another editor commented that the headers were too vague, and I agree, so now we are back at square one. Could you suggest neutrally worded headers that do not push a POV, but also do not whitewash simple sourced facts? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All I am trying to get is concensus, neutrality, and fairness. All wikipedia editors need to be striving for that goal. Neutrality is important. There needs to at least be the words "alleged" attached with "racism", "slurs", or any judgemental wording. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. We don't attach the "alleged" word unless the reliable sources have done so first. Describing something as "racism" or "slurs" isn't a judgement call, and is usually self-evident -- and to slip in the "alleged" weasel word is usually an attempt to generate doubt or uncertainty in the reader, and not an attempt at neutrality. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article by Lawrence Budd in the Dayton Daily news does not specifically state Sonny Thomas specifically stated the racial slur targeted at Hispanics. The article specifically states a Tea Party leader made a racial slur and that Sonny Thomas is the founder of Springboro Tea Party. Of course, the obvious inference is that Sonny Thomas made a racial slur. The article does not mention specically what racial slur was stated by the "leader". The article states "said the March 21 posting", and we are to infer that Sonny Thomas made this racial slur. In the article there is no comment from Sonny Thomas either defending the racist allegation or admitting to the slur. Another inference that Sonny Thomas said the racial slur comes from his wife who said, "Basically, it’s like he’s saying he hates his son". There were other racial slurs allegedly on the this Twitter Post. That is why I put "Springboro Tea Party" rather then "Sonny Thomas". I have no objection to keeping the current segment as edited. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several articles on the incident, and even comments by Sonny Thomas both admitting the slurs, and (lamely, IMO) trying to defend them. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Section break I

The polls in the "Canvas and polls on race, etc." segment needs to be incorporated into the "Membership and demographics" segment. Any agreement? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that that's a good idea. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Sonny Thomas racial slur" segment looks good. Sonny Thomas acknowledged making the statement and gave his explanation for making the statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it should go. Massive violation of wp:undue, and the action by this one individual (though in the TPM) has nothing to do with the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The material is a medium-length paragraph. It certainly doesn't deserve an article of its own. Many commentators have pointed to Thomas's comments as indicative of the views of at least some elements of the movement. Grassroots movements include the grassroots. NPOV requires that items be given weight according to their prominence in secondary sources. The minimal weight this item receives seems more or less appropriate. Deleting it entirely would be a violation of NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't plan to go to the mat on this, just commenting. Actually even the sources given say it has nothing to do with the TPM. Relevance is a missing criteria from wp:npov (wp:undue being the closest thing), in better or more neutral articles it gets implemented by consensusus, but not in this junk article. For example, if Rush Limbaugh finds out that Joe Blow, a Democrat kicked a dog and says that such is indicative of the Democratic Party, and a few media cover him saying that, you won't see a section in the WP Democratic Party article on the dog kicking incident. Not so in this junk article, it is full of such irrelevant junk sections. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also just commenting. The sources do not say Thomas' racial slurs "have nothing to do with the TPM." In fact, the sources never make that determination; but sources do quote other TPers giving their opinion that the TP movement isn't focused on racism. Just so we're clear on what the sources actually did and didn't say. Also, your assertion that "you won't see a section in the WP Democratic Party article on the dog kicking incident", is misleading. You would certainly see mention of that incident, and similar incidents, if the article already contained a section detailing significant cruelty to dogs by Democrats, compared to the general populace -- including considerable national media coverage of that cruelty element. A section that already cites numerous polls indicating a disproportionate inclination to such cruelty to dogs within the party; the formation of task forces just to address the issue of such cruelty within the party; prominent favorites of the party making controversial remarks, such as "government should be limited, and shouldn't force private businesses to abide by the Doggie Rights Act of 1964 and not be cruel to dogs"; controversial groups like the Cat Supremacy Militia or the Dog-fighters Underground aligning themselves with the party, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are implying that the criteria listed in the last 3/4 of your post have occurred in the article, but IMHO they haven't. For what's in this particular article, that's like saying that faulty innuendo is OK because there is faulty innuendo elsewhere in the article that implies the same thing. Sincerely, 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, inuendo that uses other inuendo as justification for inclusion. Xeno, those are nothing about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I removed some "material" from the lead which was not supported by the included citation. It was about there being debate in 2010 about the Koch's involvement in the party. The article appears to talk about the Koch's involvment in the movement, not sure about the debate part. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article claims to talk about Koch's involvement in the movement, but may not be reliable. As far as I can tell, there is no debate; Mayer reports he's involved, and Koch denies involvement. It still doesn't belong in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Add link to Political activities of the Koch family per Talk:Political activities of the Koch family?

Add link to Political activities of the Koch family per Talk:Political activities of the Koch family? 99.181.151.49 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No such discussion exists on that talk page from what I was able to see. Also, that article appears to have some problems and is possibly a content fork for pushing of a particular POV. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no real connection; all we see in reliable sources are allegations of a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it described as "populist"?

Why does this article describe the Tea Party movement as "populist" or even "libertarian"? It is not.

Can somebody please explain how it is "populist"? Otherwise we should remove that descrip.

In general, we're more concerned with how reliable sources describe something then with how we view it ourselves. If there are sufficient sources for "populist", then we call it "populist". If there are other terms used as well then we add those, even if they're contradictory.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of too many reliable sources that call it "populist".

They do. Populism is the people vs. the elites. The Tea Party claim to represent the people against the elites. Try a Google book source for "Right-wing populism" to find sources explaining the concept.[1] TFD (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split

there needs to be an entire page for all the racism perpetrated by the Tea Party--99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, there isn't any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jmanko, 24 February 2011

Edit semi-protected

The Tea Party Movement originated in 2007 with the presidential campaign of Rep Ron Paul, and on November 21, 2007 a full-page ad was placed in USA Today referencing the Tea Party movement and TeaParty07.com.

• http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/images/8aeg65x.jpg
• http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/USA_Today_final.pdf

Jmanko (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but that is not a source for that information, only, at best, that it was used in 2007. Furthermore, the USA Today add would be a reliable source, but your (I mean, Nathaniel Yao's) copy of the ad is not necessarily representative of the ad. (If I had a copy, it wouldn't, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a secondary source which says that's the origin of the term.   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the term, or the actual roots of the current movement? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Either.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No the Tea Party originated following the inauguration of the current U.S. president, although there may be some overlap. Notice that three of Paul's warnings go unheeded by the Tea Party: "foreign entanglements", the war on terror and the Federal Reserve. Elements of two of the remaining warnings - leaving NAFTA and ending the IRS - do not seem to have much traction either. Doubtful too whether the Tea Party could cut government spending substantially. TFD (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the url tp07 proves it was born prior to 08, notice whois records Darkstar1st (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Those two links only show that the words "tea party" may have been used as part of a presidential campaign slogan and campaign website name. They say nothing about the movement. Previous talk page discussions show several other political uses of that phrase even before that, more than a decade ago, also unrelated to the to the movement described in this article. From a source already cited in this Wikipedia article:

"After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party."

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Bloomberg Poll Comparison Statistics

I have made an attempt to correct it but it probably needs a more complete correction. Here is the current quote: "The Bloomberg National Poll showed that, of poll respondents who were adults 18 and over, 40% are 55 or older, 79% are white, 61% are men and 44% identify as "born-again" Christians, compared to 25.1%, 75%, 48.5%, and 34% for the general population, respectively." Previously it did not indicate that the poll was only on those 18 and older. So the comparison is skewed. To take a single example, the total age population 55 and older is 25.1% of the population (from source cited); while the the Tea Party percentage for age 55 and older is listed as 40%. A lot more, huh? BUT the problem is that two different sets are compared: The Tea Party set is from respondents age 18 and older, while the other data set is for all ages. Leaving off everyone 17 and younger. Interestingly enough if you take the ratio of the total population older than 55 compared to the ratio of the total population older than 19 (2nd source calculates from age 19, not 18) you get 34% which is closer to 40% than it is to 25%. I am tempted to simply delete the whole sentence due to the comparisons not being meaningful and in any case violating WP:NOR. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the uses of poll data (and sometimes the particular polls themselves) in this article fall under deceiving (vs. informing) with numbers. You've pointed out one instance of such , and I agree. 13:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The source (Bloomberg) says the following:

Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents.

While the source says, "Responses were weighted by age, race and sex to reflect the general population based on recent census data," it would still be inappropriate (WP:SYNTH) to link to our own census citations to make comparisons to the general population. We should find a second-party reliable source to make those comparisons, or we should remove the "are under the age of 35" and the "are men" comparisons to the general populace. (Note that the poll actually compares poll respondents to other poll respondents, but then weights its findings based on census data.)

Oh, and always remember: any content in this article that appears critical of the movement in any way, or casts it in a less than positive light, was only placed in the article by editors wishing to deceive the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The correlation between the Tea Party and Religion was recently more thoroughly explored (Poll info), with findings indicating Tea Party support correlates to religious affiliation. Some Tea Party supporters insist the movement has nothing to do with religious and other social issues, so why all the research into such ties? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Speculation into WHY some are researching correlation between the TEA party movement (technically there is no such thing as the Tea "party" so we must be careful in our terminology) would violate WP:NOR. However obviously there will be correlations. Regarding the poll you cite, it also states that "About half of Jews say they disagree with the Tea Party movement, while 15% agree with it." In as much the TEA party movement correlates better with "conservative" and "independent" voters than it does to "liberal" voters, and inasmuch as more blacks and Jews vote "liberal", logically they would have a lower correlation with the TEA party movement than the rest of the population. I could also speculate that Catholics, who belong to a massive hierarchical church would be more comfortable with a large Federal government; whereas Evangelicals tend to belong to small independent churches and avoid hierarchies and denominations and therefore might be more comfortable with a strong Federalist structure with the most power local, then state, and last Federal. But pointing out that correlation falls into original research unless cited by a reliable source. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

origin of the word teabagger

i think some discussion of the term Teabagger deserves a bit more mention as something the conservative activists embraced until they realized it was a sexual slang term as well. I've seen references to now deleted websites like "TeaBagPatriots.com" and of course the Santelli Rant or the Maddow Compilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting take, but what's in the article is pretty adequate. It's been given as much attention as its relevance and sourcing implores. Thanks-Digiphi (Talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the activists ever called themselves "tea baggers"? It doesn't really make sense when "tea partiers" is just as easy to say. In any case, I agree, the current coverage in the article is sufficient. –CWenger (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More intelligent addressing of the implied topics of the material in controversies section

Right now this section is just random POV based selection of items. Articles probably really shouldn't have a "controversy" section, anything worth inclusion will have a topic other than that. But, the big picture aside, we can make a baby step towards better coverage by making a subsection under controversies (with a nice neutral title that doesn't imply validity or non-validity) for the racial related material, moving the current material into that, and make that into a section which intelligently covers that issue. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Schiller Insertion

Answering Xenophrenic's question in their edit summary today, good question. I think that the answer is no. I didn't put it in, I just moved it. I probably should have deleted it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm lukewarm on this. It's a good question. Two weeks ago he wouldn't have been notable. In fact he would have perfectly satisfied the criteria of non-notability as per policy. But I wonder if he has become notable enough since, or rather, the event is notable. Likewise, Sonny Thomas isn't notable, but the controversy of which he is a part is notable, and he appropriately rides that into the article. Let's get some more input on this. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I really thought that this one was too minor to worry about considering the kind of junk that this article is filled with. But IMHO opinions by ardent supporters and opponents are pretty much worthless content that shouldn't be in the article. Just tactics, 0% creditability. Plus, it's really about Schiller, not about the TPM. Wonder if it would fly if I put a new section in the main Obama article to cover Rush Limbaugh's opinions of him?  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding balance in the racism controversy section

Xenophrenic, that's twice you removed the attempt to start balancing the witch hunt racial section within 16 hours. I'm not one to go reporting the 1RR violation, but please stop. 710 words on a mere alleged racial slur is relevant to the racial section, and a twitter by one person gets a whole section, but 1600 attendees at a national TPM summit in Phoenix overwhelimngly picking a black for president is not? The controversy is the inferred racism of the TPM. And you want to remove balancing material from that section because the balancing material is not controversial! ?. Huh? Please revert yourself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

North, I think you'd help your case a bit more if you performed some due diligence before making additions. In what some might interpret as a rush to include content for the purpose of offsetting perceived POV in the article, the Cain material was added with incorrect information (dates) and no references. It also fails to mention Paul's plurality when counting internet votes in addition to votes cast in person at the convention. Using it to counteract claims of Tea Party racism is currently pure synthesis, since the reliable source reference I added makes no mention of Cain being black, let alone any contention that the vote for him disproves racial bias on the part of the overall movement. Nor was I able to find such observations in reliable sources following a quick Google search. If such sources can be supplied, moving the material back to the "racism" section would probably be justified; if not, not. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat&Happy has clearly expressed the same sentiments I hold. As for my two edits, one expanded North's content addition and moved it to a newly created, more appropriate subsection -- it was not a revert. My second edit, my only revert for today, undid an edit of North's. If there is another edit I've made of which I am unaware, and an administrator informs me that it is indeed a revert, I will most certainly self-revert. Please be advised, however, that I will simply re-institute the edit again in a few hours, unless a case is made against doing so -- so let's focus on that, shall we? As for Cain, I wasn't aware that he was selected by the Tea Party to counteract the perception of racism; I assumed he was selected for his conservative qualifications. But if you can provide supportive reliable sourcing showing that I am incorrect, I will no longer object. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cain was selected because he was a good candidate. That he is black is just evidence that the TPM is not racist. Removal of the section would imply that those that wish to push the racial meme don't want information in the article which would obviously disprove this accusation. Arzel (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat and Happy, by your standard, (sourcing that establishes or counteracts such claims) we can delete that whole junk inuendo racial section. The items in there fail that test miserably. That's fine with me, but a double standard is not. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, both of those clearly are reverts, but let's move on from that 1RR issue, I have no desire to pursue it. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To Arzel, I don't see anyone proposing removal of the straw poll from the article. However it's not controversial so it shouldn't be in the "controversies" section.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@North8000: I tend to agree in principle [00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) comment]. However, I haven't reviewed the sourcing for the existing "racism" content recently (and don't have time to right now), so can't comment on whether it's also synthesis. I suspect, unfortunately, that any double standard being applied is on the part of MSM, not WP; if the media portrays individual incidents of racism as being representative of the movement in general, but fails to similarly generalize votes supporting a black leader, our sourcing rules more or less compel the article to follow that lead. You can take some solace, at least, in reflecting that the media did not spin the story, as they could have, as "78% of tea-partiers fail to support black candidate". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My point there is that the standard that you are implying exists does not exist, and actually conflicts with the spirit of wp:nor and neutrality. That the sources must make a particular assertion about the meaning of the news (rather than just cover the news) in order for the material to be present there. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, ascribing meaning to an event when no such meaning has been previously ascribed by reliable sources is the very essence of original research. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's basically the same thing that I was saying. But then IMHO you are partially conflicting with yourself, saying that a meaning MUST be ascribed in order for the material to be present there. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of name

Is the origin of the name Tea party really from the Boston tea party or is it from Taxed Enough Already? A BBC documentary by Andrew Neil claimed it is Taxed Enough Already. Put "Andrew Neil tea party" into YouTube and watch part 1 around 4 mins 40 secs in. Is there any definitive source on this? Pexise (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If such were exclusively the case, it would be the "Tea Movement" instead.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... but is there a source on this? Pexise (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the name actually came from both the acronym and the historical incident. References to the acronym seem to go pretty far back, before the party became a full fledged movement (here's an article from early 2009) but any time the word tea party is used with rebellious connotations I think it can be safely assumed there is a connection to the Boston one, and I'm sure we could find a source to back that up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the BBC documentary - see approximately 4.40 on this video. Of course "party" also has two possible meanings here. Pexise (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the text in the article should reflect these two possible origins of the name? Using the two sources we have posted here as a reference for the "Taxed Enough Already" bacronym. Pexise (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party non centralized? Paragraph 3

the assumption that an organization as large as the Tea Party having no core centralized power is either naive or a social anomoly that sociologists should be studying. Paragraph 3 suggests an omission of a central organization, this should be rewritten to "no publicized centralized system, although hierarchy through time and commitment is recognized, as in members such as Co-Founder Jennie Beth Martin - 2010 Time Mafazines 15th most influentialleader in the world" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gswalk (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What was/is the centralized power in the Civil Rights movement? The Pro-Life Movement? The Pro-Choice Movement? The Green Movement? Hell, even the origins of Christianity didn't have a single centralized body that was recognized by all as authoritative. Large grass roots organizations do not require a "centralized organization." It is entirely possible to have several competing bodies vying for authority, especially in an organizations formative period.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I guess that TPM is about at the norm (regarding regarding degree of centralization/organization) for a movement. Maybe we / some editors feel it sort of needs saying in this case because the name makes it sound a bit otherwise, like it might be an organization or a political party? North8000 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the "Tea Party" is named after the Boston Tea Party event -- and that TEA is used as an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already". It is not a political party -- it has no hierarchical structure and its distributed networked structure leverages the similarly structured Internet for communications. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true. North8000 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Niggar, Monkey God, Teabagger

there is a possibility some of the material on this article is offensive and marginally relevant if at all. would removing the material change the meaning of the article, if so how? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is offensive. However, Wikipedia is not censored and it is all verifiable. How it is presented is of course something that should always be considered but removing it altogether would negatively impact the reader's understanding of the topic as described to a significant enough extent in secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Being offensive is a big part of why those incidents became noteworthy and made the news. I know I was offended when I first learned of them. What meaning do you see being changed? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, being offensive is exactly why those minor aspects are given prominence. The "Monkey God" incident is particualy non-relevant, yet given notice to push the offensive meme. Arzel (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking out that material would reduce the deceptiveness of the article. Putting in big sections covering one twitter of one follower, or of mere allegation s of comments by one or two individuals is a massive wp:npov/wp:undue violation, and irrelevant, with the only effect of false ineundo. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The incident was widely covered in the media. It was widely covered not due to the inherent notability of the individuals involved, but because the individuals were, or were perceived to be significantly connected to the Tea Party. Thus coverage of the incident is relevant to this article. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By that circular those incidents should not be included. Events - not notable. People - not notable. People might be significantly connected to the Tea Party, now suddenly notable because it pushes the racist meme from the left. The fact that these people are not significantly connected only futher illustrates that these are only included in order to frame the TPM as racist. Arzel (talk)

Strongly agree. In addition to those those considerations is relevance for the first two. These are stories about what individuals said or allegedly said, not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you consider the mainstream news media to be "the left", then yes. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Strategic discussion

He's an acknowledged Tea Party LEADER. It's relevant and has been made notable by the media coverage. Wikipedians may want to disavow him, but it's still notable. BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everything that every prominent person does constitutes information about or is relevant to every organization that they participate in. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we should remove any mention of Carender from the article? Or Palin? Or Paul? Or Santelli or Cramer? These folks have also done or said things, and have been similarly tied to the tea party. Shall we pick and choose what we personally feel is suitable for the article, or shall we go back to conveying what reliable sources have told us? For the record, I'm not a fan of having a bunch of anecdotal examples in the article in lieu of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but I am also not a fan of nitpicking away those examples without replacing them with encyclopedic content. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the ultimate problem is that the Tea Party article is way too long. It is a nascent movement and has little proven notability. If people insist on expanding the article based on media coverage, which suffers from WP:RECENTISM bias, then much of the filler is going to be anecdotal. Additionally, it appears there are some small efforts at creating a subtle POV fork of the US libertarianism material.

I'd guess that the article would probably be all of 5 paragraphs if the recentism were meticulously avoided and high-quality sourcing were strictly used. BigK HeX (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Xeno If you are being absolutely straight on that, then we both want the same thing. If knowing my intent matters to anybody, is simply to have an accurate article with the most useful, informative and relevant information in it, unhindered/unpolluted by POV's. With WP policies/guidelines being (just) a means to that end.

On your earlier question, I would include (only) tea-party-relevant material on those people. And the relevancy has to have more basis than just some political operative striving to associate them. So if Sarah Palin kicks dogs or donates to the poor, those wouldn't be in the article, even if operatives from one side or the other implied a connection. If Palin said something at a TPM rally or in a TPM newsletter, that would have such relevance. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I'm with you on removing anecdotal material, especially narrow anecdotal material. And if by quality sourcing, you include objectivity (rather than just wp:rs criteria) trying to do actual coverage (vs. just repeating political operatives statements) I'm with you on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...And the relevancy has to have more basis than just some political operative striving to associate them...

Do you consider journalists at major newspapers, writing as authors of articles of major newspapers, to be working as political operatives? — goethean ॐ 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but in the in the cases at hand, the content and implied relevancy consists of repeating statements and releases made by political operatives. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't answer that precisely enough in the context of where you quoted me from. The core question under my proposal would be: Is this info about the TPM? And, if so, who says that it is? North8000 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BigK and Xeno, based on what you said, do you have an idea on a way forward in line with what you said? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article is non-encyclopedic content: we're using polling because the movement is too new to have reliable sourcing on demographics; we're using anecdotes in place of reliable expert opinion on aspects of significance; we're using primary sourcing to discuss their agenda with no notable expert work to draw from.

I would take a major axe to it. But, I know the US-style libertarian Wikipedians won't let the article become nearly a stub. So .... I have no feasible solutions. Even though it's too new for a hearty amount of truly encyclopedic content, it's too popular to be strict with. BigK HeX (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what libertarian has to do with it, unless you are equating that to TPM advocates. But I think that a small good stub to slowly build from is better than the giant garbage pile that we have now. I think that if we get 3 or 4 of the regulars here on board, we could do it. We could save all of the references in a sub page to draw from. What say you all? North8000 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I expected that I would want to revert all of the edits. The I saw them and got it. If it belongs in that guy's BLP then put it over here. Not here. If sources say it reflects on the Teabaggers on the whole then go ahead but make sure you are not scandal mongering. Bias from RS cannot be mirrored here but instead only discussed. For the section headers: doesn't hurt my feelings even though I could go either way. I have no problem saying "nigger" (or err... "niggar") but it has to reflect on the movement as a whole. <ake sure to shows its revelence instead of just saying it and hoping the reader connects your dots.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be that as an article about a movement rather than a structured political party, it is more difficult to identify things which would be "party policy" or attribute actions to "party leaders" - however, notable coverage in the mainstream media with reference to the movement would seem to be a suitable criterion for inclusion of material. Pexise (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above, except about coverage in "RS" 's being a sole (sufficient) criteria for allowing an insertion. That is what led this to becoming a garbage pile. I know that wp:npov says that , but wp:npov has been an absolute, total, complete, abysmal failure on contentious articles. I am working on a proposal to add a relevancy metric to wp:npov for contentious material. E.G., "to what extent is the material / information (established to be) ABOUT the subject of the article, vs. just having some connection to it?" Maybe we could be the groundbreaker here and have the first good, stable Wikipedia article on a contentious topic. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if the article in the RS is about the topic in question then that would qualify it for inclusion. On the other hand, if it mentions something of particular relevance to the subject matter in a wider article, this may also be suitable (e.g. an article about the mid-term elections that specifically mentions the number of Tea Party backed candidates who were elected). Pexise (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As an additional response to the above: I would question whether NPOV is the relevant policy here. It would seem to me that we are establishing what facts are and whether facts are relevant to the topic of the article, rather than discussing way facts are presented. Point of view would not seem relevant for this. Pexise (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit and main themes of your posts, and wished that that the main issues were within them, but IMHO they aren't. So IMHO they do not address with main Pov'ing / junking examples. One is material which is not even directly about the topic, and the other is including people opinions about the topic. Here are the hypothetical examples of these two that I made up in the proposal that I am working on, and IMHO they are both very applicable to this article in its current form:

1. Rush Limbaugh announces that Barack Obama is the worst president in the last 100 years, and many newspapers reported (simply) that he made this announcement. And then a WP editor puts a section on Limbaugh's speech into the main/general Barack Obama article. Technically, the editor is not inserting/citing/having to argue the "worst president in 100 years" statement, they are just saying that Limbaugh said this. They just want the very real impact, and impression of the presence of "worst president" type words, as well as Limbaugh's arguments making that case in the article.
2. If John Smith, a person who is a second cousin of Obama is convicted of child molesting , and the conviction is covered by several newspapers in a matter-of-fact manner. And a WP editor places a section into the general Obama article regarding that topic. They make no other argument that needs defending, they just want the impact of child molestation related material in the Obama article and it's juxtaposition with Obama material.

WP:undue is oriented towards covering opposing views on a particular statement. In these cases, the "statements" are just what was said in the speech, and the facts of the conviction. But/ so at the literal level, there is no debated "issue" in this material that anyone must defend or which wp:undue would give guidance on. The inserter has outmaneuvered everyone, they can cite wp:npov as supporting the insertion, and can say "if you are you have an opposing viewpoint, I.E. if you have sources that say that Limbaugh didn't say that, or that John Smith wasn't convicted of child molesting, you are welcome to put those in". However, if you apply the test of "is the material directly ABOUT the subject of the article?", (vs. just having a connection to it) the answer is no. The first item is info about Limbaugh's speech, and the second item provides info about John Smith, neither provide info about Obama. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how useful these hypothetical examples are, first because rules around BLP are different, and second because the case you are using refers to a single person, rather than a movement something entirely more nebulous (as I alluded to earlier). Also, I was under the impression that we were discussing the relevance of inclusion of certain incidents (referred to in the previous section heading). I think it is far more productive if we deal with these on a case-by-case basis.

Having had a quick look again at the article, I can see that the section: "Racial Issues" could do with some work - not least the title, which I would suggest changing to something along the lines of "Politics of race within the Tea Party movement". The section then starts with a defense against accusations which haven't even been outlined yet, the order here should be changed (though I can see that there is a need to present both sides of this argument fairly). I would suggest starting with paragraph 3, then 1, then 2 for this section. Pexise (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"But I think that a small good stub to slowly build from is better than the giant garbage pile that we have now."

I'm certainly not advocating a rewrite just to get rid of the negative coverage of the Tea Party. There is very little content to draw from high-quality sources on the topic of the Tea Party movement. As such, it should STAY a small article, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I really had no opinion on it growing and did not intend to sound like I was advocating that. I was really addressing the possible objection (that you mentioned) that people might say a stub is too small. But I agree with you 100%. But I think that we both would say that if, 2-3 years from now, much more content from high quality sources becomes available, things could change. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pexise, I agree. That said, I think a big question is whether we should go the "nuke it to a tiny quality article" route vs. trying to get there by editing the existing one, which your comments seem to be implying. I'm thinking that the "nuke it to a tiny quality article" would be the better one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "Racial Issues" (or Politics of Race, if you will) section, I've found that this article addresses some of the isses we've fumbled through in our Wikipedia article. I assume it will make North8000 cringe, since it is written by a liberal in Mother Jones, but the author makes many of the same statements North8000 has been repeatedly making: "No, the Tea Party isn't racist"; "A few racists have shown up at Tea Parties, and are being used to taint the whole movement"; "The Tea Party's agenda has nothing to do with racial issues". However, the author also uses (and links to!) the very same reliable sources, articles, and studies we have used to discuss "race in politics" -- and he doesn't once mention Monkey Gods, Robertson, Niggers & Niggars, etc. That just shows me it can be done without the laundry list of salatious examples.

I'm not for "nuking" anything at this stage; most certainly not without seeing the core set of reliable sources we intend to use, and a proposed "tiny quality article" first. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I would be opposed to the nuclear option - as a Wikipedia reader, I have found the article useful and most of the content relevant. Also, a lot of the sourcing is actually pretty good. That's not to say that I don't think improvements can be made. Pexise (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with the thesis above: that the movement isn't inherently racist, but that some participants are. I would say that this is what ultimately comes across in the Racial Issues section of the article. Some of the examples of controversies are not necessarily racism, rather political incorrectness, others are more sinister. However, most of the examples are notable and relevant, particularly when they relate to leading figures within the movement. Pexise (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to Xeno) Xeno, I think that any feedback on the "nuking' idea this point is really on whether we should take this discussion to the next stage which would be to outline what the article would look like and then decide whether or not to roll with that. Again, if you and BigK were being straight with me in those previous statements (= just want a quality article) we're on the same paqe. I'd be just as happy with you or BigK doing the nuking.

That article looks pretty good. It has the analysis type stuff that we need in sources for this article. I found a similar article in the Economist, but I lost track of it. My one quibble with it was that it seemed to use the terms TPM and "Conservative" interchangeably which IMHO is not accurate. I think that there is much evidence that the TPM has both conservative and libertarian types in it, and its agenda is limited to areas in common with those two schools of thought. 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pexise, while I agree with your statement literally, I don't with it's implications, that such is good content for the article. IMHO what one individual does in their private life (TPM leader or not) is not information about the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar's recent edit was a good start. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It was precisely the slanted type of remove-only-the-negative coverage that the article doesn't need. BigK HeX (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Darkstar's edit, and he/she was not involved in any discussion here before making the edit. Not cool. Pexise (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

North8000: the examples in the controversy section mostly deal with public and political actions by people concerned, as such they are notable. Pexise (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment was overly short. What I most had in mind is, as the unresolved tags suggests, any valid topics should be integrated into the article, the idea of a "controversies" section is POV and bad. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thise has so far remained unresolved for about 9 months. The "controversies" heading distorts and POV's a wide range of issues and questions. As a baby step in the right direction, after a few days (buried in RL at the moment) , I am going to take the controversies heading , retaining all of the current material under upgraded sub-section headings. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Add The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism

Add The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism by Walter Russell Mead in the March/April 2011 Foreign Affairs. 99.181.130.209 (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a subscriber. Could some trusted editor describe the content? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading the article this evening. Mead describes two main poles of foreign affairs views within the TPM: one exemplified by Ron Paul, which is strongly isolationist, and the other by Sarah Palin, which is also isolationist but with a proviso that America remain victorious or dominant on the world stage. He broadly considers both views to be "Jacksonian" and populist, though he indicates the Paulist view may be almost "Jeffersonian". He briefly contrasts those to the two other views, which he labels "Hamiltonian"(commercial and pragmatic) and "Wilsonian" (multilateral interventionism). It's an interesting opinion piece by a noteworthy observer, but I'm not sure we should use it as a direct source. If it's significant then other commentators will cite it and then we might use it in the section on "Agenda", but perhaps balanced with other sources as well.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

will, ron paul is not an isolationist, rather a non interventionist. "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That phrase wa off the top of my head - I wasn't looking at the source. I'll use whichever term Mead uses.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps we should use ron paul instead of mead as a rs on ron paul. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. For one thing, secondary sources are better than primary sources. For another, this article isn't about Paul, it's about the Tea Party. So if we find a secondary source that talks about Paul's foreign policy views withing the context of the TPM, then that'd be a suitable addition. But a speech or article written by him without reference to the TPM would not be suitable.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

sis ( I think that they chose sidebar aspects to analyze by) but least it IS an analysis that attempts to be intelligent and objective. Integrating material and cites from it into the article would be a baby step in the right direction out of junk status for this article. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't go on my summary. It's a readable essay. Give us your opinion of the source.   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't currently have it, but I just sunk in that they had defined their piece as being (only) about foreign policy, and so I have struck a portion of my comment. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And let's remember that it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with a source. Nobody cares what we think, just what the reliable sources think.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just said that to make the point...opinions have to be set aside, we have a higher calling here, to make a good article. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that sources can be reliable for some purposes, and not for others. For example, Mayer's interview is certainly not reliable in a WP:BLP context, although it could be reliable for her opinions in some other context. Similarly, essays are rarely reliable in a WP:BLP context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree "1000%" Also, that the wp:rs criteria often has nothing to do with reliability on that topic. Very common for an unreliable source to meet wp:rs criteria, or a very reliable source to fail wp:rs criteria. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We're drifting here. Getting back to the question at hand, would editors like me to add a summary of this essay to the article?   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Scholar Professor Walter Russell Mead analyzed the foreign policy views of the TPM in a 2011 essay published in Foreign Affairs. Mead says that Jacksonian populists, such as the Tea Party, combine a belief in "American exceptionalism" and its role in the world with skepticism of American's "ability to create a liberal world order". When war is necessary they favor the goal of forcing unconditional surrender over "limited wars for limited goals". Mead identifies two main trends, one personified by Ron Paul and the other by Sarah Palin. "Paulists" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach that seeks to avoid foreign involvement. "Palinists", while seeking to avoid being drawn into unnecessary conflicts, favor a more aggressive response to maintaining America's primacy in international relations. Mead says that both groups share a distaste for "liberal internationalism". and their opposition make the ratification of many internationalist treaties unlikely in the near future.

That's a little longer than it probably deserves, weight-wise. Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably falls into the I just don't like it category, but the unexplained use of "scholar" as a description sort of grates on me. Even if we don't spell out Mead's qualifications, thus lengthening the blurb even more, could we simply substitute "professor"? Beyond that, I agree it may be a bit long, but I may only have that reaction because of the lack of detailed academic treatment of topics elsewhere in the article. I don't see much that I'd recommend cutting. Perhaps the last clause of the final sentence ("and their opposition...}? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I struggled to find a short way of introducing Mead. "Foreign policy professor" was my first choice, but it was repetitive with the other "foreign policy" usages. Plain old "professor" is fine with me. I dn't mind leaving off the final clause either. I've made those changes.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Too buried in RL to review it in depth, but I'm all for the general direction of putting intellignet analysis (imperfect or otherwise) in vs. the junk that is in the article now. So I have no problem with the length. Darkstar's idea for Paul position info should also be followed, but it need not displace this material. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no further comments I'll go ahead and post it.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Tea Party membership is very small in the U.S.

Add Tea Party membership is very small in the U.S.: the County (United States) with the highest membership rate is only 27.7/10,000 = about a quarter of 1%. the lowest is zero percent ... per Dante Chinni and James Gimpel (2010). Our Patchwork Nation: The Surprising Truth About the "Real" America. Gotham. p. 180 Figure 14. ISBN 978-1592405732. 99.181.134.247 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a valid source. It says much more about the TPM than just that one statistic. Membership is a tricky issue with political parties. I doubt there are all that many "members" of the Democratic or Republican parties either. Instead, there are many people who simply regard themselves as belonging to those parties and who register as one or the other for the purposes of voting in primaries. So we need to be careful about taking apparently surprising bits of info out of context. But again, the book itself is probably a good source and we should try to properly summarize its views on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would seriously question those statistics. For one there is no clear central structure which would allow someone to be a registered Tea Party Member. For another, the small county I grew up in has less than 10k residents and according to the map, 1 Tea Party Member, which I know for a fact to be false, at least by how they classify themselves. And a border county has zero, which I also know for a fact to be false. Arzel (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Our own personal knowledge and opinions don't matter. If there are other sources which question this proposed source then we can discuss that. However the authors are a veteran journalist[2] and a professor of poli-sci,[3] and the publisher is a mainstream publishing house. By any measure, this qualifies as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide more information on what the source says - how do they for example define membership in the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So I need the people I know that are in the county that this source claims they don't exist to prove it? Sorry, but those results simply don't pass the smell test. We already have relibale sources from polls that put the number much higher. Arzel (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That comment is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Have you ever read WP:NOR? If there are sources with other views we can include those too. As I wrote initially, this fact isn't necessarily the only or even the most interesting information contained in the source. I don't have the book in hand and have only glanced at the Google Books version. If someone has the time perhaps they could provide a summary of its relevant contents.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the TPM is not a party and generally does not have "members", any discussion about "membership" levels would be very misleading at best. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, people refer to members of the movement. We even have a section titled "Membership and demographics".   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a Political party with candidates on a unified ticket has proven true (mostly just indirect feeder organization to the Republican Party (United States)), but there are members to these groups. The title of Figure 14 is "Geographic Distribution of Membership of 67,000 Tea Party Members in March 2010, by County." 99.181.145.133 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I meant that most TP'er are in by participation, agreement, and other things, not by membership, so membership is not a useful or informative measure. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a PBS report that explains the map. It says, "Patchwork Nation has combed through online directories to find people who have registered with tea party organizations...." TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying my previous note, most TP'ers are in by participation, agreement, and other things, not by registered membership, so registered membership is not a useful or informative measure and implying such is deceptive. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly addition of an intelligent, well done section using this data would be good. That would include clarification that we are talking about registered membership, that most TPM folks are no registered members etc. All with good quality overview sources. Without an out-of-context-misleading "take" on it. North8000 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Note how http://www.pbs.org/newshour/patchworknation/staticmaps/teaparty.html (Updated: April 16, 2010) and Figure 14 shown in Google Books are different, in particular northern Idaho and Montana, western Maine, and northern Florida; curious differences in demographic statistics. Maybe it is because the percentages are so low, maybe variations in current membership, maybe Confidence in statistical conclusions/Statistical significance/I don't know. 99.19.46.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

The membership figures appear to be reasonable. Right-wing parties in other countries, even where they get 15-20% of the vote, have similar numbers and the Tea Party Patriots website shows that it probably has fewer than 20,000 members.[4] TFD (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone draft a summary of this material?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. The problem here is that strictly speaking the "TEA Party" is not a political party -- therefore there is no such thing as membership. Now there are multiple groups (hundreds) who are local "TEA party groups" -- they do have members, but often this is very informal. I have no idea how anyone could realistically claim to have some kind of count of TEA party membership when it is not a formal party and therefore cannot have formal members. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, citing figures for the rarity which is formal membership, and calling that a measure a membership (whihc has a different common meaning) is deceptive, unless fully explained, which is unlikely to happen. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

We use the information available. If you have any sources that interpret these numbers then please provide them. But if the Tea Party is a movement then that means it has people who organize for a common purpose, and these people can be counted. TFD (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what you are in essence saying is that there is no explicit rule against putting in knowingly deceptive material, and so therefore, the knowingly deceptive material can and thus should be put in. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SunSword, the tea party is a very loose association of various people and groups, not a structured organization with members. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would seriously question those statistics, and so does the source at [5]. Since that reliable source states that approximately 17% of registered voters self-identify as being part of the "Tea Party Movement", and since (as has been stated several times now) there is no registered political "Tea Party" to get accurate "membership" from, then including the statement "Tea Party membership is small in the US" doesn't seem to fit the facts. SeanNovack (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that clear that it should not be put in as proposed. Now on to the higher road, why don't we develop an intelligent , informative section on the topic identification with/informal membership in/ formal membership in the TPM? This source would be informative on the fact the FORMAL membership is rare in the TPM. This material could be one piece of it. Get some GOOD objective/overview/analysis type sources to develop it from. Such could be a good start / good example/ baby step for this article out of it's current junk status. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Every movement has members, whether they are official or not. We can add material from this source and explain how they got their numbers. We cannot discount a source simply because we feel that it may be inaccurate, based purely on our own views. I concur that it should be part of the general discussion of membership, which is already a significant section of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

While we should mention how many people support the TPM, we should not airbrush out how many people are active in the movement. Both stats are of interest. TFD (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Brice quote

The first two sentences of the racial section say, "Some black conservatives have questioned the Tea Party's inclusiveness and expressed concerns about racism. Brandon Brice, a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally, said he was worried about the movement, noting that, 'It's strayed away from the message of wasteful spending and Washington not listening to its constituents, and it's become more of this rally of hate.'" Hate of what? This quote does not say anything about race. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The source from which that quote is taken explains it quite well in the immediately following sentences:

He and other black conservatives are divided over the grass-roots movement of tea party groups that has caught fire with adherents of small government and fiscal responsibility. The tension stems from reports of racial and homophobic slurs directed against black and gay members of Congress who voted to overhaul health care, from photos circulating on the Internet of signs raised at tea party protests with slogans such as "Obama Promotes White Slavery," and the exhortation of a speaker at the group's convention that voters should be subject to literacy tests. The debate ratcheted up this week as two prominent black conservatives, Thomas Sowell and Ward Connerly, decried accusations of tea party racism.

And from later in that same source:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.

It is clear from the source article that Brice was referring to wide-spread hate of Barney the Dinosaur, and the Wikipedia article should be amended accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal – Second Revolution flag

This section is for the proposed merger discussion of Second Revolution flag to be merged with this page.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the merger - the flag was used only briefly, but it was in the context of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

[tax resistance|opposition to taxation]] in varying degrees,

This portion of this sentence needs to be removed or modified. The party seems to support an equal of tax cuts and increases, if you take it by number of incident. If you consider the money at stake, they actually seem to favor tax increase. 173.53.52.190 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on/ support that point? IMHO the evidence looks overwhelming that the TPM's agenda is cutting taxes, not increasing taxes, and that that is at the top of their agenda. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper Title Of Obama

I see the President being referred to as simply Obama. This reminds me of a coach using last names while referring to his players. "Hey Obama, get on the field!" He did win an election, Doesn't he deserve the title of President? I do see that President Bush is referred to as "Bush" in his bio page, but I think it is considered more proper to use his title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.241.105 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should provide equal treatment for all individuals. Either everyone is ascribed a title, or no one is. TFD (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Titles seem to be usally ascribed at the first mention within an article or section, afterwards being referred to by their last name. Arzel (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it as a logical extension of WP:SURNAME, although like most things about Wikipedia it is far from clear-cut. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the media refer to him as simply Obama, and going further, most don't even say his first name - they introduce him as simply "President Obama" and refer to him as "Obama" thereafter, as they do with all presidents. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case his title is "Mr." TFD (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mr." is properly used, as by the press, when not using "President." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, not in news stories. Referring to the president as "Mister" is improper usage under most style guides, (just as it is incorrect to address the president as "sir.") Although it is frequently done in editorials, we should not use that terminology here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is famous for being one of the rare newspaper which routinely refers to every male as "Mr." They even called Meat Loaf "Mr. Loaf". However Wikipedia takes to opposite approach and doesn't call anyone "Mr." I agree that the first mention of Obama should be complete, "President Barack Obama", but that subsequent references can just say "Obama".   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Will. That's how it's done in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries.

Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries. ... per http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07epa.html?_r=1 (New York Times Senate Rejects Bills to Limit E.P.A.’s Emissions Programs by John M. Broder (published: April 6th)) from Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) and 6.April.2011 Portal:Current_events. 99.181.155.197 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an updated version ... *The Senate defeated a measure that would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations began being applied early this year effects air polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, as a climate change mitigation attempt.http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-climate-congress-idUSTRE7357HU20110407 Reuters (New York Times) 99.181.159.102 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

99.35.14.1 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks like real content. If it is an edit request, could you format/described the proposed change as something more "ready to be inserted"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Deleted. I missed the pov assertion (via implying ) in there the first time. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The new (struck out) content is not reflected in the sources provided, and is not relevant to this article. The original one does seem to be reflected (including the misspelling) in the source, and appears relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue that I noticed is that "and their financiers" (the broad implications of that assertion) is a very POV assertion. So, with respect to that, the material as worded is the opinion of a critic. Could include a more thorough section to balance that and put it in context, or else leave our those4 few words. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"...and opposition to cap and trade became a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries." is in the article, and not attributed to anyone in particular who should be credited. Although the NYT is left-of-center, that isn't adequate to make this unusable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

How is The New York Times left-of-center? Do you have evidence to support this general statement, otherwise WP:NOR, and it sounds like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, ask anyone and the media that is tilted their way is unbiased and the media that is tilted the other way is biased. So, while one can't trust the objectivity of their claims, they can still be used via a decoder ring. The fact that it common for folks everywhere right of center say that the New York Times is left of center. The fact that they chose with such broad implications as "and their financiers" certainly speaks to the writer having a "side" on this. 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite cryptic User:North8000. If you find a source for your decoder ring put it in the wp article The New York Times, otherwise WP:NOR. 108.73.113.166 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I fixed my major typo for starters. But the decoder ring is that no matter how biased someone's opinion is, they are not going to call someone the enemy unless they are the enemy.

"isn't adequate....". Indeed! In fact totally irrelevant. We include sources from all POV. The POV doesn't make a source unreliable in the sense we use "reliable" source at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "...in the article, and not attributed to anyone in particular...", wouldn't it be attributable to the author, John M. Broder, a NYT staffer who writes both reports and blogs, primarily (it seems, at least recently) on environmental issues? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that the worst/most POV'd part of this is not attributed. Why don't we do it the right way, and write an intelligent section on the topic (using the real content from this source as ONE of the sources) instead of adding to the junk / massive wp:npov violations that this article is bloated with? North8000 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

@ North8000, "massive wp:npov violations"? Where are they? I hope you realize that NPOV does not refer to content per se, but to editorial motivation, IOW we are supposed to edit in an NPOV manner. The content often is very POV, and as long as it's properly sourced is perfectly fine. Never think that NPOV means we censor POV from articles. No, we include them because that's what we find in RS in the real world, and that's our job here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't followed this thread, and don't have an opinion on the underlying dispute. But I have to reply to last comment. WP:NPOV is certainly about content. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. A common misconception is that this means articles must be neutral. That's incorrect. It means that all significant points of view are represented without favoring one over the other, though weight should be proportional to prominence. While we don't want to use highly partisan sources directly that doesn't mean partisan or biased views shouldn't be included if they're significant.   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, excuse my awkward wording, but we actually agree. Certainly it ultimately has to do with content, but it shouldn't be used to mean that content must be neutral. That's a common misunderstanding. It must be neutrally presented by editors, but the content itself can be very POV. Editors must not take sides by either openly advocating the POV (in the article, not talk page), or trying to keep the POV out of the article. It just has to be properly sourced. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We're in agreement.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Answering BullRangifer's question to me, a couple of examples of the most blatant violations are an entire section on on an ethnic slur that one local leader put on Twitter, and a 710 word section on unsubstantiated allegations that one or a few participants at a rally said a racial slur. Besides being massive wp:npov (undue weight) violations, if there was a relevance criteria, these would certainly fail it (comments by an individuals in an organization/movement does not per se mean that such comments are information about the organization/movement) and third, the few defenders of these sections have used rationales that were pure OR, essentially that there were (in my words) pieces of a bigger racism impression that they are hoping to build in the article. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

North8000, please stay on the topic of this discussion: Add Opposition to a nationwide trading system to curb carbon emission was a successful 2010 political platform point for Tea Party groups and their financers in fossil fuel industries.' 99.109.127.246 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There can be a few threads in the discussion, including this topic which is important for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition of "and their financers in fossil fuel industries" is not neutral because it implies that the Tea Party is financed and manipulated by a small group of capitalists. TFD (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And a disliked group (fossil fuel industries) of capitalists at that. NYyankees51 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fossil fuel industries are not universally disliked group(s), not for those who work for or with those industries and people, their friends and family, and those who benifit from (and recognize the benifit) ... easily transportable concentrated energy, and the vast uses of petrochemicals, to name a few ... that is a non-trival number of "like". Ambiguity and Ambivalence seem much more common, and that is not to say there isn't intense dislike at the same time. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but oil companies are frequently demonized in the media, popular culture, etc. That's why they do their big ad campaigns saying "We're working for alternative energy", "we create jobs", etc. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But with Greenwashing an issue ... not entirely effective ads. Good points, NYy. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Davenport, Orange County Republican email

Mrs. Davenport sent a racist email depicting President Obama as an ape. Written under the words, “Now you know why — No birth certificate!”, is an Obama family portrait depicting his parents as chimpanzees. Former Chairman of the California Republican Party Michael Schroder has demanded Davenport’s resignation saying it’s not her first brush with racist rhetoric. She has yet to step down.

This should be part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 07:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The person is identified in that source as "a Southern California Tea Party activist".[6] Some headlines refer to her affiliation: "Tea Party in hot water over Obama ape joke", "Tea Party hit by race row over Obama ape joke", "Una activista de "Tea Party" se disculpa por una foto de Obama como chimpance; EEUU-POLÍTICA". OTOH, most sources do not mention the affiliation. If it's mentioned it should be brief.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Total War

Maybe you'd get some Medieval ruler like Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun to agree to that, or in modern times where it's widely looked down on by most you'd get Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or some third-world dictator who proceeds to get ousted soon after. In all seriousness, this is not advocated as the Tea Party's foreign policy. Total war where the enemy population is completely annihilated is not advocated by anyone with traction in American politics. Ron Paul would DEFINITELY not advocate anything of the sort, and the other wing really wouldn't either. You see stuff supporting the war on Fox News, but they don't say "Hey guys, genocide is a-okay". They're two different things. A liberal might say Republicans in general are bloodthirsty warmongers, but nobody in the United States openly supports such third world barbarity. I know it's an opinion piece, but we also need to know it's a strawman. That's not an opinion, it's an accusation of fascistic leanings and that carries some weight. J390 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "total war" means the annihilation of the enemy. Rather it refers to a full mobilization and commitment to victory, which is defined as the unconditional surrender of the opposing force. WWII versus Vietnam. What comments has Ron Paul made on those conflicts or on war in general?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I've reverted some changes to that section made without discussion. We discussed the wording of that section on this page previously. See Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_15 #Add_The_Tea_Party_and_American_Foreign_Policy:_What_Populism_Means_for_Globalism.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PPS: the major issue with those edits is that we're summarizing one particular source so changing what it says, unless it's to make it a better summary of that source, is inappropriate. If there are contrasting views then we can add those in addition to what we already have.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As for that thread, Sarah Palin is most definitely not an isolationist. Besides perhaps more of an emphasis on Israel (entangling alliances is not an isolationist stance) than other fronts of the war, there is no difference between her foreign policy views and those of Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney, and the GOP platform since 2003. She's not "halfway there" with the Ron Paul crowd. I mean, Bill Kristol chose her for a reason. What would constitute total war? WWII? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

I know it's an opinion piece, but it still feels like a serious charge, and apparently it means the civilian population will be targeted. I see little evidence the Palin wing of the Tea Party is any more or less hawkish than the standard GOP, and the Ron Paul wing probably does think if America's attacked, it's okay to fight back under those conditions, but I don't see them as particularly ruthless (ruthless being a neutral charge for carrying out a war harshly). Not more than Bush. J390 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If we can find secondary sources which describe the foreign policies of Paul, Palin, and others as regard the TPM then we can add those.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...an opinion really shouldn't be added unless the contrasting opinion is also added, in most cases. Claiming somebody supports total war is an emotionally charged accusation, and one that carries implications of Genghis or Atilla. You're right that we should find secondary sources describing the foreign policy views of Ron Paul (explicit and clear non-interventionist) and Sarah Palin (not so much) and how they clash and impact the movement. J390 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So far we don't know that there is a contrasting opinion. We can only add what we have sources for.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

""Palinites", while seeking to avoid being drawn into unnecessary conflicts" The sentence I don't believe is right. It feels not only NPOV (tries portraying their foreign policy as cautious and not neoconservative, when it clearly is, try telling a liberal or non-interventionist their foreign policy tries to avoid conflict, and how is her foreign policy different that different from the rest of the GOP? You could say on a Bush article that he tried to avoid unnecessary conflicts, but that wouldn't be the emphasis and would be POV), although some do oppose Libya, it also does not display that this particular wing is strongly behind Israel, and emphasizes a 'strong national defense' much moreso than avoiding wars they don't think necessary. The sentence tries to portray the wings as having common ground on that, which is not intellectually honest. Also, when you only have one side of a contentious and controversial issue without the other, it's better off having nothin'.

About supporting total war, you know, I think the Tea Party either thinks Bush was too hawkish (Ron Paul) or that he was sufficiently hawkish (the others). I don't think they believe he was not hawkish enough. I see little evidence they are more hawkish than the GOP, just like I don't see the Palin wing as being less. But claiming they support total war still feels emotionally charged like they're unhappy we don't rape and pillage like ticked off 14 year olds fighting a war. The truth is the Palin wing is not. Would probably get us into Iran if she listens enough to certain people and MA carries on the way he has the same way Bush got us into Iraq. This isn't opinion, it's based more on fact. J390 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't know that there are other sides, as no one has presented any sources which depict other views. As for the present contents, if anyone else has read the article and disagrees with the summary then we can work together to improve it. I believe I've summarized it accurately.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an opinion by a distinguished academic, Walter Russell Mead, but we have no way of knowing how notable or how accepted this opinion is. TFD (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, a much shorter version of the article appeared as an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times.[7]   Will Beback  talk  03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph, need your help

Greetings. I would like to add the following but am asking here first. Thank you. Anything anyone can do to make this a NPOV statement is most welcome. I am sorry for the treatment that Mr. Phillips may receive but this incident stands out as a contradiction. I have already added this at Tea Party Nation which is a much slower paced article, with a note in my edit summary. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

President Barack Obama citizenship

Phillips appeared to contradict himself regarding the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Phillips wrote on April 27, 2011 in his blog on the Tea Party Nation website, "If the birth certificate the White House offered today is a fake, then we are watching the greatest political conspiracy since Watergate and if that is the case, forget impeachment. Joe Biden and the cabinet just need to invoke the 25th Amendment and send Obama off to a nice quiet place where they have long white jackets, nice men and women and the birds are chirping." But the same day on television's Hardball with Chris Matthews Phillips said to the host, "Hang on. You're taking it a little bit out of context here... I think it's genuine...."

Just from the quotes you included, the assertion that Phillips appeared to contradict himself looks like original research, and not necessarily accurate at that, based on that huge If in the lead-in. Perhaps other parts of the article offset this, but I'm not planning to give Tea Party Nation my email address to find out. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The words "appeared to contradict himself" could be termed original research, but I thought of them as a nice way of describing Mr. Matthews's consternation with Mr. Phillips. Matthews quoted the blog and then got this surprising response. Thanks a lot for your thoughts. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How is this content ABOUT the TPM? I'm sure that there is some connection (such as they both occur on the same planet, or that the same person was involved in both) but how is this material ABOUT the TPM? North8000 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

agree, not relevant to tp Darkstar1st (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Returning to non-bold type.) Dale Robertson and Sonny Thomas both have named sections already in this article. Mr. Phillips is a national figure in TPN, as founder. So I disagree. And I dislike how this article has been constructed around racism per se. But it's not my intention to add to the nonsense so I will omit the paragraph here. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis. BTW you are comparing to stuff that is in there that shouldn't be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul is an isolationist?

the same guy who opposed the trade embargo on iraq, pre-oil war is an isolationist, are you sure? dr paul has many times stated his foreign policy clearly, mead displays his ignorance of paulites with the following: Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" (def. a revival of isolationism arising from increased anti-Soviet and anti-European sentiment and a reluctance to involve the nation in further political and military commitments abroad.) approach that seeks to avoid foreign involvement. paul is a non-interventionist, which is vastly different from an isolationist. one seeks trade, the other does not. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

so i will correct the verbiage again to reflect the reality that paulites are actually non-interventionist, not isolationist as mead incorrectly states. here is my source 24hr in advance of my 2nd attempt at the edit. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. And the source looks good for that, getting into the details behind it. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By "correct the verbiage again", I assume you mean you intend to include Gregory Scoblete's opinion of the Tea Party's views on Foreign Policy alongside Mead's opinion of the Tea Party's views on Foreign Policy - because we can't make Mead say something he didn't. This related article by Mead (a summary of the longer source) has him basing his definition of "Paulites" on Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, which may be the source of some of the descrepancies Darkstar1st is noticing. Or it may just be a typo in the NYTimes source. Our TPM article presently mentions Ron in this role; will the real Paulite please stand up? (I can't view that full source to verify which Paul until I get back to my main system). Xenophrenic (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

no, this is not a rand/ron error, this is a mead rs error. xeno, are you sure much distance separates ron and rand politically? dr paul used the word non-interventionist in the fox tv debate 2008. mead did not source his comment, perhaps it was simply an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Darkstar1st's edits that were just reverted by Fat&Happy: Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. An isolationist is more like Pat Buchanan. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He indeed is not an isolationist. That sentence should be changed. J390 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it should be changed. He is not an isolationist. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit reversed

In one of my recent edits, I tried to tighten up some of the messy background section and it was reversed. I wanted to bring it up here to see if I really have any substantial objection to making this change, because I can't imagine that to be the case. I don't think any proper encylopedic entry could even be conceived to include the following text:

On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes", over 100 other taxes proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out-of-control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes.

The most obvious objection is that this is clearly WP:UNDUE and if we are to try to fashion any kind of clean, organized, properly-sized article this small local protest that has seemingly never been referred to in any Tea Party movement article can not be a part of such an article. I realize this article is about a hot button topic, but it's EXTREMELY messy for a two+ year old article, and it will remain so if we continue undoing attempts to clean things up.

I can not think of what one might find important or worth detailing in the information above. I find it not worth a mention, much less the first paragraph concerning early tea party protests, because it was clearly not a tea party protest. Like the Ron Paul events, it occurred before the Tea Party movement existed, and before the phrase itself was coined or conceived. Surely no one has ever posited tat Trevor Leach is in any way important to the TPm or in understanding it and its growth. In the absence of continued objection here, I will offer the contribution once again. Izauze (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Izauze My revert of the removal was initially based on the edit summary and the higher degree relevance of material compared to the not-about-the-TPM stuff that constitutes about half of this article. I feel that a closer view reinforces that even further. An organized protest, self-named as "Tea Party", on the exact agenda of the current TPM....what else could one ask for.....a still-non-existent TPM membership card? And I agree with your assessment of the article, except that it think it is too mild. I would call the majority of it to be a total mess. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So if you were to write this article, you'd include an entire paragraph about some random pre-TPm protest that only received any apparent notice in the local press and does not seem to have contributed to the formation of the current movement in any way shape or form? I have a hard time believing that. I have a hard time believing that anyone here, if they were to craft their own encyclopedia entry, would include that wee bit of non-notable trivia within it. It simply adds nothing to the article or our understanding of the movement.

At most it can be said to demonstrate how many different people were utilizing Boston Tea Party related imagery before the modern TP protests came about. But that would make it only 1 out of hundreds if not thousands of such instances that utilized that same imagery/iconography. Certainly, the Ron Paul events must take precedence over this obscure Trevor Leach fellow if that's the case. If Trevor Leech deserves a Paragraph, then Dave Ramsay appearing on a national news station actually calling for a Tea Party movement on Fox (in Feb., 2009) must deserve an entire section, right?

And I don't think our mutual agreement that the rest of the article is kind of trashy should be used as an argument to cling to a piece (that never should have been contributed in the first place) just because you find that it's slightly less trashy than some of it. That's my view. I'm interested to see if anyone else has anything to offer so we can see if there's some sort of consensus here. Izauze (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One idea...a more thorough discussion on what constitutes material being "about the TPM", and whether or not to apply such a "about the TPM" criteria for inclusion of material in the article. And apply that to this particular item. If the result were to delete the material, that would be fine with me. I think that this would be very useful to resolve this particular item and many others. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea if we can get some participation. I haven't been around to see what previous arguments may have existed about what makes something worthy of inclusion and "about" the TPm, but I suppose that can be a strength depending on your POV.

I would say that something is "about" the TPm, if it the data: A) Concerns events which have been credited with leading to the formation of the TPm (or the people credited) B) Invokes the general political climate/background and the the forces that made the moment ripe for such a movement to spring up. C) Details the various major TP leaders, events, sponsors. D) Describes demonstrable collective attitudes and beliefs of self-identified tea party members. E) Concerns the concrete political affects of this movement (elections, etc.) F) Explores the more abstract affects of the movement (political climate, criticisms of the movement, etc.) G) Notes the perspective of their opponents/critics.

Or perhaps more simply, as a reader, I want to know -how they got here -who they are and what they believe/want -what their affect is, has been, and may potentially be -and finally who are their critics and what are their criticisms/counter-arguments. It seems like that's about what you'd want in any movement article, no? Hope I'm not forgetting something. Izauze (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What excellent work! Could you expand a bit on "C".....specifically, which material about a leader or sponsor is sufficiently "about" the TPM to be in the article? North8000 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me think... I guess what I, as a supposed layperson, would want to know about someone/something that is considered to be a sponsor of a movement (or expect to see in an encyclopedic entry) is briefly who they are and then what they have done to direct or to utilize the movement (or what they are considered to have done). For instance - if we're looking at Martin Luther King in relation to HIS movement, I want to know what he did, how he affected the movement, what actions he took, marches he led, speeches he gave, what kind of spirit and messages he gave to the movement. I don't know if you're looking for something specific, or if this answers your question... Izauze (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think that you wrote an excellent portion of a roadmap out of the mess that this article is. And what I hoping to have fleshed out is a statement broad enough so that it could reasonably be used to exclude/take out other material. I didn't want to influence you, but was thinking that in an article about a movement, that the only things relevant when talking about an individual are the things relating to that movement. My first case in point in this article would be the section about the twitter comment.

On the narrower topic, I would be quite happy if you made a decision on whether or not your edit complies with your scope standard and proceed accordingly. Based on your judgment, either way would be fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Brice, Lenny McAllister, and Jean Howard-Hill have expressed concerns about racism in the TP

have you ever heard of any of them, me either. then why does their OPINION of the tp belong here? i do not see any opinions in like pages, perhaps this is an effort to smear the tp, npov? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) would these people be here if they were not classified as "black"? are we past categorizing people by skin color? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of all three of them. It appears they are included in this article because Brice is a TPer that is a keynote speaker at tea party events; Lenny McAllister is a TPer politician and commentator, and Howard-Hill is a Republican politician — probably to show that the criticism also comes from within, and not just from the usual critics of the movement. I have not read anything that indicates they are trying to smear the TP; do you have a source conveying that? Perhaps if we were "past categorizing people by skin color" we would not be having this discussion.

Just a passing observation: I've never heard of Keli Carender, but for some reason she does have a 2-sentence Wikipedia article saying she is a math teacher who organized a small protest. Trevor Leach who? Ryan Hecker who? I doubt any of you have heard of them, so we should probably remove them as wp:undue; any objections? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Brice self-describes himself as many things. I'm curious as to why an editor would select the "hip hop republican" description to add to the TPm article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) I see now that this subject is being addressed in another section below. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

removing jaun williams as a reliable source?

Juan Williams (born April 10, 1954[citation needed]) is a American journalist and political analyst for Fox News Channel. He also writes for several newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and has been published in magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Time. He was a senior news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) from 1999 until October 2010. At The Washington Post for 23 years, Williams has worked as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist, White House correspondent and national correspondent. seeking support to remove the tag questioning his reliability Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that that source certainly meets wp:RS criteria. I also just noticed that you changed the lead and the change is what this supports. IMHO the added statement is a bit of a reach. Also the first half of the lead was pretty heavily worked on by a lot of people. What do you think of the idea dialing back that sentence a bit (e.g. "according to Jaun Williams..........", & moving it a few sentences later, and removing the tag on the source? North8000 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

i am fine with those changes. Juan is not the only one who attributes the tea party to ron paul maybe if i added more sources we could word it better? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. The following is actually less un-wikipedian than some would claim, but what to y'all think is the most accurate way to characterize to what extent the TPM is attributable to him? (whatever the answer is is going to be sourceable) Also maybe add a few related events / mileposts etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Williams article is clearly labeled as an opinion. Op-ed articles are good sources for the opinions of their writers, but not for facts given without attribution.

I'm not sure why that opinion needs to be in the first sentence of the article. While some people may say that Paul was the founder of the TPM, that's not the only view and Paul is not the leader in any formal way.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will did you see the part about RP raising more than any US politician in a single day, on the anniversary of the Boston tea party? ($6+ million, average donation, $25) Darkstar1st (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the connection? Did he give the money to the TPM?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

unless there are further objections, i will remove the tag on rs Juan Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No objection. I'll remove it myself. I'd placed it to highlight the problem of using an opinion column for an asserted fact.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean Howard-Hill, leader of the National Republican African American Caucus

why isn't Brandon Brice described by his most notable achievement like the others here? he owns, i meant writes on a blog called hiphoprepublican.com. yet he only gets "black speaker at a tea party rally" title? i added it once, it was removed, i will add it back unless there is objection. “One of the best examples I have found of the growing diversity in the resurgent Republican movement has been Hip Hop Republicans” - Brandon Greife – Political Director of the College Republican National Committee. “While some blacks lean conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, Web sites like HipHopRepublican.com raise issues important to blacks that many Americans are concerned about health care, affordable housing, the economy, the environment and education” -The New York Times Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that his blog is his most notable achievement? Strange that he doesn't include it on his resume or website. The description used was from the cited source. We could, I suppose, add in your other sources you just mentioned and create a mini-bio of him in this article about the TP movement, including his scout merit badges, his teaching creds from Rutgers, his FOX News appearances, etc. On second thought, let's not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

here is a better description that describes him as the spokesperson: http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/07/21/hhr-radio-exclusive-interview-with-brandon-brice/ Brandon is a long time active blogger and spokesperson for HipHopRepublican.com Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above descriptions (including your most recent link, which itself just provides the description and link to an old 2009 version of his personal website) provide interesting content for a Brandon Brice article. Was there a question here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

yes plz scroll up. i asked why you deleted a notable achieve on the order of receiving praise from the times and other rs, as we as being known as the spokesperson. i am a bit confused why you deleted this title and replaced it with "a black speaker at rally", not a note worthy title at all, agreed? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He was a blogger, and a spokesperson for a website -- you are saying that is a "notable achievement" you wish to add to the TPm article? Why? He doesn't even reference those hobbies on his resume or website anymore. One would assume being a Policy Intern for the Speaker of the House, or an Economics teacher at Rutgers, or a regular political contributor at FOX News would be a bit higher up on his "achievement" list. Like I said, that is content better suited for an article about him. He is referred to in our article as "a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally" because that is how the source article refers to him: he's African American; a black conservative TPer (the very subject of the article, by the way). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

would you be ok with including he is both a black speaker and spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

unless there be further opposition, i will re-add hiphoprepublican and leave the word black. a shame given the age we live a mans accomplishments come after his skin color when describing him. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably address the concerns already raised before asking for "further opposition". And you haven't said anything about adding his accomplishments. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, if he did a twitter comment, THAT would be the basis for a huge section in this article! But only if the comment sounds bad.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your animosity toward Twitter is duly noted. Not understood, but noted. ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

it was an allusion to the fact a 130 character text ranks below a blog post and lolcats. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. So the animosity is not directed toward the medium used, Twitter, but toward the 130 character brevity of the racial slur? Strange, as it is one of the longer expressions of racist sentiment I've seen; usually it is just a caustic word or two. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons it's rates so low is that it is so so spontaneous and instantaneous (per WP 78% pointless babble or conversational) that it is the bottom of the bottom of the barrel regarding being a meaningful indicator of anything. But at the moment I was chiding you about a double standard about suitability of material for the article. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons you rate it so low, you mean? While the fact that it tends to be "spontaneous and instantaneous" may reduce its value in your eyes, those very same qualities also mean the communication is likely to be more truthful, less guarded, and far less nuanced and prepared. In other words, closer to his actual thoughts, rather than what he might vocalize in polite company -- and that speaks volumes about the broader racism issue we've been discussing. By the way, your "78% pointless babble or conversational" is not "per WP". Per actual WP, those percentages are from a single study of 2000 tweets a couple years ago, and are refuted by by Dr. Boyd, who explains that the tweets are only "pointless babble" when read by those for whom the tweets were not intended. But we stray...

You lost me with your reference about "suitability of material for the article." Above, DS1 suggested adding "spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com" as a further description of Brice. That baffles me because Brice is no longer one of the spokespersons for that website, Brice no longer lists that as one of his interests on his resume, and Brice no longer mentions HHR on his personal website. In addition, when I asked DS1 what motivation he had for adding that, he says because it is Brice's "most notable achievement". Yeah, I LOL'd too. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Partiers gaining support from whom?

The following text was added to the Public Opinion section of our article:

A CBS News/New York Times poll in April 2011 showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling. 63% oppose raising the debt ceiling.

I checked the CBS poll, located here, and it says nothing about the TP gaining or losing support on anything. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it says nothing about the Tea Party at all. Why was this added?   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

you clicked the wrong link, view the actual source listed on wp. Opposition doesn’t just come from “extremist” Tea Party members Will, the poll does mention the tea party a few times, read the original poll here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056239-503544.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the debt ceiling and the TPM appears to come from a partisan blog, Hot Air. This is the CBS page on the debt ceiling, it doesn't mention the TPM.[8] The view that the poll "showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling" does not come from the pollsters. It comes from Ed Morrissey. Considering how much grief we had over citing the opinion of a distinguished professor, this doesn't seem like the kind of source we should be using, especially for assertions that are not clearly factual.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

then you did not view the cbs link above which mentions the tp a few times. why is there so much opposition to a poll about the debt ceiling that mentions the tp? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is linking the two, which CBS does not do but which Morrissey does. IOW, it's his opinion that they're linked and he's just a partisan blogger - his piece is lower than an Op-Ed column on the reliability scale.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

which still lies miles above a tweet. consider balance here, and allow some public opinion that reflects the tp beliefs such as the debt ceiling, not just polls about how many people are not in the tp. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we don't cite 'tweets' as reliable sources for statements of fact, either. No one has disallowed content on TP beliefs, numbers of TP supporters or public opinions. I brought up your content addition to the Public Opinion section here for discussion because you made factual assertions that were not supported by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

i have tried to add more recent polls, from the same polling sources and have been deleted and reported for warring. why is it so hard to present positive info about the tp, and so hard to remove negative info about tp even when many question it's relevance. is there support for outside help, if so, who is willing to begin the process, as i may not be on wp for awhile, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really that hard to add and remove content, if you follow Wikipedia rules (or "use the system", as some call it). However, there are quite a few rules, and learning to edit within the constraints of all of them does take some time and practice. There are a number of noticeboards and dispute resolution facilities dedicated to helping resolve various editing issues. For issues generally about content 'relevance', you might submit a request for comment (As North8000 and I are considering above), or if you have a more specific and defined content relevance issue, you might post it at the NPOV Noticeboard. Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Racial issues

An editor removed the racial issues section, saying "this whole section is a debate between rs, one side says yes racist, other side says no, lacks consensus. the tp members themselves polled said not racist, removed as npov".[9] If there are valid or notable opinions presenting both sides, neutrality requires that we report both, not that we remove the section. TFD (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But I also agree with comments made in the past that much of the section consisted of content that was not noteworthy and only marginally related to the Tea Party movement, if at all. Perhaps this would be a good time to move that content here to the talk page and try to develop a consensus on what parts have relevance and their due weight instead of leaving the section that obviously just "growed like Topsy" out there. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the above isn't directly about the TPM, it's about peoples stated opinions about the TPM. We gotta get this article moving out of the junk hole.

Darkstar didn't take the worst wp:undue stuff out which is that massive stories which aren't even directly about TPM. All of this "racism" stuff should get condensed down to about three paragraphs carrying the analysis of some objective sources. In a few days I'm going to start taking out the worst most blatant wp:undue violations unless someone has a better plan. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We would be better off using better sources so that we could ensure that the opinions are either informed or notable, and readers would be able to see the weight that the various opinions have. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except I'd look for informed and objective. We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You will not find objective sources - it is up to us to ensure that this article is objective. What we should find is sources that explain weight applied to different points of view. TFD (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We could debate that one later. Right now even what you described is a step above what we have now which a lot of stuff that is not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can each of you cite just a couple of these sources that would meet your collective requirements of "objective, informed and notable", as a starting point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the hard part :-) I found one a few months ago which was an article in The Economist, I put it in talk here and think I could find it again. I think that what I really most had in mind is that the material is written by someone who is trying to analyze and cover the topic, not somebody who is just reporting on what Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelozi or a political operative said about it. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/17361396?story_id=17361396 from 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections (the twitter one and the "somebody claimed that some unknown person said something bad" section. Massive wp:undue violations, and they they aren't even directly about the TPM. And then evolve the racial issues section. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to start. This wp:undue disaster has existed long enough. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I took out the "controversies" heading and promoted the items under it up one level. Start to resolve the long tagged NPOV violation of that heading. Also took out the section the twitter comment. A TPM-disclaimed twitter comment by a person who happened to be one of zillions of local TP leaders is NOT material about the TPM. Big wp:npov:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't in their edit summary, Xeno just put the twitter item back in. This is just the worst of the worst of what needs to come out, and we can't seem to make any progress. If we can't start getting rid of this based on talk page discussions, then broader RFC about the huge amount of junk / wp:npov via wp:undue violations that are in here that need to go. What say you all? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, North, it's right there in my edit summary - please check again - and yes, I did put the racial slur incident back into the "racial issues" section. You removed it, claiming it "...is not material about the TPM" in your edit summary. Well, yes North, it is. Racial slurs by a TP leader and organizer, that resulted in cancellations of appearances by various politicos and candidates at a Tea Party rally. It is very relevant to that annoying little part of the movement's history that has gotten so much press play: the racism issues. I'm sure many of us would like to see the "worst of the worst" racism incidents expunged from the article, but the fact remains that the whole racism association subject needs to be neutrally presented and explained. It isn't going to just go away if we just scrub all the events, incidents, commentary, studies, polls, analysis and examples from our article. Simply nitpicking away at personally selected mentions of it in the article, one after another, isn't moving us toward solving the real problem: the lack of an encyclopedic treatment of the whole race issue plaguing the movement since its inception.

Let's work on developing that encyclopedic treatment of the issue. Do that first, and you'll find the need for the present disjointed laundry list of examples and anecdotes will disappear, and we won't need them anymore. Removing them now without first properly addressing the whole issue is inappropriate, and might be misconstrued as leaving the article in a POV state. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought that those events do not merit mention. I don't see how you can address the larger issue if you cannot even agree that these minor incidents have no relevance. 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Xeno's comment, why don't you try to come up with some real sources (I.E. real summary or analysis) that discusses the issue or even that such an issues exists? Not talking points quoted from operatives of their political opponents....real quality sources? The fact that this article is so full of 100% crap / wp:undue violations on that putative issue (I.E. a whole section in the article on each time somebody who is in the TPM movement says something dumb on the topic, or makes an unsubstantiated claim that some mystery person in the TPM said it) makes it look like a desperate attempt to manufacture an "issue" where there is none. But don't take my word for it, can anybody find a source which substantively summarizers or analyizes this putative issue to even say that it really even exists anywhere except in the claims of political operatives of it's opponents? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I, and other editors, have posted good sources here many times over the past two years. However, I'm as guilty as the next editor of not finding the motivation to do the heavy-lifting required to improve the article. Also, comments like "...or even that such an issues exists", tend to dampen any optimism one may have that a serious, intelligent collaboration might finally be undertaken.

Let me ask you this: Of the sources that I have seen that "summarizers or analyizes (sic)" the issue, to use your phrase, how shall I evaluate them to determine which come from "operatives of their political opponents" and which do not? Shall we just assume that any source that says anything critical or unflattering about the movement has obviously come from political opponents? Please define the necessary criteria to be met (in addition to Wikipedia's requirements) to qualify for use here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM. And drop the 2,000 words of this article that is not ABOUT the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which 2000 words would those be? And, again, what are your criteria for such sources? The only thing you've offered as a source of analysis was your one piece by the opinion columnist in the Lexington blog printed at the Economist link you mentioned above. That opinion piece devotes a mere two sentences to the issue, in this paragraph:

Some call the tea parties an “Astroturf” phenomenon—not grass-roots types at all but the dupes of big business. To others they are merely the most recent incarnation of an ugly right-wing and sometimes racist populism that has surfaced before when times are hard. Such allegations are misplaced. Corporate money has indeed found its way into tea-party coffers, but if you attend a tea-party event you will generally find that it is indeed a self-organised gathering of citizens dismayed by what they see as the irresponsible behaviour of an out-of-control government. Strands of racism can be found on the movement’s fringe, but most tea-party groups have done their best to snip these off.

Not exactly a scholarly, in-depth analysis of a complex issue that has dogged the TP for two years now; one that has filled countless news cycles, spawned debates, prompted national polls, and been the catalyst for university studies. Am I to understand that is representative of the kind of sources you would like to use as a foundation? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my post, it said "I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM." What you are inferring that I said is a modified straw-man version, implying that I said "scholarly" in there and that I offered that piece as a scholarly example. I never said either. And then you are responding to your straw man version of what I said instead of responding to what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my response to you; I never inferred that you called the opinion piece in TheEconimist.com a "scholarly" example. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll note that it was I calling that opinion piece 'not scholarly'. Implying the use of straw men is itself a straw man assertion, allowing you to avoid my still unanswered question about what your criteria is for usable sources. When I asked for examples of "objective, informed and notable" sources, your only submission was this opinion piece. Back to the question now, North? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A start on the 2,000 words would be the section on the twitter comment that you put back in. A twitter comment by a local leader that was not on behalf of the TPM, and which the TPM said has nothing to do with them is not material ABOUT the TPM, and, on top of that, a massive wp:undue violation. This is a nice first example. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Racial slurs by a Tea Party leader and organizer on a Tea Party website that caused cancellations from a Tea Party rally has nothing to do with the TP movement? I'm not sure I follow you. The politicians intending to speak at the rally, but then cancelled, disagree. The coverage in local papers on up to a whole segment on CNN also indicates otherwise. I do see that another local leader of a Dayton TP chapter disagreed with the Springboro leader's statements, but that seems to be par for the course. For every Thomas, Williams, Robertson, etc., expressing certain sentiments, you can always find another TPer to step up and say, "Doh! That's not really representative of the movement!" Viva la diversitie!

I agree with you that no single TPer individual speaks for the movement, but it is disingenuous to suggest that content about racial issues related to its members, leaders and policies is not material ABOUT the TPM. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opening changed my words again. I never said "nothing to do with the TPM"; I said it is not ABOUT the TPM. I can see that if you are going to make it a 2 hour job to even get one item that is one of the worst wp:npov/undue out of this article, then it is going to require a different approach to get this article out of junk status. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet again you are confusing my original choice of words with a quotation of your words, and yet again you are mistaken: I was not quoting you. I hope you are clear on that now; if not, I will patiently explain it to you yet again until there are no more misconceptions. I will also patiently continue to await your answer to questions (we're up to 3 now) you've been avoiding while diverting down these tangents. (1) What criteria should our sources meet, and (2) How is the "spics" slur content not about the TPm? (Note that at least one quoted TPer even felt the need to speak in defense of the movement because of that very event.) (3) If you're goal is to get items out of the article that you find objectionable, and you can't suggest source criteria (or sources) we should use for this project, and you are having difficulty clearly explaining why TPm-relevant content should be purged as "not ABOUT the TPM", should we instead try to bring some fresh perspective on the article through an RFC? It seems we haven't progressed very far beyond our mutual agreement that this article could use some serious rework. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The first two I already answered and this is the first time I've seen the third so some of those comments are out of line. But happy to recap and expand on the first two and and answer the third. 1. In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife. 2. First I now noticed that that section has even more problems. It is reporting a twitter tweet as something posted on the organizations web site; a conflict with one of the sources, and the other source had no details on the basis for making it sound like something more than a twitter tweet by an individual. But, answering your question directly, this material is about what an individual did, not ABOUT the TPM. A more direct way to achieve ending wp:undue violations is to say, on controversial material, limit it to things that are directly ABOUT the TPM, not things that are just SOMEHOW RELATED to TPM. 3. Your question #3 started with two false implied premises making it unanswerable without writing a book. But the fresh prospective / RFC is a good idea. We should mutually structure it well so that it actually resolves the issue. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess to make it specific, my proposed RFC question is a proposal to completely remove the twitter section and the possible-slur at health care protests section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that makes it more specific, or less specific. First, I should reiterate that my hopes for the RFC is to address the section presently titled "Racial issues", with an eye toward treating all of that subject matter (including your identified sections) in a more encyclopedic manner. My proposal might achieve your desired results anyway, as I expect many of those specific events will be at least reduced to mere footnotes, if they remain at all, as content is summarized and information is presented in encyclopedic rather than anecdotal-example format. We've been sparring recently because you've been pushing to simply excise relevant material outright, while I've been pushing to map out a plan to properly replace it. I know you've argued against the relevance of some of this content, but not convincingly. I'm sure you can find support for content removal simply because some editors will find it unflattering, but I think an actual policy-compliant reason will need to be presented during an RFC.

When you say "possible-slur at health care protests", I assume you mean the protests in Washington, DC during the weekend of March 20-21, 2010, when the health care reform votes were taking place? The naming of that section is a little problematic. Just to be sure we're on the same page, that is the same protest where:

• Protesters called Frank multiple anti-gay slurs like 'Faggot'?
• Protesters called Hispanics spics and threatened gun violence (yeah, our boy Sonny was there in DC)?
• A protester spat on Cleaver (intentionally, or accidentally but refused to apologize - no difference to most of us)?
• Rep. Anthony Weiner was called "Schlomo Weiner" and had notes left in the hallways about him & Rahm Emanuel in the shower, signed with swastikas?
• Protesters called Waxman a liar and a crook?
• CBS described the protesters as loud and furious, and reported "anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them"?

Is that the same protest where some partisan whacks say its absurd (and even a fabricated conspiracy!) that some black congressmen could have heard the n-word, despite several eyewitnesses saying they did, simply because the protesters haven't coughed up a video recording of themselves saying it? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, sincerely, your post is quite impressive. I mean this sincerely that it gives me hope that you want a good process and a good article vs. just pov'ing. And, in context, it is a sincere relief that now I'm not sure what to think. What do you think about first trying the new thread at the bottom? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What a curious response, considering my post is just a reiteration of the position I've held and expressed many, many times over the past months. I am encouraged to see your expression that you are pro-good article and against POV'ing the article; now let's see if we can put those good intentions into practice. See you in the discussion thread below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case

this quote from an already quoted rs "Macallistar" was removed, why? unless their is any objection, i will replace it. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which quote? Diff?   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the section title is the quote. i didn't include difs as i do wish to drawn attention to the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording was inserted into an existing quotation as if it were spoken as a single phrase, which it was not. I reverted it primarily for that reason, but also because you had removed the word "black", which was the descriptive word forming the basis of the source article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

would you object to me adding the qoute in it's entirety? how do you feel the meaning was changed with my abbreviated version? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to you properly adding quotes. There is quite a bit more we can add from that source article to expand that section of our article, if that is the intent. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Source? Could editors please be more helpful in their posts - some of us edit articles besides this one and it's hard to follow obscure references like this.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, it simply part of the same sourced already used, its actually the rest of the quote already used. why an editor choose to leave it out, or why when i added it, the passage was removed is a mystery. unless someone will expand on what else they would like here, i will simply add the above back as before. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The same source already used for what? If you're going to post a request then please add enough context that other editors know what you're talking about without having to spend 20 minutes searching through deleted edits.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

there is only one reference to rs mcallistar, and the source has not been deleted, no search required, the current version includes mcallistar. i would just like to add a few more words from the rest of the sentence, would you object? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched for "mcallistar" and "Macallistar" but didn't find anything. So I don't know what you're asking about.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From this Washington Post article, and more specifically, this text from that article:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.

"I feel like the tea party movement is at its core a good thing for America. It is a group of citizens that have not been previously involved," McAllister said. "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

McAllister, who has spoken at several tea party gatherings, said the movement is more diverse than news clips show. "There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case," he said.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

xeno thx for the update, but you haven't explained why you deleted that line, or what other words you felt were missing for me to add it back? do you still object to the words being added? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I did explain. Start from the bold print directly above. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i will make the delineation. in the future, please do so yourself rather than delete a rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I never deleted a RS. I returned a quote to it's actual structure. If you wish to add more quotes in the future, please do so properly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i see the difference. in the future, please help preserve relevant content instead of delete it, especially when it is from the same exact interview. thx in advance for just correcting my poor grammar, rather than deleting it, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

except last time you deleted the words instead of correct the format, why? next time, just and the cooma or whatever it was you did and leave the text plz, thanks for your help in advance! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

but you didnt, you deleted the words, what am i missing here? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But I did, as always, and I wasn't the one that deleted 'black'. All I did was a revert. Be more descriptive, and I'll help you find what you are missing. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not over-quote a minor figure. It might be better to summarize this view rather than to quote it verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, please see the other section, i suggested all of these are minor figures whose opinions would not be included except some people characterization of their skin color makes them relevant somehow. to me, that is racist, determining a persons relevance not based on words, but skin color, a shame. this whole section is a mistake. racism exist in all political spectrums, including every known event here smacks of npov gaming. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to the quotes, the difference is between a quotation which appeared in one newspaper article, and comments which have themselves become newsworthy and have been repeated in multiple sources. The two issues, the composition of the movement and it's policies and rhetoric, are separate. It's possible to have a multi-ethnic group which holds racist views and it's also possible to have a mono-ethnic group which does not. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources, giving weight proportional to views according to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, we have to do more than that. We need to write a quality, sourcable article and source it. And making a section on each time any TPM person says anything bad is definitely both npov gaming and contributing to the current junk article status. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The way to write a "quality, sourcable article" is by verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view, with weight according to prominence. If individual remarks get significant attention in the context of the TPM, then they are appropriate to discuss here.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What you just said is included, but it takes more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What "more" are you thinking about, specifically?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

something more than hymietown and loot the jews which is absent the democrat party article, as well as the kkk and members. the article is not about the past, but the current tp platform. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the KKK is already there. As for the other two examples, exactly how would you word them, what reliable sources would you cite, and in which section would you put them? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Darkstar's comment

It's going to take some work and/ or several more neutral people involved to rise this article out of junk POV status. The people who want to keep it that way know how to use the system to make it so that every tiny step out of the hole would take dozens of hours of work; at the moment my life is too short for that. Not sure what is next here. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a general list of what you feel is specifically making it junk POV. If you could give an idea of what you want, then others can work on it when you're busy.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I'm particularly busy at the moment, I meant that I've gotten to the point in life where I realized it's too short to go spending dozens of painful hours for each tiny step out of the hole that this junk article is in, an equation that the skillful pov warriors have created.

The first thing to go should be the twitter section. It's not about nor informative about the TPM. And even if it was (which it isn't) putting a whole section in an article about a national movement about one local leader's personal tweet is a massive wp:undue violation.

Second is removal the 710 words about "somebody claimed that somebody in the crowd said something bad" at that health care protest. Has all of the above problems plus two more. It's unsubstantiated that anybody said anything, and also of course, nothing about who allegedly said it.

Again, thanks for asking. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I took a brief look at it (doing some other stuff right now), but here are my current thoughts. The reasoning for the Twitter section, from my understanding, is a bit sketchy, but might have precedent. I need to look into it a bit more, but the reasoning seems to be that the actions of a prominent member, which had an effect on how it was treated, it thus, notable in the section. While Notability isn't inherited (everything that the politicians say isn't necessarily notable, and neither is everything that happens within the Tea Party), it is worth looking into. I'll be happy to do that once I get a chance (should be later today).

The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated". That's not quite right, or necessarily what we should be looking at. It has been addressed by many high profile politicians, of both parties. Remember, we aren't looking for the Truth, as awful as that may be. We are looking for verifiability. It is VERY well sourced that there was a controversy regarding the incident.

My suggestion is to reorganize the section so that we have those who confirm it occurred, such as Emanuel Cleaver, Barney Frank, Andre Carson, John Lewis, Heath Shuler, Andrew Alexander, Richard Trumka, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and counter point it with the people who have expressed doubt, like Andrew Breitbart, Bill O'Reilly and Thomas Sowell. That way, we show them the controversy, and allow them to make up their own minds as to whether it occurred or not. That sound good?

Homo Logica (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any improvement would be nice. My one thought that comes to mind is: Wp:verifiability is a condition for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. A main reason should be that it is informative about the TPM, while meeting wp:undue criteria for being in an article with a topic of this scale/scope. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you do think it should be mentioned, but that it shouldn't have as long of a section as it has? Homo Logica (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

given the balance here, perhaps one less negative comment on the tp would right the vessel? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to Homo Logica To be honest, I think that both of those two should be completely dropped. I didn't include the Dale Robertson one because that person is or was a prominent TP'er vs. one of the countless local leaders. But I forgot to include the propane grill damage committed by some mystery person conjectured to have been maybe motivated by a tp'er comment...that should also go. To say anything else would be disingenuous, but I'm ready, willing and eager to compromise ANYWHERE to finally start some forward progress out of junk status. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so (I want to be certain I understand your objection, so please bear with me), you are objecting to the material on grounds of WP:EVENT, or is because that it is Notable, but being included in this article gives WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would have to answer from two perspectives. One is trying to create a quality article which is to try to be informative and not misleading, not distorted by pov goals, with limited space/reader time in this article with a large scale topic. And taking that from two angles, something that one nobody or near-nobody in the organization said serves absolutely no purpose under any of the above. It not ABOUT the TPM, is ABOUT what a near-nobody or mystery-person said or did. The flip side is that the ONLY reason it's in there is to provide the impression that such nastiness is a party of the TPM agenda, or is even tolerated by it. The other perspective is looking for Wikipedia policies/guidelines to support that. And that is it is a massive wp:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As a general principle and not in reference to any specific issue, if a non-notable person makes a comment and it gets picked up by multiple news sources with headlines like "TP member makes newsworthy statement", then at some point it becomes about the Tea Party movement. That's just a fact of how politics works.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North, before we continue, remember to keep cool :-). I know that you have put in a lot of effort, and I want to help. Frustration is understandable. Remember, we all just want to make it better.

So, focusing on the article, you're talking about WP:EVENT, if I understand correctly. Now, the criteria for an event are:

• WP:EFFECT -- The long-term effects of the event.
• WP:GEOSCOPE -- The area effected.
• WP:INDEPTH -- How thorough the coverage is/was.
• WP:PERSISTENCE -- How long the coverage is/was.
• WP:DIVERSITY -- The variety in coverage.

Now, an event can be very difficult to assess, specifically because it's nearly impossible to know long-term effects. Since the section doesn't go into the effects, let's assume there are none. The scope of the coverage is as wide as the article (the entire US). There were quite a few in-depth reports on the matter, as sourced in the article. The persistence is hard to determine: while the event itself is no longer covered, it is referenced still. The diversity of the coverage has been quite wide, as represented by the 14 sources provided for the section. This is why it would be difficult to remove right now.

My personal opinion is that the long-term effects will be negligible, and thus, it will be relegated to a sentence or two, if it is mentioned at all. However, that isn't right now. For the moment, it seems as though it is relevant enough to be included. A good way to think about it (in my odd way of thinking), is that if everybody in the US started declaring the Democratic Party was made of poopie-heads, including an analysis of how it could be, it doesn't matter that it is childish, stupid, and patently wrong. It is still notable. (See: told you I have an odd way of looking at it.)

An alternate option, that might be more efficient, and a better compromise between the two stances, would be to make a separate article for the controversies. A bigger undertaking, but it would take it out of the article, and make room for things that specifically deal with the Tea Party, and not any of the controversies.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

i like the idea for a second article about controversies. the democratic party was and is full of racist, yet no mention in the wp article, because that is not the party platform. a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me, Corrine Brown (D-FL), Hymietown. Jackson, loot the Jews., Sharpton, Dick Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization. This is all about the Jews, Billy McKinney. undue, plain and simple. without outside help, the tp article will continue to be maligned, possibly by editors pushing a pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Darkstar1st, as is immediately evident by the supporting examples you struggled to find (Corrine was calling the Bush policies racist, [10] but nice try; Sharpton never said that, nice try; McKinney reliable source? ...) While it is true that racism can be found everywhere, there is no mention of it in the Democratic Party Wikipedia article because there is no relationship between racism and the Democratic Party. In fact, to the contrary, comparing the Dem article to, say, the Republican Party article, we see that it is officially part of the Dem's platform to support Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, and favor more immigration and cultural diversity -- stances antithetical to those taken by racists. The parent party of the TPers, by contrast, is against affirmative action, views immigration less favorably and (if their representatives are any indication) is less diverse. The reason the article about a 2 year old movement mentions racism while the article about a 200 year old political party does not is because of the weight of the existing reliably sourced content covering that issue. You see, the new TP movement is still struggling to define itself, so that void of defining information is presently being filled by whatever limited reliable sources we presently have. Right now that includes a very significant amount on this stuff related to race. As Homo Logica noted above, this race-related content may indeed wither in relevance (and consequently weight and presence in this article) over time — but that doesn't mean we need to suffer what is, IMO, unencyclopedic presentation of that content right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you realize the kkk was started by democrats who had members(alleged ex-members) sitting in the US house only a few years ago? the civil rights movement was opposed by democrats. none of this has anything to do with less tax, which is the tea partyz only agenda. have you contributed anything to this article about the tea party that is neutral or even positive? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the actual history of the KKK, and I know that there are Democrats in the US House of Representatives, and I know there have been folks from all political parties that opposed the civil rights movement. Yes, I've contributed a lot that is neutral, even and positive. Have you made contributions to any article that accurately conveyed content from cited sources, utilized proper grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation? ;-) I consider all of those to be positives. We're straying from article-relevant discussion, but feel free to continue on our personal talk pages if you wish. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you are advocating OR of the worst kind. You are basically saying "I know this (your controversial opinion) about the TPM, and so I am going to find and select situations that build the picture / opinion that you pre-determined.North8000 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. I'd ask you to substantiate that ludicrous statement by pointing out exactly where, but I've been through that unproductive tedious exercise with you before, and I'd rather not waste all that time getting to your inevetible retractions. Instead, I'll cut&paste exactly what I said -- to refute your "You are basically saying..." typical misrepresentation crap. Please try to apply at least a minimum amount of basic reading comprehension this time around, North: "I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues." Got it now? "My" opinions (controversial, pre-determined, or otherwise) have nothing to do with what I advocate. I'm advocating for the replacement of that list of examples previously added by editors, "select situations" if you prefer, with an encyclopedic treatment of the issue based on reliably sourced scientific studies and polls and objective examinations of the issue. We have some sources already cited that convey certain correlations and findings, but not many, so I've even been (unsuccessfully) prodding you to help me identify more sources. Now enough with the unsubstantiated attacks already, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Homo Logica. First and foremost, thank you so much for the work that you are doing here! And just to emphasize, I have 100% thankfulness and zero frustration with you. I had wp:npov rather than wp:event in mind, but wp:event is a good place to find some guidance, even if not specifically a content guideline. There are thousands of things that have been said by TP'res that have been covered by the media. Selecting just a particular few bad sounding ones out of the thousands for this article represents creation of an artificial construction by pov editors. Per Darkstar's examples, you don't see even a mention of any of the in the Democratic party article. I think that your 2nd article idea is a pragmatic way to a solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North8000 and I share a dislike for the series of "This TPer said/did this bad thing" example list in the article, but for markedly different reasons. If I understand North's position correctly, he feels the list of examples is a POV attempt to create an "artificial construction", or a false narrative about the movement, implying that the movement is racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc., — and he would like to see much of that content removed outright. I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As with other parts of the article, I don't think there is enough quality sourcing to effect such a replacement. The TPM article is likely to remain clumsy while the topic itself is so new. BigK HeX (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically on the suggestion of moving controversies into a separate daughter article, I'm torn between the obvious benefits and the potential pitfalls. One concern that I have is that merely critical or unflattering information might be misdescribed as "controversial" just so that it can be scrubbed from this article and hidden away in a less trafficked article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is zero reason to separate out the coverage that some Tea Party supporters may find disparaging. The fundamental problem is that this article is based almost entirely on recent events. It will be quite some time before proper weighting can be judged less controversially. BigK HeX (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That was addressed further down. That's why I proposed altering the name, so that it doesn't come off that way. The intent, is to leave the material that relates to the Tea Party Movement's official policies, and general positions. Then, we have the other article for perceptions of the Tea Party Movement. That way, this article doesn't put WP:UNDUE on the perceptions and controversies, and the other article can go into more depth on the issues, so that a full picture is given.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is the entire problem. There are zero "official" policies. Pretty much every stated goal of the Tea Party represents only a singular opinion. Once you open the door to include those opinions in an article, then WP:NPOV requires that we consider including an entire range of opinions with comparable notability. BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Controversies

No problem. So, I'm thinking that we should move over the following sections:

1. Fundraising and support
2. Public Opinion
3. A good portion of Obama administration
4. Commentaries
5. Media Coverage
6. Tea Party's view of media coverage
7. Racial Issues
8. Mark Williams Islam Comments
9. Use of term teabagger
10. Other Controversies

Then, we condense them into a smaller section in this article (I haven't done a thorough review of everything, so it's hard for me to determine exactly what that should be.)

Homo Logica (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are all the sections that focus on controversies (from my cursory check). Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, don't forget that we'd need to leave behind a summary of the material moved. Second, Fundraising and public opinion are core issues and should [not] be moved wholesale.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [amended]   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. That's what I was addressing with the latter part. In that it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article.

Fundraising and Public Opinion, from my first glace, shouldn't be moved. The reason I added them, was because of the contents. Fundraising and support focuses almost entirely on the Koch brothers, as an accusation, which has been disputed by the Koch brothers. Public Opinion, I'm a little more leery on, but again, it seems to focus mostly on how people approve or disapprove, and how it shows they do not represent the average American.

I fully agree that those sections are relevant. The current content of them, though, is more towards it as criticism. I meant the contents of the sections. Not anything that would be in said sections.

Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If we remove all of the critical material and keep everything else then it would be a POV fork and a violation of [[WP::NPOV]]. Just about everything in the article could be considered a controversy one way or another, so it's important to only move those self-contained incidents which are not core to the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referencing just the things that were unflattering. I was talking, specifically, about material that represents something for which there is a controversy, in the truest sense of the word. Under Fundraising, for example, the Koch brothers were accused of funding the Tea Party. So, we present both sides. The accusations, and the responses. Just as with the racism claims. Accusations and counterpoint. Let them make their own decisions, we just present the controversy. Looking at WP:POVFORK, though, it occurs to me that Perceptions of the Tea Party would be a more NPOV way to do it (this is also a response to Xenophrenic). I definitely didn't want to limit it to just pulling out the critical stuff.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up as far as potential duplication: Tea Party protests also touches on the issues of racism allegations, early Koch involvement, etc., and the National Tea Party Federation article was created about the organization formed as a result of "unflattering" events. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll try to make the rounds to similar articles, catch everything up together, put in similar stubs, and link to the new one. Any more concerns on the matter from anybody before I go through them?

Homo Logica (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I wasn't out to remove topics where there is criticism, I was just out to remove junk that doesn't belong the article. My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved. The new article is a pragmatic way to get there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it appear that you seem to use the term "junk" to reference material that may be disparaging to the Tea Party, regardless of the coverage and sourcing? BigK HeX (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

North's concern (correct me if I'm wrong, obviously :-P), is that the amount of material in this article, puts WP:UNDUE on some of the more sensationalist events, which detracts from the rest of the article, making it not WP:NPOV.

Also, North, I'm in definite agreement that the sections should still be there. I was specifically talking about the material that is currently in the sections, as it relates mostly to the perceptions about the Tea Party Movement, and not the Movement itself.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly think that is related to the problem where there is little other than (perhaps) sensationalist material to cover because the subject of the article is really too new to have settled, stable assessments. When we have to rely on newspapers as the dominant source, there are going to be issues in weighting, but I don't think anyone has tried to make the case that the "controversial" material covered in the article has not had comparable coverage and exposure to the material describing certain people's view on the Tea Party's goals. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BigK, you misunderstand me. By "junk" I mean (primarily those three sections) material that isn't ABOUT and the subject of the article, basically those three subsections. And sourcing is irrelevant to that question.

BigK, I think that you hit the nail on the head. Except that the issue is related to newness but goes beyond newness. IT IS NOT AN ENTITY, right now it is just a phenomena, we keep trying to cover it as if it was an entity and the people within it as if they were an organization or an entity. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)