Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Sonny Thomas

Even if his racial tweet is notable, it should not be in the "slurs at healthcare protests" section. I don't think it's notable, but the restoration in an inappropriate location needs to be fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It needs to go. A twitter comment by a low level TP person is a massive npov & wp:undue violation. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As I stated when I initially removed it, I think it violates WP:UNDUE, since a small town Tea Party Twitter page is insignificant in the scheme of the movement as a whole. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One note on the most recent edit summary. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for all article material. It's not a mandate for inclusion of any material, so that is just a requirement to include, not a reason to include. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, sources are necessary but not sufficient. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has advocated that something must be included just because it is sourced. The edit summary contained the adjective "relevant". This has been discussed in the archives before here, as Arthur Rubin and North8000 advocated the Sonny Thomas material be scrubbed out of the article previously in January 2011 (based on material that had been in the article shortly after Sonny Thomas tweeted that racial slur in March 2010). The material appeared in the racism section, not the healthcare protests subsection, but it was somehow altered in the last 48 hours such that it was moved into the wrong place. Retreading old ground in the archives, it is relevant to the issue of racism in the Tea Party that a Tea Party leader communicated a racial slur to a large group of followers. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE i think it and most of the negative sections should go. if not, where is the balance? are there any sections devoted to positive stories about tp people? Do we really need to add a racism section to every group of 3 or more mentioned in wikipedia? racism happens all the time and most people dont even know it. my favorite are urban pc people who grew up privileged but like to complain about being oppressed while addressing their friends by racial, homophobic, and sexist names, because the people they call those names are ok with it because they know they don't really mean it and really are about equality. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, also responding to AzureCitizen. How is comments by one low level TP'er, disowned by the TPM, informative on racism in the TPM, and to a degree significant enought to be included in the top level Wikipedia article on the TPM? How is that not a massive UNDUE violation? Do you see such things iin the top level US Democratic party article? Each time a low level Democrat says something bad sounding that gets covered, we put it in the DNC article just for negative effect, even though it is not informative on the DNC? What junk! What a massive npov/wp:undue violation. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

@Darkstar1st (added; lost in previous edit conflict). Except for occasional charities, and heroic actions, good news is rarely reported.

@AzureCitizen

• He's not a TP "leader".
• It was removed from the "racial slurs" section because of agreement that it didn't deserve a separate heading. Removing "Dale Robertson" from the subheading would provide appropriate placement, if it weren't WP:UNDUE.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree with the above. The guy founded a local Tea Party group in a town with a population of less than 20,000 people, and was roundly denounced and disowned by the movement as a whole. His comments are not representative, and including them violates undue weight. As I said, the other incidents included are far more significant. Including this just feels like "piling on" or building a case against the TPM. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Torchiest, with all due respect, promptly deleting the material again with an edit summary asserting a "clear 4-1 consensus" is a bit disingenuous given that two other editors (Gothean and Xenophrenic) promptly reverted the deletion earlier today (making it 4-3, but consensus is not about "votes" anyway). Further, stating "Until further discussion and argument for its inclusion occurs, it should remain out of the article" ignores WP:BRD in that the material has been part of the article since shortly after Thomas made the tweet in March 2010; except for one day in January 2011, it's been there continuously in the racism section. Do you feel BRD doesn't apply here? Why? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the merits of it, inclusion of this would have severe problems. The only argument made for having it in there has been a faulty one (being sourced is not an argument for inclusion). I think that the actual one has "if it leaves a negative impression about the TPM, I want it in" which is not valid. And then then try to misquote/mis-use policies to keep it in. This article has been locked down in junk status too long. If we can't leave such obviously inappropriate material (including assive wp:undue violation) out, then it's time to get more eyes on this e.g. via an RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

North8000, why do you keep asserting that the only argument being made for it's inclusion is that it is "sourced"? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the only argument that has been made lately. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If the incident was widely covered in mainstream news media in connection with the TPM, it should be covered in the article. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that that is your preference, or are you saying that such coverage is enough to force inclusion into any article with any type of connection to the covered story? If it's the latter, let's try putting some mud into the top level DNC article and see what happens.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are valid points, AzureCitizen, so I've undone my own edit pending further discussion here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...it should not be in the "slurs at healthcare protests" section." --Arthur Rubin

Yeah, it really should. Reliable sources report that "Thomas said he texted the remark to the Web site in March while attending a health care rally in Washington, D.C., where he was heckled by supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants." The very same rally where the anti-gay slurs, 'nigger' slurs, anti-semetic slurs, spitting, etc., were all witnessed.

• "...a small town Tea Party Twitter page is insignificant in the scheme of the movement as a whole." --Torchiest

That's nice, but the content isn't about a Twitter page. Your strawman interpretation aside, it is about racist and bigoted sentiments expressed by TPers; just like the ones displayed on signs at protests, shouted at rallies, faxed to congressmen (or left on their voicemail); posted on official websites. Washington D.C. isn't a "small town", and the repercussions included the cancellation of appearances by state-level politicians, not just local candidates, and coverage on national cable news networks is not insignificant.

• "He's not a TP "leader". --Arthur Rubin

Yes, he is. As much a leader as any other TPer that organizes official rallies, runs official websites and conducts official fundraising for the movement.

• "The guy ... was roundly denounced and disowned by the movement as a whole." --Torchiest

Incorrect. (Unless you are referring to sources that I have yet to see.) First, the TP movement has never denounced or disowned anything or anyone as a whole. Another TPer from the adjacent county denounded Thomas' words and sentiments as not representative of the movement as a whole.

• "The only argument made for having it in there has been a faulty one..." --North8000

I haven't seen the argument to which you refer. Would it be possible to get a link to that discussion? My personal reasons for reverting the deletion is rather straight-forward: It is one of many reliably documented incidents of racist sentiment expressed, and reported on, in the context of the wider "Racism & Tea Party movement" issue. While that wider issue section could do with better encyclopedic treatment in this article, adhoc removal of specific segments of content from that section based on personal NPOV interpretations isn't productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, please don't accuse me of using strawmen. I'm discussing this in good faith. Thomas tweeted his comments to the Twitter account he ran for the local party. His Twitter feed currently has a measly 405 followers, hardly a large viewership, or worthy of note, in my opinion. No one at the event he was attending was aware of his tweet at the time, and it was not a public spectacle with thousands of people seeing it live, as the Dale Robertson sign was. That is why it does not seem as immediate or important to me.

As for your second statement to me, one of the sources already referenced includes the following text: "'I don’t think it says anything about the movement per se,' state Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Clearcreek Twp., said on the same day Tea Party officials from around the country formed a federation to counteract perceptions that the groups are racist, unsophisticated and disorganized." Perhaps my reading of that is not precise, but it gives the impression he has been denounced, doesn't represent the movement, and the movement doesn't want to be associated with his statements. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the 'strawman' word above, and I agree that it wasn't the best word choice to convey my feelings that you were arguing about a tangential issue and missing the main point. Arguing about how many people saw it (Thomas' slurs simultaneously appeared on the groups official website through an embedded Twitter feed, versus the mere dozens - not "thousands" - that witnessed Robertson's sign at his indoor event) also misses the main point. Thomas' actions ended up on CNN, and caused state-level politicians to cancel speaking engagements, but that also isn't the main point. The reason that content is in the article is not because of its stand-alone "importance", but because it is part of the larger dialog about Racism & the Tea Party. You cited the "federation's" efforts to more effectively respond to that public perception (they were not responding specifically to the Thomas incident, by the way, as the timeline doesn't mesh), and that is also (or should be) a significant part of the dialog about Racism & the Tea Party. Editors deleting content "because it doesn't represent the movement" are misinterpreting the reason the content exists in the first place. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, putting in this non-notable incident because because it "is part of the larger dialog about Racism & the Tea Party" sounds like classic POV synthesis to me. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the synthesis part of that comment in particular. I've already said this, but to me, it reads like it's "building a case" against the Tea Party. These are the actions of individuals, not anything to do with the stated platform of Tea Party groups. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no synthesis involving the Thomas racial slurs, unless you are referring to the newspaper sources tying it in to the wider efforts of the "Federation" to address public perception based on such incidents -- and that kind of synthesis isn't against Wikipedia policy. The "case" has already been built, as is evidenced by the "Federation" feeling the need to respond; groups like the NAACP demanding a response; the studies launched by think tanks and universities to try to more thoroughly understand this public perception; etc. Of course individual actions are done by individuals, and of course those actions have nothing to do with the stated platform of Tea Party groups -- no one says they are; were you going somewhere with that? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

an agreed moratorium on section renaming and comment moving until we resolve the current issues.

it is becoming hard to follow the comments, and impossible to locate section names from renamed sections. note, it is customary to rename/move only after discussion and consensus with the section creator and comment authors. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring & Specific racial slurs & Music-related racial slurs

your revert violates the 1 rr rule here, plz self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My single revert doesn't violate any rules; but if it makes a big difference to you, you can consider my revert officially self-reverted (not that it will make a physical difference in the article, as other editors have since reinstated that same content pending proper discussion). Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You re-inserted the material-in-controversey twice within a matter of hours, a clear violation of the 1RR rule. Everyone has been nice in not reporting you. And you didn't self-revert as you said you would. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't, North. I re-inserted the material-in-controversey just once, here. My second, and only other edit today was here, where I reworded that already reinserted content to improve it, and added an additional reference. Everyone knows there has been nothing to report (although now we have editors claiming they are intententionally violating the 1RR rule). Nice to see these fine examples of editing collaboration. Good luck with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, yes I did self-revert my one revert. I clicked the (Undo) button, and was informed that I couldn't undo it because other edits had been made. My self-revert had effectively been done by another editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

the pov pushing has become comedy. this article and it's editors are the laughing stock of wp, bravo. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has been locked down in junk status by POV warriors too long. It's time to get more eyes on this. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, this entry doesn't detail how the NY Times issued a correction concerning the supposed racial slurs that were supposedly hurled at various Democratic Congressman. They issued the correction because they stated there WAS NO EVIDENCE that such slurs were ever uttered. Indeed, no evidence has ever been produced. An entire section pointing out isolated racial slurs shouldn't even exist in the first place, unless of course various authors of various entries make note of every single isolated offensive sign or slur uttered at every other political protest that is held in the United States; we all know the likelihood of that happening. As for Dale Robertson, everyone who actually does matter in the Tea Party movement has stated that they have never heard of him and that he is a complete non-player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked that NY Times story, and it turns out they say exactly opposite of what you claim here. Not surprisingly. As an aside, I'd be interested in seeing two reliably sourced lists of TPers who "actually matter" and TPers who are "complete non-players". It could be enlightening. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Koch family links in header

So Aurthur Rubin reverted this which I guess is partially responsible for the full scale protection now, but, I added this into the header which I believe warrants to be in it:

It has been speculated that the Tea Party was created in the interests of the Koch family, to undermine environmental regulations such as cap and trade. Many groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity were started by the Koch family to advocate political goals.

Some of the core groups were created by the Koch family, it's heavily funded by the family and has promoted the Koch's goals explicitly, I don't see why this isn't in the header. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been speculated, some may consider these weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2011

The assertion that Koch is at all involved with the Tea Party is speculation, and shouldn't be in the lede. The best facts we have are that Koch supported/founded organization A which supports (some) Tea Party organizations. The speculation may be notable enough to be in the article, but, while I could imagine circumstances in which even proof that the Kochs founded/funded the Tea Party would be notable enough for the lede, that would require more than opinion columns of magazines and newspapers. You're asserting even less:

1. The Kochs founded FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperty.
   • True.
2. ... to advocate political goals ...
   • Partially true; some of the organizations have charitable counterparts.
3. (omitted statement). (Some) of these organizations support (some) Tea Party organizations.
   • True, but evidence that it's a significant part of the funding of those Tea Party organizations is missing.

Conclusion: The Kochs (partially) funded the Tea Party.

• Perhaps true, but not proven, as the Kochs don't control the organizations in question. In fact, one of them split from the Kochs' control. Speculation to that effect might be reasonable, if not necessarily notable.

Speculation: The Kochs founded the Tea Party.

• Almost certainly false. There is absolutely no evidence nor credible speculation of anything but the Kochs taking advantage of the Tea Party movement to support their (the Kochs') goals.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo's contribution is clearly factual and well-founded. It is only by vetoing the use of several reliable sources through the use of hot rhetoric such as that exemplified above that the ideologues on this talk page have succeeded in having the article avoid mentioning well-known facts, such as that the Tea Party is bankrolled by reactionary billionaires. — goethean ॐ 23:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"It has been speculated" is automatically weaselly. If one were to write "Mayer and Zernicke have speculated...", then that would be accurate, although we could still argue undue weight, and the second sentence "Many groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity were started by the Koch family to advocate political goals", has little to do with the Tea Party, even though probably true. We also have claims that Ron Paul created the Tea Party, and claims that it really was grassroots (i.e., no one person or organization "created" it), and was co-opted by the Koch organizations. There seems no credible way to determine which of those claims should be in the lede. Perhaps something along the lines of:

Mayer and Zernicke have speculated that the Tea Party was created in the interests of the Koch family, to undermine environmental regulations such as cap and trade.[a][b] Ron Paul asserts that he created the Tea Party[c], and others have stated that the Tea Party was originally a grassroots organization.[d][e]

With references taken from the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if all of the specific assertions about the Koch's were true, that would still leave them with only a small impact on the TPM. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream sources say that the first protests were organized by people like Dick Armee and the Koch brothers and other business people provide funding to several TP groups but the TP grew through public support of about 15-20% of the population as a reaction to the economy and the election of a Democratic president with an ancestry of which they disapproved. TFD (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One or more commas in that sentence would go a long way towards clarifying what you believe they say the Kochs' involvement is/was. And, considering the current "Background and history" section doesn't support that viewpoint (those viewpoints?), adding some RS-supported text to that section might be a higher priority than just changing the lead. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do both, add the influences into the background (as Dick Armey and the Koch brothers created groups like FreedomWorks) and add it into the header. Plus, FW and others are hugely important in the movement, I'm not sure if this is in the article but a good guide is "The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?".

--CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we put in just the real, known, factual information instead of trying to game in opinion from one or the other end of the spectrum trying to tell people what to think? North8000 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we can arrive at a compromise. Those who wish to smear the Tea Party can put in their admitted speculation about the Koch Brothers. In return, it will be made sure that George Soros's name is prominently mentioned in the opening paragraph of any organization with which he has had any contact, no matter how remote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"...but the TP grew through public support of about 15-20% of the population as a reaction to the economy and the election of a Democratic president with an ancestry of which they disapproved." Hey, by all means, let us throw in the racial stuff too. Because the assertion that race is responsible for the opposition to Democratic policies has about as much evidence supporting it,( that is to say, none)as the assertion that random Tea Party gatherigns all across the United States somehow had something to do with the Koch Brothers. This entry is already a laughingtock as it is; why not go all the way into the realm of self-parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No one mentioned race. Do you think that asking about Obama's birth certificate is racist? TFD (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"No one mentioned race."

Oh, of course not. I'm sure the "president with an ancestry of which they disapproved" part means the Tea Party has a problem with Ann Dunham's English roots... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They have a problem about whether or not he is an American. If you think that is racism, then please say so and not beat around the bush. TFD (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If that was was the intended meaning, the proper phrasing would have been "president whose citizenship status they questioned", not "president with an ancestry of which they disapproved". Disapproving of a person's ancestry is racism (or, at best, classism). Questioning citizenship status is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys seriously? Whoever is comparing the Koch Brothers to Soros needs to realize Soros wasn't personally involved in creating groups to be part of a political movement. On the second point, the article I mentioned shows how FreedomWorks (and the other groups the Koch's were involved in creating) are extremely important to the movement and is in fact "real, known, factual information". The fact that we're arguing over "compromise" when the information is right there and should be in the header of the article is ridiculous.

Edit: The Atlantic report is in the article, it's essentially undeniable that the groups created by the Kochs are very important to the movement. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Then let's just have the info in instead of stuff telling people what to think about it / how to characterize it. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Atlantic report doesn't support significant involvement of Koch with the TP. Even if you accept the implication that those three organizations are central to the TP, only AfP is a Koch organization. FreedomWorks is a former Koch organization (to be precise, a split from a Koch organization; it has been speculated that the split was over goals, rather than a personality conflict), and dontGo seems only to have a tangential relation to Koch.

The implication above (by CartoonDiablo) that Koch was "personally involved in creating groups to be part of a political movement" is without a source, credible or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming FW counts as Koch group the statement is correct and well sourced, if it's just AfP then it's one group. The fact is, even if a single group that's important to the movement is created by Koch family (let alone funding of other groups) it makes them have a huge influence on the movement and certainly should be in the background especially when they're involvement in political movements is well known. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if everything you say were true and sourced, it still wouldn't belong in the article. (Evidence that the Kochs controls AfP is limited, and that statement would be required for Koch's name to be relevant to this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything I said is both true and sourced and should most definitely be in the article. Even with AfP being a murky issue, The Kochs created an important group to the movement (FreedomWorks) and have acted within the group during the movement, or to put it another way, are a part of the Tea Party movement. To say this doesn't belong in the header, let alone the background is ridiculous. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The Kochs created CSE, and Armey took part of it to be FreedomWorks, with another part remaining under the Kochs influence as AfP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected Page Edit

The following sentence in the Racial Slurs section relating to Dale Robertson needs to be removed as WP:OR

however, as of May 2011[update] he is named the "President & Founder" on the TeaParty.org "Founder" section

None of the sources are related to this statement. There is some OR linking to the now non-linked and apparently orphaned founders page. In any case even if it is true it is still original research. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it original research to say that Robertson is listed as the "President & Founder" of TeaParty.org, when that website says so? [1] On what basis are you saying this information is untrue? Was it never true, or has the president changed? Presumably once a founder always a founder. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

[2] This page, and a screen shot are used as the source for the statement (all of the other sources are actually misplaced and should be immediately before the sentence). That page is not linked anywhere within the teaparty.org website. I went to the home page, and it is not anywhere, chalk it up to lazy website management, or simply being unaware that old pages can still be directly accessed if not completely removed. Regardless, this is original research. Some editor found that page and made that statement. We need a reliable secondary source to make the connection. WP policies are so clear on this I am suprised that you would even question it. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose he will always be the founder of the group, but based on the "About" page there is no mention of him. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no question that the website still has a page listing Robertson as the president and founder. Unless we have a source that says someone else is the president then I don't know why we'd assume the job is being held by someone else. The webpage is a reliable primary source for its founder and president. The status of links between pages on the website is a minor technical detail and shouldn't be used as the basis for an edit. That would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you make that statement? Here is the policy statement (my highlight)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Access of that page must be typed in directly. Thus that page is only accessable with a specialist knowledge. This is a clear case of WP:OR, please don't provide yourself an example of the previous discussion. Arzel (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to type that in directly to access that page, nor is it only accessible with a specialist's knowledge. Just Google "dale robertson teaparty.org founder" and it comes right up as the #2 result at the top of the page, which is pretty straightforward and easy to verify. Hope that helps clear things up. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Once one has accessed the source, then no specialist knowledge is required to interpret the text there, which plainly identifies Robertson as the "President & Founder". Since we have a direct link to the page in question, no specialist knowledge is needed to find it either, though I don't think that's what the policy means.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it is pointless to discuss this any further. Policy rules regarding WP:OR have always been dependent upon the article in question. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided that anyone else is now the president of the group, so I don't see how it is original research to use the group's official site as a primary source for a very simple piece of information. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arzel you are right 99% of the time. I'm not sure this one is in the 99%. North8000 (talk)

a moot point, the whole section and much of the article is a violation of wp npov. time for the long overdue extra set of eyes on this article. i support north8000 idea of scraping the article and reducing it to a stub. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actuall BigK's idea, but I support it. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

since he is the founder of teaparty.org, not the tea party movement, which is the subject, why is it even included here? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there even really a general Tea Party movement founder at all? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't know he was the founder of teaparty.org. At this point, all we know is that the webmaster claimed he was founder. If it's not linked currently from the home page of teaparty.org, we don't know that it's a current claim. In any case, I also report stubbing, and adding only sourced material about the movement, rather than about members of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing all material about members and leaders of the movement would result in a stub anyway - since movements are made up of members. It'd be hard to write about any political party or movement without talking about the individual of which they're comprised. Most of the history section is on the activities of individuals. The entire "composition" section refers to members. The "impact on 2010 election" section is all about members. What do you see as the desirable outline of an ideal article with no mention of members or leaders?   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if the real wording was stated rather than implied the OR would be more obvious.

however, as of May 2011[update] wikipedia editors noticed that he is named the "President & Founder" on the unlinked TeaParty.org "Founder" section.

Since there is no RS to make the statement, it has to be OR. I also bring this particular issue up to help illustrate the various problems with this page in general. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems doubtful to me that saying "Dale Robertson is the founder of TeaParty.org" is original research. However, if there continues to be concern over the TeaParty.org website not being intra-linked together very well, just fix the problem by adding another reliable source separate from the TeaParty.org website. For example, here's a link where Dale Robertson is being interviewed in person by a host on Washington Journal (on C-Span); right at the start, the host refers to him as "Dale Robertson, founder and president of TeaParty.org..." and then continues interviewing Robertson on his political views. Additionally, the text of the link leads with: "TeaParty.org Founder and President, Dale Robertson, discusses the role, mission and goals of the TeaParty.org political movement." AzureCitizen (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is from 2009, the statement I have reported is OR from 2011. I am really quite suprised that editors are defending the OR statement. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which of the reference cites at the end of that sentence (there are six of them) is the source citation for the statement that Robertson was going to sell the TeaParty.org domain name? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of stories like those about Robertson and Mark Williams conveys the impression that the Tea Party is racist, which is advocacy. Instead, we should use rs that explain how the Tea Party is seen by informed writers. TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

first populist tea party movement

Suggested add to Background and History section: "The first populist tea party movement came in the form of colonial-themed dinners during the Centennial Celebration, marking the country’s hundredth birthday, in 1876." sourced to this article from Lapham's Quarterly: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/roundtable/the-first-populist-tea-party.php Brevoorthistorybuff (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This article covers specifically the Tea Party Movement of the 21st century, not the history of such movements. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A Hodgepodge of Trivia Part 2 and Proposal

So to try gel and serve up a proposal, it is to nuke this article down to a stub and then rebuild it from high quality sources. Prior to the people would propose parts to be kept, and any part getting a 2/3 "keep" vote amongst those responding would be included in the "stub".

Before we start weighing in discussing, does the above look like OK wording for a proposal? I.E. is the WORDING OK, even if you oppose the proposal? North8000 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(added later) So the question at this point is, does the wording look clear and neutral? North8000 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, can you put the exact wording of the proposal in quotes? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• YES, but I am not hopeful that it will happen. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I think the wording is clear and neutral. As the writer I did my best to make it that. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. Please make a proposal that's consistent with normal Wikipedia policies and procedures. Creating a special 2/3 rule for this page is inappropriate and contrary to the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• yes Will, we have read the wp rules and are working in good faith, please push instead of pull. you have a great mind and are an asset to wp, help us fix this mess. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The suggestion has no merit. It goes against Wikipedia policy. The article is well-sourced. Some editors have recently decided that they don't want to use news sources anymore, they want to use scholarly books instead. Fine, re-write the article using better sources. That's no reason to nuke the current, well-sourced article. The article emerged organically out of a debate on the talk page. It is not a copyright violation; it was not cut-and-pasted from another website. It was written by Wikipedia editors. If you would like to improve it, do so through talk page debate.

Proposal, take 2: Nuke this article down to a stub and then rebuild it from high quality sources. Prior to that people would propose parts to be kept, and any part getting a strong consensus to keep would be included in the "stub". North8000 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We either reduce it to a stub based on high quality rs or we do not. I do not support retaining part based on votes, especially since it would not be based on high quality sources. If it is good material then we should be able to find good sources when we re-write it. TFD (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If folks want to increase the quality of the article then a logical way would be to focus on the most poorly sourced items first.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:BLP, I might agree, except the problem is WP:UNDUE weight, rather than sourcing problems. And voting seems a reasonable way to determine what the most relevant sections of the article might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Yes, the main problem in WP terms is wp:undue. More specifically, a collection of trivia which has some connection to the TPM which is not about the TPM has been put in. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:VOTINGISEVIL is a long-standing Wikipedia principle. Wikipedia works by consensus, not voting.

Anyone who cites WP:UNDUE should be prepared to explain what "due weight" would be and why.

I'm not sure I understand how WP:BLP is relevant, other than the fact that everyone in the movement is a living person.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I don't disagree with you, but the question arises "what goes in the stub" and I was just trying to allow for that. Perhaps you could write the proposal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Neither sugestion has any merit whatsoever. I oppose blanking the article, or any sections of the article. The present article is well-sourced. It was composed through an organic process, mediated by debate on the talk page. It does not violate Wikipedia policies. It is not a copyright violation. There is no legitimate reason to blank the page. The fact that User:Arthur Rubin brings up WP:BLP, a policy which has no connection with the present aticle whatsoever, shows that the editors in favor of blanking the article are desperately and unsuccessfully grasping at any policy that they hope will bolster their arguments. The editors who propose to partially blank the article want to remove the material which is critical of the Tea Party Movement and to retain the sympathetic material (see Have one's cake and eat it too). The problem for these editors is that Wikipedia articles must reflect what has been written in the media on the subject, and the media has not acted as much as a purely uncritical, obtusely enthusiastic cheerleader for the Tea Party Movement as these editors might have hoped. Because the media coverage of the Tea Party Movement has been partially critical of the Movement, this article must reflect that criticism. Thus the concerted effort to whitewash the article of all critical material is a distraction, a waste of our time and actually prevents us from improving the article in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy. There is no legitimate proposal here to debate. — goethean ॐ 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the problem. In WP terms it is massive wp:udue violations, in real world terms it is just a bunch of irrelevant junk that has some relation to the TPM but which is not about the TPM. And persons have blockaded any progress at getting that stuff out. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. This article reflects the media coverage of the TPM. The incidents which you label as "irrelevant junk" have been covered by the media as related to the Tea Party Movement. That's why this article treats them as...related to the Tea Party Movement. The article's coverage of what you deem "irrelevant junk" (translation: events which you feel reflect badly on the Tea Party Movement) is appropriate and are in fact required in order for the article to have a neutral point of view. The article cannot ignore incidents which (you feel) make the movement look bad if these incidents were covered by the media as connected with the Tea Party Movement. They were covered as such, and thus they must be included in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been built from on-going news coverage. Since then serious studies have been made of the TPM. The problem with news coverage is that reporters work with deadlines and limited information. Commentaries provided tend to be the most controversial sound-bites. What is believed today may turn out to be wrong tomorrow. The guy carrying the racist sign gets his picture in the paper. Over time, scholars sift through the news reports, meet Tea Party supporters, conduct surveys, compare them with similar groups historically and in other countries, and make conclusions. The academic community then forms a consensus about which of the various views are accurate. The result is a reasoned description. TFD (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, fantastic, fabulous. Use better sources to improve the article. But this talk of reducing the article to a stub is just...not worth discussing. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to re-write the lead based on good sources and then re-write the individual sections. TFD (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lead is the only thing in this whole article that was developed from s substantial consensus process. The problem is that there is a large amount of sourced irrelevant material in here, put in only for effect. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santelli

Supposedly his "rant" was the impetus for the movement, yet it's not mentioned in the article. Seems like a glaring omission. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the beginning of the history section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party politicians and debt ceiling

The news is full of references to the impact of the Tea Party members in Congress on the debt ceiling negotiations. The dust hasn't settled yet, but it appears that this will be significant enough to merit a section. We have sections on "Agenda" and "Impact on the 2010 election cycle", but we don't have any section to cover "impacts on legislation" or a similar wording. Does anyone object to starting one? What would be the best heading?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "Impact on 2011 debt ceiling negotiations". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would do for a subsection, but it'd be nice to have a more general title to cover other legislative activities where the TP politicians have had an impact. "Legislative impact"?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the relentless attacking of the TPM as "Terroists", "Hostage Takers", and so forth I can see this section being little more than an attack section unless carefully worded. However, this article already has a ton of problems already so it would probably fit right it. On a side note I wonder if the MSM realize how much they are pissing off a large section of the population on a daily basis. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

At least it would be ABOUT the TPM, which most of the crap in this article isn't.North8000 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way they certainly are missing the obvious boat. This is basically a collision of ideologies / principles / intended directions for the country, (each fighting for their beliefs which got them elected) and the MSM are making it out to be just people who can't get along. And, a strategy point of those who want to make sure this doesn't come up again before the next election. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading these comments, one would never guess that major portions of the news media are directly owned by conservatives and effectively used to ideologically alter the American political discourse. But I guess having a victim mentality is part of the conservative ideology. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...right...How much is that bridge you are trying to sell? Arzel (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem with U.S. terminology. Under some definitions the media can be seen as conservative. TFD (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is on the brink of going completely off the topic/article. I guess one germane point of what I said is that we should just use really intelligent analysis/overview sources ..... avoid past mistakes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It'd be great if someone could have a go at writing a bit more about the Tea party political philosophies and their influence over congress. (As someone from overseas whose stockmarket (as many are) is holding its breath waiting to see what happens with the debt ceiling, it would be great to understand why this is happening. In international terms, this probably deserves more weight in the article than the intricate details of the racist views that some members have) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts

• The deficit-reduction deal outlined Sunday night bears the unmistakable stamp of tea-party conservatives, who, ironically, may not even vote for it in the end. [..] The plan's total deficit reduction falls well short of many tea-party targets, and if other cuts aren't agreed to in coming months, the deal's automatic, across-the-board spending reductions could result in as much as $600 billion in defense cuts over the next decade. In addition, the final deal makes it harder for Congress to block additional increases in the debt ceiling. The plan requires a two-thirds vote to deny the president additional installments of new borrowing between now and 2013. And neither increase is dependent on passage of a balanced-budget amendment--a key conservative demand. Those perceived flaws may stop some tea-party lawmakers in the House from backing it when it comes up for a final vote there, on Monday or Tuesday.
  • Deal Bears Stamp of GOP Leverage, If Not the Entire Party's Support Patrick O'Connor, Carol E. Lee. Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.: Aug 2, 2011.
• Republicans, pushed by their conservative "tea party" faction, had sought steep cuts in federal spending before agreeing to allow more borrowing that would further increase the national debt.
  • ROUNDUP: President Obama announces deal to increase debt limit Eds: Quotes Obama, adds details of planned budget cutting process Frank Fuhrig. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 1, 2011.
• What has held up a deal? [..] A small number of Tea Party Republicans then demanded that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. That gambit failed but ate up weeks of negotiating time. [..] What will be the effects on the 2012 election? Tea Party Republicans can look their electorates in the eye and say they kept their promise to control spending, so boosting their prospects. Mr Obama has appeared weak and done his chances of a second term no good at all.
  • Debt hits the ceiling while political reputations lie in the gutter; US standoff [Scot Region. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 2
• Raising the debt ceiling is normally routine but Republican members of Congress, especially a hard core allied to the Tea Party movement, have used it over the last month to hold the White House hostage.
  • Front: US close to debt deal but credit rating still at risk Ewen MacAskill. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 1
• An official close to the president said it might be possible to raise the debt ceiling by just enough to cover the next few days if Congress needs more time to get the deal finalised and approved. It was a comment that reflected lingering anxiety over whether the compromise being hammered out would satisfy the Tea Party wing of the Republican majority in the House and their government-strangling agenda. It will fall to John Boehner, the Speaker, to bring them into line when a vote is called but, as recent events have shown, party discipline is not a Tea Party priority. Not helping is the mood of antagonism that has engulfed Capitol Hill and all of Washington in the past several days. The struggle over the debt ceiling has been responsible for "an enmity that in my 37 years as a legislator I have never seen",said Senator Charles Schumer of New York. Much of that bitterness has been centred on the lower chamber and the tensions that have blown up not just between Republicans and Democrats but also between the factions within the Republican Party, thanks to the Tea Party faction.
  • US leaders edge towards debt deal as clock ticks to default deadline. The Independent. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 4

Discussion

this should help muddy the water 23 tea party republicans voted yes to debt, only 17 voted no.  :::http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/01/us/politics/how-different-groups-voted-on-debt-compromise-bill.html?ref=politics

I suggest we collect sources here and then draft the text.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thin them to where it sound like the writer is doing overview/reporting,analysis and less where the writer sounds like they are on a soapbox. I see the latter there in both directions, so it's not a matter of them all going either way. North8000 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a few to get the ball rolling. Let's find better sources to use instead.   Will Beback  talk 

I'm more of a "get it done" type....how /bout you pick what you think are the 2-3 best sources and write a paragraph or 2 and put it in? This isn't as risky as it sounds; IMHO anything done in that/this frameworks is 99% sure of being much much better than the irrelevant trivia crap that this article is full of. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of these sources are that good, and four out of four thousand isn't a useful sample anyway. There's no rush. Better to take a week or two and get it right (more or less) instead of rushing.

What are the best sources on this so far? Magazines and newspapers? What's the most TPM-friendly media outlet, and what's their take on it?   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not looking for friendly vs. unfriendly to the TPM. I'm just looking for stuff that looks like overview / analysis/ reporting on the big stuff vs. where it sounds like the writer is on a soapbox. And, unlike the rest of this article, not trivia thrown in for effect. Will, if you feel like it, just pick the sources and write it. I'll bet such would be fine. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NAACP report

I don't think that there's any coverage of this event in the article, except for Mark Williams' response to it. [3][4][5] — goethean ॐ 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Political Cartoon

This cartoon is inappropriate for the article. It is impossible to select any one cartoon without presenting undue weight associated to that specific cartoon. The editor that added it is Peter Welleman and it appears to be his own personal work under which it fails WP:SELFPUB. I am not even sure it is published anywhere. I would remove again as a violation of WP:SELFPUB but won't because of 1RR. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to select any one cartoon without presenting undue weight associated to that specific cartoon.

If that argument held up, you could probably use it to eliminate all content from the article. — goethean ॐ 15:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Images are always a touchy subject I know, but this clearly fails for reasons outside of that aspect anyway. Self submitted artwork is rarely included, especially when it is trying to promote a point of view. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see by your reluctance to remove unpublished poltical artwork that you are more interested in pushing a POV than following WP policies. This should not even be a debate. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please spare me and the other readers of this page from your pathetic whining. The teabaggers here have done nothing but to clearly push their own POV, at a great waste of time and effort to well-meaning editors and to the great detriment of the article. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear I can now disregard anything you have to say in the future. You show no interest in civil discourse or following WP policies unless they serve your own purpose. I suggest you also remove your personal attack against the Tea Party Movement people. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to your personal attack, genius. — goethean ॐ 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about the delete it but Fat&Happy got there first. Political cartoons are clearly inappropriate in this article, and that addition was inappropriate for a number of other reasons anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests

Please merger, there is no need for them to be separate articles. Would protests by an political group, assume the Communist Party of Portugal(yes, I know that their political ideologies are opposed but this example isn't political), had a Wikipedia article on their protests. It wouldn't be considered notable. 216.105.64.144 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to predict what becomes notable. Merging that material back here would swamp this article.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

I noticed the move that Xenophrenic just made to re-order the sections, and I'm wondering if the other controversies section is another case of WP:UNDUE weight. Every large organization has bad apples, but it seems like every single negative action taken by someone who claims association with the Tea Party is included in this article. The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of these events should be compressed down, at least. For example, describe in a sentence (or two at most) what occurred, and then a general statement about official responses from Tea Party groups. Whole sub-sections for every event is a bit too much, I think. 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)

I never oppose condensing material if it can be done without losing important, meaningful content; however, my understanding is that the Tea Party Movement has been — and has been portrayed by the news media as being — dogged by racial and other controversy since its inception. It seems to me that racial controversy and instances of apparent bigotry have been a fundamental feature of the movement. The introduction to this article, however, does not refer even indirectly to any controversial aspect of the movement. Nor does it mention Obama, who I think it's fair to say is a focus of a large proportion of Tea Party anger. just as way of gauging the focus of the news media (which I believe that this article is required to follow), the terms '"Tea Party" tax OR taxes' gives 67.8 million Google hits[6], and 47,000 Google News archive hits[7]. '"Tea Party" +racism +racists +racist' gives 30 million Google hits[8], and 8,000 Google News archives hits[9]. My point is simply that racial etc. controversy has comprised a significant portion of the media coverage of the TPM. However, the introduction to this article treats the TPM as a purely intellectual movement! This over-emphasis on political philosophy is due, in my opinion, to the influence of Wikipedia editors who have strong sympathies with the TPM. — goethean ॐ 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the intro is the only section of the article with which User:North8000 seems to be relatively okay with. The rest contains too much "junk" in his opinion; i.e., material which presents the TPM in a bad light. — goethean ॐ 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [emphasis added]

If the intro does not mention the controversies then it is probably incomplete.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only real controversies that are specifically about the TPM are opposition to their agenda, that their agenda is a bad idea, wrong-headed etc. and opposition to their political actions, initiatives, speeches etc. The other crap (i.e. that a TP'er kicked a dog or posted a bad twitter comment or might have cut a BBQ grill line) are not really about the TPM, there are lots of newsfeeds on them in the real world because ad-hominem/mud-slinging attacks work, and have been thrown into the article for similar reasons. They shouldn't even be in the article, much less the lead. And if they stay in the article, the the real both sides must be covered. The other side is those saying what I said above. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about kicking a dog. Hyperbole isn't helpful.

The TPM doesn't make speeches or take political action. Individuals do.

While we're working on fixing the rest of the article, can you propose some text for the lead that will cover the TM controversies you think are relevant?   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

North800

That is a fascinating and revealing comment, User:North8000. Per my Google hits numbers above (admittedly a crude method), fully one-third of the online discussion of the Tea Party mentions the terms 'racism', 'racist', or 'racists'. But your position is that this article should completely ignore the controversies associated with the Tea Party Movement! I submit that your position is incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — goethean ॐ 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To get the article out of crap status, coverage of those areas should be coverage based on quality sources which are discussing that issue itself (e.g. racism or alleged racism of the TPM). It should not be coverage of tweets etc. (out of such context)(and even if they made the newspaper) by an individual which a WP editor has put in just for effect. Could you imagine me going to the top level Democratic Party article and putting in a section on some bad comment made by some local member of the party? It wouldn't last 2 minutes based on wp:undue. Here we have people fighting to put/keep that kind of crap in. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the better pieces on the TGea Party Movement was written by one of the top living Foreign Policy experts in the world and was published in Foreign Affairs magazine, an unimpeachable source. You and your co-partisans, of course, went completely berzerk over our use of that source. — goethean ॐ 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which one are you referring to? I don't remember ever going bezerk over any such source. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In any normal discussion, Foreign Affairs would be considered a reliable, uncontroversial source. But on this page, we argued over it for six weeks. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not use it as a source. TFD (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't use Foreign Affairs as a source? — goethean ॐ 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think my standards are a little lower than TFD's .... I would use it as A source (not as gospel, but a A source.) At least it is overview/analysis of the TPM rather than trivia inserted without such and just for effect. But you mis-stated the history on this. The issue was that it included one clearly-incorrect word, and in the roadblocked situation here, it took 14,000+ words of talk to take out one clearly-false word. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that we still have Wikipedia editors who consider themselves to be more reliable sources than Walter Russell Mead writing in Foreign Affairs. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Academic books journals are the best sources because they are peer-reviewed and writers must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions and when they express opinions must explain their degree of acceptance. If Mead had written his article for an academic journal then we would be clear whether his description was generally accepted or merely his own opinion. We could then look at later papers to see the degree of acceptance his views had, whether they represented academic consensus, a majority view, a minority view, etc. Instead, Wikipedia editors must decide among themselves what weight to assign the views. TFD (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm not sure whose comments you are responding to. If mine, you have characterized it. Wanting to leave out one obvious error the source made does not equate to what you describe. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your comments, which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy and mission. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize what reliable sources have written on a topic, not to weigh in with what he assumes is his expert opinion on matters of public policy. Mead is an expert, writing in Foreign Affairasc magazine. You are some random guy on the internet. You have no authority to "correct" a leading expert writing in a reliable source, or to inform us what is or is not obviously the case or what is right or wrong about anything. I am sorry that you find this difficult to understand. — goethean ॐ 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, the mis-application/mis-statement of policy that you just put forth is very common, and of interest for various reasons unrelated to this.....if you would bear with me, may I ask you a question? (even if you do do not agree with my "mis-application/mis-statement" terms, which I assume you don't) You have basically just said (restated in more neutral form) that it is improper for a group of editors to say that they feel that an rs'd item should be left out of the article because they feel that it is clearly false/in error. (as a sidebar, in this case, there was really nobody arguing that the item was correct, the arguments for inclusion were along the line of your last post) Where specifically in Wikipedia did you get that from? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Summarize in the article what notable authors with expertise in the field have said on the subject. It escapes me how you can think that your own personal opinion is more valid, and more deserving to be enshrined in this article than Mead's. That said, if sustained talk page consensus agreed that a source should not be used, obviously that is okay. But I don't think that we have had consensus here on any matter, let alone your opinion that Mead is wrong. Frankly, I thought that the six-week conversation about Mead's comments was perfectly insane. It should have been a two minute conversation, with you told to take your complaint to the WP:V page. You and your fellow Tea Partiers opposed Mead's comment because he called Paulites isolationists — which they are. Mead's comments were approved by the editors of Foreign Affairs magazine. Did any readers write to the editors and complain about Mead's mischaracterization of the foreign policy of Ron Paul's Tea Party followers? I sincerely doubt it, because Mead's comments are perfectly accurate. You tried for six weeks to have his comments removed because you just know that he's wrong. Luckily for our readers, Wikipedia policy is that what reliable sources say matters, and what editors say doesn't. — goethean ॐ 02:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that abstract discussions like this won't result in any improvements to the article. Unless someone is going to propose an edit this thread doesn't seem like it's going anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if editors feel that a reliable source is in error, they should attempt to produce a reliable source or sources that contradict the erroneous statement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it.

Now you are saying that what Mead wrote in Foreign Affairs was just so completely wrong, that no one bothered to correct him. Clearly, you do not understand what it takes to get an article published in a journal ilke Foreign Affairs, and what happens when an author makes an obvious error of fact in a journal like that. Thank you for clearing up my confuision. — goethean ॐ 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this difficult to believe from a journal as respected as Foreign Affairs. Even if this is true, how do you prove your case if there are no sources rebutting it? Shall we just take your word for it? That's not how we write an encyclopedia, I'm afraid. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, so, based on the sentence from wp:ver which you quoted, you are saying that that, beyond saying the verifiability being a condition for inclusion, that wp:ver also weighs in on the "inclusion" side of that controversy, because the material is sourced? 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the criteria for inclusion is WP:NPOV. But to argue against the inclusion of Mead's comments, you would have to argue that his comments on the subject are not significant or notable, which is not a plausible argument. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that the opinions expressed are notable? TFD (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we back to discussing the Mead view, yet again?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The big argument was about whether or not Mead used the term "neoisolationist" correctly. But the problem with the article is that the opinions presented are taken from non-academic writing and therefore we do not know the degree of acceptance they have. I assume that Mead's description is generally accepted, but you should use a secondary source that explains Mead's opinion and the degree of acceptance it has and then you would avoid discussions about whether or not Mead was mistaken. TFD (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs a peer reviewed journal and is the leading journal in the field. Mead is, according to this, the James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College. I'm not sure how much more academic we can get here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No it is not peer-reviewed. But the main issue with quoting the opinions expressed in an article, peer-reviewed or not, is that we cannot establish the degree of acceptance they have. That can only be determined once other writers have discussed the article. TFD (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is, and the peer review process generally insures that material is within appropriate bounds of academic acceptance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect. Foreign Affairs's website says, "We do not have fact checkers and rely on authors to ensure the veracity of their statements....we try to avoid using footnotes".[10] Many of the articles are written by members of think tanks, politicians and civil servants. TFD (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My motivation for my questions was different, not even that Goethean was initially trying to beat me over the head with their mis-interpretation of wp:ver, but that it is a common mis-interpretation which is of interest for other reasons. . Overall, I think that, on a scale of 0 -10, TFD is shooting for an "8" regarding quality of source for inclusion, which is great. I'd put Mead at a "5" and am willing to settle for that as an improvement from the "0" that most of this article is. "5" means use them, but when they make an obvious error that nobody on either side here says is correct, that we not use that portion of the material. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, peer review should contain a fact checking component, but they are not synonyms. Some articles are written by members of those groups you mention, but those authors usually are also credentialed academics or people with a great deal of experience in relevant areas. None of this alters the fact that it is the leading journal in the field. This is pretty much the Wikipedia gold standard for sources we're talking about here, and taking the stand that Foreign Affairs is something we shouldn't be using would generally be considered laughable. So I'm wondering why we are entertaining this notion here, or is there something I'm missing since I did not participate in the six week debate (?!) mentioned earlier in this thread? Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two different topics. The endless debate was over the one erroneous word. TFD is pressing for higher quality sources. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That facts are not checked and are unsourced makes it less than desirable for factual information. What do we do if someone challenges the facts? Have pages of discussion. But in this case it is used as a primary source of opinion and is certainly rs for that. But the issue is what WP:WEIGHT to assign the opinions expressed, which becomes a subjective decision by editors. It is after all a current events opinion journal. BTW, FA published an article by Earl Ravenal of the CATO Institute, where he uses the term "non-interventionist".[11] TFD (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately many reliable sources written by credentialed experts suffer from the same lack of fact checking; at least FA is upfront about this matter. Occasionally, this comes back to haunt publications and publishers (Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, James Frey), but no one can seriously suggest that Wikipedia stop relying on The New York Times or Random House. If someone wishes to challenge an article from a prominent peer reviewed journal written by a credentialed academic from a leading university, then let them lay their sources on the table and we'll have a look. But we're not going to throw out a gold standard source with nothing more than assertions and weird policy readings. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree on several of those comments and characterizations, but this is talking on at least 2 different topics at once and isn't going anywhere. I think that TFD's comments are good guidance, and see no real open issues here. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are no open issues, then I propose we remove the tag from that section of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

i think the the tag should stay. the controversies are directed at individuals, not the tea party. they belong on the specific pages of those people, not in a group that has denounced such transgressions. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources associate an incident with the Tea Party Movement, it can be covered in this article, sans tag. — goethean ॐ 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have specified. We were talking about Mead so I was referring to the tag in the foreign policy section. Your comment doesn't make much sense in that context, so I assume you are referring to a different tag. Is there any objection to removing the tag from Foreign Policy? Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections, I am removing the tags. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wording in "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" section

I propose changing the following text (indicated in bold) in this paragraph from:

On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs at a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them.[251][252] Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".[251][253] Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times".[254][255] Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."[254] Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

to

On March 20, 2010, during a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them.[251][252] Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".[251][253] Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times".[254][255] Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."[254] Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

The reason is reference 251 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040903716.html) only reports what the black congressmen said instead of reporting it as fact. This is in contrast to the Frank incident, which is proven and presented as fact by the source. Rather than try to explain the differences in a lead-in summary sentence, I say we just cut that part out and get to the facts. I have been involved in a long discussion on my talk page about this but that has stalled and it would help to get other editors' opinions. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

People also say that they were spat at:

Some African-American lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, a hero of the civil rights movement, have said that tea party activists yelled racial epithets or spat at them as they arrived at the Capitol for the final vote on health-care reform legislation in March.[12]

— goethean ॐ 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see now that the spitting is included. I approve. — goethean ॐ 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The spitting incident was always mentioned, but regarding Cleaver, not Lewis. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for perspective, the real fix is that something about a few unknown individuals possile saying something bad shouldn't even be in this article. Something a few unknown goofballs might have said is not material about the TPM and also a massive wp:undue violation. But I support CWenger's proposed tweak. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

the whole event was a huge scam manufactured for effect (wp:selfsourced). lawmakers never cross the street, they use the underground transport. they purposely walked thru a group of protesters trying to bait them into action. a cash reward was offered for audio or video evidence, non has been produced, yet several versions not containing the alleged attacks. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if someone had stepped forward with audio or video evidence, they would have received a cash reward? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

yea, i know, rather improbable that it occurred, yet no evidence exist. Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward. you cant even beat down a skatepunk these days for doing an ollie on the captains cruiser without it being on youtube the next day and an aclu lawyer in your office the next morning wearing brooks brothers and patchouli. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart didn't offer a $100,000 reward to anyone who could step forward with audio or video evidence. So if someone was standing in the crowd, there to show their support for the TPM, surrounded on all sides by fellow protesters, and they happened to have a video camera recording the scene, and someone next to them uttered racial epithets, what would be the motivation for coming forward with this? You wouldn't get any money for it, and you'd just damage your own side in the issue. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was saying "Wow" at your comments, which are quite divorced from reality, reveal a comfort with racism, and are internally inconsistent. (1) the account is not "selfsourced", it is sourced to the Washington Post. (2) You equate walking through a crowd with baiting the crowd into calling someone racial and homophobic slurs (and spitting on people?). This reflects a comfort with racism on the part of a movement that you support. (3) You also believe that the event never happened because there is no video footage of it, despite multiple eyewitness tesimony. Plenty of things happen without there being video footage of it happening. — goethean ॐ 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

apologies, "self-sourced" i meant my claim the scandal was manufactured is my own opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

since i don't think any racial slurs were made, what i meant was they were baiting an obviously upset group of protesters by choosing to walk instead of using the normal mode of transportation. you assume i meant baiting racist, actually i meant baiting fiscal conservatives of any race, which is actually a misnomer since there is only one biological race of human on the earth. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Walking across the street is their normal mode of transportation during daylight hours. That's already been established. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

His arguments demolished, User:Darkstar1st blithely goes on to pursue other topics... — goethean ॐ 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a popular misconception. There was never a "reward". Breitbart offered to give $100,000 only to the United Negro College Fund for video proof of the slurs. It is improbable that a TPer would cough up a self-incriminating video of racism, when they wouldn't see a single dollar for it. Pretty clever of Breitbart, if you ask me. The couple videos we do have of that moment show that there were no news media cameras near enough to the walking congressmen to catch any audio — just protesters there — and there is no monetary incentive for those protesters to make their recordings public, even if they have them.

As for the slurs being improbable, I'll ask you what I asked CWenger: Do you see any logic in claiming: Sure, some of the "loud and angry" protesters called the gays "faggots" and "homos", left swastikas on the Jew's desk and fax machine, called the Hispanics "spics" — but call a black man "nigger"?!? That's un-American, and I refuse to believe it happened unless I see it on 3-D Video with Dolby surround-sound! It makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Take any crowd of people in riled up argumentative situaition and it's quite plausible that one of them said anything imaginable. The implausible, rare and stupid thing is for such to be in an article about the overall group or organization. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

nigger is the most popular song lyric behind ho, i have no doubt it is uttered often. what is improbable, is a group of people pissed off about spending, would switch gears mid-protest and start hurling racial insults instead of rhetoric matching their protest. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• C'mon folks - this isn't a forum. We're just here to discuss improvements to the article. CWenger has made a specific proposal. Let's keep our focus on that. Does anyone have anything further to say about it?   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is a good idea. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And already implemented, along with a few other minor changes that people seem to be content with, after some tweaks with a couple editors. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reduced-scope RFC

So we have the proposed RFC to nuke this to a stub and rebuild (only) from quality sources. I would like to propose a more limited RFC, on one narrower topic which is representative or emblematic of the problems here. I have worded it without a rationale so as to have it's wording be neutral. Proposed wording of RFC:

Remove the section and material relating to Sonny Hale's twitter comment.

Now I know that there are folks that would oppose this change, or even oppose the question going to an RFC. But what you think of the wording, keeping in mind that it must be neutral? North8000 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we process to an RfC, what is the reason for removing the material? Have we discussed this proposal before? Maybe we can come to an agreement without needing an RfC.   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed the issue beyond-extensively, but, as your astute question points out, I don't think we've discussed any specific proposal regarding this. So I hereby convert the above to a proposed change. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the rationale?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

several editors have noted the pov may be slanted, would that count as rational? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, that would be the yet-to-be-had discussion. I'm ready to start it, but not this morning. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Outline of reasons for removal

(mostly just the headings at this point)North8000 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons partially or fully related to policies and guidelines

Massive wp:undue violation. This is about a twitter comment by a low level person, and it's in the top level article about the movement

No RS indication that this is about the TPM. ABOUT is different than "some connection to"

The juxtaposition per the previous point is OR

Reasons related to article quality

Selected trivia like this put in for effect is not informative about the TPM.

Selected trivia like this put in for effect is is a construction (OR) by WP editors and mis-leading There is no quality sourcing given that says that the "issues" implied by this construction-from-trivia exist and, in fact, it says the opposite. The actual controversies about the TPM are assertions that their agenda is wrong-headed, and strident pursuit of their agenda. This type of real coverage has been pushed out by the POV trivia.

This a good place to start on the extensive, unresolved expressed concerns that this article is a low-quality collection of trivia, selected for POV purposes.

North8000 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Useful to add that all members of the Tea Party Caucuses are Republican.

Useful to add that all members of the Tea Party Caucuses are Republican. Suggest in the lede. 99.181.131.76 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be appropriate at Tea Party Caucus but not here. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate here, as the caucus is part of the movement. Is there a source for it though?   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort of:

• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/29/who-is-the-tea-party-caucus-in-the-house/
• http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Tea-Party-Tally/2011/0128/Why-senators-are-avoiding-the-Tea-Party-Caucus/%28page%29/2
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706966.html

The problem being that, although I don't expect a mad rush of Democrats to join any time soon, statements on the membership composition are heavily time-dependent. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would be a logical addition to the "Impact on the 2010 election cycle" section. It'd only take a short sentence to say that all of the Tea Party members elected in 2010 are Republicans.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the election info would be useful info if written well and accurate/sourced. The right wording will be important so as to inform rather than confuse. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest Section Discussing The Controversy Around Republican Party "Bosses" Using Tea Party Smoke Screen To Distance Themselves From Their Past Bad Acts Regarding Fiscal Responsibility

During the deficit ceiling debate, the likes of Karl Rove and others that appeared on Fox News referred to the tea party in inclusive fashion, "... our side ..." That raises doubt about the tea party's independence from the Republican establishment that brought on the hyper-debt and deficit spending that the tea party is supposed to be against.

In present form, this article does not expose the hypocrisy of aligning within the republican establishment. Further hypocritical controversy is the difference between republican rhetoric and performance on the issue of fiscal responsibility. None of this is presently part of this article and I believe it should be.

Many believe the tea party to be a simple smoke screen by party bosses to recapture previous momentum lost by performance of the republican party over the years leading up to and through the Bush administration. Please consider a more balanced discussion of the tea party with these elements, as well as the tea party's role in the deficit ceiling debacle.

Quazula (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources that make that argument before we can put it into the article. I do not think btw that that analysis represents mainstream thinking. Instead, the Republican establishment sees the Tea Party as an opportunity to rebrand themselves. TFD (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they see the TPM as a mixed blessing. On the down side, as an unruly bunch that often butts heads with the traditional Republicans, and that won't take up the social conservative agenda, since many of the TP'ers have libertarian ideology, or downplay or don't follow social conservatism. On the plus side, they bring a sort of psychological rejuvenation, and they run and get votes and get elected. And since practically every TP candidate is a Republican, every TP'er who wins office is another Republican in office, including tipping the balance in the House. Not that this is article material, but maybe helps sort some things out. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This Karl Rove? 99.181.132.165 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "Populist" should not be used

A majority of the country does not agree with the Tea Party Movement. They side with corporations, how is that populist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.154.247 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It warrants an encyclopedia article as it meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the first paragraph was developed through an extensive comment and review process. There is a large amount of material regarding that specific question there. North8000 (talk)

Populist does not mean popular. Note that the original U.S. populists were a third party and right-wing populists in Europe routinely get about 15% of the vote. TFD (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual Grandfather? (quote fix needed when protection lifted)

Whoever has editing access to this article, please correct the term "intellectual grandfather" with the correct "father," - or "intellectual godfather," if you must.

Yup -- the Atlantic reference actually has "intellectual godfather." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A great deal more must be included in this article about the birth of the modern tea party movement.

On December 16th, 2007 - the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party - Dr. Paul's grassroots supporters effectively launched the Tea Party movement with a massive fundraising "money bomb" for Congressman Paul's campaign.

This money bomb raised six million dollars, shocking the political establishment and its pals in the media.

As the movement has grown, Ron Paul has been called the "Father of the Tea Party," or its "Intellectual Godfather."

Cited to what? If I recall correctly, Paul's "money bomb" campaign fundraising had nothing to do with the present Tea Party movement, even though Paul invoked the Boston Tea Party like so many other politicians have over the past century. I have seen a lot of Paul's supporters try to paint him, however, as somehow having something to do with the "birth" of the present movement even though reliable sources seem to indicate otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He is widely referred to as the "godfather" of the movement: "the man dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party' by Fox News", "...Tea Party voters who could credit Paul with being their philosophical godfather.", "Paul, often dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party,'", and "Paul's mix of libertarian and Republican politics has prompted many to call him the 'intellectual godfather' of the tea party movement.", for just a few recent examples.

Oh, I have no doubt that some have referred to Paul as the "intellectual godfather", just as other individuals have been called "the voice of the Tea Party", "Mr. Tea Party", and "the face of the Tea Party", etc. (Bonus points if you can name each of the individuals wearing those monikers!) My point was that his 2007 campaigning, even while making Boston Tea Party references, was unrelated to the formation of what we now call the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article discussing exactly how credit started shifting from Ron Paul to Rick Santelli. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An article. I rest my case. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a gander at WP:PG. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Ron Paul and people from his campaign is what started Young Americans For Liberty, it would be ridiculous not to cite Ron Paul as the father of the Tea Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A Hodgepodge of Trivia

Too many poll results and newspaper editorials are used. The vast majority of the article is pointless trivia and needs to be removed. Rather than the result of scholarly research, the article is clearly the result of a battle between opposing right and left-wing positions. A simple Google search is more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.48.177.4 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a mess, and has had little or no progress. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably an unfair assessment. the article developed through news stories. We should now re-write it based on serious writing which has since emerged. TFD (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your second and third sentences. How do we start? North8000 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely trash the current Wiki article and do a rewrite based on academic sources, if there exists solid coverage in high-quality RS. The article should be a stub right now, IMO anyways, since there had been little more than news articles to draw from. BigK HeX (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We should agree that the source and the material should both be high quality and where the source says that the content is about the TPM. For example, if a reputable source covers that Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi said "The Tea Party is xxxxx", that doesn't mean that "The Tea Party is xxxxx" goes in as fact. We're talking about higheer standards than the ones that got us into this mess. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of books have come out in the last few years: A New American Tea Party by John M. O'Hara, The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, The Whites of Their Eyes by Jill Lepore, Mad As Hell by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, and Boiling Mad by Kate Zernike, to name a few. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I last looked there were few sources available on line, but my most recent search shows a huge number of hits.[13] "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism", the second hit, for example would be useful. TFD (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We should also agree on what to keep in the stub. I'm think that the only stuff that stays is what 3/4 of us agree should stay. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the most controversy on this page has been regarding books and academic sources. I recall that there were serious objections to using Rasmussen's book, for example. And folks have argued that we should delete the Meade paragraph. This article might have made more progress if there had not been so many complaints about the use of sources that meet Wikipedia standards.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I think that the Meade situation was an anomaly. A decent quality source which clearly made an erroneous inference. I don't even remember the Rasmussen issue. Most of the issues have been about the pure crap which most of this article consists of which no quality source is even saying is informative about the TPM. . North8000 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that any academic sources have been presented. We have however had sources written by academics and they are controversial because we are reporting the opinions contained within them without showing what weight they have. TFD (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will look through the anthropology/sociology journals when I get to college at the end of next month --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the big question is should we follow BigK's advice above, and delete it to a stub and then build with just quality stuff? North8000 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. The only reasons that I can see to do so are illegitimate, purely partisan ones. — goethean ॐ 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the status quo is a complete, absolute, total, miserable failure, with zero progress for at tleast he full 9 months that I've been watching it. Do you have a better idea of what to do different? North8000 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubbing would be inappropriate in this case. The existing article is well-sourced and the text is generally presented with the NPOV. Deleting sourced material would be disruptive. If there are problems let's fix them rather than discarding the article that's already here.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, you are implying that sourcing means that the material should be in the article. That is absolutely not true. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that sourced, neutral material in a stable article should not be deleted without a good and specific reason. The proposal here is to delete everything in the article, and I just don't see any justification being given for that drastic action.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In your first sentence, you must be talking about a different article. This thing is an unstable, POV wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of an occasional skirmish, this article has been fairly quiet since November 2010.Edits over Time If there are POV problems then discuss and fix them. Aside from the endless complaints over the Meade paragraph, and vague arguments over the racial material, I don't see any significant disputes on this talk page. Rather than deleting all of the contents of the article, and arguing over every re-addition, it'd be more productive to focus on whichever areas you think are particular problems.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are severe POV problems, mostly via insertion of irrelevant wp:undue junk just for effect, and as part of an OR racial construction. But approx 2 editors have blockaded any forward progress. It looks like nuking it to a stub and rebuilding it with quality stuff may be the most realistic way left to make progress. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest addressing the problems directly. If editors disagree now about editing decisions then starting fresh won't make them more likely to agree.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right, the racial incidents were just completely made up out of whole cloth by Wikipedia editors. — goethean ॐ 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) The article was put together presenting views when they appeared but since then research has looked at many of the issues including the organization, make-up and objectives. At present the lead says, "The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.... Commentators... have suggested that the movement is... a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies". Lots of speculation with no weight assigned to the various opinions. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you propose text that would be more comprehensive?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but the first paragraph is the ONE thing in the article that has arisen from a recent, very thorough input process. Like a full blown RFC/ mediation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a good reason not to stub the article: most of the contents have been worked out following long discussions to represent a middle ground. Throwing all of that out and starting over again with the same arguments that have already been settled seems very unproductive.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's only one paragraph that has arisen from such a process. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Please review the talk page archives. Many parts of the article have been drafted or altered in accordance with discussions on this page. I think it'd be hard to find a section that hasn't been discussed here.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussed? Yes, drafted in accordance with the discussion here...not likely. Most participants (like myself) have simply given up on this page. It is little more than an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party Movement with obscure claims of racism and manufactured links to extremism. If not for a couple of specific editors, this page might actually be a neutral presentation of material, unfortunately that is not the case. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, progress on the article has been blockaded, mostly by 2 people, preventing any progress from coming out of discussions. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to actions that have blocked "progress"? Diffs? Threads?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about 50% of the last 50,000 words of this talk page. The most recent one is one line up. from this post. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a helpful answer. If there haven't been any specific problems then we shouldn't be making general claims that cast aspersions on other editors. Let's focus instead on addressing identifiable issues.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Monkey god incident is a perfect example. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement. The incident was not made with respect to any Tea Party Movement aspect. It has no relevance to this article at all, other than some Tea Party guy said it and the will to try and marginalize the movement as a whole. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that material dates back to May 2010. Have you initiated an RFC or mediation about the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK Will, there's another example of "Can you point to actions that have blocked progress". implying that their statement about taking out one of the many many many many many many irrelevant pieces of crap in this article is less valid because they did not dedicate the huge effort of an RFC/ mediation to this only one of many many many many in the article. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The way to solve disputes is through the dispute resolution steps found in WP:DR. If you don't want to follow them then don't complain about the result. An RFC isn't a huge effort.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The real RFC needs to be to nuke this junk article to a stub and start rebuilding it with quality, relevant material.North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the same editors are involved why do you think the outcome of a rewrite would be different than the existing article?   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll

Hello. Can anyone else make sense of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over time? I find only one occurrence of the string "Tea" in July 2011, and several occurrences for "Tea" in September 2010. It's almost like they did two different surveys. Help. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling Notre Dame and Harvard professors work "junk"

Hello. I appeal to whomever reads this talk page and will be back tomorrow to check on this. If you think Notre Dame and Harvard professors' work is junk, I wish you luck in life. My revert is within the page guidelines which allow a single "revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period". -SusanLesch (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. One of them, Robert D. Putnam, is not only notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but three of his books have articles as well. Folks keep asking for high quality material about the movement itself, and this qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is an article in the New York Times by two scholars who challenge the convential understanding of the Tea Party. The problem with including their views is that we do not know what weight it should have. Do other scholars accept their views? It would seem that they do not. TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How much credence has been given to the view that the TPM is made up of political neophytes anyway? I think that one narrative has always been that it is run by experienced political mavens.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not even an article but an op-ed. This article seems to be loaded down with opinion the way it is already. Arzel (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because an article is printed on an Op-Ed page doesn't mean it's just an opinion. In this case, the piece clearly describes the research upon which they base their analysis.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it as peer-reviewed research, thus it is just opinion, researched opinion, but opinion nontheless. I suppose if you believe them though, we can get rid of all the Koch idiocy since they are obviously not the source of the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By "junk" I meant just more op-ed statements, statements by political operatives, and irrelevant crap gamed in for effect. I meant that these these are just more junk in the context of this article which is flooded with such junk. We need to start getting this article out of the junk hjole, not have it pushed in deeper by gaming in more pure pOV stuff. Plus anybody who say that the TPM is religious is either dumb or saying something for effect that they know is wrong. Half of it is Libertarians, and many of them are atheists. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you making assertions about the makeup of the movement?

I don't think that these two poli-sci professors could be called political operatives. They are experts, one of them notable, writing within their field of expertise. Let's not give it excess weight, but all significant points of view do need to be included.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis is opinion and we do not know what weight this opinion has. The op-ed for example says that the Tea Party goes back to 2006, not 2009 as stated in the WP article. Also, I think that experts say that Tea Party supporters are not politically experienced, although many of the major organizers and financial supporters are. Their views on the religious influence also appears to be outside mainstream writing. TFD (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to include all significant views, not just the mainstream view. I don't think the article is saying that the movement started in 2006. Rather, they are saying they interviewed people in 2006 who would go on to become members of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that the view expressed in the op-ed is significant? TFD (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Two notable poli-sci authors and professors at the top U.S. universities, published in the New York Times. On that basis alone I'd say it is not what we'd call a "fringe" view. A ongoing problem with this article is editors protesting the inclusion of anything about the movement's membership. That doesn't leave much to talk about.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even though I think the story is bogus. It is very peculiar for a poll like that to not show its raw questions and results. So it's hard to tell if what they are saying is directly from the poll results or their own analysis, e.g. did they actually ask Tea Partiers, "what is your overriding concern regarding government?" And the survey started in 2006, so almost half of it was completed before the TPM really started! Anyway, I digress...I think it merits two sentences. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the poll results are based off the CBS poll, to which I cannot believe is still regarded as reliable. They have consistantly overweighted Democrat views, you would think that after years of having to weight their polls in favor of Democrats that they would maybe, just maybe, come to the conclusion that the real poll results are probably closer to their raw numbers rather than their weighted numbers. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Putnam is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences among other honors. I will edit the article to say that what they wrote in the New York Times is in anticipation of publication in the paperback edition of their book, [http://www.amazon.com/American-Grace-Religion-Divides-Unites/dp/1416566732/ due out in February 2012]. Hope that helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You need first to establish how significant the views expressed in the book are. TFD (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, the fact that someone is a professor does not mean that his opinions are always correct. That is the nature of academic writing. Scholars publish papers presenting new views which are then discussed by the community and may result in a new consensus. Scholars may also write books for a popular audience that do not enter academic discussion at all (which is the case here). The correct approach we should take is to determine what academic consensus exists and what are the major issues of controversy and reflect that in our writing. That means reading current scholarly papers, not op-eds. Bear in mind that the so-called "conservative" editors often do exactly what you are doing here. They take an op-ed by Professor Mark Skousen or Professor Arthur C. Brooks and try to tilt articles to a non-mainstream POV. TFD (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the opinion piece has been out for less than a week. It's been covered extensively, for example in Salon, The Daily Caller, The New York Times, The Item, National Review, The Washington Post, New York magazine. Would you prefer that I quote them instead of the authors? I think it is most economical in terms of word count to quote the sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan, to recap, I didn't mean that it is inherently junk; I meant that it's just another opinion, which, in the context of this article, is adding more junk. Putting the article even more deeply into that hole increases the likelihood that the only way to fix it will be to nuke it to a stub and start over, as discussed above. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

North8000, it makes no sense to ignore the work of a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Their job is to be "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine" and to work us out of holes not put us in them. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan, I really haven't reviewed them in depth, only the insertion: "their rank and file is more concerned about "putting God in government" than it is with trying to shrink government." is absolutely implausible, and contrary to overwhelming evidence of what the TPM has been pushing and where it has been having conflicts with the regular republicans. I figured that no writer could be that stupid and so "political operative" or a op-ed piece by a TPM opponent seem the only other explanations. BTW I'll be gone 4-5 days and won't be able to converse much on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That a new theory has been out for a week and has been covered in the media does not mean that it is a significant viewpoint. TFD (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't answer my question. WP:NEWSORG says "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." So I'm sorry but we disagree. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There we get to where actual reliability has context. He might be a reliable source on what the talking points of anti-TPM people are, but be very unreliable regarding the TPM itself. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has received a lot of attention in the short time since its publication: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] I think these address TFD's concern about showing that it's a significant POV.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has. It portrays the Tea Party movement as a bunch of White, Racist, Xenophobic, Religous zealots. Everything the left media loves to rant about, everything the left has been trying to portray about the movement for the past year. Incidentally, the meme about the Tea Party Movement being nothing more than ignorant morons being lead about by the Koch brothers to futher their capitalistic monopolies is now passe.

To Susan, just because he is a member of the Academy of Science doesn't mean that they are infallible. If they were we wouldn't have any problems in the world at all. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first source Will Beback provides is an op-ed by Scott Galupo, "a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times. Do you think that every article about social sciences could benefit from including his views? What about articles on climate change and evolution articles too> TFD (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing those as sources - they are there just to show that this viewpoint is significant. Let's not fight over straw men.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct way to show that views are significant is to find reliable sources that say they are notable. Finding multiple examples of references to a paper in non-notable sources does not establish notability. TFD (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a standard across Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the standard promulgated by Will, we should have Rush Limbaugh provide substantial "information" about the US Democratic party in that article because he is widely known and quoted by RS's. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, once Limbaugh is appointed a political science professor at Harvard.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We can either find a source saying that any opinion is notable, or we can conduct our own research. If we do the latter, as we have here, we get 18 pages of discussion and no resolution. But if an opinion is notable, then one would expect to find a source that says it is notable. And although Limbaugh is not a Harvard professor, there are plenty of right-wing professors who can be used as a source to make comments similar to his. 11:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)TFD (talk)

That's great. We should be relying more on professors (despite their prejudices) than other sources.

I have yet to see anyone say, in a reliably published source, that some view or another is "notable". Nobody says that. It's an impossible standard.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout we stop putting in political rants period, except that explaining that such are the views/talking points of opponents/proponents. This article is so full of crap that has been gamed in that it is currently worthless. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I object to calling major research by credentialed academics published in the most reputable newspaper in the US "junk" or a "rant". If we toss out this source what kind of standard are we setting for the rest of this article?   Will Beback  talk  12:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they meant it, anybody who says "more concerned about putting God in government than it is concerned with trying to shrink government" is definitely dumber than a 6th grader on the topic; hopefully they know more about what they actually teach. But my main meaning for "junk" is in the context of this article. Putting in rants from one side or the other, (except in sections identified as being about the talking points of the two sides) whole sections on a twitter comment or a cut BBQ grill line are junk in terms of trying to inform the reader which is why this article is such an uninformative piece of junk right now. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What you mean by 'junk' is anything which does not advocate for your ideology. — goethean ॐ 15:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, in the context here, by "junk" I mean ideology and off-topic stuff instead of information North8000 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, here is a typical example of a reliable source explaining how informed opinion views a right-wing movement: "Historians have disagreed about Antimasonry's class base. Older accounts linked the movement to poor farmers, renters' grievances against wealthy absentee landlords, and disadvantages the transportation revolution imposed on some rural groups. More recent detailed studies have tended to portray the bulk of Antimasonic activists as middle-class, prosperous and upwardly mobile."[21] So there we have an academic explaining how a subject is viewed rather than just explaining his own opinion. And because this is a reliable source, we can use this rather than conduct our own research on how scholars view the demographics of antimasonry. Find sources like that and we do not need to argue any more. TFD (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect that, in 30 or 40 years, we'll be able to use sources like those. Are you suggesting we not update this article until the available sources are scholars commenting on other scholars? Is that how we edit other articles on contemporary political topics?   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, the same author you quoted on Antimasonry has written about the Tea Party.[22]   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since over 1000 learned articles have been published about the Tea Party we can identify which opinions have become more widely accepted. Incidentally in the Chip Berlet article which you provide as a link, he criticizes the portrayal of the Tea Pary in the media (the same types of portrayals you have wanted to include). How do you determine which view deserves more weight other than by consulting academic writing? TFD (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are these 1000 learned articles to be found?   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of "fiscal" to lead

I agree with / support the addition, but because that was a heavily discussed and consensuses section, I think that we should require a consensus to keep it in. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, now the lead has a grammatical error as well as a clearly false claim. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The movement started and is based on fiscal concerns. I support. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

support, it would be a great step toward balance. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It'd be good to have reliable sources to support it. Perhaps they're already in the article. But we'd need to be sure this is the majority opinion - there seems to be some controversy over whether the TPM also includes social conservatives.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For example, The Guardian writes about the social conservatives in the movement here: "The Tea Party moves to ban books".   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the top level agendas (and the things in common between TP'ers) are the fiscal conservatism and reduced government. Once you get beyond that you have areas where TP'ers disagree with each other and have not been in any broad TP platform or agenda. Social liberalism/conservatism being the best example. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It dosn't matter what you think. It matters what reliable sources say, and they are not agreed that the TPM is only fiscally conservative. The unsourced — and false — addition must go now. — goethean ॐ 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons described above, if there is not a consensus, I would want it taken out. But to discuss it, the "has been described" is different than "is"; if the latter were not true, then both adjectives would be false. It encompasses only elements of conservative agendas, and only elements of libertarian agendas. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick Morris Op-Ed

• Morris, Dick (October 19, 2010). "The New Republican Right". The Hill.

This piece is labeled "opinion". It's cited three times in the article. Does it meet the standards we're setting for sources?   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If User:North8000 agrees with the material, then any opinion piece or blog-post will be deemed reliable. But if he personally disagrees with the material, then the material may be rejected, no matter how reliable it is. — goethean ॐ 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) That's not helpful. If no one defends this opinion piece by a famous political consultant I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Is User:North8000's incessant partisan whining "helpful"? — goethean ॐ 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Let's all try to keep the discussions here on-topic and avoid personal or partisan remarks.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no relevant comment to the contrary, I've removed the opinion piece and the material sourced to it (quotes from Morris).   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Never even saw this <1 day discussion. I object because it is messing with the one paragraph in this article that HAS been developed by consensus in a mediation process. I also don't want a "double standard". North8000 (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was precipitous. Do we want to use opinion pieces for factual statements in this article? If yes, I'll restore the material myself.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to remove all content which states something as fact which is based solely on biased opinion pieces. I don't think that that is relevant here. The sentences itself is a little squishy, but was arrived at via consensus from an extensive mediation process. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dick Morris piece was labeled as an opinion piece. If we're going to allow opinion pieces from reputable experts that have been published in reliable sources then I'm fine with restoring it. OTOH, if we want to raise the standards for this article, which has been the expressed desire of some editors, then it's hard to see how this qualifies. Either way, let's be consistent.

Here's the relevant text from WP:IRS, WP:NEWSORG:

• Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

So the guideline does allow the use of opinion columns like the Morris piece or the Campbell & Putnam article, written by specialists and recognized experts, but it sounds like we should not use them for facts - just opinions and analysis.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree, and agree that this is what this article needs, except I would say "opinions, identified as such" rather than "opinions and analysis" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The guideline says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author..." What's the problem with analysis?   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Well, if it's attributed as being the view of the author (rather than stated as fact) I wouldn't quibble about terminology. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So consensus is that op-ed pieces can be used in the article? — goethean ॐ 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a poor source. However a better source could be found. Usually poor sources remain unchallenged when they make non-controversial claims. TFD (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with op-eds is that they are not reliable sources for facts and we do not know how notable the opinions expressed are. (Even editorials in fringe publications are rs for the opinions of their writers.) We could do what infotainment channels like CNN do and provide what we think are the two sides of the story, or we could explain how informed writers view the TPM. TFD (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is a train wreck

Might be a good idea if editors took a break and came back much later and then read this article from start to finish. It's a train wreck. Trust me.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complete train wreck. People come here to try to learn about the TPM and instead just get a huge list of trivia and irrelevant crap gamed and and GamedKept in for POV purposes. I don't know that a break would help though. It think it needs something more on the order of an air strike, and then rebuild with quality stuff. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's confusing and bloated yet somewhat incomplete with regard to alternative views. It lacks the smooth and coherent flow one would expect from Wikipedia.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was also disheartened to see a tag on the talk page that reminds editors to be civil. At one time, and for a very brief time, editors seemed more friendly and tolerant of each other. For instance, Xenophrenic and I would disagree, and even get mad, but we'd always kiss and make up, etc. My suggestion would be to agree on what can be eliminated. All that stuff about the racism and the bloated beyond reason "Commentaries" section really sounds like a soapbox and not an encyclopedia article. And Hi to Xenophrenic, miss ya! Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas, Malke! I hope things have been well with you. You aren't alone in your opinion that the article could use some serious work. Every time I muster up the gumption to attempt some serious improvement, I'm reminded by battle-mentality editors making comments about "gaming" and "POV pushing" that they are intent on maintaining a hostile editing environment here. So here the train wreck sits. Sad, really. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree on one thing the state of the article.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Back at ya, Xeno! I've been very well, thank you. Hope the same is true for you. Here's my suggestion: Ask yourselves what would you like to see eliminated from the article? There will be, I guarantee, things that both sides don't like. Start from there. This might be an effective way to approach it: Think of the Tea Party Movement like you would a BLP. You wouldn't load up a BLP with criticism sections, commentaries on the subject, etc. I'm sure if you start a list of what you don't like while thinking of BLP's, you'll all hit on common areas. When you find those common areas, hit the delete button like a house afire. That will at least get both sides agreeing to something. That's a good start and will lead to more of the same. And Hi ya, North8000. Miss ya, too!Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)::::::::::::

Welcome back! North8000 (talk)

The only people who seem to ever complain about this article being useless are Tea Party sympathizers who seem content to base the entire Wiki on news reports, but then want to delete the material that has made headlines. BigK HeX (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's both incorrect and ad hominem. Why not discuss the actual issues? North8000 (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are some issues that need to be addressed. The article was written based on (then) current news reports and editorials. Since then there has been extensive study of the Tea Party which challenges earlier portrayals but little of that is in the article. Unfortunately little of the research is available free on-line, although articles by Robert Altemeyer and Chip Berlet give an indication of recent scholarship. TFD (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing Wish List

Please list things you like to see eliminated or summarized in the article.

1) Eliminate the "Commentaries" section. 2) Summarize everything that comes after it. The racism, Islam monkey comment, etc., are all WP:Undue weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My list is:

• More good quality content, including critique of the TPM which basically their agenda
• Take out the undue/irrelevant stuff thrown in just for effect. Start with the twitter comment section & the BBQ grill section.
• Start identifying supporter/opponent opinions as opinions (Op-ed pieces, comments by blatant supporters/opponents etc.)

North8000 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd strongly resist deleting significant parts of the article, especially those which are well sourced. However splitting sections into daughter articles and leaving a summary is always a possibility.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that that will be needed in the next year or so --Guerillero | My Talk 05:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Also might be a good compromise/doable way forward. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than talking about which parts to cut, maybe it'd be better to start with a blank outline and talk about what this article should include and how to structure it. Other articles political movements and quasi-parties could serve as templates.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. North8000 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Wisconsin protests

I believe there ought to be a section dealing with the protests that occurred in the state of Wisconsin. The influence of the tea party movement on how the Republicans were able to turn back the pro-union movement in Wisconsin ws brought up today on Wisconsin talk show host Mark Belling's program. Any thoughts on this? Please see the page in question which has much information on this situation. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source material you/we could write it from? North8000 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In the early stages of the protests there was an article discussing the connection (Do Americans Agree with the Tea Party View of Unions). Unions pushed hard and spent millions of dollars to stop Governor Scott Walker's agenda. Yet the citizenry stepped up each and every time. The union movement failed in everything they hoped to achieve. They hoped to stop the bill from being passed. They failed. They hoped to win the state supreme court election. They failed. They hoped to overturn the state senate through recall elections in the hopes of slowing Scott Walker's future agenda. They failed again. The union movement has dwindled significantly with nothing substantive to show for it. There is an article that expresses this decline (Wisconsin's incredible shirnking protests) and a liberal publication's demoralized state of how things have gone in this article: Wisconsin Demoralized, demobilized. The 2011 Wisconsin protests page itself has plenty of information from which to give background information. I know Sarah Palin attended a tea party rally during the protests which is also included in that article. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave those two sources a quick read and didn't notice TPM in them. North8000 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps the sources require too much of a connecting the dots to qualify as wiki-viable and I'm satisfied that it perhaps ought not be included due to this. I know the Tea Party movement influenced the mobilization of people in Wisconsin. Time will tell if the mainstream media ever picks up on it. I'll try to keep an eye open over the coming months to see if reporting from outside sources starts surfacing on a more regular basis. If so, then perhaps inclusion in the article at that time could be warrented. Until then, I'll keep an eye out for anything out there (if anything develops). Thanks for the input. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'm guessing that the TPM movement had a big effect by getting many of those folks elected, and building up a head of steam for reduction of government spending. But I never heard much about activity under the TPM banner during that actual battle. So I'm guessing it's more of a "set the stage" type of thing. I'm guessing that there are unbiased / quality RS's out there who commented to that effect. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not cutting edge journalism, but a reflection of the topic as it is represented in reliable sources. Until sources link the Tea Party to the Wisconsin protests and consider it significant, it cannot be included. TFD (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that I think "had a high impact on" would make it relevant if established by quality sources. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but does the fact that one TP'er was involved in something mean that the "something" is TP article material?  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Photos

Just struck me as less than neutral that there are 9 total pictures on the page but not a single one showing either Ron Paul or the December 2007 Tea Party event. Of the 9 pictures four of them show events from 2009 and of those four there are three showing the September 9th, 2009 event. Seems a little lopsided although I realize I'm only one person with an opinion. Does anyone else see this as slightly unbalanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.32.102 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the Tea Party did not begin until 2009. It seems too that the people who came out for Paul had different demographics. Also, I don't see the Tea Party protesting the wars in the Middle East, the War on Drugs and the War on Crime. TFD (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case then why have "Fox News commentator Juan Williams says that the TPM emerged largely as a result of Paul's 2008 primary campaign," cited under background and history? If it's now a fact that it was started in 2009 as you stated what purpose does that or the other Ron Paul references serve?

The reality is the creation date of the modern day tp is debatable as this talk page demonstrates. Weather it started in 2007 or 2009 the fact is it was a spontaneous movement. It's not an official political party and it had no official or widely agreed upon date of origin. Aside from referencing the opinions of people from news organizations how can you ever prove when it started? You can find quotes and news footage showing it started in 2009 but you can also find those same kinds of sources saying it started in 2007. For instance watch the YouTube video that shows various news reports claiming it started in 2007 called, "The Tea Party Started In 2007 And Ron Paul Is The Godfather."

The point is there is evidence for both cases but largely based on opinion. The only way to explain this subject accurately and without bias is to establish that there are two points of view about when it started. Then both points of view should be explained with equal space. Either that or remove the page entirely because as it stands it's not accurately or fairly explained.

Is this page supposed to explain the meaning and origin of the tea party movement as a matter of fact without bias or is it supposed to establish one sides opinion as fact? I would argue the current article page seems to establish the opinion of one side as if it were fact. --76.20.32.102 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Accorign to Wikipedia policy, we must present the view presented in reliable sources, including any widely accepted alternative views. My reading of the sources is that the Tea Party began in 2009. I do not know if that is true, and do not care. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

76, do you have a photo in mind to put in? North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure here is a good one from the 12/16/2007 Tea Party at the Santa Monica Pier and here's another, though not as good from the same event. The Santa Monica event was just one of many held throughout the country on that day.

Also here are two LA Times articles referencing the event and the term Tea Party as it relates to Ron Paul:

Foot soldiers of the Ron Paul revolution(dated 12/1/2007)

A shocking report: Inside the Ron Paul conspiracy (dated 11/30/2007)

TFD, regarding reliable sources isn't the LA Times at least as reliable as most of the sources currently on the page?--76.20.32.102 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, LA Times is as reliable as most of the sources. Can you please link to a page that shows the rights for these photos? I like the one from Santa Monica but does it have a free license? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles from 2007 that say Ron Paul supporters evoked the Boston Tea Party cannot support the statement that the Tea Party movement was founded in 2007, and more than a source saying that there was a Boston Tea Party in 1773 could support a statement that Samuel Adams founded the Tea Party. It is original research and you need a source that makes the claim. TFD (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, especially if we're talking about making a "year of founding" statement, or even that there even is a "year of founding" But, at least in this section, we're not talking about doing that. It cold be a matter of simply reporting or including that it was called that in 2007, or including a photo. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan, the owner of the picture has given permission for it to be posted here as long as he gets credit for it in the photo description page. His name is Perry and his site is perryseansmyre.com What do I need to do from here?--76.20.32.102 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and stupidly) the only permission that Wikipedia accepts is for unlimited use by everybody, but requiring crediting the owner. Are they willing to give that? The other alternative is fair use, where you have to run a gauntlet and get attacked by roving gangs of "enforcers" while you attempt to run it. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 76.20.32.102. Perry needs to return a declaration of consent by email to OTRS at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. We have a sample letter (here's another good sample letter from the same page) and a copy of the declaration. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Susan. What about the "own work" upload category? If Perry himself were to upload the photo to wiki would he still have to use a free license? My name is Jason by the way.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. Yes, Wikimedia Commons still needs a free license but it's fairly easy for him to upload there as his own work. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jason. Sorry for my confusing rant. Basically, if the owner of the picture is willing to release it for unlimited use, you have no problems and smooth sailing ahead of you. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks North8000 I'm not sure if it will work out but it's not for a lack of trying. Also I was glad and surprised to see someone added a photo of Ron Paul a couple days ago. You and SusanLesch were very helpful and fair as well, so thanks.

If you have a minute would you consider looking at the Tea Party Protests talk page under the heading "Presidential campaign in 2007, not the protests of 2009?" I'm not the wiki veteran that you seem to be and I trust your opinion more than the editor that I've been talking with there. I just want to be sure that if my complaint/suggestion is wrong that it's wrong for legitimate reasons and not because of editor bias.(my old ip 76.20.32.102 expired btw so I decided to finally create an account)--JustaJason (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome JustaJason. Glad to see you have an account. I replied at Talk:Tea Party protests in case it helps (it probably won't help at all, just another opinion). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Congressional Black Caucus

This may not be important enough to mention yet, but it might grow to be. "Rep. West threatens in letter to leave the Congressional Black Caucus over tea party bashing"   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

i would say we should include it. it seems to support the claims about racism in (or directed at)the tea party. according to a Black Muslim congressman, some old white Christian congressmen in the tea party, would like to hang him and others like him by the neck from a tree. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please avoid writing what could be seen as thinly vieled racist comments likely tyo offend other editors. TFD (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good addition. There have been many good proposed additions where everyone agreed, but nobody developed the material. We should make more of an effort to do that. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why has Fox's involvement been downplayed?

I didn't see any good explanation why in the archives. I did see a repetition of Fox News's (countered) points (e.g. "Fox news was only covering and was the only one covering them" even though they put their name on them and organized them, and other networks also reported them), but no explanation why Fox's involvement in the protests they put their name on and organized should be treated as something they had no involvment with. There's nothing about Fox's promotion of the FNC (Fox News Channel) Tax Day Tea Parties? Mediamatters has plenty on this:

• REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests

• Fox & Friends left the "FNC" out of "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties"

• Fox News takes ownership of tea parties, and, therefore, their extremist rhetoric

• Fox News again declares ownership with label "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties"

... And so on. If the objection is "Mediamatters isn't balanced," neither is Fox, but we don't decide that, we present any semi-reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. MMfA is a left-wing activist site with a declared objective to bring down FNC. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While it is accepted as a source, the issue is what weight should be given to the opinions. Fox obviously plays an important role in the Tea Party, but there are better sources that explain it. TFD (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces by an 100% advocacy organization such as MMfA are just that. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

News organizations with a tilt (CNN, Fox, MSN etc......actually most of the big ones) are still news organizations. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Fox News is AWESOME and so is the tea party and Media Matters is only for dirty hippy communists. — goethean ॐ 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the latter is for advocates with the the mission of bringing down FNC. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you think that this is an appropriate place to insert GOP talking points. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN has previously established that if we cannot use MMfA because it's left wing, we can't use Fox News because it's right wing (and not even because it has used stories from the Onion with a straight face); but that excluding either for such reasons is tantamount to original research. It is allowed in other articles.

MMfA says they're "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," they don't state that they're dedicated tot taking down FNC. Seeing how they also monitor (and criticize) NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC as well, accusations of being an advocacy organization dedicated to taking down Fox sounds more like talking points by Fox's investors and owners. While it had declared a war on Fox last year, that was after years of finding problems in Fox's programming.

In short: the claim that MMfA is not a reliable source is not even a myth, it is totally wrong.

As for weight, MMfA wasn't the only one at the time to cover this. Fox News covered it (seeing as they organized it), the Washington Post did, so did MetroWest Daily News, and the Huffington Post did as well. If you don't like Media Matters, then just use their hosting of Fox's coverage of it, because it's just Fox with a Media Matters border. Heck, even the Daily Show mentioned the Fox News denying being involved with the protests they put their name on, sent speakers to, and organized.

Outside of news coverage, one of the biographies used as a source for the Glenn Beck article mentions this.

It would be undue weight, even borderline censorship, to pretend that FNC did not sponsor this movement. It would be giving in to political interests instead of summarizing what the sources say. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to create a concrete proposal for us to debate. I wish that I could be optimistic and say that it is worth your time to do so. — goethean ॐ 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The real answer is to treat op-ed pieces as op-ed pieces, i.e. as an expression of the writer's views and talking points. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not an opinion in the slightest that Fox organized, advertised, and sent speakers to a number of tea party events which they put their name on. It's fact. Creating an event when they put their name on, asking people to come to it, and sending speakers is nothing but sponsorship. Furthermore, the Washington Times article I linked to was not op-ed, neither was the MetroWest piece.

How about the following be added to the history section, right before "symbols":

Many of the protests in 2009 were "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," which Fox News Channel placed its name on, organized, promoted on air, and sent speakers from its network to. This included then host Glenn Beck.

That much is undeniable. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

At least that sounds like real & relevant info, if it is sourced/accurate. A real step up for this article. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, everything you added as MMfA opinion, and a parroting of that opinion stating that MMfA was making the accusation. The WaPo article was simply a report of MMfA claim, not an independent story. The other was also an Opinion from some unknown person. On top of it you stated it as if it were a fact. Arzel (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the main MMfA source I gave in the article was just them reshowing an original Fox clip. How is simple reshowing a clip from Fox News of then-Fox News commentator Glenn Beck promoting FNC Tax Day Tea Parties featuring speakers from Fox News. How is a clip of Fox News MMfA opinion? Did you bother to actually look at the link I cited at all?

Again, the consensus from RSN is that MMfA is as reliable a source as Fox News. If we are to exclude MMfA on the grounds it is far left, we must exclude Fox News on the grounds that it is far right.

Parroting far left opinion would be saying "the Tea Party is an advertising campaign by the Koch Brothers and Fox News." Stating that Fox organized Tea Parties in 2009 is repeating a simple fact, observably demonstrated by footage from Fox News itself that just happens to be hosted for convenience on MMfA. How is a clip from Fox News MMfA opinion? How is it an opinion that Fox sponsored these events when the clip shows that Fox their name on the events, organized them, promoted them, and sent speakers from their network to them? It is not! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

FNC and MMfA are not equivilent, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously make that claim. MMfA is an activist site with a dedicated objective to bring down FNC. While they were a marginal RS in the past, their new stated objective shows that they are no longer a source that can be used for much of anything other than their own opinion, and even then under limited circumstances. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We should review the addition to see that it is neutrally/accurately worded and sourced. Two issues that popped out at first glance are using a video for a reference, and use of the vague and far-reaching word "many". But again, if it meets all of that it is more relevant than the crap that 90% of this article is composed of. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over. The sourcing is not up to supporting the statement made. Has one brief real source, one op-ed rant, and one video presumably given as an example of the statement made...a double problem....any such statement dra3n form it would be OR, plus mis-use of a primary source. But nevertheless I think that Fox to some extent supporting these is real and relevant material. I'm going to try to fix the issues enough for it to stay in.

Getting semantics / fundamental nature right will go a long way towards unscrambling this mess of an article

If we apply a basic understanding to what we are dealing with here, it would help to sort out the endless crap that the article is full of and that folks want to insert. As we all know, the Tea Party is not a party. It's really a word that flies around and get attached to or claimed by a whole range of things and people. Politicians, organizations, events, agendas, rallying cries, voting blocks, visions in people's minds etc.. Probably the only thing in common with all of the above is the agenda items that are in common to all of the above, roughly speaking reducing taxes and reducing government spending, and placing a very high priority about doing such. Getting the TP name attached to this has given it legs, but does not make it an entity. So anything that treats it overall as A group of people, or as AN entity (as 90% of this article does) is really inevitably going to get it wrong. This could be a Rosetta stone to help deal with the issues that arise and fixing this junk article. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just get your personal theory published by a reliable source and we will be happy to quote it in this article. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For folks like yourself who's conversations here consist of just trading barbs, it's the reverse, the statements involved imply or claim that it is an entity are statements and need sourcing. Also that wp:ver applies to article content, not to approaches of getting things done with articles. For the others, I present this as a potentially useful approach. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are right; I should spend more time advocating for purely partisan talking points, like other model Wikipedia editors. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The point that you did not provide sources for what you're suggesting still stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if talk pages need sourcing, do you have a source for that statement that you just made?  :-) Just pointing out that you missed my point. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. You have a thesis (that the Tea Party cannot be treated as an entity) upon which you would like to change the article. That thesis needs a source if it is going to change the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's mistaken in like 3 ways. If you prefer to deal down on the wikilawyering level, any statement that says or implies that the TPM is an entity needs to be sourced or removed. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article goes about treating it as it as We would a political party. The tea party is Social movements with a loose ideology that is flexible. Social movements are always a composite of many grass roots groups. That compository nature is what separates them from organizations or political parties, There is no Chairman, Board of directors or official platform. You have a very diverse groups that attend any one of these rallies. From the Militia Movement, Christian Patriot movement, Christian Fundamentalists, and various hate groups running about. There is too much variation from Tea party to Tea party to treat them as single entity. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

"Generally recognized as ... libertarian"? Citation please.

The citations listed do not attest to this claim at all, and there are plenty that will attest it isn't so. It isn't so. They're not libertarian, and if "generally recognized as ... libertarian" aren't weasel words too vague too ascribe a truth value to, then they're false (but I think the former). Vanyo (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph (which, being in the lead, should be a summary of what is in the article, and usually not cited, although this one has cites, but certainly not all of the ones from the body of the article) is about the only thing in the entire article which was both heavily discussed and consensused, having (with any and all of it imperfections) been the result of an mediation process. But a few quick notes. First, there is no defined "they" to characterize, which was the posited basis of your third sentence. The result of the mediation process was based on there being an immense amount of sources regarding a strong libertarian component in the TPM, just as there is conservative component in it. One could start with the fact that the person most often called the founder (Ron Paul) is an avid libertarian. And TPM agendas are generally libertarian agendas, having the social conservative agenda being noticeably absent, the area where libertarians and conservatives conflict. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is debate on the matter. [23][24]

Nor does evidence support the myth that the tea party is a libertarian-leaning faction of the conservative movement. "Americans who support the conservative Christian movement, sometimes known as the religious right, also overwhelmingly support the Tea Party," noted a February Pew poll, finding that tea partiers were more likely to support traditional conservative positions on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

— goethean ॐ 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that what Goethean just said is all also true, but it does not refute what I said, nor the reasons why the mediation result was to put both in there. I was speaking about the TPM agenda, which is the items where the two (conservative and libertarian) agendas overlap. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to gay marriage and abortion are not libertarian positions. Pew found that these positions are popular within the Tea Party. This is clear and hard evidence against the first claim of the article that the Tea Party is "fiscally conservatuive and libertarian". It is evidence that the Tea Party is simply conservative (and authoritarian, per the other link). — goethean ॐ 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On a secondary note, those sources you gave certainly have a slant to them but still had factual material. But more importantly you are making several false logical leaps and mis-statements as well as misquotes fro the lead (just) in in your most recent post. Rather than dissecting all of those, and without defending the minutiae of the wording from the mediation process, I think the core thoughts there are:

• It has substantial amounts of both conservatives and libertarians as supporters and in leadership roles
• It's AGENDA is in the areas in common with both
• You can't characterize the TPM phenomena by opinions of supporters in areas unrelated to its agenda. To illustrate the point in a funny but clearer way, if the majority of TP supporters prefer thin crust pizza, that doesn't mean one can characterize the TPM as a thin crust pizza movement. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that supporting a ban on gay marriage and supporting a ban on abortion are unrelated to libertarianism? — goethean ॐ 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. The far left socialists of America support Obama, does that mean that Obama supports socialism? Arzel (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the far left socialists do not support Obama. Read for example this article in the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA's website that refers to him as " the chief representative of the imperialist system in the U.S." They support Kim Jong Il. TFD (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am claiming that such are not TPM agenda items. And the TPM is basically an agenda and associations with that agenda. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also evidence that TPMers support government entitlements, such as medicare and social security, provided they are directed towards deserving Americans like themselves, which is not a libertarian position. In fact they seem concerned that universal health care will undercut medicare and that social security may not be sustainable. TFD (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there are two important tracks in response to your discussion. The first one is, from whoever said that, what do the me by a "TPMer". And second, if even in the highly unlikely event that the majority of TP supporters felt that way, (vs. someone trying to spin from some snippet) it's not an agenda item of the TPM, and so really isn't informative about the TPM. Maybe with a stretch one could put in a bit of poll info about TP supporters such as what they think about the societal normalization of homosexuality, what type of pizza they prefer, views in social conservative areas etc., but such is really not informative/relevant overall to the topic. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

...the societal normalization of homosexuality, what type of pizza they prefer...

Okay, you are not discussing the topic seriously. When you are ready to discuss the topic seriously, pleae rejoin the conversation and help us to improve the article. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that partially in the context of being one of your usual insults. But yes that is discussing it seriously. I was giving (using my previous elucidation) a more obvious example where opinions of supporters on non-TPM-agenda issues are not info directly about or descriptive of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The rest of us are discussing political topics and the Tea Party Movement. You are bringing in unrelated nonsense. You let us know when you are ready to seriously discuss improving the article. Until then, you can and will be ignored. — goethean ॐ 18:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See previous comment. And please start being more civil. If you genuinely haven't figured out what I'm saying and its relevance, that is no basis for assuming otherwise and writing based on that wrong assumption. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge and comments

I know this has probably been proposed a million times before, but I really think its pointless to have a separate article for Tea Party protests, considering the majority of the Tea Party movement IS protests. A lot of this article seems to also be OR, synthesis, and opinion.. proclaiming Ron Paul to be the "intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party" for instance.. that is a bit much. Yonskii (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, about 80% of the article is junk, and the most common OR is implied relevance of irrelevant material. Problem is we need to start junk/non junk standard instead of POV standard for what stays/goes. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Protests is sort of a sub-topic of this.