Wikipedia

Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 23

< Talk:Tea Party movement
Latest comment: 11 years ago by ButButNo! in topic Academic sources
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Latest comment: 11 years ago36 comments10 people in discussion
  • Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.
  • For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports.
  • Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press.

Wikipedia doesn't treat "news organizations" the same as "peer reviewed scholarly publications" when comparing quality of sources, as incorrectly asserted in the discussion that follows. It is true that both can serve as reliable sources for the assertion of fact, but well-considered scholarly work is considered higher quality than "news", which by its nature emphasizes getting information to a consumer quickly. When considering how Wikipedia should convey descriptive information about the subject (TP movement), you must not create a false either/or structure. It is wrong, and a misapplication of policy, to claim that since a movement has a strong grassroots component or a vocal anti-illegal immigration component (qualities easily witnessed and therefore repeatedly noted by "news" sources), that somehow negates the reliably sourced fact that the movement also has strong astroturf and anti-immigration components. It doesn't. However, if there is reliably sourced refutation of these descriptions, that should be raised for discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK for guidelines on placement of new comments, before inserting any new comments in this space. Any new comment should be placed either at the end of the thread, or immediately beneath the comment to which it responds. Failure to follow this guideline may be considered disruptive.

I don't write policy, Maunus. I just try to follow it. Who knows what resources are used by the news organizations' fact checkers? Maybe they have access to peer-reviewed journal articles that we haven't found yet. Or maybe they have a political science professor on retainer for occasional questions like this. Trying to figure out why peer-reviewed scholarly publications are treated the same as news organizations, for purposes of reliability at Wikipedia, is above my pay grade.

  • In this case P&W is arguing that a book ... is less reliable than a handful of news media sources ... Ummm, no. Please don't distort what I've said. I said that according to Wikipedia policy, one peer-reviewed journal or book and one major new organization are equally reliable. And when we have lots more of them saying "grass-roots" than the ones that say something else, we call that the "majority opinion" per WP:WEIGHT and treat it accordingly. There are a lot more that a "handful" by the way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur I am sorry but I think you are being evasive. The many sources referenced by P&W only support the idea that the Tea Party has a grass roots. I suspect you know that but are creating a smoke screen around a clearly reliable source to avoid having to deal with the issue. OK P&W has a naive believe in volume as a determinate of truth but you do know better. ----Snowded TALK 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No, no; what we do with such sources in contradiction is tell the reader the various positions held by various sources, attributing them per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The contradiction is so deep that we can never say with finality that the Tea Party is a grassroots group, or that the Tea Party is an astroturfing group. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and it is probably the case that Formisano talks about Tea parties partly because the movement is comprised of sometimes disparate groups sponsoring rallies, so he avoids the pitfall of an all encompassing generalization. It is a somewhat complex topic.
Clearly his work is not denigrated or refuted by news media pieces, and should carry more weight overall than such sources severally and probably in combination, too, because of the high-level of analysis it provides. If there are other academic sources that claim the TPm is exclusively grassroots, then such POV should be presented in a manner that academic sources per se are in parity as hih-level analysis, with news media below, more basic informational sources.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • OK P&W has a naive believe in volume as a determinate of truth ... What I have a "naive belief" in is Wikipedia policy.
  • The contradiction is so deep that we can never say with finality that the Tea Party is a grassroots group ... Yes, we can. The number of sources supporting majority opinion is very large. The number of sources claiming that external groups that are Astroturfing are actually a part of TPm, or that genuine TPm groups (such as Tea Party Nation) are Astroturfing, is very small. In an analogous situation with a large majority and a small minority, the editors at Waterboarding did not hesitate to start the article saying that "Waterboarding is a form of torture" in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Clearly his work is not denigrated or refuted by news media pieces, and should carry more weight overall ... That's your opinion. Wikipedia policy differs from your opinion. The fact that we can't find any news pieces denigrating Formisano doesn't mean anything. We can't find any news pieces validating Formisano either.
  • If there are other academic sources that claim the TPm is exclusively grassroots ... Like Elizabeth Foley, for example?
  • ... then such POV should be presented in a manner that academic sources per se are in parity as hih-level analysis, with news media below ... Again, that's your opinion. Wikipedia policy differs from your opinion. Here's a link to an op-ed column by Formisano: [1] Here's another: [2] Formisano clearly likes Barack Obama very, very much, and speaks from a progressive perspective. TPm does not. Remember what I've said about not allowing a political figure or group to be defined by its opponents. Arthur knows more about academic sources and practices than I do, and has explained (based on his knowledge) how bias can creep in. It's possible that Formisano has a pro-Obama bias, and that it has crept into his analysis of the validity of TPm's grass-roots status. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
And its possible that you have a pro-TPM bias that has crept into your ability to interpret wikipedia policy. An opinion column is not an academically published source and academics are allowed to have political viewpoints - but when they publish academically their work is reviewed for its empirical and argumentational validity. That is the entire point of peer review. Again you are arguing against an argument noone has made when you say the movement shouldnt be defined by its opponents, noone has said we should define it as astroturf. We have maintained all along that we cannot simply accept the movements own definition when it is hotly contested whether that is an accurate definition. Following wikipedia policy what we do is that we do not adopt any of the opposing views, and that we then describe the views attributed to those who hold them and with weight according to their prominence in the relevant literature. That, my friend, is wikipedia policy. We are not a propaganda platform for TPM or any other movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And its possible that you have a pro-TPM bias ... LOL. I voted for Barack Obama three times. I'm a Democrat living in Illinois, so I was able to vote for him for the Senate in 2004. "Pro-TPm bias"????? LMFAO. Fortunately I'm able to restrain my anti-TPm bias for the purpose of editing this article, and insist that Wikipedia's NPOV policy must be followed.
  • We have maintained all along that we cannot simply accept the movements own definition ... That's why we start out by looking at the reliable neutral sources, such as the New York Times and CBS News. These reliable sources have confirmed the movement's self-definition.
  • Following wikipedia policy what we do is that we do not adopt any of the opposing views ... Following Wikipedia policy, we adopt the strong majority opinion and state it as a fact in the first 10% of the article, in Wikipedia's voice. Then we explore the majority opinions on various aspects of TPm in greater detail in the heart of the article. Minority opinions can be explored in the final 25% of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
They have not confirmed the selfdefinition, they have repeated it. Confirmation comes from scholarly analysis, not from news media repeating a label over and over. Your political leanings are as irrelevant as those of Formisano, which was what I meant by turning your idle speculation back at yourself. There is no strong majority opinion about whether TPM is or isnt a grassroots movement. Reliable sources says there isnt. Even Foley says there is no such consensus, although she does adopt the position that it is a true grassroots movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Peer review for opinion is little more than grammer checking. Peer review for mathmatical equations and hard facts is much more rigorous. I done quite a bit of peer reivew and it entails checking math and making sure that what they are saying makes sense, not whether it is correct factaully. If anything books like these are the worst reliable of all. Each chapter has only a few eyes checking it for factual mistakes. Newspapers, at least, have thousands of eyes double checking the final product for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Arzel, perhaps you should stick to math, because you seem to not know much about social sciences research. You are deliberately attempting to denigrate academic sources (from outside your field, apparently) by dismissing them as mere "opinion". The information contained in the academic sources is of a higher order than that in new media. Your condescending attitude toward the social sciences is perhaps somewhat problematic.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
BS, I am not denigrating social sciences just pointing out the differences. Math and other science are based off hard science where new information must be backed by hard facts which follow specific rules. Social sciences, like this, are based off opinion, granted it may be an informed opinion, but it is still opinion. When evaluating math based research, you can only evaluate the mathmatical analysis with the interpretation of the results left up to the author. This research also includes opinion, but it is easier to question the opinion because it is still based on a set of mathmatical rules. Some social sciences try to incorporate mathmatical models into their research in the form of structural equation modeling in which links are constructed between people or groups of people, unfortunately the linkage between them is not easily placed into a statistical framework. Then you have other research where the research presents their educated guess (opinion) of something. If most other researchers agree with this idea, then it is accepted as the prevailing point of view. However, this opinion is not questioned within the peer review process only the logic (ie math) being used to present the theory. Books are by far the worst because they contain so much information. All the reivewer does is check the grammer and the prose. This is especially true for self-published books. Papers are less problematic since they are shorter and go through a more rigorous review process. Perhaps you just don't understand how the system works. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That is ignorant bullshit, you clearly dont know the first thing about peer review or social sciences. You are trying reconfigure what every social science academic knows to be the hierarchy of authority and veracity within the field which is Book > article > news media. Books are a huge investment for a publisher and detailed scrutiny of data and argumentation from fellow experts is the norm, just as it is for articles. If you honestly think that tenured professors will agree to edit the prose of their competitors you are truly misguided - I think it is more likely that you are in fact just pushing a POV. You are redefining the world to fit an antiscientific viewpoint where journalists seeking a scoop are more knowledgeable and dependable than experts who spend their life studying a topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe someday you will publish something or be a reviewer and see how the game is played within the academic world. I have no time for childish behavior. Arzel (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They have not confirmed the selfdefinition, they have repeated it. No, I think that reputable, well-established news organizations like the New York Times would check into the details supporting the "grass-roots" claims by TPm groups, before they publish something like their detailed examination of the start-up of a TPm group by Keli Carender in early 2009. Arzel and Arthur know a lot about peer-reviewed academic publishing. My knowledge is more in the area of news publishing. I happen to know a couple of things that cut the legs out from under your argument, Maunus.
  • First, newspapers and broadcast news networks do a lot of fact-checking. Even smaller, local daily newspapers and network affiliates will usually have at least one fact-checker on the staff, even if it's just an intern. Larger, more established organizations have entire departments of fact-checkers. Any reporter who simply repeated the self-serving self-definition of some political organization, without checking it out, would be committing career suicide.
  • Second, there's a phenomenon called investigative journalism. Every college journalism major dreams of becoming the next Bob Woodward, uncovering lies and corruption. Due to the way TPm is organized ("disorganized" would be a better word), it would be fairly easy for them to go undercover and dig up a lot of dirt about TPm if there was any dirt for them to dig up. When they go looking for targets, they like big, juicy ones. TPm is a big, juicy target.
  • This is how I'm so certain that there's no real substance to the Tobacco Control story. If there was any substance there, investigative reporters from the big news organizations would have been crawling all over it. Instead it's just the Huffington Post, a progressive-biased, glorified blog that was founded as a liberal alternative to the Drudge Report. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
P&W, that screed seems to be purely speculative; moreover, you continue to ignore RS aside from the Tobacco Control article that characterize the TPm as including astroturfing.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't ignored them, Ubikwit. I've accurately identified them as the minority opinion. And there's nothing speculative about investigative journalism, or news organization fact checkers. They exist, and they would have made mincemeat out of the Tea Party movement if any significant part of it wasbuilt with Astroturfing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how the TPm could be characterized as a ripe target for investigative journalism, so your statement that "it would be fairly easy for them to go undercover and dig up a lot of dirt" is a diversion from the fact that the Tobacco Control journal article incorporated elements of investigative journalism that succeeded in exposing connections that the affiliated groups (e.g., "Citizens for a Sound Economy" and "FreedomWorks") would rather not have been made public.
Corporate funded astroturfing is only one aspect of the TPm subject to study. Most of the researchers published by academic presses have actually attended rallies and interviewed activists in carrying out their research in the field, first hand, supplemented with other materials. The rallies that represent the "movement" aspect of the TPm are open to the public, I believe, so researches don't need to go undercover to ask people what is on their minds.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 17:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, by the way, here's a rather harsh analysis [3] of that Tobacco Control study. The harsh analysis is published by the left-leaning Huffington Post. And in their grant proposal [4] to obtain public funding from NIH, the authors of the study basically admitted that they had a political agenda in seeking this funding: the anti-smoking lobby "requires understanding [of] how the tobacco industry maintains a favorable social and policy environment[.]" As the contributor at Huffington Post sarcastically observed, it's hard to tell the difference between this stated objective, and political opposition research. Also, here's an examination of the chief author of the study, Stanton Glantz, and his research: [5] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Your "harsh analysis" by a PR guy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (anti-regulation of Tobacco advocate) isn't of the study; in fact, he doesn't make a case refuting a single finding of the study. He goes to great lengths, however, to try to impune the motives behind the study and the researchers involved in the study. No surprise there. He also links to a blog where one of the researchers is criticised by a Smoker's Rights writer, and you linked to it as well. Still no refutation of the findings of the peer-reviewed study. What was the point of this "by the way" comment? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As Arthur and Arzel have pointed out, bias can find its way into peer-reviewed publications. It's funny how Glantz did some early work on "false positives" where poorly designed research finds a relationship between A and B that isn't really there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Every one has a bias. But in a peer reviewed publication conclusions are supported by evidence, and it is possible to detect poor arguments and the influence of bias. You cannot honestly believe that commercial news media are more reliable than experts who study the topic for their entire lives. That really is unbeliavably ridiculous. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Bias in peer reviewed material can be even more prevalent, especially for those that require publications for promotions or tenure. People don't like to rock the boat and research tends to have a self-fulfilling aspect. On top of that you have researchers that have a pre-determined belief in the outcome and instead of actual research simply manipulate the data until it presents the story they wish to tell. I have seen first hand research which was stopped and not published because the result was contrary to the prevailing belief. Not all is bad, but you would be ignorant to blindly believe that these experts do not sometimes push a predetermined belief. Arzel (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please stop distorting what I've said. I did not say that "commercial news media are more reliable than experts who study the topic for their entire lives." I said that according to Wikipedia policy, one article published by a news organization and one peer-reviewed scholarly publication have equal levels of reliability. And when we have a lot of them saying "A," and a few of them saying "B," we treat "A" as the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This is some new interpretation of WP:WEIGHT? You have a set of newspaper reports which use the 'grassroots' word and the sheer volume of such casual references outweighs a scholarly article? How many one wonders? Are 50 news paper reports the equivalent of one reviewed paper? Is their some weighting factor based on the quality of the newspaper? Sorry P&W but that is a nonsense. If you really believe its the case <irony>take it to the reliable sources notice board</irony>. Your argument is the sourcing equivalent of mob rule ----Snowded TALK 04:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed article is a more reliable source than a newspaper article because it is reviewed by many experts who have months to review the facts rather than say 35 minutes. And it also has the advantage that the author must explain what the mainstream and other views are, rather than just his own, must footnote claims made and if the topic is notable, then subsequent writers will comment on any inaccuracies. Certainly someone writing a serious entry for an encyclopedia article about physics, life sciences, earth sciences, or engineering is better advised to use academic sources than the science section in his local newspaper. Also, we do not determine which opinions are of greater significance by conducting google searches or other original research but by looking for sources that explicitly explain the weight provided in informed sources. TFD (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On matters of current events, generally newspaper articles represent how the public perceives those events -- there are no scholarly sources on such which are superior to the newspapers for public perception. This silliness about using "peer-reviewed sources" is not worthwhile when the events and groups are still current. Maybe in ten years or so we will have real scholarship on such, but we ain't there yet. "Instant scholarship" tends to be "instantly worthless." Collect (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I take offense at your use of "silliness" with regard to using "peer-reviewd sources". It is condescending and insulting.
Not only is the purpose of the article is not to represent some phantom "public perception" you glean through your interpretations of the news media, the above statement is clearly an mea culpa statement of intent to violate WP:RECENT.

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

*Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.

*Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.

Scholars have been studying the TPm since 2009, and books are being published on the topic in succession.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 17:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course there are scholarly works on current events, and also on public perception. "Instant scholarship" is an oxymoron. Any subject matter is subject to scholarly research the instant it exists, and continues to be a valid subject of academic study even while "the events and groups are still current". To imply that the "Tea Party movement", going into it's 5th year, is too recent and current to be the focus of research involving academic rigor ... now that is silly. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[Note: The following comment was posted at the top of the thread, rather than the bottom, which violates the WP:TALK behavioral guideline. As a courtesy to all Talk page participants, I have moved the comment to the bottom as allowed by WP:TPOC.] — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.
  • For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports.
  • Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press.

Wikipedia doesn't treat "news organizations" the same as "peer reviewed scholarly publications" when comparing quality of sources, as incorrectly asserted in the discussion that follows. It is true that both can serve as reliable sources for the assertion of fact, but well-considered scholarly work is considered higher quality than "news", which by its nature emphasizes getting information to a consumer quickly. When considering how Wikipedia should convey descriptive information about the subject (TP movement), you must not create a false either/or structure. It is wrong, and a misapplication of policy, to claim that since a movement has a strong grassroots component or a vocal anti-illegal immigration component (qualities easily witnessed and therefore repeatedly noted by "news" sources), that somehow negates the reliably sourced fact that the movement also has strong astroturf and anti-immigration components. It doesn't. However, if there is reliably sourced refutation of these descriptions, that should be raised for discussion. .....

Scholarly works are not generally found on current events, and the bit about news organisations reprinting such works (the lines were initially intended to refer to medical and scientific claims about studies, not about news events!) is asinine when one looks at current events for which news organisations are, indeed, the best source. For example - do you really expect a "scholarly peer-reviewed source" on the Boston Marathon bombing which is not based on news reports? Stuff which is currently in the news is best served by using those sources. In the case of the TPM, the "scholarly journals" use .... the news reports! The idiotic claim that the TPM is specificially anti-immigration has been pushed many times by the same small number of editors and rejected by clear consensus of everyone else. 'Nuff said. Collect (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course a scholarly article will use newspapers as sources, the point as you know well is that they review that material and are reviewed in turn. ----Snowded TALK 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The "anti-immigration" description is conveyed by high quality reliable sources, as noted here by several Wikipedia editors. Some editors have viewed the factual description as negative or unflattering (despite it being the norm among all Americans), so of course there have been "rejections" to seeing it conveyed by our Wikipedia article. Of the 18 editors in the discussions, 6 have "opposed" including the fact for various reasons, and 2 others would allow it only if qualified or attributed as "opinion" in some way. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Show us an exact quote from one of these "high quality" sources that specifically says, "The tea party is anti-immigration." Show us exactly the page that has that, and don't doctor up the quote with your comments first like you did with Skocpal's book which does not have the word 'anti-immigration' anywhere in it. It does say illegal immigration. Just give us a direct quote from the "high quality source" that says the tea party is anti-immigration. And consensus is still against adding 'anti-immigration' to the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Find your exact quotation in a source? Why? And you have misread the consensus, again. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Closure request

Latest comment: 11 years ago84 comments13 people in discussion

{{help}}


I just try to follow policy. When comparing scholarly works and news organizations as reliable sources in WP:RS, Wikipedia policy doesn't rank one above the other, in terms of quality. In terms of quantity, this is no contest. Both "anti-immigration" and "Astroturfing" are minority opinions, and editors advocating those opinions have been conceding that they are minority opinions in terms of the quantity of reliable sources. "Opposed to illegal immigration" and "grass-roots movement" are the majority opinions per WP:WEIGHT. We've been repeating the same arguments for several days. Policy-based arguments carry the day according to WP:CONSENSUS, even if we didn't have the votes — and we do have the votes. Can we get a closure from an uninvolved admin or senior editor, please? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • News organizations are reliable sources for current events and for public perceptions of current events. It is crap to suggest that scholarly articles written at the time of the events are any more "reliable" than any other sources, and Wikipedia policies do not make the claim that we need "peer reviewed scholarly articles" when dealing with current events for a very good reason -- such articles may be few in number, and do not address public perception of events. Thus we use news reports on a regular basis. Even when we see a "wall of text" argument being presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest asking your question at one of the following forums (pick 1) WP:HD, WP:VPP, or perhaps a more friendly option WP:THQ. Technical 13 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." If you disagree then make your case there. For mainstream opinion, see Formisano's chapter, "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism", p. 8, "The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few--the corporate lobbyists from above--but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." That seems to be the consensus in serious writing about them. TFD (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's the complete paragraph, for those who don't appreciate snippets of policy being taken out of context: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." [7] Clearly, Wikipedia policy views scholarly sources and high-quality, mainstream news media sources as equal in reliability, TFD. There is no "scholarly consensus" on the matter of grass-roots vs. partially Astroturf. However, the high-quality, mainstream news media sources are overwhelming. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
TFD's quotations were not taken out of context. The additional text you included (with your own bold emphasis selectively added) does not alter the context of TFD's remark: Use scholarly consensus when available; and it is available. I think you are confusing routine news sources with "high quality mainstream publications" -- although some in-depth investigative reporting by the former may qualify. Perhaps you can cite the specific sources to which you refer? The sources you have offered above, (in your this version and this version links), support TFD's assertion more than yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Use scholarly consensus when available; and it is available. That is yet another false statement. There is no scholarly consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
...and the TPm is subject to WP:BLP; and when a reliable source expert makes an analysis in his field of study, it violates WP:SYNTH; and when a Wikipedia editor reverts your unsourced content, it's a violation of WP:VANDALISM. Sure, we can add "there is no scholarly consensus" to the sitcom. Should I take your response as an indication that you have no "high quality mainstream publications" to support your proposed edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Are The New York Times and The Washington Post good enough? According to Elizabeth Foley, there is no scholarly consensus. If any of the sources you've cited are claiming scholarly consensus, please post the relevant quotation and page number. How long are you going to keep whining about BLP, SYNTH and VAN? I dropped all of that weeks ago. You're making no substantive arguments here. You're just posting weak ridicule based on past mistakes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that while those sources use the words you are concerned about they do not support the conclusions you are trying to make. All parties have grassroots, the issue is if the Tea Party is formed and sustained as a grassroots movement. The Newspapers are silent on that issue so its OR on your part. I'm encouraged that you acknowledge your past mistakes on policy, perhaps you would like to reflect that at the time you insisted that you were right with the same vehemence as you are now ----Snowded TALK 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A level of certainty appropriate to the cause you espouse through your edits on this page :-) Seriously, can you show how any of your citations make a judgement on origins or sustainability of the Tea Party rather than just using the words? ----Snowded TALK 06:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The cause I espouse is improving a Wikipedia article by applying policy in an even-handed manner. If you're interested, read The New York Times article. It explains the grass-roots origins of the movement. The editorial board would not have failed to at least mention any alleged Astroturfing if any of its member organizations had actually engaged in the practice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you would link to the article rather than the wikipedia article on the newspaper? As to 'cause' I think your edits here and on the Obama article speak for themselves ----Snowded TALK 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've already posted links several times. [8] This post, and Xenophrenic's post below, demonstrate that you haven't even bothered to read it. As I've said previously, the NYT article provides a wealth of detail proving that the movement had grass-roots origins. It doesn't need to say the word directly, just as Edvard Munch didn't have to write the word "Scream" with his paintbrush. For the intelligent and mature reader, there are other ways to say it. As for the "cause," I agree with your assessment but not for the reason you think. I keep running into editors who, like me, do not care for conservatives and are loyal to the progressive cause; but unlike me, they are either unwilling to check their biases at the Wikipedia door, or simply incapable of it. That's why articles about conservative organizations and political figures are loaded with criticism and controversy, while articles about progressive organizations and politicians read like press releases from Organizing for Action. I'm not the first to say it, nor are such observations limited to the right-wing press.
  • You're clearly very fond of peer-reviewed journal articles. Read this: [9] A free copy can be downloaded here: [10] It's a peer-reviewed article published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The authors focus on the NPOV (or lack thereof) in political articles at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That looks like an interesting read, and thank you, but it appears tangential to our discussion. I read the one NYT link you provided, and while it does convey information on grassroots activity by the TPm, it doesn't make a case refuting the 'astroturf' aspect. I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't a grassroots component to the movement; the objection seems to be against inserting an "is grassroots" description as a factual statement in the lead sentence when that is not a completely accurate, standalone description by itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the sources cannot be used to tell the reader that the TPm "is grassroots" to the exclusion of astroturfing. The most objective sources say that it is a combination of both. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ... but it appears tangential to our discussion. No, it's spot on. Consider your own recent editing history. Reverting the addition of criticism and controversy in articles about several progressive public figures, organizations and "spin" sources, and supportive discussions about others, such as Bill Maher, Alan Grayson (perhaps the most hated Democrat in the House of Representatives), Bill Maher, D.L. Hughley (comedian and left-wing political commentator), Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (I remember that one), and one of the worst scandals of the Obama Administration, ATF gunwalking scandal. You made sure that the most negative language, from a left-leaning [11] [12] political website, continues to be used to describe Tom Smith, a pro-life Democrat-turned-Republican who ran for the Senate last year. [13] It seems that all of your edits either add negatives to articles about conservatives or, more frequently, remove negatives about progressives. You're very, very consistent about it. But it's really nice to see that you support a politically "leaning" organization making a self-serving claim, using WP:SELFSOURCE, in the first sentence of an article about itself. [14] That's good to know. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No clue what you are rambling about. I cite FOX news, and people get their panties in a bunch? Gee, my bad. If you'd like to discuss in detail whatever it is you are harping about on your Talk page, we can do that. This Talk page is for improvement of the Tea Party movement article; am I to understand that you have no citations (that one NYT source notwithstanding) to support your proposed edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No clue what you are rambling about. Thanks for confessing your cluelessness. You are to understand that I have abundant sources to support my proposed edits, which is why they're called "majority opinions." I've repeatedly posted links to a high-profile sampling of sources for each of two proposed edits. You're just seeing what you want to see. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources you are saying support your proposed edits. Links to Wikipedia articles on the NYT or WaPo aren't helpful, and there are several NYT links in the early part of the article. Did you mean the very first NYT link after your proposed insert of the word "grassroots"? That source doesn't mention grassroots, but it does mention nativism.

As already noted above, Formisano writes on page 8: "So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: Astroturf or Grassroots populism?" The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few - corporate lobbyists form above - but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism" and also notes on page 100, "The Tea Partiers, finally, are routinely referred to in the media as conservatives. But their blend of astroturf and grassroots populism is more accurately labeled right-wing or reactionary populism."

In the Skocpol & Williamson source, pages 11-13, "Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. This remarkable political outpouring is best understood as a combination of three intertwined forces. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama and wallop. ... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors--these three forces, together, create the Tea Party and give it the ongoing clout to buffet and redirect the Republican Party and influence...", and they go on in considerable detail about both the grassroots and astroturf aspects of the movement, saying neither description paints a complete or accurate picture of the movement.

Are there any scholarly sources that refute the astroturf component? Foley certainly does not; she "admittedly" acknowledges the outside organization's influence, but warns against thinking the movement is a mere spin-off or puppet. She doesn't go into any further detail on the grassroots/astroturf dual nature; it's not the focus of her book. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a fallacious argument. Can you show me any sources which refute the hypothetical claim that George Gnarph was a space alien? Articles generally do not "refute" claims which they regard as irrelevant or simply fallacious - and saying that anyone must find such articles is about as inane an argument as is possible on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
If there was a scholarly article that made the claim that George Gnarph was a space alien then there would almost certainly be one which said the opposite. We reflect the balance of sources so its more than legitimate to ask for on that refutes a properly sourced statement if it is to be rejected ----Snowded TALK 12:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Complete bosh and twaddle. Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see that your contributions on right wing subjects retain their objective content focused approach, its been a pleasure to observe over multiple articles the last few years ----Snowded TALK 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Questia search: [15] ZERO "scholarly articles" making the claim that TPM is "anti-immigration. ZERO. And the non-scholarly article from Mother Jones does not make the claim either. The enwspaper articles using "anti-immigration" use it primarily to refer to the AZ law - not to the TPM as a group. In short -- ZERO scholarly peer-reviewed sources make the claim which is so baldly pushed here. A book making the claim about "tea party nation" notes that it was a "for-profit corporation" and not in the middle of the TPM [16] Another at [17] specifies "while the US's Tea Party movement has increased pressure to limit illegal immigration from Mexico." More than sufficient to note that "anti-immigration" is, indeed, contradicted by reliable sources on the topic. I can add many NYT cites, but they are simply "current events" and not worthy of notice here - sic. Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I get different results when I don't limit my searches to just "Tea Party movement", and when I look for information on the TPm's stance on immigration. Scholarly works have already been cited above, so that should have been an indicator to you that your "ZERO" results may have been a little less than accurately inclusive. The 'Steep:' source you linked does note that Tea Party Nation pushed for "cultural issues" like anti-immigration legislation, supported by 180+ TP groups and leaders. Your 'Globalization and the BRICs' source doesn't contradict at all the anti-immigrant description, and in fact notes their anti-illegal immigration stance in that context, just as "newspaper articles" usually do, as you noted. Where is the contradiction? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Collect, searching for keywords is not a good approach. I notice you used "Tea Party movement" rather than "Tea Party" - I assume you were trying to minimize the results. TFD (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Silly -- Questia requires using keywords. Doing a search without any keywords is incredibly slow! But eliminating "movement" gets all the way up to 2 books. The Sanderman book [18] refers to "anti-immigation" as an adjective for the AZ law, not to the Tea Party. So scratch that one. The Tolchin book [19] uses "anti-immigration" here: In the period most similar to our own, the 1890s, anger turned into third-party movements, anti-immigration backlash, and other forms of political expression that reflected public anxiety over rapid social and economic change. which appears to refer to the 1890s and not to the Tea Party. So still zero books using the "maximizing results" keywords. Bolded so it is fairly clear that the accusation that I tried to "minimize the results" is shown for what it is. For non-peer-reviewed, non-scholarly articles we have [20] which has Still, Sanchez contends that immigration reform can be an electoral winner for Democrats who are already nervous about the midterm elections in November. "It can pump up the base and motivate higher Hispanic turnout nationwide," she said. Nor does she think the issue will cost the Democrats. "The Tea Party people are also likely to be the loudest anti-immigration voices," she observed. "A lot of their anger towards President Obama is thinly veiled racism. They won't be voting for the Democrats no matter what we do." which is clearly "political opinion" by a person actively campaigning against the TPM. And not voiced as the opinion of the article author, by the way. Other than that - zero magazine articles making the claim at all. Zero. So much for the coutre comment about "minimizing results" one can hardly get much lower than zero. Really! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Under which of your search criteria, Collect, did the afore-mentioned Skocpol scholarly sources (for example) appear? Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As noted, kind blank, I used "Questia" which is a pretty well-known search vehicle for sources. Skocpol is not found as a scholarly book by Questia for having connected the TPM to "anti-immigration". One reason is the simple fact SKOCPOL DOES NOT MENTION 'ANTI-IMMIGRATION. Perhaps this elided your notice? Anent "immigration" the beloved Skocpol (written by grad students under his direction) we find In general, Tea Partiers do not explain their opposition to unauthorized immigration in terms of a job threat. Which does not in any wild imagination translate to "anti-immigration." Nationally, 80 percent of Tea Party activists see illegal immigration as a very serious problem, compared to 60 percent of Americans overall See "anti-immigration" there at all? I thought not. So what exactly is your reason for bringing up a source which explicitly contradicts your claims for it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Elided my notice? That is a nonsensical phrase to me; did you mean to ask if there was elision on my part? Of course not. We simply appear to be speaking of different content. The captions you are quoting are specifically about illegal/unauthorized immigration. The content I referenced was about the TPer's sentiments regarding immigration. You'll find that content in the chapter, "What they believe: Ideas and Passions" -- some of which is quoted above, but I'd recommend a more thorough reading of the chapter to understand the context. You appear to be fixated on the specific term "anti-immigration", which is hampering your searches. It also appears to be hampering your understanding of content concerning opposition to immigration. The content you've quoted in no way "explicitly contradicts" the content I have been referencing from that same source. (And as an aside, neither the book nor the peer-reviewed paper upon which it is based was "written by grad students under his direction" -- and he is a "she", by the way.) Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Try rereading the sentence if you do not understand it. Yes -- Theda is a female name - mea culpa and you get 1 point for "sic." I found specific usage of "illegal immigration" and no use of "anti-immigration" which means you are quite like Alic in being able to see No one clearly on the road. And the other authors are clearly identified as grad students - so I do not know why you are touchy about that fact made clear in the paper itself. It is, in fact, quite common for such writing. Collect (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"you get 1 point for..."
Now I understand. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Xeno, I am curious why you feel self-identification is fine for FAIR but not fine for the TPM. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how to respond to that, Arzel, as that is not how I feel, and I do not believe I have expressed that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Then please express how you feel, Xeno. Since you have expressed your feeling that FAIR can have a self-serving self-identification as "progressive" (rather than "left-leaning") in the first sentence of its Wikipedia article, do you feel that the Tea Party movement can have a self-serving self-identification as "grass-roots" in the first sentence of its Wikipedia article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've expressed no such feelings. Perhaps you are confusing where I've cited or quoted Wikipedia policy with my feelings. Regarding your question, if you are asking me my opinion if "grassroots" can appear in the lead of this article as a sourced fact, I think that may be possible, if it is accompanied with the equally sourced fact of "astroturf". Unfortunately, it appears that some editors would prefer that "grassroots" be allowed in the lead as fact, while "astroturf" gets relegated to "opinion", or omitted from the lede entirely. That would be severely misleading to our readers, so I would be against that deception. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Tea Party grass roots or astroturfed? I looked at what books had to say. I only found two or three books that rejected astroturfing and around the twice that number that claimed it was from the start. Several books had dedicated chapters for the question and by far the most common conclusion is that it started out as grass roots but quickly became astroturfed and is so now. Several of these mention that the Tea Party initially started out as completely astroturfed but was taken over at a grass roots level before being astroturfed again. The Rosenthal book below in particular is very detailed about how this happened. Indeed, I can find no mention in the article that the Tea Party Express was set up by FreedomWorks and is now run by Our Country Deserves Better PAC which seems to be a clear case of astroturfing. The following are some books that are both detailed and reliable enough to be used as sources for the claim and for the Tea Party in general.

  • Ronald P. Formisano The Tea Party: A Brief History JHU Press 2012 ISBN 9781421405964
  • John S. Dryzek The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford University Press, 2011 ISBN 9780199566600
  • Lester M. Salamon The state of nonprofit America Brookings Institute Press, 2012 ISBN 9780815703303
  • Erin McHugh Coffee, Tea, Or Kool-Aid: Which Party Politics Are You Swallowing? Harry N. Abrams, 2010 ISBN 9780810997608
  • Laura Ingraham The Obama Diaries Simon and Schuster, 2010 ISBN 9781439198445
  • Theda Skocpol Obama and America's Political Future Harvard University Press, 2012 ISBN 9780674067943
  • David Karpf The MoveOn Effect:The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy Oxford University Press, 2012 ISBN 9780199942879
  • Lawrence Rosenthal Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party University of California Press, 2012 ISBN 9780520274235

I think it is impossible to regard astroturfing as a minor opinion, it may be in the media but it appears to be the mainstream view among academics. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE does say an organization can provide a definition of itself but it specifically excludes this if it's "self-serving". User:Xenophrenics suggested wording was no more self-serving than the wording he objected to. That diff was simply a case of disputed word usage. In the case of the Tea Party, it appears to be a case of self-serving through omission. If the NYT omits to mention astroturfing that does not mean that there is none, so we need to look for reliable sources that specifically discuss the claim that it exists and use their conclusions. The most widespread view is that there is a significant level of astroturfing. You are using an argument from ignorance to support your case. Wayne (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are simply trying to cherry-pick sources to present a statement in the lead that does not meet the requirement of NPOV. The manner in which you choose to construe Xenophrenic's comments is irrelevant, and the attempt to introduce it in a partisam manner is in violation of WP:TE.
The editor you responded to clearly indicates that the Astroturfing "appears to be the mainstream view among academics".--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Another display of the same comprehension skills used to describe reliable sources. No, it isn't "minority opinion" per WP:WEIGHT. It's minority opinion per P&W. Xenophrenic's position is the same as reliable sources: The Tea Party movement is both grassroots and astroturfed. The "position" and link you have provided, along with your misrepresentation of it, say nothing about this discussion. And your NYT source absolutely doesn't "agree", in fact it doesn't address the astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
P&W, your arguments, such as they are, have not swayed other editors enough to create a consensus in your favor. In fact, talk page consensus is running strongly against your position. The sources that have been brought forward for examination can clearly be summarized as saying that the Tea Party movement includes both grassroots and astroturfing elements. Please give this issue a rest. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't prohibit self-serving claims, Wayne. It only prohibits unduly self-serving claims. The Tea Party's claim that it is a grass-roots organization self-serving, just like FAIR's claim that it is "progressive," but the Tea Party's claim is confirmed by the majority of reliable, neutral sources. Therefore it is not unduly self-serving. Xeno was correct to cite WP:SELFSOURCE when he defended the self-serving lede sentence in the FAIR article, and the same standard should be applied here.
  • Arzel, Arthur Rubin, Collect, North8000, Malke 2010, Darkstar1st, Ken Arromdee ... so you say that "consensus is running strongly against [my] position," Binkster? All these people disagree.
  • Wait a minute there, Wayne ... hold on ...
  1. ... by far the most common conclusion is that it started out as grass roots but quickly became astroturfed and is so now.
  2. Several of these mention that the Tea Party initially started out as completely astroturfed but was taken over at a grass roots level before being astroturfed again.
I see. So you've got some sources that say "B, then A." And you've got some other sources that say "A, then B, then A again." Which one of these two are you claiming to be the majority opinion, Wayne, and how many reliable sources do you have that say it? I have an enormous number of sources that just say, "B." Which is why it's the majority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"All those people", 4 of the many that have commented, don't even agree with themselves. What was Arromdee's position on "astroturf" again? And could you quote Arthur Rubin's position, please? Or North8000's? I fully understand your expectation that they would agree with whatever position you are advancing today, but it would be nice if they actually made a token comment on the matter before you include them in your non-voting. I have "numerous sources" that say the TP movement is against spending, taxes and the growing deficit, so that is the majority opinion, and your "grassroots" is the minority opinion. Same logic. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Your petition to use WP:SELFSOURCING to support the "grassroots" description is unnecessary, as there are reliable third-party sources that convey the same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


Well, there aren't reliable third-party sources which say that the TPm is astroturf. There are reliable sources which state that some TPm organizations are astroturf. (And, you're correct, I had not stated my position on this issue; I've just noted that very few, if any, of the sources you have provided support the claims you make for them, particularly in regard "anti-immigration".) And (referring to your comment 2 back): "Astroturf" is clearly a minority position, even among academics who pretend to be neutral. "Grassroots" is majority among those who state an opinion. I don't know if "astroturf" is fringe; I only know that you are not qualified to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that only one or two of the hundreds of TPM organizations could even be claimed to be astroturfed, and so such a claim is implausible for the TPM as a whole. Regarding the TPM as a whole, it's hard to imagine any movement that is of that size that is grass roots to a greater degree than the TPM. Not 100%, but there's no such ting as 100%, yet the word is used. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Formisano makes the important point that recent political results were obtained largely from the money from astroturfing rather than from grassroots enthusiasm by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Formisano's bias against the Tea Party is well-established. In the past few days, I posted links to two op-ed columns by Formisano demonstrating that he really, really likes Barack Obama, and doesn't care much for the Tea Party. Bias can find its way into even peer-reviewed sources, and I suggest that it has found its way into his book. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Once again, Formisano is allowed to have a POV and to publish it in books published by academic publishers, which are considered to be the most reliable sources used on Wikipedia. That is why he is a tenured professor. You are not in a position to accuse him of "bias".
You have not attempted to post a request regarding Formisano's book at RS/N, but simply to denigrate a reliable source because the statements in that RS refute your one-sided POV.
You have repeatedly attempted to discredit sources that refute the version of the lead, for example, that you have been insisting on, even though it is clear that the consensus is against the version you have been pushing. This would seem to fall under [Wikipedia:TE#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources]] and to involve WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 06:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
In the objective world, what is "money from astroturfing"?! North8000 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Objectively, "money" does not necessarily mean "Astroturfing." But the minority editors here, led by Xeno, Binkster and Ubikwit, apparently believe that in all cases, Money = Astroturfing.
  • Here's a partial sampling of the eminently reliable sources that define TPm as a grass-roots movement — three from the New York Times, two from the Washington Post, one from Reuters, one from National Public Radio, one from Huffington Post of all places, a very interesting 30-minute webcam round-table discussion hosted by the Huffington Post, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..." [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
  • The 30-minute webcam round table hosted by HuffPo, in a very interesting exchange of ideas, explores what is actually meant by the term "Astroturfing." The mere addition of money, even from people like the Koch Brothers, does not negate the grass-roots nature of the movement. Only if the money is being used to pretend that there is genuine grass-roots support for a particular position where no grass-roots support actually exists can it legitimately be called Astroturfing. I have many more reliable sources where these came from. It is painfully obvious that the majority opinion, per WP:WEIGHT, is that TPm is a grass-roots movement, even if we don't count the Tea Party's self-serving claims — which we should count under WP:SELFSOURCE . Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It is painfully obvious that there is a grassroots component, as your sources show. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Those same sources do not negate the fact of astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Where did you get your definition of astroturfing from? There is no requirement of "no grass-roots support" for astroturfing to exist, the sources are quite clear that both exist at the same time. You keep throwing up sources but the majority are involved in the astroturfing. For example, according to Theda Skocpol FOX virtually ran the Tea Party at one stage through it's extensive support, quote Pg50:"FOX acted as a kind of movement orchestrator.". Wayne (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, Xeno, when several reliable sources state what a subject IS, you expect them to also state what the subject IS NOT. Otherwise, you will feel empowered to state in the article mainspace that the subject is something else, if you can find two or three sources that say it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Incorrect, P&W. I've never conveyed that expectation. Perhaps you are thinking of another editor? Or is this more of the same? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Phoenix and Winslow cites Theda Skocpol to support there being no astroturfing, yet in her book (Pg63) she states that conservatives "romanticize the Tea Party as a purely grass root movement" but that she (and her colleagues) finds this to be misguided as "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination" of support from grass roots, astroturfing and the conservative media outlets. She obviously gives equal weight to all three. Wayne (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Wayne, on what page does Skocpol use the word "astroturfing"? You might wish to read the following: "Skocpol dismissed as 'poppycock' the idea that the Tea Party is a phony 'Astroturf' movement of token marionettes manipulated from above by rich and powerful conservative puppet-masters." [33] Maybe you should run a word search for "poppycock." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I told you above, Pg63. You are cherrypicking again. Of course that's poppycock, because as she said...astro-turfing and grass-roots are on an equal footing. Wayne (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that's not what she said. On page 63, Skocpol used the word "Astroturf" to describe someone else's opinion, not her own. Skocpol said that the Tea Party is "a mutually reinforcing combination of bottom-up and top-down undertakings." Skocpol said that "[t]he dynamic interplay of grass-roots activists, national advocates, and media impresarios has given the Tea Party its oomph[.]" At no time on page 63 did Skocpol say that "astro-turfing and grass-roots are on an equal footing." Some other page perhaps? What page number? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I have no idea why you did it but please don't alter other peoples posts. Wayne (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wayne, referring to Theda Skocpol's book, page 63: "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination" of support from grass roots, astroturfing and the conservative media outlets. She obviously gives equal weight to all three.
  • Theda Skocpol, on page 63 of her book: "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination of bottom-up and top-down undertakings."
  • Theda Skocpol, a bit farther down, page 63 of her book: "The dynamic interplay of grass-roots activists, national advocates, and media impresarios has given the Tea Party its oomph[.]"
  • How did Wayne understand "top-down undertakings" to mean "Astroturfing"? Alternatively, how did Wayne understand "national advocates" to mean "Astroturfing"? That wasn't another example of Wayne using WP:SYNTH, was it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh I understand now...because she only called it astroturfing at the beginning of the chapter and then used its definition later instead of actually saying the word, you think you can ignore context. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you want to call it a horse. Skocpol explains that from the bottom up the movement is grass-roots and that from the top down is the media and "resource-deploying national organisations" who use the movement to enhance their policy proposals, provide funds and organisation for meetings and rallies and use the Tea Party to influence primaries or channel contributions to elections etc. To use the exact terminology Skocpol uses "the Tea Party is a tri-partite mix of local grass-roots networks, resource-deploying national organisations and conservative media outlets," as she is specifically discussing grass-roots and astroturfing by name in that chapter, it is obvious from the context that bottom up is grass-roots and top down is astroturfing and media support. Wayne (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)P&W, you're reaching. What falls under SYNTH in the above-description? Insofar as the jargonistic term "Astroturfing" is defined in descriptive terms when the author expands her explanation in plain English, there is nothing out of the ordinary. I don't have the book, but the explanation of "tripartite" in which the "resource-deploying national organisations" are equated with earlier specific references in the chapter to Astroturfing appears to be sound to me. Perhaps a quote using "Astroturfing" should be combined with a reference to the descriptive definition when referencing the source.
Moreover, that is not the only source that makes reference to Astroturfing, so you are fighting a pointless battle and have already lost the war, so to speak. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It appears you're both wrong. Skocpol uses the term "astroturf", but to mean something completely different than what we use in our article astroturfing. So, we could use it, but wikilinking grass-roots and explicitly not wikilinking "astroturf". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your take of the difference in usage.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well this biggest difference is between saying that it may have occurred (.e.g. even in some small way) and using it as an adjective or trait for the overall movement. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
First, I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw my agreement that she intended her use of "astroturfing" to be a significant part of the TPm; it's not in any of the quotes. Stating that the TPm is, or is founded on, a combination of factors (or factions), should not imply that the factors are equal in weight. In fact, if the interpretation that "botton-up" is "grass-roots" and "top-down" is "astroturf" plus "conservative media" is accurate, then the "equal in weight" assertion is contradictory, and some other weighting would be inmplied. An alternative is "most important first", which would make astroturfing appropriate, but as a lesser component of whatever she considers to be the TPm.
As for the specific question, it's not clear whether Skocpol meant "money = astrotuf", but she does seem to mean that a formal pre-existing organization "assisting" the TPm is astroturfing, regardless of whether the assistance is hidden, or whether it affects the goals of the TPm. This is not in our definition, and I don't think it's in the common "mainstream" definition. As a parallel, it could be used to assert that any campaign contribution is a bribe; again sometimes asserted, but not "mainstream". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ubikwit, my impression was that Theda Skocpol used the term "Astroturf" in reference to labels applied to TPm by others. I could be mistaken, but it seemed that she used "Astroturf" to describe others' opinions. Then she started to describe her own opinion, and instead chose to use terms like "top-down undertakings," "national advocates," and "resource-producing national organizations." If she does specifically use the term "Astroturf" to describe TPm or any part thereof, as an expression of her own opinion rather than someone else's, would you please cite the page number and post a quotation? Thanks.
  • Moreover, that is not the only source that makes reference to Astroturfing, so you are fighting a pointless battle and have already lost the war, so to speak. I'm not sure about that either. And your references to battles and wars reveal a WP:BATTLE frame of mind, I'm afraid. I'm just trying to follow policy and produce a neutral, accurate, good quality article. In the best of all possible worlds for you, both Skocpol and Formisano might support your interpretation. That's two sources. I've cited eleven reliable sources, and can cite many more. Even getting Formisano and Skocpol to be counted in your column requires a painfully contorted definition of "Astroturf," rather than the commonly understood one we have in the Wikipedia Astroturfing article.
  • My understanding of "Astroturfing" as a political science term is very clear and exact: manufacturing something fake that looks like a grass-roots movement, where grass-roots do not actually exist. In this case, even Skocpol and Formisano admit that there are very strong elements of genuine grass-roots activism in TPm and for that reason, it's clear that the standard definition of the term cannot be applied to their opinions. There's no need to manufacture something fake when the real thing is already there, big and healthy. The accurate term for the big money effect that Skocpol is describing would be "watering the grass" that's already there, and making sure that it thrives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
@Arthur: The researchers do indicate both aspects as crucial to the understanding of the Tea Party movement. I find it interesting that you, after conjecture that perhaps the "grassroots" and "astroturf" aspects of the movement might not be of equal importance, suggest that the grassroots component would be the more important of the two. Based on what? As for the specific terminology used, please don't get hung up on word choice. The researchers draw a distinction between the political activists and the "elite" backing and guiding monied and media influences, and use numerous terms when discussing them. Yes, words have meaning, but the same meaning can be conveyed by a variety of words. Regarding the "bottom-up" and "top-down" descriptions, those are extremely common in academic political science discourse. As one example, from the book "Blessed Are The Organized": Some of the issues that have been of central concern to the religious right over the last three decades have more recently been taken over by the considerably more volatile Tea Party movement. Insofar as the latter movement is a creation of media elites, it too qualifies as an example of top-down politics. The volatility of the movement derives, however, from the spontaneity of its populist spirit. The movement's distrust of elites and antipathy for gays, resident aliens, and "socialists" could rapidly morph into outrage...
@P&W: Yeah, your impression is indeed mistaken when you say the researchers, Skocpol included, use the "astroturf" description "to describe others' opinions" of the movement. In an interview subsequent to the publication of that source, Skocpol reiterates, “It is very interesting to me how thoroughly Romney has catered to the Tea Party wing of his party,” she told me. “Both the grassroots version of it and the big-money elite version of it—the Tea Party is both. In Ryan, he picked about as far right a guy as you could on questions of budgets and entitlements and taxes.”
There is nothing in the definition of astroturfing that says in order for it to exist, a "grassroots" component must not exist. As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, your impression is indeed mistaken when you say the researchers, Skocpol included, use the "astroturf" description "to describe others' opinions" of the movement. Please post a quotation, and the page number in Skocpol's book where you got it, to support your claim that Skocpol uses the term "Astroturf" to describe TPm or any part thereof, as an expression of her own opinion rather than someone else's. I'd like to verify your claim. (I never claimed that. -Xenophrenic)
  • There is nothing in the definition of astroturfing that says in order for it to exist, a "grassroots" component must not exist. There is nothing in the phrase, "big-money elite version" that says "Astroturf."
  • As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? This is where you demand that in addition to saying what the subject IS, a reliable source must also say what the subject IS NOT. The illustrative example I used a few days ago to describe what you're doing here is the Elephant. If the reliable sources say, "The elephant is an animal," there is another statement implicit in that statement: "The elephant is not a plant." But according to you, if the source doesn't explicitly add the second statement, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the elephant is a plant. Then you feel empowered to delete any statement in the article stating that the elephant is an animal; and add a claim that the elephant is both an animal and a plant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to interrupt here, P&W, and note, again, that you are completely wrong, just as you were the last time you tried this ploy. I have never "demanded that in addition to saying what the subject IS, a reliable source must also say what the subject IS NOT." I simply asked you, and I'll repeat it slowly this time: As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? And why did I ask that question of you? I was responding to your above statement: "...Skocpol and Formisano ... That's two sources. I've cited eleven reliable sources, and can cite many more." Skocpol and Formisano are cited for the astroturf description, and you appear to be offering your eleven sources as refutation of those two, hence my question to you. No one is disputing the grassroots aspect of the movement If you are admitting that your eleven sources do not address the astroturf portion of this discussion, then your mention of them isn't productive. Let me know if you are still confused, and I'll go over it again in even more detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
While Skocpol does not use the word "astro-turf", she provides the same narrative in "Our argument." "We find that the Tea Party is a new incarnation of longstanding strands in U.S. conservatism....A small set of nationally operating Republican elites, many of whom have been promoting a low-tax, anti-regulation agenda since the 1970s, have played a key role in local and regional Tea Party efforts." TFD (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Where does Skocpol say that "nationally operating Republican elites" is a term equivalent to "Astroturf"? Page number, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Skopol explains on pp. 10-13e ff. that the Tea Party is a combination. As the Columbia Journalism Review summarizes it, "Skocpol and Williamson see the Tea Party as neither solely a mass movement nor an Astroturf creation, arguing for something in between: a grassroots movement amplified by the right-wing media and supported by elite donors."[34] Again that is the consensus in all reliable sources, even if they differ over the degree. That btw is a recurring theme in successful right-wing movements in U.S. history. The book does not contain a glossary, the authors merely accept that reasonably educated readers would understand what the various terms used mean. TFD (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Agenda section, as it stand contains the wording "... Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation ..." The source used doesn't support that statement. The source is a sociological study of members' views. It doesn't follow that all of the beliefs of the individuals in the movement are part of the agenda of the movement. A movement can be founded for a particular concern (say fiscal policy and government regulation) that attracts people with other commonalities. To support the Tea Party's immigration agenda, we need a better source. I hesitate to edit the article even to add "citation needed" in light of discussion above. I mention it here in the hopes that someone has a better source. (PS The sociology of Tea Party members is discussed in other sections. This is the "Agenda" section.) Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The source is actually a joint news poll of Tea Partier beliefs, not an academic sociology study, but your observation that members beliefs do not necessarily equate to agenda items is correct. That sentence is only a preface in the Agenda section and isn't intended to convey specific agenda items; it conveys studied generalities about the movement before the more nuanced agenda issues are discussed in the text that follows. The variance among TPers is noted (it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue [and] While not uniformly so...); also note that sentence is cited to 7 sources, not just that one poll source, which was inserted only to convey that TPers consider illegal immigration an extremely important issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't clear to me that references 27-32 were meant to support the first sentence (as you point out and as I see after reading the sources.) It appeared that reference 26 was specifically inserted to support the immigration point. Since 26 is about demographics, which is discussed extensively in a separate section, it should be left out. This would make it clear that ref 27-32 support the sentences up to that point. I think this would make it clear where the reader can find support for the claims made. As a reader that's not too close to the subject, perhaps my feedback can of use. In any case, good luck with a difficult topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, May 8, 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the "Organization" section, a recent edit resulted an the incorrect punctuation of a comma and adjacent semi-colon following "Tea Party Congressional Caucus", immediately prior to reference No. 49. The semi-colon alone seems to be correct.

Also, the quotation marks enclosing the block quote later in the same section should be removed to comply with the MoS. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, so   Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In Tea Party movement#Agenda, first subpara, last sentence ("Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the constitution...), the word "constitution" should be capitalized. Kelly hi! 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it refers directly to the American Constitution I agree that it should be changed.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides the single occurrence of "constitution" at Tea Party movement#Agenda, what about other words derived from the same root? Also at Tea Party movement#Agenda there is "constitutional", and at Tea Party movement#Contract from America there are two instances of "constitutionality". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Capitalize all instances of 'Constitution' when it is prefaced with "U.S.", or "American" or "the". The words constitutional and constitutionality are not normally capitalized. Where there is still confusion, defer to the cited source materiel (i.e.; This for 'constitutional').
While you are making corrections, could you change "a number Republicans" to "a number of Republicans" in the Tea Party movement#Contract from America section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, fine,   Done as here --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea party alignment

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning in the article about the actual party composition. The lead makes it appear to be a bipartisan political movement, but according to The Washington Post show that between 9 and 13% make up Democrats. For the record, I am Canadian and not lobbying for one group or another, but I did find it a little confusing because I had always thought of the Tea Party as very Republican but I had to look elsewhere to confirm that bit of information when it seems almost critical to the article. Could we add these figures in somewhere? Mkdwtalk 04:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Bipartisan" covers groups which are not set up to be representative of a single party. As a significant number of the adherents are not Republican, and the party is not set up to be solely one party, it is "bipartisan." The term does not mean "equal numbers from all parties" even in Canada. Collect (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Support for Immigration

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

From Politico: Immigration's new ally An interesting article after all the discussion here about the Tea Party being agianst immigrants. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you overlooked the word "new" in the title of that article? The policies that TPm activists adopt henceforth does not change the factuality of the policies and positions that have been proclaimed heretofore.
It does demonstrate an evolutionary development in the TPm with respect to the issue of immigration.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It demonstrates that "anti-immigration" was quite likely never a key part of their positions. Collect (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we've never seen anywhere that it ever was. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no contradiction if the backers of astroturf Tea Party groups disagree with Tea Party values. (Revive America btw deny that they are meeting with Rubio.[35]) TFD (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Some tea party groups moved quickly to distance themselves from supporting the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration package just hours after the meeting with Rubio was reported.
Other Tea Party groups say Rubio has "betrayed" the movement, after they helped elect him. I'm not exactly seeing a sea change in Tea Partier's attitudes here. Some of the more "establishment" Tea Partiers may grudgingly go along with reform, but not because of a change of heart; it's the only remedy they see to prevent another trouncing by the increasingly large hispanic bloc of voters in 2014. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the entire related content of sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I suggest that where criticism is given with a specific source as a reference, and that source contains other material which balances the claim, that it misrepresents the source to only present the criticism - when we use a source, we use the entire source, and where the source has balancing comments, we also include those balancing comments in an article. I rathber think this is intrinsic to WP:NPOV which is a non-negotiable core principle of the project. Thus I made two edits top show why such nbalance from the sources is essential to the article at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Allegations_of_bigotry_in_the_Tea_Party. Collect (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The above had been posted at the moderated sub-page, but is moved here at SilkTork's suggestion. Anyone wished to view the discussion as it has already progressed should read that page first, as duplicating points seems less than fruitful. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, such a demand would only deserve consideration in the case that the claim of "the source has balancing comments" is deemed to be true.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not a "demand" it is pointing out the existence of WP:NPOV which is not a negotiable policy. Using only one side of a source is clearly violative of that precept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Note too that NPOV requires that appropriate weight be given to different opinions in sources. That does not mean that we "balance" mainstream views with fringe views. TFD (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying views you agree with within one source can be "mainstream" while the identical source is "fringe" for other views it also presents? How? Schizophrenic sources? Sorry -- if a source is reliable and mainstream, it is not "fringe" for the parts you do not like. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
TFD what fringe views are you talking about? It is unclear.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example. A reputable article about 911 may mention truthers. That does not mean every time we use that article as a source we mention the truther version. Good sources explain the relative weight of competing views, and we should reflect that in articles. We do not provide equal weight to the official and the truther version just because the "schizophrenic article" mentions both. The fact that a reliable source mentions a fringe view does not make it mainstream. TFD (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As that is not remotely near the question posed, I feel you may have misapprehended the question. A reliable source states A as a fact. It also states B as a fact as specifically related content. We can not take one statement as a fact without also recognizing the fact that the source also makes the other statement as a fact. I would think this is covered in Logic 101. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the idea of "fringe", I meant what do you say is fringe in the specific context of this article? What specifically must be kept out as fringe? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I was merely replying to Collect's hypothetical. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand what Collect is saying now. If a cited source gives balanced coverage of a criticism or controversial subject, an editor should not present just one half of what that source is conveying. That would be misrepresenting what the source says. We should use what the entire source says about the topic, not just a selected portion, to the neglect of balancing material. Did I get that right?

For example, take the topic of "Racial slurs heard by black Congressmen at a protest rally". A source, let's say The Washington Post for this example, tries to investigate the controversial matter of whether or not racial slurs were actually heard. Some people assert it never happened. The reliable investigating source, in support of the "it never happened" side of the argument notes:

  • If there is video or audio evidence of the racial slurs against Lewis and Carson, it has yet to emerge.

But, the source also notes, in support of the "it did happen" side of the argument:

  • Breitbart insists they "made it up." If so, they're good actors. Roxana Tiron, a reporter for the Hill newspaper, said she was talking with a congressional staffer inside a House entrance to the Capitol when a "trembling" and "agitated" Carson said he and Lewis had just been called the N-word by protesters outside. "He literally grabbed me by the arm and . . . said 'You need to come out with me,' " imploring her to step back outside to listen to the taunts. Post reporter Paul Kane was nearby and witnessed Carson's reaction. "It was real. It was raw. It was angry. It was emotional. And he wanted it documented," recalled Kane, who said U.S. Capitol Police prevented them from going outside.

So the source notes facts on both sides of the argument: recorded proof hasn't yet emerged, but the reporting witnesses were credible and would have to be good actors to have made it up. Collect is saying that to select only part of what the reliable source says about the topic would be misrepresentation of the source. Not that any editor would Actually. Do. That. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the case you cite was to add specifically the balancing material in the reliable source as the allegations were already in the article -- there is no need to "double dip" on "fact A" - the point is that eliding "fact B" is errant and contrary to NPOV. The edit I suggested did not remove any allegations, it only added the material which balanced some of them per the reliable source already being used in as neutral a manner as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No, Collect. The fact that Congressmen said they heard the slurs is not controversial, and was already in the article. The "controversy" being manufactured is whether or not they made it up, and you decided to add only one half of the Ombudman's statements in that matter. Your "balance" is off. Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Show me any edit where I removed the allegations. You can't. And since we already had the allegations in the article, sourced to the Ombudsman cite, and the Ombudsman addressed it in detail, it is silly and wrong to keep his specific comments about it our of the article. More specifically, the assertion about "spitting" - the Ombudsman specifically found the incident to have been improperly handled by the Washington Post. Yet you seem to wish to keep that trivial point out as well. NPOV requires a neutral point of view in articles -- and keeping out the "neutral" and balancing part from a source used for the primary claim is contrary to absolutely non-negotiable policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Once again, slowly and with comprehension, please:
  • Show me any edit where I removed the allegations. You can't.
I've never said you removed allegations, Collect, nor would I. Are you trying to change the subject?
  • And since we already had the allegations in the article, sourced to the Ombudsman cite, and the Ombudsman addressed it in detail, it is silly and wrong to keep his specific comments about it our of the article.
To be precise, the content in the article was sourced to multiple sources (including the Ombudsman). As for "silly and wrong" to keep his comments out: never happened. If you'll recall, I had no objection to leaving his comments in if you used his complete comments instead of just a cherry-picked portion of his comments on the matter. You are violating the very point you were trying to make in your first paragraph of this section. Want a second example? Here's one...
  • More specifically, the assertion about "spitting" - the Ombudsman specifically found the incident to have been improperly handled by the Washington Post. Yet you seem to wish to keep that trivial point out as well.
No, I do not "seem to wish" to keep that content out. (When you have to resort to whishy-washy wording like 'seem to wish', that should be a clue to you that you are straying from the realm of fact.) I had no objection to leaving his comments in if you used his complete comments instead of just a cherry-picked portion of his comments on the matter. See my edit here, for example -- note the Ombudsman comments are there, intact and complete (instead of partial and cherry-picked) in our article.
  • NPOV requires a neutral point of view in articles -- and keeping out the "neutral" and balancing part from a source used for the primary claim is contrary to absolutely non-negotiable policy.
I agree 100%. So why don't you? Why are you negotiating to keep out the neutral and balancing part from the Ombudsman while adding only your cherry-picked partial content from the Ombudsman? Use the complete comments on the matter from the source, Collect, or do not use any -- but do not simply cherry-pick from the source only those that advance a particular narrative. "I rather think this is intrinsic to WP:NPOV which is a non-negotiable core principle of the project." If you still have confusion over the matter, just let me know and we can go over it yet again in even more detail.
  • Cheers.
Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nothing specific, just want to see some edits.

One week idle -- with all that's going on? SMH. †TE†Talk 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party protesters at IRS site

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here's a photo for possible inclusion in this heavily protected (oh boy -- never seen this before in Wikipedia but I can understand why it happens) article.

 
Activists, including proponents of the Tea Party as well as Fair Tax, at IRS facility in Mountainside, New Jersey on May 21, 2013, protesting IRS targeting of partisan groups.
Not really much going on there. Are you in it or something? †TE†Talk 01:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
How often do you see people protesting the IRS? Personally, I have never seen it yet. Photo taken by James M. Bennett of Tea Party activists protesting IRS Diamondhead Building in Mountainside, New Jersey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, I am not in this photo. I am not really a Tea Party-er, but I support a (mostly) nonpartisan proposal to reform the IRS called the Fair Tax. There are references in the NY Times about Tea Party protesters protesting IRS sites around the nation on May 21, 2013.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy. Could someone please change the text for the last ref of the first paragraph in the article from:
<ref name="sfexaminer">{{Cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |title=Tea parties are flash crowds Obama should fear |date=March 19, 2009 |newspaper=[[The San Francisco Examiner]] |first=Mark |last=Tapscott |accessdate=June 16, 2009}}{{dead link|date=August 2011}}</ref>
to:
<ref name="sfexaminer">{{Cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |title=Tea parties are flash crowds Obama should fear |date=March 19, 2009 |newspaper=[[The San Francisco Examiner]] |first=Mark |last=Tapscott |accessdate=June 16, 2009 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20090419142317/http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |archivedate=April 19, 2009 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>
--Rockfang (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

hemming and hawing

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

instead of that, say that there's ...no officially sanctioned central leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.6 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

12 May edit request

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

If you would please be so kind:

  • In the "Leadership and groups" section, IMHO the organization "non-section" headings should be in sentence case (e.g., "501(c)(4) non-profit organizations" and "For-profit businesses" for the current "501(c)(4) Non-Profit Organizations" and "For-Profit Businesses", etc.).
  • In the same section "The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition" external link should be converted to a reference.
  • In the "Public opinion" section's subsection titles ("2010 Polling" and "2012 Polling"), change the word "Polling" to "polling" (sentence case, as above).
  • In the "Use of term "teabagger"" subsection, delete the double quotation marks bracketing A Way with Words, as the title is (properly) already italicized.
  • Lastly, I suggest changing the {{Portal}} template to a {{Portal box}} template and moving it to the bottom of the "See also" section, as it currently is impinging on the "References" section (at least, in my browser).
—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
All done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I made a mistake. -_-;;; When I wrote "{{Portal box}} template", I meant "{{Portal bar}} template"; also, portals belong in the "See also", not the "External links" section, per WP:ALSO.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello?—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article will be unlocked soon. I will take a look at the situation tomorrow, and if it looks OK probably unlock then. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah—okay. Thanks. ^_^—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Influence of Koch Industries

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Main article: Political activities of the Koch brothers

Only one(1) mention of Tea Party movement in main article, and it's how organizations founded by the Kochs before the Tea Party movement, have become part of the movement.

Does this deserve a sub-section, really? †TE†Talk 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to explain in the article the influence of corporate interests in some Tea Party organizations. It might be helpful to combine them, and then there would be no need to link to the other article. TFD (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Funny, corporate and union dollars need to be out of politics. No argument there. †TE†Talk 01:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Misleading sentence not in citation

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the intro section last paragraph states 'By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of mailing tea bags to legislators and other officials as a symbolic act.[25]'

This is referenced as from http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/23/news/mn-25661

From the article itself this is the part that spawned the above sentence:

Phil Valentine, 42, is a sometime actor, sometime singer and a guy who likes to dress up like Elvis and pass out doughnuts on the streets of Nashville. His afternoon talk show on WLAC is ranked No. 1 in the market. The two use unorthodox methods--like steering protesters to lawmakers' homes and telling listeners to mail their legislators used tea bags. (The Boston Tea Party, get it?) They see themselves as a conservative counterweight to a typically liberal media.'

...

Not sure why this sentencebelongs in the intro section, but even if its kept, lets at least change the sentence to something that remotely resembles the source.

My suggestion:

An Elvis impersonator and radio talk-show host in Nashville encouraged listeners to mail used tea bags to their legislators in 2001 to counterweight the typically liberal media.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

the King has nothing to do with this article, thank you very mush. Phil is many things, no reason to include them all here. It would be like describing Elvis as a Federal Agent and singer. Elvis Meets Nixon. the article title, Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax. [36], not pretend Elvis goes to Washington... Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that:
A Nashville radio personality in 2001 suggested that listeners mail tea bags to local legislators.
Appears to be about as much as we can reasonably say. Yes? Collect (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of duplicated sentence

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see your point. But this overview is also an overview of perceptions. Also, the lead should summarize the article, and so being in the lead does not preclude it from being in the article. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - dubious phrase in Use of term "teabagger" section

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

I looked at the first part of this section and came across:

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Scenes from the New American Tea Party" Washington Independent, February 27, 2009; Retrieved April 24, 2010.
  2. ^ Alex Koppelman Your guide to teabagging Salon.com; April 14, 2009
  3. ^ The evolution of the word 'tea bagger'; The Week; May 5, 2010

Now, looking at that and the sources given, this part of that section is true: "conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites"; but nowhere is there any evidence for this sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers." They used the term (one article says "innocently embraced the term"), but nowhere do these articles say they referred to themselves as teabaggers; they used teabag as a verb to refer to others and as a form of protest (e.g. "sending tea bags to elected officials", "Tea bag the fools in DC").

I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has some editors who will intentionally game the system as a means to disparage their political opposition. They will waste hours of your time protecting their properly sourced additions while totally disregarding notability, NPOV and weight concerns. Eventually, this pattern of disruptive behavior leads to edit-warring and the article becomes even more damaged in the fog of war. It's a sad thing, but what can you do? †TE†Talk 11:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
ThinkEnemies, those are edits of mine to which you have linked. In what way is there "gaming of the system"? The edits were made in compliance not only with WP:RS, but also with "notability"{sic}, NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I'd really like an answer to that. I have no "political opposition", by the way - I'm not a politician. Your use of terms like "opposition" and "disparage" don't make sense here (although I do find it informative when you, and certain others, repeatedly use such verbiage). Instead of trying to assign some nefarious hidden motive to my edits, why not just look at the edit that preceded mine by just minutes? It adds this text to the "Teabagger" section: Conservative members of the party do not use term, rather the left has adopted the term as a joke. I saw that edit and immediately knew it contradicted the cited sources, so I added clarifying text and sources that TPers did use the phrase, do use the phrase and even want to reclaim the phrase. So I wasn't pushing a POV, I was undoing someone elses POV edit to bring the article back into NPOV compliance with what reliable sources convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks, I don't know what y'all are bickering about, but my concern still stands. (And I don't care who put it in or why, or who does or doesn't have an ax to grind. User:Xenophrenic, the diff User:ThinkEnemies linked to doesn't have you sticking in the phrase I find offending, so I don't know why he referenced that diff.) The sources are correct for the other sentences, but, as it stands the "Members of the movement ...referred to themselves as teabaggers" part is false. They never referred to themselves as teabaggers, though they did use the verb. So can we get back on point and stop pointing fingers. Either find a reliable source or remove the un-factual sentence. (The part "Members of the movement adopted the term" can stay, I guess, though I think it's unclear, but I still can't find a reliable source that shows "Members of the movement ...referred to themselves as teabaggers.") TuckerResearch (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that text was considered supported by the "The Week" piece. If not, it shouldn't be hard to dig up other sources. [37], [38] It's also possible that editors consider use of "teabag/teabagger/teabagging" in its sexual connotation to be generally the same thing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Good, you found a source. Could someone then put one of those sources in after that sentence? And, to forestall any future problems, could someone make the sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and some referred to themselves as teabaggers."? (If this page was unlocked, I'd've stuck a "citation needed" tag on the sentence.) TuckerResearch (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
When this article is unlocked, much will be fixed. †TE†Talk 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm only concerned with that one sentence I thought dubious. The two new sources User:Xenophrenic found (listed above) are proof enough to me that some Tea Partiers at first used the term to refer to themselves. (And, I think it's apparent that some Tea Partiers used the term as a verb, cognizant and incognizant of its disparaging meaning.) I do agree with you, however, that most media outlets and liberal commentators who use the phrase aren't doing it innocently, and not just humorously, but in a derogatory manner.
I would thus recommend the following for this section (if some damned administrator will ever do it or unlock the page—the length of this "protection" seems egregious to me):

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as "teabaggers."[1][2][3] Shortly thereafter, however, news media and progressive commentators outside the movement began to use the term mockingly and derisively, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the derogatory joke.[4][5][3] It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors.[6] Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed.[3] Grant Barrett, co-host of the A Way with Words radio program, has listed teabagger as a 2009 buzzword meaning, "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[7]

References

  1. ^ Nussbaum, David (14 Apr 2010). "I'm Proud to Be a Tea Bagger". Breitbart.com: Big Government. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  2. ^ Weigel, David (10 November 2009). "The Slur That Must Not Be Named". The Washington Independent. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  3. ^ a b c "The evolution of the word 'tea bagger'". The Week. 5 May 2010. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  4. ^ Weigel, David (27 February 2009). "Scenes from the New American Tea Party". The Washington Independent. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  5. ^ Koppelman, Alex (14 April 2009). "Your guide to teabagging". Salon.com. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  6. ^ "Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor". FOX News. April 7, 2010. Retrieved September 9, 2010.
  7. ^ Leibovich, Mark (19 December 2009). "The Buzzwords of 2009". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-06-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
How's that? Fair enough for all sides? (I've also spruced up the citations, using proper citation templates.) TuckerResearch (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not just say that the term "teabagger" is sometimes used as a disparaging term for Tea Party supporters? None of the rest of it seems important. TFD (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well TFD, it seems all fringe opinions need their place. Encyclopedic value is in trivial details. †TE†Talk 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuckerresearch Those sources don't even try to make a case that Tea Partiers first called themselves "teabaggers." Using "Tea Bag" as a verb definitely opened them up to ridicule and should be noted. †TE†Talk 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, I think it's best to talk about the origin, evolution, and use of the term, rather than just mention it. User:ThinkEnemies, I don't believe this is trivia. And, I believe that the section as it now stands is incorrect, and the change I am proposing makes it correct. As it stands now, there is no source and it seems as if all Tea Partiers once called themselves Tea Baggers. This is demonstrably false. But User:Xenophrenic has found proper sources for the contention that at least some Tea Partiers called themselves "Teabaggers." Now, I do agree with your contentions that liberals mock Tea Partiers with the term, and they are trying to absolve themselves of blame for being sophomoric name-callers by pointing out it's prior use, but I think the section as I've re-written it is factually correct. If you have any sources or suggestions for ensuring people know that most Tea Partiers do not use the term, I welcome that and I'd incorporate it. Also, how about I change the sentence, "Shortly thereafter, however, news media and progressive commentators outside the movement began..." to "News media and progressive commentators outside the movement began..."? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No, those sources show a knee-jerk reaction by a conservative to own the derogatory term less than a week later. It should go something like cons used verb, libs ridiculed them, cons offended, few on both sides tried to spin it, nobody cares in the long run. Done. †TE†Talk 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:ThinkEnemies, find me some sources showing the timeline as you surmise. As the paragraph stands as I've re-written it, it's factually correct, even if your proposed timeline is correct. And you really can't dispute that. (And before you accuse me of anything, I'm a conservative; and, remember, I started this section because I believed there was no proof any Tea Partier ever called themselves a Tea Bagger. I was mistaken. And, PS, you're right, there is a systematic liberal bias on Wikipedia, because most of it's editors are liberal. I mean, just compare this article to the Occupy movement article, or the Obama article to Bush's....) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Tuckerresearch, Sentence 2 is factually incorrect. Never happened. Not before David Wiegel snapped the 'tea bag them before they tea bag you' picture and Maddow, Olbermann, Cooper, etc., started with the double entendre stuff a week or two later. That's when "teabagger" was born. Everything after is based on reactions to the usage of the slur. What's notable. Then it's pretty well dead and on next section. I haven't looked for sources. Maybe once this page get unlocked I'll find the inspiration. No pending changes for me. †TE†Talk 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
User:ThinkEnemies, I just decided to tell you what side I'm on since you seem to jump all over people for being on the other side. (So don't get all high-and-mighty with me.) And, I'm sorry, but "Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as 'teabaggers'" is a correct sentence whether you like it or not, whether Wigel snapped a picture or not and whether Maddow is a bitch or not. Did "some members of the movement adopt the term"? Yep. Whether wittingly or unwittingly. Did some "refer to themselves as 'teabaggers'"? Yep. Whether they were cognizant or incognizant of the term's sexual connotation; and whether they were using it ironically. So, I'm sorry: the second sentence as I've suggested it is factually correct. In deference to your entirely plausible (and probably factually correct contention) with the timeline of events, I took out the "shortly thereafter" bit. And, finally, if you don't care about this, and you don't care about that, and if you're so uninspired, why are you picking fights with me about about something you don't care about? TuckerResearch (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Still factually incorrect. I'm just telling you. "Teabagger" was first used to ridicule. Maybe a few cons tried to spin it, "yeah I'm a teabagger, what of it?" "Yeah, they call it Obamacare. I like that. Obama CARES." You will not find a source to say otherwise. If it existed, the echo chamber wouldn't need a sign and "Tea Bag DC" campaign as "they started it." †TE†Talk 03:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Still factually true. Even if a liberal used teabagger first, when some Tea Partier used it ("Yeah I'm a teabagger, what of it?"; "Tea bag DC before DC tea bags you!") mockingly, ironically, unwittingly, trying to own it, whatever, then "Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as 'teabaggers'" is a true sentence. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Even if notable enough to add the "own it" people, that comes after media established it and cons condemned it. I'm sure Breitbart is part of both, first condemning and then trying to rally behind it. Still, as it stands, sentence 2 is factually incorrect. †TE†Talk 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I just checked Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Movement. Not protected, not even semi-protection. Does that show how civil liberals are or how civil they're not? I'm going with the latter. †TE†Talk 03:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. To quote William F. Buckley: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
True. †TE†Talk 03:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In light of all the above comments, and the limited notability of the term (except as a derogatory attack or form of mockery by opponents), I suggest cutting down the length of that paragraph and moving it to the sub-article we are creating. [39] It should be added at the end of that article, in a new section.

The term "teabagger" was used after a protester was photographed with a placard using "tea bag" as a verb, referring to the practice of mailing tea bags to legislators as a form of tax protest. Those opposed to the movement started using the sexually-charged term "teabagger" shortly thereafter.[33][34] It is routinely used by opponents as a derogatory term to refer to conservative protestors.[35] The New York Times describes the word as "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[36]

Thoughts and comments, please. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It should resemble something close to that. †TE†Talk 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well... I tried, but someone changed it back to the previous wording, even though it is incorrect. I tried. Good luck everybody. This article is atrociously biased against the Tea Party. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

weight of anonymous

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A democrat releases a potion of an interview with an anonymous conservative republican who says the white house is not involved. what does this have to do with the tea party? [40] Darkstar1st (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. I would elaborate on why certain editors give undue weight to content which pushes their preferred narrative, but I'm all about AGFing in the name of self-preservation. †TE†Talk 12:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wording

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Can we please get rid of the statement " Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement"? It's uncited and has POV written all over it.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 22:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The statement is an introduction (and partial paraphrase) to a substantial body of material addressing the Constitution that had been posted to the agenda section from three papers by legal scholars. And there are one or two other such papers by legal scholars on the same topic that hadn't even been mentioned. That material had been revert-warred out, leaving only that sentence.
The issue of the Constitution will be addressed in due time, but I'm too busy at the moment to devote sufficient time to it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The Tea Party is not the only political group that is "committed" to the US Constitution, and the way this article is currently worded implies that it is. That's my issue.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your statement is somewhat incoherent. To what does "committed" in quotes refer? Meanwhile, there are a number of sources that support the statement. The very first source cited in the article includes the following paragraph, of which a part is quoted in the text of the (ref) for that source.

It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership. But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation’s founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected. “I think it’s some loose, ill-informed version of originalism, but it’s plausible,” said Professor Kramer, the author of “The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.”

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I would accept that the TPm (I can't find the right word for a many-many correspondence of views) a version of (Constitutional) originalism. ("Ill-informed" seems inappropriate, even if it were accurate.) Saying that it/they espouse originalism would be wrong. This is not much different from the stable text, and we can probably provide a number of sources, if necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Notte: As "strict adherence to the Constitution" is not found in the body of the article, I removed "strict" as requiring actual sourcing. "Adherence" appears quite sufficient, and is in accord with the body of the article. Collect (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You might be right but (not sure if you saw it) there was talk on the other page where SilkTork indicated to go back to the last stable version. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow, talk about incivility Ubikwit. And your sources may make the argument that the TPM is a constitutionalist movement, but it is not the only one and neither the TPM, nor their area of the political spectrum has a monopoly on support of the constitution. I will not sit ideally by while a handful of authors push an article that implies such a thing. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You have made a personal attack by accusing me of being uncivil, and there was obviously no consent on your deleting that sentence. Furthermore, you have misrepresented my statements, and not responded to questions seeking clarification your unclear statements.
You are acting in a unilateral manner in support of an unsupported POV, and I would suggest that you self-revert that edit. The fact that there are sources that support the statement has been demonstrated to you in no uncertain terms, and has been recognized by at least one other participant in the discussion.
I have notified you of the moderated discussion, which has been mentioned several times recently here, and have informed Silk Tork of the non-consensus POV-pushing edit and remark about incivility.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It was uncivil. You called my statement "incoherent". And seeing as how you've been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, I'm not entirely surprised. No offence.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 21:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Further, there's nothing POV about my edit. The TPM is by no means the only political group in the United States that identify as constitutionalists. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Your statement is incoherent, as it doesn't seem to relate to the textual issue you have raised. First, where does it say that the TPm activists "identify as constitutionalists" in that text? Second, this article is about the TPm, not other political groups, so your assertion that the TPm should not be described in terms of one attribute because other groups share that attribute is inadmissible sophistry.
The fact of the matter is that several commentators have pointed out the the TPm lacks a detailed agenda, and that the Constitution is the one subject to which they repeatedly make recourse. That makes them very different from other political groups, which general promulgate a platform to inform the public and attract adherents.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Different from other political groups, or in your opinion more special? Because your description of the TPM reeks of POV. Ok, I'll simplify all this. I'm assuming most of you are significantly older than I am, so I'm sure you remember the Bush years. During the Bush years, it was the liberal democrats that believed they were more in line with the US Constitution. Associated groups like the ACLU sounded the alarms regarding the Bill of Rights for years up until 2008, as since then, the US has had a DNC government. So what happened then? The conservatives took that post. But instead of civil liberties, they claim to be defending the more economic aspects of the C (i.e. in their opposition to Obamacare). Conservatives, after all, care about their rights just as much as liberals, but they care more about economic freedom and gun rights more than they care about civil liberties. My point is that ever since about 2003, whoever was in opposition at the time claimed to be the movement that better adhered to the Constitution. The TPM really isn't all that different, except that each group has portions of the USC they like better. Liberals are more likely to defend the First Amendment, particularly the "establishment clause". Conservatives, like many members of the TPM, are more likely to worry about violations of the "free exercise" clause and especially the Second & states rights amendments. There is no political group that is committed to the defense of the constitution equally across the board and to say that the TPM is somehow this exceptional group that has taken the role as the first is just bananas.EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 04:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Targeting by IRS

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

I saw the breaking story today about the Internal Revenue Service improperly targeting Tea Party groups for scrutiny (Washington Post. New York Times). In what section of the article should this be covered - "Commentary by the Obama administration"? Kelly hi! 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be under a section "Relationship with the IRS" to be absolutely NPOV, I suspect. Collect (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More news today that senior IRS officials were aware, from the Associated Press. Kelly hi! 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

doesn't really seem significant.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Major coverage indicates it should be covered here -- see the NYT columns on it. This is not a trivial event. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that someone has created an article - IRS Tea Party investigation. Should it be summarized into a section here? Kelly hi! 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We are conducting a survey of editors to determine consensus for adding a section to the article mainspace to cover this. Survey is here: [41] below. Your participation would be appreciated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I propose adding the following section to the main article mainspace, directly beneath the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section:

===IRS 'harassment' of Tea Party groups===
In May 2013, the Associated Press and The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately "flagged" Tea Party groups and other conservative groups for review of their applications for tax-exempt status during the 2012 election. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency, and triggered multiple investigations.[1]
Some groups were asked for donor lists, which is usually a violation of IRS policy. Groups were also asked for details about family members and about their postings on social networking sites. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized on behalf of the IRS and stated, "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate."[2][3] Testifying before Congress in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied that the groups were being targeted based on their political views.[2][3]
Tom Zawistowski, who served as president of an Ohio coalition of Tea Party groups, said, "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted." Zawistowski's group applied for tax-exempt status in July 2009, but it wasn't granted until December 2012, one month after the election.[2] Lerner stated that about 300 groups were "flagged" for additional review, and about one quarter of these were due to the use of "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications.[2][3] Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, called on the Obama Administration to apologize to these groups for "harassment by the IRS in 2012," and "ensure this never happens again."[2]
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, rejected the apology as insufficient, demanding “ironclad guarantees from the I.R.S. that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.”[3]
  1. ^ Altman, Alex (2013-05-14). "The Real IRS Scandal | TIME.com". Swampland.time.com. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  2. ^ a b c d e Ohlemacher, Stephen. IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Groups. Associated Press, May 10, 2013.
  3. ^ a b c d Weisman, Jonathan. "I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption." The New York Times, May 10, 2013.
We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and it should include the comments by Axelrod that the government is "too big" for Obama to be aware of everything. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It would have been helpful to provide links to the sources sited. Also it is not necessary to provide in-text mention of sources of facts. Words in 'scare quotes' should not be used in headings, since they raise the question of who is using the term. Comparing the text with a summary provided by the CSM,[42] I find a few apparent inaccuracies in the text. The IRS did not flag the 75 groups for review of their tax-exempt status. Instead they flagged new applications for tax-exempt status for new Tea Party groups formed in the run-up to the 2012 election. Groups whose main activity is support of political candidates and parties are ineligible for tax-exempt status. The CSM does not say that asking for donor lists is a "violation of IRS policy", just that it is not typically required. I do not see either the need to quote so many people. Just citing Republican and Tea Party sources makes it appear that they are the only ones who hold that opinion. Why not just summarize the general reaction to the story - that the IRS has abused its power by failing to be "nonpolitical, nonpartisan and neutral." TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
TFD, inline citations were provided; quotes from conservatives and apologies from IRS executives are the only quotes I can find, although Axelrod's statement that "the government is so big, Obama can't be aware of everything" would be appropriate, don't you think? That seems to be the only quote from a notable progressive that's available. And according to the AP, asking for donor lists is a violation of IRS policy. In the first paragraph, I've added the words "applications for" (boldfaced above) so that it reads, "applications for tax-exempt status." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are "popped out" links to the three sources cited for TFD to review: Associated Press — The New York Times — TIME magazine. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The preceding was copied from the moderated discussion. Additional "votes" may be added below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Support as this has received tons of coverage. But I don't think we need scare quotes around harassement. Even left-of-center sources seem to agree.[43][44]William Jockusch (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose harassment? res ipsa POV just in the wording there. not seeing much in the way of mainstream RS backing up the rightists' harassment/targeting/conspiracy theories. 'columns' (editorials, opinions) in RS newspapers don't count the way an objective article would. and POV commentators like glenn beck and sean hannity aren't WP reliable sources. it remains to be seen if this was ideological 'targeting' or if it was (as irs staff have said) due to the flood of political-activist organizations suddenly filing for 501(c)(4) status --which is the human services / social welfare organization classification. such leaping to strongly support so soon smells like POV. find some RS that show that there's really a there in there. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

It's been nearly two weeks since there was any activity in the preceding discussion regarding the proposed new section on "IRS harassment," so I suggest that we have consensus and the proposed edit is uncontroversial. Please add the material to the article mainspace, below the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section. Also: We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done, with no prejudice against further tweaks if there is consensus for them. Thanks for your work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

17th Amendment

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

It's in the specified source, but it's completely implausible. If this article weren't subject to sanctions, a rational approach would be to question the reliability of the source, based on the obvious mistake. It certainly doesn't seem to be a core position of the TPM, unlike the others mentioned in that sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you think it is an important policy? Last December TeaParty.org called for the repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Tea Party Nation supports the repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Tea Party backed Mike Lee supported repealing the 14th and 17th amendments during his Senate campaign as did at least three other Tea Party backed politicians. The NYT, LA Times and CNN have all mentioned it is a Tea Party policy. Then we have "The 'Repeal The 17th' movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure"; that's from the Tea Party's own Talking Points Memo. Or how about "the two constitutional reform proposals that have gained the most support in Tea Party circles: the Repeal Amendment and the effort to abolish the Seventeenth Amendment". Now that I've checked sources I'm puzzled why there is no mention of the Tea Party's support for the repealing of the 14th amendment in the article. Wayne (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


It seems like a few proposed it in 2010 and the main TPM response was against it. The article says that the TPM proposed it. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


[45] seems pretty much accurate:

the Tea Party movement, whose members in several states have been calling for repealing the amendment — and making something of a political mess in the process. And yet, as the blog Talking Points Memo reported, the proposal recently became an issue in pivotal House campaigns in Idaho and Ohio, where two of the Republican Party’s most highly recruited candidates got caught up in the moment and declared themselves for repeal, only to try to back off from it later. ... To be fair, on the to-do list of the Tea Party types, the idea ranks well behind calls to curtail spending and roll back taxes.

Thus we might end up with

A vocal group of TPM activists in several states has supported repeal of the 17th Amendement, though it ranks well below curtailing spending and tax reduction as an issue.

Sounds about right. Collect (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We should be having this discussion at the moderated discussion page, as the Constitution is up.
Meanwhile, though the text of the reverted subsection "The Constitution" in the Agenda section has been based almost exclusively on legal journal sources, there are numerous others. With regard to the seventeenth Amendment, there are numerous articles in the NYT alone, not just one. And one such article has led to the discovery of another recently published book (2012) that addresses the TPm in depth, by a historian published by Oxford University Press, described at the end of the following.
Here are the results of a NYT search for regarding repealing the seventeenth Amendment [46], which include the article cited aboveTea Party’s Push on Senate Election Exposes Limits
Another NYT search for seventeenth amendment and tea party yields[47]
Among which there is thisEnlist, but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution
And thisHistory vs. the Tea Party
Which includes these passages:

This is all the more puzzling because the Tea Party movement did not lack for useful precedents or operating models. On the contrary, it is “the latest in a cycle of insurgencies on the Republican right,” as the historian Geoffrey Kabaservice writes in his new book, “Rule and Ruin,” a chronicle of half a century of internecine Republican warfare. “Even the name of the movement was a throwback to the ‘T Parties’ of the early ’60s, part of the right-wing, anti-tax crusade of that era.”

Of course, the Tea Party faithful also claim that theirs is a movement of ideas, in many cases the same ideas that Goldwater and Reagan espoused. But they tend to emphasize quixotic crusades — the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established the election of United States senators by popular vote, or Representative Ron Paul’s mission to abolish the Federal Reserve. Beyond this, “candidates who claimed the mantle of fiscal conservatism had no real plans for reducing government expenditures beyond the conservative pursuit of politics-as-warfare,” Mr. Kabaservice writes. They favor “cutting programs that benefited Democratic constituencies while preserving programs that benefited Republican constituencies and avoiding any serious reform of defense spending or middle-class entitlement programs.”

Kabaservice is the author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party (Studies in Postwar American Political Development), Oxford University Press, USA (January 4, 2012)

Geoffrey Kabaservice is the author of the National Book Award-nominated The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment. He has written for numerous national publications and has been an assistant professor of history at Yale University. He lives outside Washington, DC.

Aside from that body of sources, the article in Salon Repeal the 17th Amendment! sets forth many direct quote from Senators and other politicians affiliated with the TPm speaking in support. One could easily turn up more sources by googling each of those quotes, etc.
It could hardly be limited merely to "a vocal group", as it comprises TPm leaders from across the spectrum and across the country; moreover, it is only one of several issues directly relating to the Constitution, including the repeal of other Amendments.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not some in the TPM espoused it......some did, many opposed. The issue is the wording which essentially says that the (overall) Tea Party proposed it. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Amending the 14th and repealing the 16th seem to be core positions of the TPM and/or of most TPM groups; the 17th seems a minority position, if not fringe, among TPM groups. (For what it's worth, a friend of mine, who seems to be left of all presidents since FDR, has come out in favor of amending the 14th. I don't know if the position is exactly mainstream, but it would be irrational to say that it's far-right.) And I'm afraid I don't believe it rational to expect legal scholars to understand the difference; law review journals are generally reliable sources as to the consequences of proposed legal changes, but not as to who has the opinion that the law should be changed, and what groups they belong to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
And I don't agree that the moderated talk page is the appropriate venue; Constitutional issues have come up, but this wording is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion regarding the Constitution at the moderated discussion, and I would suggest that you stop by there and read Silk Tork's recent posts.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict):That's an unsourced assertion. Where are the sources to support that statement? A good deal of the discussion here has sounded like WP:OR. I'm no expert on the TPm, but considering all the people mentioned in the above sources (I don't actually know how many of them are activists, supported politicians, or simply sympathetic with the TPm), and in light of the fact that as of yet I haven't seen a statement anywhere of TPm expressing opposition to repealing this or any of the other Amendments, I need to see sources produced in the course of discussion.
In addition, since many of the politicians and others, including Supreme Court justice Scalia, who have voiced support have done so in the name of states' rights vis-avis the federal government, so it sounds part and parcel of the generally hostile tenor of the TPm policies toward the federal government and promotion of so-called federalism. Which brings me to the next point, that being the libertarian law professor that is sympathetic to the TPm and has drafted proposals aimed articulating aspects of the agenda as he perceives it Repeal_Amendment#Repeal_Amendment and Repeal_Amendment#Bill_of_Federalism. The sixteenth Amendment seems to be his main target as far as repealing goes.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding whether the discussion should go here vs. the moderated discussion, I really don't care except to note that that would involve spitting the thread.North8000 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Bolding added later. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
"Uncourced" actually applies three times over in reverse to the way that you seeking to apply it. First, it applies to article space, not the talk page, and something that is in article spaces is being challenged. Second, per wp:ver, wp:nor and wp:burden, the sourcing requirement is for retention of material, not for removal of it. Third, the far-reaching statement that is currently in the article (that the (overall) Tea Party proposed this) is NOT in the source provided and actually conflicts with the source provided. The sentence that mentions the Seventeenth states TPM agenda items, and repeal of the 17th is NOT included in that. It gives efforts to repeal the seventeenth merely as reflecting on the listed agenda items. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
First, let me say that the entire paragraph containing the sentence that has been raised here is in need of revision, and the Constitution needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Incidentally, I did not write the sentence at issue.
Meanwhile, the sentence

The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments[30] to the Constitution.

does not contain the statement (or inference) that the far-reaching statement that is currently in the article (that the (overall) Tea Party proposed this). Are we talking about the same sentence?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Is the Tea Party a movement or an uncoordinated rabble? If it is being promoted then it is irrelevant how many of the members opposed repealing the 17th. We can no more say "a vocal group of TPM activists in several states has supported repeal" than we can say "a vocal group of Democrat activists in several states has supported universal health care" in the Democrat article. Wayne (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection: the source does not say that

Ubikwit, I object to the edit you've just made. The source you've cited (Florida Law Review) does not say, "The Tea Party movement has invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. The Tea Party movement is engaged in 'popular originalism' ..." What your source actually says is this: "Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in 'popular originalism' ..." The distinction is subtle but it's extremely important. The author took great pains to avoid painting the entire TPM with a broad "constitutional originalism" brush. Therefore Wikipedia should take great pains to avoid it as well. I encourage you to not only self-revert, but remove all of the "its own view" material that has been added, restoring this far less controversial version of the lede sentence:

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.

Before undertaking any changes at all to the lede of the article, or any substantial alteration of the rest of the article, I encourage all participants to seek and obtain consensus for the edit prior to making the edit in mainspace. There's been too much editwarring on this article, and it's under discretionary sanctions. Tread more lightly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the cited source says exactly that. From the introduction: "The Tea Party movement is therefore engaged in “popular originalism”—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method." I doubt Ubikwit was citing just the abstract in support of his edit. As for the lede sentence you prefer, that is problematic, as the movement's actions contradict what it claims to advocate. A more accurate wording is certainly needed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
"Engaged in" doesn't necessarily mean "adopted as a core belief across the entire movement." To claim that these two statements mean exactly the same thing is WP:SYNTH. This section, at the beginning of the article and with so much WP:WEIGHT, needs to contain precise language that is clearly supported, in a rock solid way, by multiple reliable sources. I've heard that the wording in the lede that says "strict adherence to the Constitution" was worked out during mediation a long time ago. Let's just leave that alone, at least for now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If you read the article beyond just the quoted sentence you'll see that it does indeed describe the movement. No WP:SYNTH involved. If you feel different wording would more precisely convey what reliable sources say, please propose it. The "strict adherence to the Constitution" wording is inaccurate as shown above, and was never the subject of mediation. Since as far back as 2010, the lede stated that the movement adheres to an originalist view of the Constitution. In 2012, that text was watered down starting with this edit, and "originalist" was eventually edited out. The mediation you "heard" about was over the "grassroots/astroturf" descriptions, and the result was that both descriptions would appear in the lede: Mediation result. Note the "originalist" description that remained untouched before, during and long after the mediation. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago61 comments12 people in discussion

In terms of additional sources, it seems a bit curious that Perrin 2011 isn't cited in the article (as best I can tell). It's one of the more prominent academic studies of the movement, so insofar as independent, reliable, scholarly sources are valued here it seems worth including. In particular, it bears on the movement's relationship to the Constitution, a topic of recent debate here. I don't regularly edit or read this talkpage, so forgive me if it's already been discussed. MastCell Talk 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a relevant book. If you have read it or have it, take a look at the related discussion at the moderated page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Agenda_section_and_subsection_entitled_.22The_Constitution.22, where the debate on the Constitution is ongoing.
There are a lot of sources, including several academic studies, and more input from those would be useful, no doubt. I don't have the book, and wouldn't have time to read it even if I did have a copy. This is something of a monumental task, and needs to be a joint undertaking.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's actually not a book, but rather a scholarly article in Contexts, a fairly well-regarded sociology journal. I hesitate to quote from the article, for fear of cherry-picking, but the authors have the following to say about the movement:
  • "[W]e determined that there are four primary cultural dispositions among people in those states who feel positively toward the TPM: authoritarianism, ontological insecurity, libertarianism, and nativism."
  • "The TPM is best understood as a new cultural expression of the late-20th century Republican Party, reinforcing pre-existing strands of nativism and ontological insecurity, while highlighting libertarian and authoritarian strands."
  • "In our follow-up poll, 84 percent of those who felt positively toward the TPM said the Constitution should be interpreted 'as the Founders intended,' compared to only 34 percent of other respondents. But this support is not absolute. The Tea Partiers were twice as likely to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That they simultaneously want to honor the founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on. The TPM supporters' inconsistent views suggest they are animated more by a network of Constitutional cultural associations than a commitment to the original text."
The last quote, in particular, seems to bear on the question of "strict adherence to the Constitution". As to participating in the discussion, I've seen enough of the Arbitration case and some of the associated personalities and dynamics to conclude that I'd rather poke my eyes out with a spoon than get drawn in. I'll limit myself to mentioning this scholarly source as potentially worthy of inclusion (conversely, I'd be interested to hear rationales for not including it). MastCell Talk 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm intrigued. How one can be both libertarian and authoritarian is puzzling. As is proclaiming a position that the constitution should be interpreted "as the Founders intended" somehow stands in stark contrast with believing in the legislative process of repealing and enacting new amendments. They actually go together quite well. Nativism and ontological insecurity also seem like fun times. †TE†Talk 01:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not exactly unheard of that people hold contradictory or internally inconsistent beliefs - cognitive dissonance. The concept of authoritarian libertarianism is quite old and well described.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you on cognitive dissonance, but WTH is authoritarian libertarianism? Oxymoron comes to mind. †TE†Talk 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[48], free link. ButButNo! (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The term "libertarian" is often used in the U.S. to refer to an extreme form of neoclassical liberalism which indeed may be authoritarian, especially when it is threatened. Tea Partiers believe that the courts have misinterpreted the Constitution and hence new amendments are required. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights for example that says one may burn a flag, but Supreme Court rulings mean that a constitutional amendment is necessary to allow legislatures to enact laws which Tea Party supporters believe they already have a right to enact. If you do not like the term "nativist", can you suggest another? TFD (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
MastCell, I am not too keen on this type of source. It is an original study, and we need to see that it has become incorporated into the literature to see what weight it has. TFD (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thats pretty much nonsense - not allowing academic sources and relying on news papers and popular press instead? Thats completely backwards- we use the academic sources as they are published and try to present those views in accordance to the weight they are given. with limited academic coverage, the ones that are there represent the mainstream academic view. And its not like the Perrin is "hot off the press" - if it were going to be countered, there would be something else out there.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No, articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, not primary studies and neutrality says we should only include views according to the acceptance they have received. Unless you are clairvoyant it is impossible to know what weight experts have assigned a study without reading what they have said about it. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
even more nonsense. the article was published May 2011 - over 24 months ago. if we cannot use any sources that have been published less than two years then you might as well strip away the whole article and about a quarter of Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." See also WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." If you think this is nonsense, then argue your position on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's where Perrin goes astray: how does he define the term, "original text of the Constitution"? Does it include just the original document, without any amendments? (I doubt that very much, since that would exclude the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.) Does it include that plus the Bill of Rights? Does it include everything up to and including the Fourteenth Amendment, but no more? What about the Seventeenth Amendment? If Perrin's fidelity to the "original test" includes any amendments at all, then he acknowledges that a little bit of amending now and then can be a good thing.
I think the apparent paradox between the desire for "strict adherence to the Constitution" and the desire for a new amendment or two is being seen by critics as an opportunity to bash the Tea Party for being a gang of hypocrites — and hypocrisy is one of the worst sins in the entire belief system of the progressive left. Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The "apparent paradox" is in what Tea Party supporters believe and say, not in what Perrin writes. As he says, they show "selective nostalgia." TFD (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments such as "hypocrisy is one of the worst sins in the entire belief system of the progressive left" are tendentious and counterproductive.
The statement "Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning." is WP:OR, as is the statement "advocates strict adherence to the Constitution".
I like that "selective nostalgia" quote. Maybe we can use that.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The statement "Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning." is WP:OR ... What makes you think I want to put that in the article? That's just my impression of constitutional law and belief. I used Perrin as an example. If he believes in strict adherence to the Constitution as it was originally drafted, does that mean he's opposed to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and feels they should be repealed?
  • ... as is the statement "advocates strict adherence to the Constitution." Ummm, no. No, it is most definitely not WP:OR. That is a false statement, Ubikwit. The words "strict adherence to the Constitution" are a direct, word for word quote from the Mission and Statement of Principles of the Tea Party Caucus,[49] a news story from National Public Radio,[50] the Mission Statement of the "High Desert" local chapter of the Tea Party Patriots,[51] and statements of their mission or principles by other local Tea Party chapters, such as the Lake Jackson, Texas chapter.[52] Ubikwit, please stop trying to present every statement you want to remove from or keep out of the article as WP:OR. It is simply inaccurate to make that claim. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
These aren't mutually exclusive. Our article can say: "The Tea Party movement describes its principles as X. Sociologists analyzing the movement in the scholarly literature describe its principles as Y." That's NPOV 101. MastCell Talk 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, like I said on the moderated discussion page, using Ubikwit as an illustrative analogy, there is no better source for the agenda of a particular organization than that organization's agenda statement on its official website. If an organization has a secret agenda — if they're saying one thing in their mission statement, but doing something completely different in terms of what candidates and legislative initiatives they support or oppose — that's one thing the scholarly literature is for, to expose something like that. But the Tea Party seems to be pretty straightforward about what they want, and how they're going about trying to get it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty simple. They don't want creative new meanings for what's written in the constitution, and want it to be applied fully and strongly. And advocating actual changes is entirely consistent with this. So, changing it is OK, ignoring it is not. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As your personal understanding of the Tea Party movement conflicts with analyses published in the reputable scholarly literature (like that of Perrin et al.), which do you believe our article should prioritize? MastCell Talk 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
MastCell, did Perrin actually interview Tea Party members? Or did he simply study a poll of "people in those states who feel positively toward the TPM"? Because those two groups are not the same. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Perrin et al. did both, as I'm sure you'll see when you read the source. MastCell Talk 05:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I've started to peruse the two-state poll. Authoritarianism is believing children should obey their parents and ought to be learning respect and obedience over their own childish wants. Libertarianism is believing in less authoritative censorship and regulations. Navitism is a harshness towards illegal immigrants. Ontological insecurity seems to be the level of concern respondents had to current "changes" occurring in this country. For this I'd assume one side showed ontological insecurity during the Bush years and probably lost it in 2009. So far, I'm a bit disappointed. †TE†Talk 11:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
So let me make sure I understand: this paper was published in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature by reputable academic sociologists, but the decision as to whether to cite it depends on whether two pseudonymous Wikipedians agree with the authors' methodology? This isn't journal club, and the goal of this talk page isn't really to armchair-quarterback the way that sociologists design studies. I can imagine a variety of policy-based reasons not to cite this source, and I'm not insisting that it be included, but the framework of this discussion is disappointingly off-base. MastCell Talk 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
North8000, I suggest you read something about legal theory. It is very difficult discussing anything with you if you continue to pretend that the Tea Party presents the only possible interpretation of the Constitution. In fact the Tea Party position is seen by most informed observers as a gross distortion of the Constitution. TFD (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@TFD Please... Don't... Not with what you've posted on this subject. It's also counterproductive to improving this BLP. †TE†Talk 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
TE, please avoid personal attacks, which detract from a collegial atmosphere. TFD (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In fact the Tea Party position is seen by most informed observers as a gross distortion of the Constitution. Really? Which ones? Would you please post some links that say, "gross distortion"? Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Perrin paper refer to "inconsistencies" in the TPm's stance on the Constitution, for example, and not an "apparent paradox". With respect to taxation, which is related to efforts to repeal and Amendment to the Constitution, the paper points to the contradiction between the original Tea Party's motivating stance of "no taxation without representation", which to some extent would seem to imply that representative government itself is what appears to be under siege by the TPm stance on taxes. Shall I translate that?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Read for example William Hogeland's review of Glenn Becks Federalist Papers for the Broadside Books imprint of Harper Collins: "“America is special because our rights come from God”: Glenn Beck, Joshua Charles, and their readership think Alexander Hamilton, of all people, not only believed in that bizarre formulation — derived from what can only be their utter and deliberate misunderstanding of the Declaration’s preamble and the old English theory of natural rights — but also went out of his way to explain it in his introduction to the Federalist. Like I said: weird."[53] TFD (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the sources and what the sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

page break

The route espoused by some above was one of the main ways that brought this article down to junk status. Find anti-TPM writers who write about the TPM in a disparaging way, present that they meet the "floor" of wp:rs criteria, and then present them as being a "source" (rather than what they actually are which is a participant) and say that we should let them define the TPM because they are a "source".

In the area of "agenda", the way that a public movement (or its leaders) puts the troops to work on an agenda item is to define it as an agenda. If you don't say it, they won't work on it, if they do say it they will work on it. So for a public movement, self-statement of agenda tends to be accurate. Especially if it came about via a broad organized process such as the contract. 1,000,000 times more accurate and reliable than what a detractor writes. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So you think that for political groups - Democrats, Republicans, Occupy Wall Street, Communists, Fascists, the Weather Underground - we should ignore what sources say about them and just let them speak for themselves? TFD (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
For the first 4 examples that you gave, (and depending on the details of the group, possibly the 5th) I'd say yes, with respect to what their agenda is . The sixth not, because they are not a public group. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's always the adage, "Actions speak louder than words".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Very true. Although in this case they both say the same thing. Look at all of the political clashes where the TPM was identified as an element and see what the action was. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
So then it would fair to describe the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as supporting "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly", of religion, privacy, freedom from arbitrary searches and seizures, security of private property and democratic election of government.[54] TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've said at least three times in the moderated discussion that as long as they're fairly straightforward about what they want and how they go about getting it, the organization is the best source for its agenda. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was an implement of mass murder and even greater oppression, and was the precise opposite of straightforward. As it engaged in mass murder and oppression, it professed to pursue all these wonderful democratic ideals. The Tea Party, on the other hand, hasn't starved millions of Ukrainians to death, run a chain of slave labor camps across Siberia, or conducted a purge of the army. Not to my knowledge. They're very straightforward. They hold rallies and conventions, chat with each other on the Internet, and do their best to get their candidates elected. As Ubikwit said, "Actions speak louder than words" and the Tea Party's actions are thoroughly consistent with their words. I'm not saying we should ignore what academics are writing. I'm saying that the Tea Party sources are the most reliable sources, in this limited content area per WP:SELFSOURCE, and they should be given the most weight. Not all the weight. Just most of it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the TPM cannot be the "best" source for its own agenda. Many political organizations have a disjunction between what they say and what they do. Far better to have outside observers judge the TPM agenda. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Since the Tea Party has not come to power, we cannot know what they would do. But your argument seems to be that because we support the Tea Party, we can take their words at face value, whereas because we are not Communists, we cannot take their words at face value. That is not a neutral approach. Incidentally, this same discussion comes up in articles about far right groups - BNP, EDL, Golden Dawn, Sweden Democrats, etc. TFD (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If the TPm is straightforward about what they want, and their actions match their words, as you say, then academic scholarly sources should be just as reliable and capable of conveying what their agenda is as a TP spokesperson. More qualified, in fact, because your average spokesperson likely can't speak on such matters with the precision and clarity that an expert in economics, the Constitution or political sciences can. In addition, you keep speaking of "The Tea Party" as a monolithic entity, when it is actually made up of numerous groups with widely divergent agenda and priorities. Detached academic scholars can give analysis of the big picture goals whereas a spokesperson for one specific group is only going to give a piece of the puzzle. One final note; WP:SELFPUB sources (yes, that's the actual Main article that contains the rule you are citing) will never be preferred over reliable academic sources. See how those sources are listed under the header: Sources that are usually not reliable? They can be used in limited circumstances, if they meet a half dozen criteria, but they are never the first choice and certainly not given more weight than higher quality sources. Even for a group's professed agenda. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Addressing a few thought above, please note that my statement about self-statement being the most accurate source had two conditions on it.....#1 was that it be a public phenomenon/ organization. The second is that it is limited to matters of agenda. The point is that it does not rely on them being trustworthy, it is reliant on the fact that a public phenomenon/ organization has no way to forward their agenda other than to state it.
Second, addressing Xenophrenic's comment, in the ongoing mess at this article, there have never been "(actual) reliable academic sources." That term has been often used to refer to anti-TPM writers (who are actually participants, not sources) who meet the letter of the "floor" of wp:rs (which has no criteria for actual reliability) and people have been misrepresenting the "r" in wp:rs as meaning real world / actual reliability. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)
I disagree (with X) on two points. The one that directly counters your statement is that "Water is wet" (or, for that matter, "libertarians are opposed to (some) government") may be obvious, but is not likely to be published. "Water can be dry" (at appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure) may be easier to publish, but unsophisticated readers may not see the caveats. The fact that most academics are "left" of center might make it more difficult for them to notice that the core statement that "TPm members are angry, and some are justifiably angry" is more significant than scholarly interpretation of the goals.
North's comments that a group's stated agenda is more significant than the agenda as read by political opponents, may not be exactly correct, per Wikipedia guidelines. Still, scholarly comments on the TPm's stated agenda are probably more appropriate than scholarly comments on the "actual" agenda as interpreted by political enemies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
North and Arthur, you are both still speaking as if there is a single centralized, authoritative source for what the TP's agenda is. Also, North mentions "anti-TPM writers" and Arthur mentions "political enemies" -- in a discussion about reliable academic sources. Care to be more specific? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC) *Crickets?* Neither of you are going to specifically name these "political enemies" and "anti-TPM writers"? So, the claim is not true afterall that "there have never been (actual) reliable academic sources" raised for consideration in these discussions? It would be beneficial to know who these anti-TPM enemies of the movement are - the ones posing as academic reliable sources - so we don't waste additional time with them. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary for the anti-TPm writers to be conscious of their bias. And I'm not convinced that there have been reliable, academic sources. The ones presented here that I've looked at have been pretty bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Please put a name to the "anti-TPm writers" who have been cited as reliable academic sources, so that we do not waste further time considering them. Which ones are "pretty bad"? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Answering TFD's question, as I said multiple times, I would only consider self-statements of agenda by public groups to be reliable statements of agenda. That is because they have no way to forward their agenda without stating it. So this would not apply to corporations, governments etc. who have the ability to work on an agenda without stating it. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
First of all, that doesn't make any sense. A public group may choose to conceal some or all of its agenda in its public statements; history is replete with examples. Secondly, why does your personal conceptual framework take precedence over this site's sourcing guidelines, which prioritize independent, reliable sources (particularly academic sources) wherever they are available? MastCell Talk 06:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop with that nastiness. I never said anything like my "personal conceptual framework" taking "precedence over this site's sourcing guidelines". The site has guidelines for acceptable uses of primary sources. And beyond being OK to use, I am presenting why they would be good to include in this case. Particularly the one that cast the broadest net of all (for it's compiling) amongst TPM supporters. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Your personal view is that a public group's own writings are the best descriptor of its agenda. Our site guidelines - specifically WP:RS - hold that our content should be based on reliable third-party sources, particularly academic sources, wherever possible. That's a clear conflict, and when an academic source is proposed (e.g. Perrin 2011, as in this thread), you and others have dismissed it out of hand. I see that as a problem, because it indicates that a small group of editors have substituted their personal ideas of sourcing for this site's actual policies and guidelines on the subject. MastCell Talk 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
That is not an accurate summary of what I said. I made some comments about general reliability. And I said that the the one that cast the widest net amongst TPM supporters regarding agenda should be included. And I did not comment on Perrin vs. the wide net, and don't even know if there is a conflict between them because Perrin is behind a pay wall. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
My summary was based in part on your comments earlier in this thread, where you disparaged some of the academic third-party sources as "anti-TPM writers (who are actually participants, not sources) who meet the letter of the 'floor' of wp:rs (which has no criteria for actual reliability)". To be fair, much of the hostility toward third-party reliable sources was expressed by other editors (P&W, Arthur) rather than you.

Regarding Perrin 2011, another editor posted a link to a freely available pre-print of the article above; it's here. I'd be interested to know whether you consider this specific source to be useful for this article. MastCell Talk 18:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue comes up often in articles about medicine, where there are rs guidelines, and other controversial scientific subjects such as climate change. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research." This issue btw comes up often in articles about medicine, where there are rs guidelines, and other controversial scientific subjects such as climate change. Subsequent scholars may question the methodology of a study or may replicate it and come up with different results. Whether or not their findings are reliable depends on what subsequent writers say. The other issue is WP:WEIGHT. If a study has been ignored by the academic community, then we would not be justified in including it. I think you need to show that the study has received acceptance. TFD (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparing social science/humanities topics to applied sciences (including medicine) is somewhat problematic. Although there is overlap with respect to the use of statistical data, etc., the methodologies differ widely.
Also, the Perrin study is not isolated, but one of several that have been carried out in different regions of the country, which are readily available to compare and contrast for commonality and divergence. There would appear to be some overlap in statements made by Skocpol and Perrin, for example. And other academic publications that are not "studies" in the sense of involving surveys and field work make synthetic statements that also reflect shared conclusions. There is a fair amount of primary source data, such as agenda pronouncements, that can be examined without having to survey individuals, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Why not use a secondary source that compares and contrasts the commonality and divergence? I do not see why because we are discussing social sciences that changes policies on rs, npov and nor. While I imagine this study's findings are accurate, using primary sources opens the door to presenting studies whose finds are not. TFD (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe my understanding of primary source in this regard is somewhat lacking. In Perrin's study, I would have thought that the survey data was the primary source, and that his paper is an analysis of that, having been formulated in advance based on state-of-the-art methodology in sociology to facilitate achieving results in the primary data that facilitated such analysis.
Here are two excerpts from WP:PSTS that would seem to point to a discrepancy between applied sciences and social sciences.
  • "...a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."
  • "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Policy: ...Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
In the Perrin paper, they set up a study and then had the survey portion of it conducted by an independent contractor, if I understood that correctly, and then analyzed and interpreted the data. The Perrin paper includes primary source material, but I would have though it to also represent a secondary source with respect to the analysis and interpretation of that data, as it is reliably published.
Moreover, the Perrin 'study' is not an "experiment".

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. Both social and medical sciences use surveys and experiments. It would be strange if a report based on an experiment with a new drug would be seen as a different type of source as one based on a survey. In neither case is the author "one step removed." NOR also says, "review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research", which would be strange if research papers are considered secondary sources. Even if you saw it as a secondary source, you would still need to demonstrate the degree of acceptance the opinions hold. TFD (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm not professing to be an expert on Wikipedia policy in this regard, but it does seem to me that this is a gray region where a differentiation is called for between applied sciences' "research papers", which involve experiments, and peer-reviewed social sciences' journal articles. The respective methods of the disciplines as well as the subject matter are significantly different. Is the practice of publishing "review articles" common in the social sciences? Are "research papers" in applied sciences peer-reviewed? Or do review articles serve that purposes in that field?
Perhaps someone with a little experience in dealing with sourcing issues here in the social sciences will chime in on this.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources that discuss the Perin study:

Hope that helps! ButButNo! (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_23&oldid=1136229835"