Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Where is racism?

No one on here is talking about the racist claims that are made about the tea party members. There is much documentation with tancredo's statements at their convention. The texas tea party even replied by saying that "well MSNBC isn't diverse either". This isssue has been documented for a long time and it is not address in this article. Someone needs to really add more information rather than just being a press release from the tea party movement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion over the "Racism" subsection in the article continues in the latter part of the #Discussions about Incorrect Citations above, beginning with "Speaking of WP:BLP, I just deleted a new section by an IP titled "Racism". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Your information about the tea party movement is biased because you do not include the LARGEST criticism that the tea party movement has received. I understand you want to try and be balanced but you are ignoring a serious controversy. And if you want to be balanced you can reference the response the tea party has had about the racism comments. Here are a list of news stories to prove the point that the tea party has issues with racism and there is a link with one tea party response to the racism claim.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial

http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=the_tea_party_grievance

http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php

http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic

Here is a comment where the tea party responds to the racism claim.

http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-04/news/hc-digbrflets03042010.art0mar04_1_pitts-race-relations-keith-olbermann

I think if that doesn't show there is serious concern over the tea party movement being racist then I don't know what does. And I didn't once reference MSNBC which I know is the liberal mecca, much like Fox news is for conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not the editor who removed the Racism section, I wouldn't feel comfortable restoring it from history, unless by consensus.

71.219.114.30, you have brought a wealth of new references. If I were you, I would build a new section with these citations, taking particular care that you do not violate the "immediate removal" provisions of WP:BLP. I would insert that material as a new subsection under Controversy.

Make a copy of your contribution so that you can restore it, if necessary, without going through History. We have some editors that prefer to delete first and answer questions later, as is their right under WP:BOLD. Be prepared to defend your citations and inferences on this talk page.

That said, let me welcome you to editing Tea Party movement. As an aside, it would be better for us if you could register your own user name and sign your comments with ~~~~. We have no way of knowing that your IP address (71.219.114.30 right now) won't change in the future and, even if it doesn't, Sinebot may miss a posting by you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IP, you might also try finding credible sources. WP:RS and review WP:OR. You said, "here is a comment where the tea party responds to the racism claim." So you're claiming a letter to the editor of the Hartford-Courant was written by thousands of people all across America? Did they all get together and agree by consensus that this is the great moment they will speak as one and send it to the world renowned Hartford Courant? Do you have a citation for that? Because I don't see that in the New York Times or the Washington Post and I don't think they would have missed such a monumental moment in the history of the Tea Party Movement.Malke2010 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for claims of racism made by IP

Editorial: http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial

Letter to the Editor: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt

Opinion piece about Tom Tancredo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html

Opinion piece: http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395

Opinion piece: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=the_tea_party_grievance

Opinion piece: http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php

Opinion piece: http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic

Letter to the Editor: http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-04/news/hc-digbrflets03042010.art0mar04_1_pitts-race-relations-keith-olbermann

(not written by Tea Party Movement as suggested)

I don't see where any of these references could be used. Malke2010 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You comment about it being opinion, but that is exactly what makes it a controversy! One side claims they are racist they claim they aren't. You are BLATANTLY leaving out the main criticism against this group. And ignoring the documents that suggest they are racist. Such Tancredo who spoke their convention and said racist things that were used against black people to prevent them to vote. I am not saying that everyone thinks they are racist, but there is certainly a controversy about whether are are or aren't.

Oh and here is a video directly from the Dallas Tea Party who responded to Keith Olberman's claim they did not have any black people in the crowd. This video is posted on their own website. http://dallasteaparty.org/ So even they can see there is some criticism about them being racist and they tried to answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded#

If you can't acknowledge that this is a controversy then you are missing the picture being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign your comments. And wow, that one girl from the Dallas video is hot!

So this might help Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Read it closely. You actually might be able to use the original Obermann episode with the cite episode template but it might also be considered the spreading of unverified rumors (see the wikilink above) and scandal mongering. Those last two would make it unacceptable. If something is found, you would need to make sure to not give it undue weight. Since it so far does not appear to be an argument that holds much water for the group as a whole, it would be appropriate to balance it with a counterargument. Your next step is to track down higher quality sources.Cptnono (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IP, I reverted your edit. Don't post it like that again or somebody will come along and revert you for vandalism. I could have done that but you used the talk page first, good thing, so I understood what you were doing. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines and polcies before posting. First, you need reliable sources WP:RS and don't write prose like you would in an essay. It's just facts with citations. Not opinion.Malke2010 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd also like to point out that above the controversy section says "This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole. (March 2010)". Clearly not everyone agrees that the tea party is racist or not, but certainly it is controversial and worth noting about the members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The largest criticism this group receives is that their actions are motivated by racism. In February 2010 the tea party group at their convention added more fuel to this claim.

One of the convention speakers was former Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo. Tancredo who was quoted at the convention as saying “people who could not even spell the word 'vote'” were the one’s that put Obama into office. Tancredo also said at the Tea Party Convention that “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” His comments have been viewed as being racist because they reference an old policy that prevented African American’s from having the right to vote.

Megan McCain, daughter of John McCain, even went on The View and discussed Tancredo’s comments. She called Tancredo’s comments at the Tea Party Convention “Innate racism”, she later went on to say that this racism is what has turned off younger voters to this movement.

After much of the controversy about Tancredo’s remarks Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who formed Tea Party Nation was quoted as saying "Tom Tancredo gave a fantastic speech last night. I think he is an amazing politician."

Another vocal critic of the tea party movements has been liberal spokesman Keith Olbermann. He said on his tv program “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on his program he discussed Tancredo’s remarks at the Tea Party Convention. Olbermann asked the tea party member’s “how many black faces do you see at these events? How many hispanic’s, asians, gays, where are these people?”

In response to Olbermann’s claim that there were no black faces in the crowd, the Dallas Tea Party responded with their own video questioning how many black faces did we see on MSNBC?

Source for Tea Party’s Leadership repsonse about Tancredo’s remarks http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch http://washingtonindependent.com/75937/tom-tancredos-literacy-test-the-controversy-that-wasnt-video

Source for Meghan McCain’s words from The View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHQxl0iO2E she discusses this about 4 minutes and 45 seconds into the video.

Source for video of Olbermann speaking. Quotes at minute 5:55. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTxdR46-08&feature=related

Source for Dallas tea party replying to Olbermann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded

http://dallasteaparty.org/

Everything is sourced. It gives views from a republican, Meghan McCain. It sources the Tea Parties response to Olbmermann. The sources are reliable, CNN is pretty trusted. The others are videos of their own words, not taken out of contact.

The source from CNN and washington independent BOTH quote the founder of the Tea Party Nation convention.

If you keep blocking this from being posted I will have to ensure that people know of wikipedia's bias.

---

You commented that you needed more reliable sources such as the New York Times or Washington Post. I have sourced from CNN which is reliable and blow is a source from the Washington Post. I have also posted a quote from CNN from the leader of the tea party nation about the tancredo remarks.

Here is an article about racism and the tea party from the Washington Post. The post also talks about Meghan McCain's comments. Just because the tea party does not like that this is being said about them, that does not mean it isn't valid criticism about the group. If they didn't support it, their leader should have come out against what Tancredo said. But he didn't! The leader of the Tea Party Nation came out on record in support of what Tancredo said and that was sourced in the CNN article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605644.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch

Here is another example of the Washington Post discussing the comments.

"Fairfax, Virginia: Meghan McCain said Tancredo's statements represented "innate racism." This was in reference to comments by former U. S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) about reestablishing literacy tests at the recent national Tea Party convention. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post referred to the comments as "naked Jim Crow racism" on the Keith Olbermann Countdown show last evening. The practice of literacy tests for voting, used to disenfranchise African Americans, was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When can we expect the Republican Party led by Michael Steele, or for that matter the Washington Post editorial board, to condemn these comments? Their silence is absolutely deafening.

Michael A. Fletcher: Those comments were odious. I can't speak for what the editorial page will do, but knowing the people who work there I have no doubt that they found some of what the former congressman said to be outrageous and insulting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/02/09/DI2010020901324.html

Clearly I am not alone in this criticism. Yet it can't seem to be address on the wiki page.

It is verifiable that Tancredo said those comments at a tea party convention. It is verifiable that people found it racist. It is verifiable that the leader of the tea party nation said on record that he supported what Tancredo said. It is verifiable that Olebermann commented about no blacks being at their meeting. It is verifiable that the Dallas Tea Party group commented back to Olbermann about his comments. These are facts. I was asked for better sources, you got DIRECT sources from their own mouths. You got a source from CNN and the Washington Post. You also got direct video of what was said about them from Olbermann, Meghan McCain (a republican), and the video from the tea party.

By continuing to prevent this you are being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Tea party movement questioned over racist signs or signs that were satire. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html?iref=allsearch

Meghan McCain calls tea party statement innate racism. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6189472-503544.html

Baltimore Sun questions racism of tea party. Sun 186,000 in viewer ship. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-10/news/bal-ed.teaparty0210_1_klan-rallies-anti-immigrant-mr-perot

Discusses tancredo's comments and gives a back ground on the issue of literacy tests. http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-party-opening-speaker-suggests-blacks-voting/

Tea party cheers for Tancredo's comments about literacy tests and not being able to spell vote http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tea-party-speaker-tom-tancredo-rips-john-mccain-obama/story?id=9751718

Anderson Cooper discusses the claim of racism with leader of the tea party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitkQMVev8M

Fox news poll suggest people think tea party is racist (CS monitor is used on the tea party page as a source for other information) I do acknowledge that this link isn't a fact, but suggests that I'm not the only one who questions if the tea party is racist and clearly shows there is a controversy over if they are or aren't. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0212/Tea-Party-movement-full-of-racists-and-conspiracists-according-to-FOX-poll

Signs carried by Tea Party members, people do view the signs as racist. (this is from huffington post, which I understand is liberal, but still shows there is a controversy). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html

I think if that doesn't show that there is a controversy about whether or not the group is racist then I do not know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. Just because you believe one speaker's remarks equal racism for the movement doesn't make it so. It certainly does not make it the "largest" criticism. Stop it. Read the guidelines and work within them.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Here is once again another example of the tea party and racist comments. This is from the Washington Post, which is a large news source. It is also NOT an opinion piece. Wikipedia is ignoring this on the tea party website. How many sources do you need?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/by-paul-kane-black-lawmakers.html

Huffington Post (which I know is liberal) "Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Faggot' Shouted At Members Of Congress" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html

How long will wiki ignore this? I will continue to point out reliable news sources linking to racist acts preformed by the tea party members.

---

Here is a fox news post

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/health-care-protesters-hurl-verbal-epithets-african-american-lawmakers/

Roll Call (not sure if this is considered reliable. http://www.rollcall.com/news/44438-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html Updated Washington Post story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actual sources finally. A line saying that some protesters said nigger and faggot at a protest should be fine. Don't over do it though.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty glaring that the subject of racism accusations is not brought up. With the possible exception of anger, it really is the main thing this very controversial movement is criticized for. It feels like bias that neither racism or anger is even mentioned in the article (except for Gingrich bringing up anger positively), given the extent that they're associated with the tea party movement. It's like if John Rocker's article didn't mention racism allegations, and Lewis Black's didn't mention expressions of anger. -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree with AvatarMN and have been saying this for about a week. The article is clearly biased for not listing the groups criticism. I was told "it was hardly their largest criticism". I was told to give more reliable sources, but I would like to point out that the same sources I have used, that were rejected, are the same sources that have been allowed to be linked as sources throughout the tea party page (go look at the tea party protests and look at the sources for the numbers of people who protested, the sources aren't that reliable or main stream), yet I was given crap.

I don't wish to write the comment about racism, because clearly I am biased, but someone should write about racism.

It is true that Tom Tancredo made statements that were viewed as racist at the Tea Party Nation event (source is above CNN), it is true that the organizer of the of the Tea Party Nation event said he supported Tancredo's remarks (source is also above CNN), it is true that Olbermann called out the tea party (his source and quote is above), it is true that the Dallas Tea Party resonded to Keith Olbermann (the source and video is above), it is true on March 20th tea party members protested at the capital and used words that were racisit (source is above).

I am biased, so I will defer to someone else to write real information about the tea party and racism. But by leaving it out clearly shows a bias and it makes wiki look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Institute for Liberty roundly condemns the isolated incidents of intolerance that occurred. ... As a core value, the Tea Party movement believes in the precept upon which our independence was declared and this nation was founded: that all men are created equal."

House Republicans denounce racial slurs hurled at Democrats

Witnesses said demonstrators hurled the N-word at the congressmen multiple times

The N-word and spit were among their "weapons"

An older protestor yelled "Barney, you faggot." The surrounding crowd of protestors then erupted in laughter.

Are they, as one commenter said, "just a few isolated incidents?" Or, as another commenter said, "these incidents seem isolated to just Tea Parties." I've seen and heard the reports of racism and bigotry; seen comedy shows parody it (Can you spot the black man in this sea of protestors?); noted the racist pictures and words on some signs; heard the justification that "everyone has a voice" as white supremacist and anti-immigrant protestors walked in unison with other Tea Party protestors. There appears to be a disconnect between what Tea Party protestors say and what they do. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

protected

I've protected this article from editing for two weeks, owing to edit warring. Please try to find a WP:Consensus for handling the sundry outlooks on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen.Malke2010 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't really think you're fooling anyone here, do you? Everyone knows that you're the disruptive editor and the reason the page is protected. Everyone. And everyone also knows HSO is a model wiki-citizen. It doesn't seem like you have the capacity to learn from your mistakes and probably won't until administrators take more extreme measures. --Izauze (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, if you're going to get the page protected, it would be nice if you would let us know why. Looking at the history, it seems that you disliked these edits [1] by Xenophrenic, so you reverted them. (In part [2] lol.) Xenophrenic reverted that and instead of going to the talk page you reverted again and went to an admin. Not the best way to handle it. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask to have the page protected. And I didn't go to an admin. She was on my talk page. Happysomeone went to Gwen Gale and Gwen came over here and protected the page. Also, please see my post below. Malke2010 03:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. Whoever did it, it's overkill - the page isn't seeing vandalism, but valid edit disputes. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I was watching the repeated back and forth reverting while no one was using the talk page. AS far as I understand, that's not the way things are done on Wikipedia. I asked Gwen, "What should we do?", and she protected the page. Overkill? Hardly.--Happysomeone (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're even more clear, this talk page was used prior to the page protection (see the above disruptive edits section) - but some editors reverted without fixing or even addressing their errors. I agree the protection was warranted, but I may have an admin edit out the obvious WP:BLP violations in the meantime. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support that.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit would need consensus before the admin could do anything. There's no BLP violation in the current edit.Malke2010 17:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard edits while protected would require consensus; BLP violations would not. There are 2 BLP violations present edit: the first use of "belligerent" as a statement of fact, and the insertion of CNN not renewing Roesgen's contract into this article as if to imply there is a connection. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, please help us by showing us the section of WP:BLP that says consensus to edit isn't necessary. It's not immediately apparent to me & I'd appreciate it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be looking in the wrong place. WP:PP states: "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." Removing obvious BLP violations is non-controversial. However, if I were to request removal of content cited to a non-RS, like the MRC quote, then that would require consensus (because that is not as obvious a case as a BLP issue is). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, the reason I ask for the WP:BLP passage about this is because the appropriateness of moving outside of consensus has come up before on the WP:BLP thing (the previous question was does the subject of the article fall under WP:BLP? It appears the answer is no).--Happysomeone (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not following. What is it we're trying to determine here? If there is a previous discussion to which you refer, could you provide a link to it? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, we do tend to go on a bit. Try going here. If I could zero you in to my point, try scrolling down until you see a big indent and italicized text that I added. You can back up from there if you need to, to get a sense of where the conversation was going. The WP:BLP conversation got started IMHO when I asked if the entire article fell under that guideline. Hope that helps & sorry for the confusion.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

HSO, we had a edit conflict: I was answering Xenophrenic's question at the same time you were.

Xenophrenic, here is my short version answer. Some editors believe that only reason to remove content more than one time is because the added material is a blatant BLP violation. If not, we should go through the process of inserting inline warning tags, waiting several weeks and only then either removing the content or, if anyone objects, reaching consensus on this talk page.

Other editors believe that we should have a less time-consuming method of removing content from this "live" article, up to the point of "IP, I reverted your edit. Don't post it like that again or somebody will come along and revert you for vandalism." For a more complete discussion, see the portion of #Section on tea bags greatly reduced (that Happysomeone just directed you to) that starts with "Sometimes it's easy to forget...". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, regarding your concern for the IP. I did show understanding to him/her edit. However, there were others who did not take that view.[3]. Malke2010 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I can succinctly address each of the concerns and questions with the following short explanation: The 2 BLP issues mentioned above are clear-cut, and should be removed - not only without first achieving consensus, but without even discussing it. WP:BLP policy is quite clear on this - so clear, it is the only bold-text statement in the lede. Please note the BLP policy applies to every word on every page in Wikipedia that is written about a living person - even the Tea Party movement page. Roy, your comments about two styles of editing (brutal hack & slash versus discuss-wait-discuss more-wait more-then edit) are well taken, but this particular situation falls into a third category. What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)? The policy is clear when it says we must get it right, and in its admonition against the use of such poorly sourced contenteous material. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roesgen contract wasn't renewed. That's not a BLP violation. It's just a statement of fact.Malke2010 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Roesgen has also won Emmy awards. That, too, is a statement of fact. Neither statements of fact about Roesgen have anything to do with the Tea Party movement (or her Chicago interview). However, your placement of that "fact" directly after content about Roesgen's Tea Party newscast is an intent to insinuate. Please don't play games, Malke2010. Wikipedia isn't your personal conspiracy blog. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)?" Actually, Xenophrenic, the scenario you describe isn't just applied in WP:BLP cases. This is something that shouldn't happen at all, per WP:IDHT. Consensus isn't forever, but if we're going to go over old arguments, you've got to bring something new to the table. This has been a recurring problem here as well, IMHO.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The scenario has nothing to do with application in BLPs. It is about editors attempting to insert content that has been previously and repeatedly deemed inappropriate (and in this specific case, in violation of WP:BLP). I'm not saying Malke2010 is exibiting WP:IDHT behavior, because each time it is a different editor trying to add the content, and I assume Malke2010 is just operating under the same misconception as those other editors. In Malke2010's opinion (quoted from above), "...her contract was not renewed a few months later. She got bounced for being inappropriate and unprofessional." That is opinion only, and not supported by the only cited reliable source here. That would be akin to writing, "Authorities shut down an internet child-pornography ring on March 1st, having arrested and incarcerated 11 suspects. Happysomeone has not edited Wikipedia or responded to email since March 1st." While both sentences may be citable facts individually, putting them together like that as if they are absolutely related is a serious BLP violation. As for bringing stuff to a table ... sorry, you lost me again. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I misunderstood you slightly when you commented on reinsertion of previously dismissed information and then cited your BLP concern. I think we both agree on where the bar is set on the distinction between opinion and fact. Further back in our conversation, I merely sought an excised quotation from WP:BLP guidelines that explained your intended action, for the sake of others not familiar and as a handy reference here on this page.

As for bringing stuff to the table, again, I was trying to make the point that we shouldn't be continuously revisiting issues that have been already handled. Unless you've got a new reason to re-consider it we just shouldn't go there.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you: Malke shouldn't have revisited the "Roesgen was fired because of her Tea Party interview" issue because it has already been handled many times before, and Malke offered no new reasons to reconsider it. However, it is a popular bit of unfounded speculative smearing, so I am sure another editor will "go there" and try to insert it in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to open it up for Editing

While it's true politically charged pages need to have some sort of referee. I think it's time to add some new information

and For God Sakes remove the Sex act from the "See Also" links. It is not something that should be on a page that is based on a political movement... unless you're displaying some bias here.

I agree with the previous poster. I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant. --EJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.182.152 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Male to male sexual act"? No, we're talking about Teabagging, the male to female sex act where the male establishes dominance over the female as god intended. I agree it shouldn't be one of the "See also" links, but not because "it's totally irrelevant" — quite the contrary, it was a very relevant off-color aspect of the media coverage last April — but I think it is already linked earlier in the article, so the "See also" link is redundant. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What does tea Bagging have to do with a populist political movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.79.95 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your question, IP, teabagging doesn't have anything to do with Tea Party Movement.Malke2010 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, do you have absolute proof somewhere that only heterosexuals engage in this 'teabagging?' Did you do a study, like Masters and Johnson, with actual couples, etc? Have you surveyed the entire homosexual population and you know for a fact that the entire population of gay men do not engage in teabagging? And, dominance over the female as god intended? Which god is that? Do you have a diff/RS/link from your god on this?Malke2010 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Answers: No, but then I never said that. No, I didn't, why do you ask? No; why do you say they do not? Yes. Which do I have to choose from? Yes, I do. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

why is a sex act being discussed here? Randal6546 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Because editor User:71.182.79.95 and editor User:98.210.182.152 asked about it, presumably because they saw it referenced within this article; see above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

that was a rhetorical question. this isn't the place to discuss sex acts.Randal6546 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but some people appeared to have many questions about a particular one. This is the appropriate place, however, to discuss the relevance of the Teabagging references to this article. No one is required to participate in the discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant." With all due respect to the IP, it's a stretch to argue that the "Humor" subsection somehow misled him/her to a non-relevant area of information. What is irrelevant is a conversation on whether or not Teabagging is a hetero or homosexual act. That's not the basis of the subsection's inclusion.

The subsection conforms to guidelines (as has been demonstrated on this Talk page ad nauseum, just take a look at the archive or even the current comments) and outlines concisely how this Double entendre became associated with the Tea Party movement. I don't care if it's funny or disgusting. The fact is it's there and it merits inclusion by dint of notability, as has also been repeatedly demonstrated. It should be accurately, verifiably and neutrally described, and I believe the current version of this subsection are all of those things.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary and has no notability. It's been put here to denigrate the protesters. Plain and simple.Malke2010 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But ridiculing the protesters with it is notable per the coverage. Some mention is appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't deserve it's own section. It can easily be incorporated within the MSNBC/CNN media multiple paragraphs.Malke2010 16:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to support that, but the subsection allows this issue to remain distinct from the other "media" issues and also benefits readers with the "see also" link (IMHO the vast majority of readers are aided by the clearly related link). Also, keep in mind the current mention is four sentences long — barely a paragraph. It was originally pared down in this way based on placing the detailed account of this in it's own article (WP:SUMMARY), but others felt that information belonged here. Right now, this is the primary source for information on the political association of the word "teabagging". Frankly, in retrospect I'm happy with the reduced version that's there now rather than the gigantic section that used to be there in the past, documenting all the seemingly prominent instances in the past as to how the word assumed it's current connotation.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

can a section of the talk page be locked? this discussion has gone too far and needs to stop. it's childish things like this that got the article locked.Randal6546 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The double entendre is intrinsically part of the issue by way of the media coverage, and consequently entered the mainstream lexicon — in the opinion of the Oxford American Dictionary. Again, this isn't an issue of whether or not this is morally "appropriate" or "childish" in your opinion. And this isn't the first time a double entendre (a word or phrase that shares a second sexual meaning) has emerged, nor will it be the last. The most prominent, modern example I can think of in dealing with a question such as this is Wikipedia's entry on the Watergate Affair. During the Watergate, the media didn't dub informant and former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt "Informant No. 1". He was dubbed "Deep Throat". That phrase, Deep Throat, refers to a sex act (as it still does). But the term was popularized as the title of a notorious pornographic movie. But after the WaPo used the name to refer to Felt, the phrase consequently morphed another meaning ("Deep Throat has since been used as a generic term or pseudonym for a secret inside informer or whistleblower"). Go ahead, click on it. It's the same issue here.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

you're not reading what i'm saying. tea bagging has been explained, end of story. we don't need a whole discussion on it. if you want to talk about nicknames in the media that double as sex acts, then post on a forum or make an article about it. the talk page of a political movement is not the place to discuss sex acts.Randal6546 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The teabagging should be removed or at least removed from having it's own section. It is being given more weight than it deserves.Malke2010 21:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. 1) Please be reassured that I read what you said & tried to understand you objection to the content. and 2) The talk page discussion of whether or not the inclusion of the present material is merited & should include the reason for its notability and context. As Xenophrenic said above, "This is the appropriate place, however, to discuss the relevance of the Teabagging references to this article. No one is required to participate in the discussion." I'd agree with that. The sex discussion is the context and I clearly illustrated for all editors here that there is a precedent on Wikipedia. All I am saying is that it should probably be treated in a similar manner. I strongly doubt the current iteration of this content is being given WP:UNDUE weight, but I'm always open to a convincing argument otherwise.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why completely disable editing of this article during the health care vote? because of tea-bagging? would the article on the republican party be shut down too over a dispute over carpetbaggers as well? Put a section in the article to let all the kids giggle over the meaning of getting tea-bagged, but please don't shut down the entire article, otherwise some people may view it as partisan politics. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Seriously? Even after what happened outside Capitol Hill yesterday, and the media firestorm about it, still nothing on racism allegations in this article? Are people trying to put it in, and they're being prevented? Do we need a request for comment on this, or something? -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the article is still totally locked? It's been a week. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think a complete section is not needed and referring to it as the "largest" criticism is OR. However, there were reports. There is also a rebuttal that should be included.[4] I don't necessarily buy all of it but that isn't for us to say.Cptnono (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Yes people are trying to put something up about racism but are being prevented. I understand if what is put up needs to be edited to make it less biased, but it SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. Links from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post/Independent have been used, as well as others. Yet it was all deleted, someone decided that the sources weren't reliable. Yet if you look at the sources used throughout the tea party page there are ones that were allowed but then later NOT allowed when it referenced racism.

Who do we need to appeal to, to prevent someone from continuing to delete references to racism. It is worth noting that the entire conservation that took place earlier with links has been deleted.

Wiki is not meant to be a marketing page for the tea party, it is supposed to contain real information about the group. Right now it is missing something. Even republicans are acknowledging these issues, they just minimize it and say it was an isolated incident (which it may have been). The only page that doesn't think it happened is wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

you don't need to use all caps and sign your comments. The article is locked and the previous inclusion was poor. Trim out all of the bad sources and original research then figure out a way to include it for consideration when the page is unlocked. The recent event should be easy. Start a subsection for the health stuff with a paragraph on the spitting and name calling allegations. Or take it to Tea Party protests (I personally feel one article is sufficient but that is a different discussion)Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism is a very strong word. Just because people don't like the policies of a person who is of a different race, doesn't make them a racist. Anyone who isn't black and disagrees with Obama is automatically a racist? I don't think so. Put the race card away. Meishern (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This section isn't about people who don't like Obama's policies. This section is about racism. Put the straw man away. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well. Ummm. Hummm. Racism is the belief that one race is inferior to another? So you are trying to imply that members of this Tea Party think that Obama, who was raised by his Caucasian mother is inferior and their motive for disliking his policies are race? So if a white man proposed similar policies, the Tea Party would have supported them? So the Tea Party is what, the new clan? Is it possible that the Tea Party members (i am not one of them, a proud libertarian) just dislike Obama's policies and not his Caucasian mother? Straw man is shaking his head. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Why do you ask? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism is a terrible thing. I am just confused how it relates to this article. Maybe it should be discussed on the page about racism. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Link to Teabagging

Under "Claims of bias in media coverage," 4th paragraph, second to last sentence:

"Political commentator Keith Olbermann said, "Despite claiming neutrality on those policies and the teabag movement itself, FOX has whipped up excitement for the parties, recruiting viewers to come out, guaranteeing huge outdoor gatherings, spilling into the streets, choking off traffic with all their teabagging.""

Why is it that we have a link to the page on Teabagging? Teabagging refers to a sexual act. The page on Teabagging links back to this article (Tea Party movement) for the Tea Party Movement. Anyone else see the needless link to a sexual act? xD

Zell Faze (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some explanation as to why pundits thought it was funny is necessary. Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There's also the {Related} tag, per WP:LAY. Might also want to ask some of the Tea Party protesters. --Happysomeone (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging was introduced on Fox and Friends and first referred to there as a political symbol, not as a sexual reference.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. By the way, do you have an RS source for that formulation? Regardless, the double entendre still exists & doesn't require validation through Fox News.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation 158 is used to support a claim that the reference to the sexual act is elitist. The source cited makes no such claim. The "elitism" language is POV and the authors alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. "Insulting"? Check. "Dismiss(ive)"? Check. "Frat House Humor"? Check. "Elitist"? Nope. Not in there. Anyone got a source for that?--Happysomeone (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who used the term. Some pundits used it as a pejorative. Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "elitist" because it doesn't seem well supported by the source specifically cited there. The other words used still convey the basic gist of how Tea Party activists generally feel about the use of the term. This is also a minor point, but I wonder if "Tea Party activists have stated that..." would be more accurate than "Tea Party activists feel", because the source does not presume to speak for all Tea Party activists (and indeed, many members of the movement would not want any one person to speak for everybody in the movement). CopaceticThought (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party gets violent

Scary stuff going on out there. Just thought I'd contribute this article for your consideration: [5] There are of course others...

I wonder if the events of this last week will be categorized as part of the history section, or as a Violence/Health Care Violence chapter under "Controversey"? Just thought I'd bring it up --Izauze (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is not cherry-picked to make a point. "too early to say anything definitive regarding political motivations behind this act," and "Tea party officials say they did not encourage or condone attacks on Perriello's family or property." need to be mentioned. The bricks are really interesting. It is assumed to be related so maybe nothing wrong with saying there were some incidents. And there sould be a Health Care section for all related events and it doesn't need violence in the section heading to present the info.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be added that these teabaggers are a now a terrorist organization. 75.236.100.244 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm. What? Do you have a link or source for that?--Happysomeone (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Teabaggers are a terrorist organization? They aren't teabaggers, and they aren't terrorists. [6].Malke2010 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

full protection is now semi-protection

I've dropped the full protection down to only semi-protection for the last 4 days. Single undo edits are ok if the reason is straightforwardly noted but please, don't fall into back-and-forth editing. Rather, gather consensus if an edit is undone. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Far-right?

Why don't we describe the group as far-right? Surely there must be sources for that, and we don't have any problems calling groups like the John Birch Society, which have similar goals, far-right. I've got a sneaking feeling it's to do with the level of public acceptance, but remember, Hitler was popularly elected... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence states that the group is focused on fiscal conservatism, which I would think to be enough. CopaceticThought (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just fiscal conservatism of a normal kind. This is going further than any mainstream conservative party in the world. I mean, even the Republicans wouldn't try to fully repeal Social Security or most government programs. Of course, maybe it's because they haven't disowned Eisenhower just yet... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Far-right can be equated with fascism. I doubt you will find many editors onboard with applying that label and it is not common in sources so make sure you aren't cherry-picking if you do find a blurb somewhere. And read WP:LABEL. And note that John Birch Society is not assessed so it is not the best article to point to for how things should be done. Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Far-left can be equated with facism, too. Neither inherently imply fascism. As long as we don't use the word "fascism", it's not a problem. Provided it's sourced. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It can but it is not associated nearly as much in modern political jargon. See both Wikipedia pages (I doubt they are highly assessed though) But doesn't matter without sources anyways.Cptnono (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow. Some people it seems are conspiring to skew this article. I don't know who these Tea people are, but it seems that Socialist Progressives are shaking in their boots. Please don't try to skew this article and conform it to your political views. Wow. Meishern (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cptnono: we routinely refer to organisations as "far-right" if sources reflect that label. While I agree that "far-right" implies fascism, I'm referring to being on the fringes of right-wing economic policy (I mean, speaking as a human being centrist (I'm a registered Lib Dem), activities such as throwing dollar bills at Parkinson's sufferers and telling them to stop leeching is, to me, right-wing extremism). This question is a theoretical one: if sources emerged that identified the Tea Party movement as far-right, would we describe them as such, given that we already describe some elected political parties as such? Sceptre ^(talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the discussion, I can assure you that the first sentence definition of Tea Party movement was a product of long consensus-building. Please see Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 2#Consensus on Grassroots or Populist and the section above it for more details. If you want to change the definition, please write down the exact sentence you want to substitute and then settle down for a long process of consensus. On the other hand and within this restriction, we welcome new ideas. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the description of "populist", mind you. However, as "populist" doesn't refer to their position on the political spectrum, I think we should include a description that we can agree on, like "right-wing" or "conservative". Sceptre ^(talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "populist" was a compromise between "grassroots", which implied no or very little organization, and the astroturfing idea that the movement was vast conspiracy organized secretly from the top. And we do have "conservative" in the phrase "focused on fiscal conservatism." What changes would you make to the definition exactly? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

'Positions and goals' section

I read this section, because I wanted to learn what the movement's positions and goals were. I learned:

• that Eric Odom...has argued that "This is a protest that has been in government the last few years...." and also said of the Republican Party that "It’s obvious they’re trying to ride on the brand that we created...",
• that Dan Gerstein...argued...that the protests could have tapped into real feelings of disillusionment by American moderates,
• that Jeremi Suri...viewed them as "not dissimilar from what we had in 2003 with the anti-war protests...",
• that Ned Ryun...believes this movement is not about political parties,
• that Thomas B. Edsall...concludes that the findings of Robert D. Putnam...provides valuable insight into the Tea Party movement's "explosive growth", and finally
• that some demonstrators have also opposed federal support for the ailing automobile industry.

Also opposed federal support? As well as what? This is the only approximation to a "position" in the entire section! And there are no "goals" anywhere in sight. Surely there is enough written in reliable sources to say "the movement believes a, b and c and its aims are x, y and z? For instance, is it by any chance opposed to President Obama's healthcare legislation? And can anybody explain what "a protest that has been in government" means, or how Eric Odom whinging about the Republican Party trying to get on the bandwagon belongs in this section at all, never mind at the top? Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you? (That we should be able to list positions x, y and z. Or at least x.) I can't (through reliable sources); can you? If you can, we'd be delighted to have you on board. If you don't want to edit the article yourself, just post your sources on this talk page and we'll take care of the rest.

Seriously though, one of the most frustrating aspects about editing an encyclopedia article on this subject is that everyone (including journalists and news pundits) has a different idea of what it's all about and what it will be in the future. Some people think of the TPM as strictly anti-tax. Other people think that it's more anti-deficit or in favor of some other brand of fiscal conservatism. Just an hour ago, I heard a CNN report that Palin thinks the Tea Party is against Obama's health reform. Believe me, before the night is out, she'll be getting serious feedback that TPM has nothing to do with healthcare. Some people think it offers solutions or "goals" but, what they are, the answers are as varied as the answerer. Beside which, as a protest movement, it doesn't have to offer solutions. (See Meet John Doe.) Some people think that it's above (or below, take your pick) parties while others think it's all a scheme by underground Republican interests (see the Astroturfing controversy).

But these are all personal opinions. We as Wikipedians must have reliable sources to summarize. Do you have even one? Even one that says the TP movement doesn't have any positions and goals? My guess is that any reporter who interviewed a bunch of people at a TP rally soon realized they don't agree on much.

Maybe the Positions and goals section as outlived its usefulness. Do we want to delete the whole section entirely (because positions are all over the map and the TPM doesn't have any goals)? I'm really looking for discussion among wiki-editors here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't delete it. We aren't going to have an article on a political movement without covering its political views. But Scolaire is right that everything in the section except for the last sentence is not on the subject of the TPM's political positions. The stuff currently there can be deleted or moved, but the section should stay.

What to add? TPM is anti-stimulus [7], anti-deficit [8], anti-bailout [9], anti-health reform [10]. You can probably find more. You can probably find disagreement to write about. Be WP:Bold.

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold, as asked. However, since I'm here to learn, I've added nothing but what you said above. I'll leave it to somebody else to expand it.

In moving the other material to a new section, I've left out the Eric Odom paragraph because it makes no sense at all to me ("After the denial"? But nobody has asserted anything, never mind denied it). It can be re-added if somebody can make it sound (a) like English, and (b) notable. Scolaire (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Populist?

The Wikipedia article on populism (Wikilinked from this article) tells me "Academic and scholarly definitions of populism vary widely and the term is often employed in loose, inconsistent and undefined ways..."

Does such an inconclusively defined term really help in the first line of this article? I would scrap it and just stick to more precise descriptions of the movement and what it does.

HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We are using (more-or-less) the dictionary definition of populist as the "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes". Perhaps the word "populist" should be linked to the Cambridge dictionary reference instead of (or, in addition to) Wikipedia? Also, HiLo48, see the further discussion about "populist" here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word populist in any definitional way. For less sophisticated readers it plays the part of a weasel word by being read as having a similar meaning to popular. Your definition refers to ordinary people. I'm sure there are a lot of ordinary people who don't support the movement. (Do figures exist?) What does ordinary mean, anyway? Again, I say skip the simplistic words, and just describe what the movement does. Let the readers make their own judgements. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read the lead of Populism it says that it is a style of rhetoric / discourse / ideology that emphasizes the ordinary people. Populism is not necessarily representative of those people, but it professes to be. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, MakeBelieveMonster. I still don't think a change is necessary, but I'm keeping an open mind.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The current definition is "The Tea Party movement is a populist United States protest movement focused on fiscal conservatism." What exactly do you want to change that into? You shouldn't use the words "grassroots" or "astroturf", unless you want to open up that discussion again. Please specify your definition for the Tea Party movement word for word. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just leave out the word populist. Perhaps even leave out the word protest. Adjectives like these always run the risk of becoming weasel words. They add little to the readers' understanding. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Populist is a correct way to describe them. Should we say they are focused on fiscal conservatism, or just anything right-wing? PartyJoe (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mainly fiscal issues. Stimulus, bailouts, taxes, health reform cost. You could argue that they're also pro-gun rights and anti-abortion, but social issues have generally not been the focus. Small government is probably also a valid description. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "Populist" was offered up as an alternative to "grassroots" and that's essentially why we picked it. We needed consensus and that's how we got there. We wanted to acknowledge the sources that indicated people from a variety of backgrounds were trying to politically express themselves, per WP:ASF, without violating WP:OR. IMHO, "grassroots" was inaccurate because of the preponderance of WP:RS sources that indicate support for the movement's organization does not meet the definition of "grassroots". In fact, I'm still at a loss as to why the section of the article that demonstrates this is still labeled "Astroturfing allegations", but that's a different conversation.

I'm of two minds to have an adjective there. But if we don't have something there (hidden text might do the trick, as is now the case), I guarantee you'll get editors consistently adding text there.

As to the suggestion of removing the word "protest", well, I completely disagree with that. We have an entire article demonstrating (no pun intended) that this is the primary form of political expression for this movement so far. It deservedly belongs in the lead paragraph (WP:LEAD).--Happysomeone (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Put a fact tag up. We need to source that. sparkie 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my 2cents on the "fiscal conservative" description of this movement down the page, I put that in as a separate discussion before noticing that you talked about it here first. --Nanmwls (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Tea Party protests, 2009

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPm editors might be interested. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Another useful article

Looks like a useful article about the movement: Tea party goes for big-tent strategy Sbowers3 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We can use quotes from it.Malke2010 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: Face of the tea party is female.

• "Many of the tea party’s most influential grass-roots and national leaders are women"
• "Generalizations about such a decentralized assortment of local groups are difficult" but "women might make up a majority of the movement"
• “Most of the women do not want a large, top-down movement,” Walker said. “We like the local flavor and independence of the tea parties. We don't need anyone to tell us what to do from D.C. or a large organization to lead us. We're capable of handling most of it on our own.”
• “There’s something happening here (in the tea party movement) in the same way which is bypassing the parties and I think women are comfortable with that type of organizing, because it’s community organizing”
• A linked article observed that "The tea partiers would not, however, commit to supporting GOP candidates or to holding off from savaging Republican candidates in primaries."

Sbowers3 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting overview of the TPm: Tea partiers embrace liberty not big government "Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government." "The opposition [to the expansion of government] has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls." "The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government -- and its threat to the independence of citizens." "Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government." Sbowers3 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, they sound just like Glenn Beck. Mookie likey. MookieG (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are the Tea Partiers

Two more interesting articles: Obama takes care in sizing up 'tea party' movement, Tea party movement makes mark on Nebraska

• A typical tea party activist is older, white, has conservative fiscal beliefs and consumes a lot of news. Many say they were called to action after watching the federal deficit grow over the past 10 years.
• The tea party movement grew in early 2009 as concerns mounted over the growing national deficit fueled first by the passage of the bank bailout and then by the passage of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill.
• Some tea partiers pride themselves on not having a single leader or group of leaders.
• tea partiers are not altogether happy with Republicans. They believe the GOP abandoned most of its principles when it was in power in the 2000s.
• The group is decidedly conservative and libertarian, but otherwise diverse, divided over most everything except the need for limited government, less spending and an end to Obama's policies. Those in the coalition have allegiance to no political party, with independent voters and even moderate Democrats among their ranks.

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American, and don't get to vote in the USA (something most Tea Partiers can do) but I think the first two points above are very telling. It says to me that most Tea Partiers are white conservatives who don't like seeing a black Democrat in the White House. And I doubt if many really have a grasp of the true scale and/or significance of the national deficit. I know we're not supposed to do our own analysis, but, since we also shouldn't copy others' work verbatim, a little interpretation is always required. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the black members of the TPs also racists? Are the white people who voted for Obama and now turned against his policies racists? Are the TPers who complain about the policies of white Nancy Pelosi and white Harry Reid (as a non-American you may not know that they are the Democrat leaders of the House and Senate) doing so because of race? Sbowers3 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article from CNN: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party

• They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he's a "phenomenal speaker." Another who said she was a "knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal."
• Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said "I feel lied to, cheated and raped." Lewis criticized the taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, which began under former President George W. Bush, and the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.
• Saucedo also said that most of his family voted for the president but now support the Tea Party. He said his sister in law's views sum up the family sentiment. "She regrets voting for Barack Obama," he said.

Democrats such as these make up only 4% of TPers, according to CNN's poll. I bring it up because it dispels the notion that the TPm is nothing but Republicans, and also dispels the notion that all the TPers are racists - these people voted for Obama and they still like him personally; it's just his policies they don't like. The movement is driven by political philosophy, not by race. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Sbowers. The Tea Party peeps are upset with the policies that began in the Bush Administration. They were originally protesting the Federal Reserve Bank. They called their protests "FedUp" and wanted to get rid of it. They said the fiscal policies at the Fed were creating the financial crisis. And then of course, there were always groups protesting taxes. They seem to have fallen in together more by accident than design. And if you listen to interviews, a lot of them say they voted for Obama. They believed he was going to change things. Remember that was his campaign slogan. But so far he's just repeating the Bush stuff.Malke2010 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Health?

That some Teapartiers voted for Obama is no doubt true. That the vast majority didn't is also true. I would be interested to know how many didn't vote at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting to know but I haven't seen any polls asking that question. What I do know is that many of the TPers have said that never before were they active in politics. Some organizers had never done anything like that previously. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that is the case, and strengthens the view that at least part of the Tea Party movement is a grass roots one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a column by Juan Williams, a black guy and generally considered a liberal:

• There is danger for Democrats in recent attempts to dismiss the tea party movement as violent racists deserving of contempt. ... it is a big turnoff to voters who have problems with the Democratic agenda that have nothing to do with racism.
• The tea party outrage over health-care reform, deficit spending and entitlements run amok is no fringe concern. And it is insulting to all voters to suggest that criticism of President Obama ... is motivated by racism.
• The tea party is not the problem. Whether you like them or not they do seem to have captured the political angst in the electorate, without regard to skin color.
• the relevant point to critics white and black is not his skin color but the persistent high unemployment rate and the government's focus on Wall Street bailouts and health-care reform.

Sbowers3 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Section Redux

I propose we keep the first three paragraphs and delete everything after that. It's not relevant.Malke2010 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing

This section could be reduced to one paragraph and added under "composition of the movement." This would make it more relevant. As the section stands now it is over the top and makes it seem like all the information that comes before it is doubtful since so much space is being given over to it.Malke2010 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

views of the movement section moved

I put the "Views of the Movement" section after the first protests, etc. It just reads better that way.Malke2010 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also put Positions and goals after History, possible re-combining it with Views of the movement. In most Wikipedia articles that have a History section, it goes first, 'tho possibly after Etymology, which we take care of in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

Recent edits had made nearly all of the article a part of "History", and reduced some subsections to level 4, which is a bit excessive. I have put them back to the way they were. I really do feel it makes the article much more readable. Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it gives too much weight to the media bias claims and other sections you've done that to.Malke2010 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I don't understand. Could you give us a detailed example here on the talk page of why you think the level of subsectioning gives too much weight to the media bias claims and other sections? Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Quinnipiac poll and Nation/NY Review of Books remarks

User:ThinkEnemies has violated WP:3RR in a span of 18 minutes (1, 2, and 3) and removed both a Quinnipiac University poll from Politico on views of Tea Partiers and a statement by Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban of The New York Review of Books on the composition of the Tea Party movement. Seeing as how User:ThinkEnemies has already 3RR'd (once rudely declaring "What the hell do you think you are doing?" and then instead of WP:AGF declared "I can also assume you're lost when it comes to Talk Pages") --- I figured I would give him the opportunity here to explain his rationale for exclusion of both additions.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] The 3 refs for the disputed edits are:

* At the Tea Party by Jonathan Raban, The New York Review of Books, March 25, 2010

* The Mad Tea Party by Richard Kim, The Nation, March 25, 2010

* Poll: Tea Partiers Like GOP by Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico, March 23, 2010

While the 2 areas of content that User:ThinkEnemies has 3RR reverted were (verbatim) as follows

(# 1) As Jonathan Raban pointed out in The New York Review of Books, the tea party is an uneasy conclave of Ayn Rand secular libertarians and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals; it contains birthers, Birchers, racists, xenophobes, Ron Paulites, cold warriors, Zionists, constitutionalists, vanilla Republicans looking for a high and militia-style survivalists.

— Richard Kim, The Nation

(# 2) A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,900 adult Americans conducted in March of 2010, found that of those who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement:

• 88 % were white
• 77 % voted for 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain
• 74 % identified themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican
• 16 % said they are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents
• 60 % have a favorable impression of the Republican Party
• 82 % have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party

  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, you beat me to it. I was watching that exchange with interest. I too would be interested in reading what ThinkEnemies' real concerns are. Your additions (now thrice reverted) do seem well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you understand that this talk page section is a personal attack on me. Now that this is understood, we can move on. Your quote from "Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban" is laughable at best. Are their opinions worth something? Better yet, are they notable enough to opine on an entire movement? Of course not. Like it or not, this is where controversial edits are made. I appreciate your desire. Stick with us. †TE†Talk 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, [1] How exactly is my above post "a personal attack" on you? I have been nothing but WP:civil despite your confrontational posture and comments from the outset. [2] I hope you understand that merely dismissing the issue with "Now ... we can move on" is not sufficient to resolve the matter. You have yet to show how any of the above material violates WP:RS or other content-related wiki policies. [3] Your diagnosis of "laughable" is interesting, but unfortunately WP:OR and irrelevant. [4] "Are they relevant or notable?" I would posit that they are. Raban is an award-winning writer who has published for an array of reliable publications and whose ruminations came from attending the Tea Party convention personally --- furthermore, while although liberal, The Nation has not been banned as a WP:RS on wikipedia. [5] Moreover, you have yet to provide any justification for removing the Quinnipiac University poll cited to Politico? [6] I am not going to report you for 3RR as I understand how the "heat of the moment" and political passion can cloud one's actions - but you are not really making this process of WP:Concensus easy with your refusal to address any specifics.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So, would you like to start with the highly opinionated quote? Maybe we should start with a poll that counters another poll that I opposed. It's your choice. †TE†Talk 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally not a great fan of polls, but I see no problem with publishing poll results, so long as the source and background of the poll is clearly shown. Publish those details and leave conclusions to the readers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm against these types of polls in general, they're to arbitrary. That being said, my main objection was that ridiculous and extremely partisan quote. Forget about the quote, we'll talk about Quinnipiac University. I'm not sure if they poll all 50 states yet. I'd like to know since they were mainly the east coast a few years back. †TE†Talk 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found that if someone wanting to include here what I see as a pretty doubtful poll is forced to show that the pollsters asked very loaded questions of too small or too biased a sample, it does more harm to their cause than refusing to allow it to be published at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, if your objection was the "partisan quote" then you should have removed that specifically. However, you reverted both of them together 3 times. As for you being against "these types of polls in general", that's nice, but you are not the sole arbiter on what should be included on Wikipedia. Lastly, do you have any published sources that contradict the quote you deem "ridiculous"? It was derived from Raban's descriptions of those people he met at the Tea Party convention.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale does not compute. Neither does you refactoring of other editors' comments. †TE†Talk 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My concerns with Redthoreau's edit is that information from the self described flagship of the left is given prominence with the quotebox and it has an inflammatory tone. I suspect it is more opinion than anything. Figure out another way for inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind too much. I do think we can hammer out something for that quote and would [refer it not to get bogged down in the other part of the revert. Maybe "Dude who writes for the lefty magazine went and described what he saw as x,y, and z." in the text. Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, seeing as how the article currently relies on sources such as Fox News, World Net Daily, and Michelle Malkin - I didn't think that a countering opinion by The Nation was out of the question. As for the quotebox, I am open to ideas, my objection was to TE's initial outright removal with no TP rationale.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just provided you with one. I also didn't say the source was off limits. Pay more attention.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, something along those lines (without the Wp:Weasel "lefty" description) could work. Such as just stating the author and source and what he found. As for the poll, I have yet to see any credible evidence for its removal. As for "paying attention", my reply was written prior to seeing your post, + please see Wp:Civil   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in my opinion here: #1 is a quote that, even if true, is heavily loaded. It is also an indirect accusation ("Well, SoandSo thinks Tea Partiers are dirty scumbags. Not my opinion, just sayin'!") Wikipedia tries to avoid loaded language. Therefore, I feel it should not be included. As for #2, it seems to be, by and large, a decent poll, although I didn't look for the actual source data or anything.

RE: "Cptnono, seeing as how the article currently relies on..." WP:Point applies here; if you think it's wrong, try to improve it. (I realize this may be hard; everyone has their own view of what is "neutral, fair, and balanced" on political issues, you, me, and Sarah Palin included. With an opinion comes the desire to "correct" things that don't fit with that opinion. All parties are guilty of it.) Riffraffselbow (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get you on the other sources issue. Those should be brought up in another discussion on this page if they are not used correctly. I don;t mind the heavy language since so many in the blogosphere/coffeehouses/bars/around the water cooler/whatever say those exact things. We still need to put it forward in a neutral as a manner as possible (not a quotbox not explaining it is the opinion of someone who writes for a heavily biased periodical). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 3 April 2010, 09:17 (UTC)

I have undone TE's reverts simply because I do not like the way they were done. Not only were they, as I said in my edit summary, gaming the system and confrontational ("What the hell do you think you are doing?" is totally unacceptable in an edit summary) but there was a failure to assume good faith or to follow bold, revert, discuss - the discussion should have taken place before edit-warring. Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of points about the edits:

• About the cquote: not only is it rather strident, but it is rather long. Either before or after the semi-colon would give a flavor of Raban's view, but the whole lot together as a cquote is a bit overwhelming. Also, it doesn't inform about the actual composition of the movement. How do you measure the number of "vanilla Republicans looking for a high", for instance? Despite the "undercover reporting" tag, it really represents Raban's (or Kim's) view of the movement. I suggest including it - as text, not a cquote - in the Views of the movement section instead of where it is.
• About the poll, to my mind it brings up more questions about the section than about this particular poll. First, why is it in the Responses section? None of the polls seem to have asked what peoples response to the movement was. They only tell us who the respondents would vote for or, in some cases, what color they were. Maybe this should be moved to the "Composition" section, or maybe it should be on its own. Second, if there is to be a "Public opinion polls" section at all, it can't include all the polls ever conducted, and it shouldn't just have individual polls added at random. There needs to be discussion to decide (1) how many polls to include at a maximum and (2) what the inclusion criteria should be. That way, something like the Quinnipiac poll can be measured against the criteria instead of of subjective views.

Scolaire (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, don't I get a pass since I haven't edited in a month? It's true the edit summary was combative, my bad. The quote that I reverted was pretty damn shocking. I may have overreacted a wee bit, though. †TE†Talk 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My revert wasn't meant as an f-u by the way. I agree the edit summaries were a little off. I real haven't looked into the poll thing. If anyone has any suggestions on the quote it might be cool in a separate subsection on this talk page just to get that bit worked out.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way :-) I'm happy to have it reverted by a neutral editor who has engaged in discussion. We should try to get a consensus before anything is added back. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish I was called neutral more often (that is the goal)! So my thoughts above on the line was clearly laying it out within the text. I think it should be mentioned that the periodical has a slant ("lefty" isn't needed of course) but I am not chained to the idea. Any thoughts on how to do it from anyone else would be cool. I don't believe it deserves a quotation box and I would expect that others might have an issue if it is given "top billing" in the section. Having such inflammatory labels in a quote might even prevent IPs from continuing to bring up the charges over and over on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole poll section should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a news service. The polls would have to be updated. And then what? What happens when Quinnipiac doesn't have a new poll? Do we substitute a CNN poll? Who decides if the methodology is neutral? Who decides when to update the section? It's not relevant to anything unless you poll everybody in the country.Malke2010 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Quinnipiac poll has a lot better case for inclusion than a lot of stuff that's already in the article. Wikipedia should favor empiricism. It's a scientific public opinion poll. The article should merely included characterizations by supporters, opponents, and participants of who the Tea Partiers are and what they stand for. That risks reducing everything to being a war of the spinmeisters. Public opinion adds actually with the weight of social science methods behind it. Frankly, I think when people are making race or education or partisan affiliation based arguments about who the Tea Partiers are, it's a good thing if they're arguments are constrained by the data. I don't think were near the polling data overkill point yet. How could we be when the Quinnipiac poll presents data (who they voted for in 2008, how favorably they view the major partiers) that isn't included anywhere else? It's hard to have overkill when something isn't even addressed without including Quinnipiac. Now, if we reach a point where there are a whole slew of polls, then there could be a good point-by-point discussion of how to condense it. Quinnipiac is a respected pollsters. The sources say it's a poll of Americans and on the Quinnipiac site it's called a national poll. Unless someone comes up with a reliable source stating that it was a non-representative sample, I don't think there's a good basis for assuming otherwise. --JamesAM (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to poll everyone in the country. Just briefly, from a mathematical perspective, a poll sample size is generally seen as valid if it is roughly equal to the square root of the population you are interested in studying. For a US voting age population of 220 million (generously), that would require a sample size of around 15,000 (again, generously). Obviously it also needs to be a representative sample. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have to poll everyone in the country. I think you're misinterpreting my words as disagreement with you, when I actually agree with you. I was responding to innuendo by an editor earlier in this section that maybe Quinnipiac only polled certain regions and thus has an unrepresentative. My point is that we have reliable sources describing it as a poll of Americans and a national poll. So I think we should give absolutely zero weight to an assertion that Quinnipiac merely polled the east coast in its national poll until the editor making that assertion can come up with reliable sources in support of that assertion. --JamesAM (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Simmer down now. It was an honest question based on a valid concern. †TE†Talk 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to avoid imperatives. I'm not yours to command. If you've got a valid concern, it helps to offer evidence rather than bald assertion. I was accurately characterizing a bald assertion as such. I'm not going to misportray your argument as having more weight than it has. I take it since you've offered no rebuttal that you retract your objection about the Quinnipiac poll. --JamesAM (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Skimming through the poll, it does appear that minorities are somewhat underrepresented while white folks are overrepresented. †TE†Talk 03:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I stand corrected. †TE†Talk 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's fix this 2009 nonsense

This movement didn't start in early 2009. I was being invited to "tea parties" in the runup to the 2008 election. And someone on this page was pointing out a 2007 example. The second sentence of this article is claiming:

The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[2][3] as well as the 2008 bailouts[4].

Isn't it obvious how the wording of this article is in error? I'm not saying we should focus strongly on the time when they were Ron Paul supporter events, but I'm saying that we should carefully word it whenever talking about the origination of the movement and the blatantly wrong statements need to be fixed. Or does someone want to try to correct me? Did the first tea parties in 2009 somehow go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the libertarian tea parties that were just going on months before? It just doesn't make any sense. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Throughout American history there have been LOTS of events labeled Tea Party. But having the same name does not mean that they are related any more than two people having the same name means they are related. The current Tea Party movement is not descended from the Ron Paul Tea Parties or any other Tea Parties. Conversely, there are some early events, though not labeled Tea Party events, that could be viewed as "bloodline" ancestors of the current movement. It is a judgment call of the editors as to when the movement began. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive Bot not working correctly

Resolved

Miszabot, the software robot that has been archiving old sections of this talk page for us, is not working correctly. For the past few days, it seems to have been archiving after just one day or it may be only leaving the four of five most recent sections unarchived. At any rate, many of the discussions we have been having have been abruptly cut short.

In looking at the template (User:MiszaBot in Talk:Tea Party movement's lead) that controls our archiving, I found that User:Redthoreau changed the days-old parameter from 15d to 30 at 04:27 on 3 April 2010. The instructions for Miszabot say that you must include either the d (for days) or an h (for hours). I have changed it to 30d but, since this is my first exposure to Miszabot, it may be something else that has to be fixed. I've left an urgent message for Redthoreau and emailed him as well.

What this means for us is that discussions we were having yesterday may be archived (probably in Archive 4) today. If you have not finished with any section that has been improperly archived, you should bring it back to the main talk page here by accessing Archive 4 (or whatever) and cut-and-pasting it into this page.

I hope this doesn't disturb your operations too much and I'll inform you of future developments with Redthoreau. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was surprised to see so much of the Talk page disappear all at once. (I think the Miszabot is working correctly as designed by its programmer, but not as intended by its user.) Sbowers3 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roy for catching this. I forgot the "d" which caused them to be archived quickly. I since have restored those threads.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Tea Party and Re-Org of History section (Original Thread)

I restored this section down below. Then RedThoreau restored it here. This caused problems because of the two, identical headings. So I've changed this one. Please consider this talk section archived and add whatever comments you like on the active section below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.

Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."

I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.

The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.

I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.

I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.

This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.

Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:

1. Etymology and the 1773 Boston Tea Party: in the lead section
2. 1990’s Tax Days and Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign: in the Background subsection
3. Tea bags: in its own section
4. Anti-stimulus, anti-tax “Porkulus” complaints: starting the First Rallies subsection
5. Competing claims paragraph, Rakovich
6. Carender
7. Malkin
8. Santelli and Chicago: in the First national Tea Party protests subsection.

I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.

Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you wish to restrict the earliest mention to "2009 or thereafter"? See 2007 Video for 2007 event, complete with little teabags hanging from signs and hats. Obviously, better sources would be needed, but I haven't checked local news sources for that day yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick search produced Chicago Business News and Water and Wastes Digest. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions, but I'll be adding a Carender and Santelli section. It has to be made plain that Keli Carender and Rick Santelli got things rolling. And since the material is well sourced and the majority in the tea party movement give them credit for getting things going, they deserve a prominent place in the history section.Malke2010 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, events prior to 2009 are dealt with in Background. Your reference to tea parties/bags in Oct 2007 is to a protest against the mayor of Chicago, not the federal government. However, do you want me to add it to the list of citations for the second Background sentence (which includes similar references)? Something like: "[This theme] was part of Tax Day [and other] protests held [as far back as] the 1980s.[4][5][6][7][8]." (There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of stories in local newspapers about "tea" protests prior to 2009. We can't include them all.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Roy - adding just the link to the Background section isn't necessary. My concern was actually with all the emphasis being placed on the "birth of the movement" being in early 2009 with Carender and Santelli, while many protestor spokespeople bend over backwards to stress they were also concerned about the spending excesses of the previous administration, too. Did the "movement" actually begin with the Obama administration, and the "pre-2009 expressed concern" is just a facade generated to divert criticism of the movement as anti-Obama?? In reality, the "Tea Party" theme existed before 2009 (as the article already vaguely indicates); protests against taxes and fiscal irresponsibility existed before 2009; so why try to pin down the date of the "movement" to early 2009? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the update's subsection on Carender is named "Precursor protests in Seattle"; the subsection on Santelli is named "Birth of the Tea Party movement". "Precursor protests in Seattle" and "Birth of the Tea Party movement" total 8 paragraphs while the rest of the History section is only 3 paragraphs. So Carander and Santelli account for over 70% of History. In addition, I hope you will edit additional material in the sub-article (see below).

Right now, the article is about 70 kilobytes long. WP:SIZE recommends 35 to 50 KB or even less than 30 KB for smartphones and dial-ups. My intention was to pare down all sections in the existing article as summaries and make room for detail sub-articles: to wit, "History of the Tea Party movement". I hope to do this for each section and bring the total size of the main article down to less than 20 KB (so that we'll have room for further expansion).

Anybody who wishes to help would be welcomed with open arms. I would write down the section you intend to summarize on this talk page so that we don't have two people working on the same section at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith: I think one way to cut down the KB's is to reduce the media section and the astroturfing to just one paragraph each. They are certainly undue. I will check the sandbox and read through all the suggestions there. I didn't have time yesterday.Malke2010 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comments above, you or anybody are more than welcome to summarize any section you like. I'd recommend you make these changes via a user subpage (or some equivalent mechanism) like I did and wait for 24 to 48 hours before implementing, rather than just being bold and subjecting yourself to reversion. If anyone would like to know the details of creating a public user subpage, contact me on my talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've switched out the previous cite for the one mentioned above in the article--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I have substituted your new citation for the one in my update and moved the paragraph about Rakovich down to the section on Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle. HSO, would you take a look at my subpage to make sure that all the other citations from that paragraph are correct. (I'm trying to make the least changes I can so that other editors can make more changes, but not necessarily additions, after my update.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.

The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.

Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.

I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the replacement of the History section (Original Thread)

Sure, Roy. One slightly-more macro thing than you'd be comfortable with changing right away is the difference in treatment for Rakovich and Carender. IMHO there is no substantive difference in their weight. They both have RS saying "their protest was the first in what would become called a "tea party" protest & you could easily contrast Zernike's reporting with Bennett's, e.g. (The Feb. 10 protest) "a little-noticed sneak preview of the tea party protests that have since altered that landscape." It's erroneous to separate the two.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice but my update didn't distinguish between Rakovich and Carender. They both were grouped under the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Malke came along three hours later and divided the heading into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, First Tea Party in Seattle".

I therefore ask for consensus to revert this one change: to put Rakovich and Carender together again under one heading until we, collectively, decide (or do not decide) that Carender deserves a separate heading.

Support the reversion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Rakovich has only one, very-interested advocate (Freedomworks' Steinhauser) who's willing to state that she was the originator of the first Tea Party. (Bennett was only quoting Steinhauser's statement.) Carender has three, presumably-independent mainstream reporters (NY Times, The Atlantic and NPR) willing to say the same for her. (Zernike and Good attribute it to weasel-worded "other people" but not in a quote; Kaste says it outright.) That's why I only allocated one paragraph for Rakovich but four for Carendar. I was thinking about trying for a consensus: either to remove Rakovich entirely or to add something about the possible bias of Steinhauser. But I'll wait. No sense in having two consensus votes on the same topic at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another poll

I tend not to like opinion polls and wouldn't mind if they all disappeared, but I think factual polls can be interesting. This is a demographic poll by Gallup of Tea Party supporters:

• Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large.
• they are about 40% Independent and 8% Democrat
• age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.
  • about 6% non-hispanic black

Sbowers3 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I wanted to introduce this poll. You beat me to it, Sbowers. It appears that of voting age Americans, Whites are approx. 75% and Non-Hispanic Blacks are approx. 11%, meaning the Quinnipiac sampling wasn't off in that aspect. When it comes to pollsters, we can all agree Gallup is the standard-bearer, which is why their results are more demographically viable. †TE†Talk 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's an article that describes an important Obama voting block. [11]. Malke2010 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party's Contract From America

This might be worth mentioning. Some Tea Party activists have created a "crowd-sourced" Contract From America. Some 360,000 people have contributed to drafting a legislative agenda for this coming year. Here are some of many RS about the Contract:

• Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'
• Tea party: 'Intellectual reform movement?'
• Contract FROM America: Giving the People a Voice in Congress
• Conservatives draw up a new 'Contract'
• Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoids divisive issues? Really? As an outsider to America, it seems that TeaPartiers are fairly consistently against Obama's health reforms, and that, surely, is a divisive issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the title the NY Times put on an article. But forget the titles. Those articles are RS about the TP's Contract. It is the Contract that is worth looking into. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

RS History source for Tea Party Movement

From Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism program, a "A brief history of the Tea Party movement"--Happysomeone (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Keli Carender 2nd Tea Party

The recent edit on the Keli Carender 2nd tea party she organized in Seattle, does not support the claim that her second party was part of a national organization. The citation does not mention Carender, nor does it name these so-called national parties. The edit should be removed since it's OR.Malke2010 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the original edit does have a reliable source that covers her actions. This section is about her and what she did.Malke2010 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't difficult information to find, especially at her own blog. She's embedded a link from Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT) on talking points and has essentially cut and pasted parts of a press release-style blog post from Republican strategist Michael Patrick Leahy (TCOT co-founder). According to Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group, also sponsored a number of the Feb. 27 events.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit makes it sound as though she was part of these conservative groups. What she did was organize her own rally to occur on the same day. It was in conjunction with the call for rallies on this specific day, February 27th. She wanted to be part of that, to garner more enthusiam, get a bigger turnout. The way you've written it makes it sound otherwise. The wording should be changed to reflect that, and better citations can be found.Malke2010 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone: where exactly does this citation show that Keli Carender "helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign" as you call it. [12]. This Fox News article that you are citing seems to be referring to subsequent protests and not Carender's second protest which was on February 27th. Also, your edit doesn't identify this 'nationally organized' group. Your edit makes it sound as though there is this monolithic organization that all the protesters are rallying around, that is directing them and telling them what to do. There isn't a monolithic organization directing protesters.Malke2010 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, again in Carender's own words, titled 'Seattle Tea Party on 2/27': "Don't worry Seattle Action Network, we WILL be a part of this nation-wide tea party!!" Therefore, "part of a nationally organized campaign" is accurate, as described in her own words.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You also appear to be misreading the information in the Fox cite. The relevant section is this: "Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican activist who's helping organize one of the higher-profile tea parties in Atlanta, said Santelli's rant led shortly afterward to a conference call of 22 activists, including herself. From there, she said, organizers put together 48 tea parties -- from St. Louis to San Antonio to Chicago -- on Feb. 27."(bolded mine)"

It clearly refers to the Feb. 27 protests. I'd be happy, BTW, to add a cite for just who the organizers are, as I've done for you above, but in the article. Just put a tag next to where you think it should go.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Which proves my point. There is no monolithic national organization. It was just, as I've said, individuals putting together tea parties to all happen on February 27th. That's what Carender did. She organized it, she emailed people, she did it. It wasn't some national organization telling her what to do which it what the edit that is there now suggests. There is no national organization. The Tea Party Movement is made up of various groups using different names like Tea Party Patriots, etc. And the majority of these groups were founded after the Carender's tea party and Santelli's rant, and most of them weren't even given names before the April 15th nationwide rallies. 'Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized.' It means, there were tea parties by individual groups all over the country. They did it themselves in response to Santelli's rant, and not to instructions from some Mothership. XD Malke2010 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First, she helped organize it. On her blog she herself is careful to give credit where credit is due, and goes out of her way to recognize the role the Feb. 27 Nationwide Tea Party is playing, and in another post directly links Tea Party talking points from Michael Patrick Leahy's advocacy blog TCOT Report. Second, a "nationally organized campaign" does not by definition require a "monolithic" organization. Asserting it's a "monolithic organization" seems like a strawman argument. As I explained before, according to Feb. 27 organizer Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group. It's generally accepted that these folks are national conservative voices. Some of them also happen to be the same organizations or voices behind the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Patriots, among others (such as Nationwide Tea Party Coalition). I disagree with saying "Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized". If that's true, then why did they all take place on the same day, with virtually the same message (e.g. Carender linking to the TCOP talking points, suggested sign slogans, ect.)??? --Happysomeone (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop harassing editors with your edit warring and false noticeboard reports and learn to get along with others who do not share your negative POV. Malke2010 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that tone, Malke, nor the accusation that I'm edit warring. Consider that a warning.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Tea Party and Re-Org of History section

This section was improperly archived by Miszabot on April 4th and has been restored.

Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.

Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."

I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.

The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.

I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.

I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.

This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.

Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:

1. Etymology and the 1773 Boston Tea Party: in the lead section
2. 1990’s Tax Days and Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign: in the Background subsection
3. Tea bags: in its own section
4. Anti-stimulus, anti-tax “Porkulus” complaints: starting the First Rallies subsection
5. Competing claims paragraph, Rakovich
6. Carender
7. Malkin
8. Santelli and Chicago: in the First national Tea Party protests subsection.

I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.

Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you wish to restrict the earliest mention to "2009 or thereafter"? See 2007 Video for 2007 event, complete with little teabags hanging from signs and hats. Obviously, better sources would be needed, but I haven't checked local news sources for that day yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick search produced Chicago Business News and Water and Wastes Digest. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions, but I'll be adding a Carender and Santelli section. It has to be made plain that Keli Carender and Rick Santelli got things rolling. And since the material is well sourced and the majority in the tea party movement give them credit for getting things going, they deserve a prominent place in the history section.Malke2010 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, events prior to 2009 are dealt with in Background. Your reference to tea parties/bags in Oct 2007 is to a protest against the mayor of Chicago, not the federal government. However, do you want me to add it to the list of citations for the second Background sentence (which includes similar references)? Something like: "[This theme] was part of Tax Day [and other] protests held [as far back as] the 1980s.[4][5][6][7][8]." (There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of stories in local newspapers about "tea" protests prior to 2009. We can't include them all.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Roy - adding just the link to the Background section isn't necessary. My concern was actually with all the emphasis being placed on the "birth of the movement" being in early 2009 with Carender and Santelli, while many protestor spokespeople bend over backwards to stress they were also concerned about the spending excesses of the previous administration, too. Did the "movement" actually begin with the Obama administration, and the "pre-2009 expressed concern" is just a facade generated to divert criticism of the movement as anti-Obama?? In reality, the "Tea Party" theme existed before 2009 (as the article already vaguely indicates); protests against taxes and fiscal irresponsibility existed before 2009; so why try to pin down the date of the "movement" to early 2009? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the update's subsection on Carender is named "Precursor protests in Seattle"; the subsection on Santelli is named "Birth of the Tea Party movement". "Precursor protests in Seattle" and "Birth of the Tea Party movement" total 8 paragraphs while the rest of the History section is only 3 paragraphs. So Carander and Santelli account for over 70% of History. In addition, I hope you will edit additional material in the sub-article (see below).

Right now, the article is about 70 kilobytes long. WP:SIZE recommends 35 to 50 KB or even less than 30 KB for smartphones and dial-ups. My intention was to pare down all sections in the existing article as summaries and make room for detail sub-articles: to wit, "History of the Tea Party movement". I hope to do this for each section and bring the total size of the main article down to less than 20 KB (so that we'll have room for further expansion).

Anybody who wishes to help would be welcomed with open arms. I would write down the section you intend to summarize on this talk page so that we don't have two people working on the same section at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith: I think one way to cut down the KB's is to reduce the media section and the astroturfing to just one paragraph each. They are certainly undue. I will check the sandbox and read through all the suggestions there. I didn't have time yesterday.Malke2010 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comments above, you or anybody are more than welcome to summarize any section you like. I'd recommend you make these changes via a user subpage (or some equivalent mechanism) like I did and wait for 24 to 48 hours before implementing, rather than just being bold and subjecting yourself to reversion. If anyone would like to know the details of creating a public user subpage, contact me on my talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've switched out the previous cite for the one mentioned above in the article--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I have substituted your new citation for the one in my update and moved the paragraph about Rakovich down to the section on Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle. HSO, would you take a look at my subpage to make sure that all the other citations from that paragraph are correct. (I'm trying to make the least changes I can so that other editors can make more changes, but not necessarily additions, after my update.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.

The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.

Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.

I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the replacement of the History section

Sure, Roy. One slightly-more macro thing than you'd be comfortable with changing right away is the difference in treatment for Rakovich and Carender. IMHO there is no substantive difference in their weight. They both have RS saying "their protest was the first in what would become called a "tea party" protest & you could easily contrast Zernike's reporting with Bennett's, e.g. (The Feb. 10 protest) "a little-noticed sneak preview of the tea party protests that have since altered that landscape." It's erroneous to separate the two.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice but my update didn't distinguish between Rakovich and Carender. They both were grouped under the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Malke came along three hours later and divided the heading into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, First Tea Party in Seattle".

I therefore ask for consensus to revert this one change: to put Rakovich and Carender together again under one heading until we, collectively, decide (or do not decide) that Carender deserves a separate heading.

Support the reversion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support the reversion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody from the tea party movement claiming Rakovich is the first for anything. And I don't see articles written about her like I see them written about Carender. This is a grassroots movement. It's not a movement created in a corporate office. And please don't embed my name in edits in the article again. You did not have my permission to do such a thing.Malke2010 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I left your name hidden in the article because you edited my subpage update and I didn't want your comments to disappear. Sheesh, you try to do someone a favor and they come along and berate you.

Steinhauser made the statement about Rakovich as reported by Bennett. Please look at the reference for the quote and my comments below starting with "However, Rakovich has only one...". If you look above here, HSO considers Rakovich and Carender the same. I devoted four paragraphs to Carender but only one for Rakovich because of the difference in the quality of their sources. And I don't know what you're saying about grassroots vs. corporate. Did my summarization do anything about this??? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there some special reason you've written: "Malke came along three hours later. . ." Am I not allowed to edit here?Malke2010 13:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked everyone to allow the History section to settle down for a day or two. You made your first edit an hour after I had completed my update. Now that's certainly your right but I think it's my right to comment on that.

As long as we're at it, why do you constantly edit the article with things you must realize are contentious, rather than exploring them first in the talk page? This is not a jab at you specifically; I really would like to know. For example, you added to the Carender quotes even though you must have known that I was against it. What made you do that rather than discussing it first? And it seems to me (and anyone chime in on this point) that, if anyone reverts your changes or additions, he has a good chance of starting another edit war.

Please correct me if you feel I'm mistaken. I really want to hear your views. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've use the talk page regularly. I didn't see your note about letting the history section settle for a day or two. I thought it was a good edit and I mentioned that to you. I didn't know we weren't suppose to edit a subpage. I was under the impression you had put the subpage there so people could edit it (like MakeBelieveMonster has done). And as far as editing, editors come along all the time and add and delete. They may or may not have looked at the talk page, so putting a message there about not editing for a while doesn't guarantee people won't edit. As for the Carender quotes, I actually didn't know you were against it. The quotes help explain something about how things got started. She's credited with being the tipping point. I think she's the point where the FedUp movement morphed into the Tea Party Movement. Not en masse, per se, but some people who showed up for those FedUp rallies are showing up for the tea party rallies, and some of them, since the tea party movement got underway, have become active to the point of going to Washington to see congressman/senators, putting up blogs, using social networking sites, etc. There should definitely be more FedUp mention here.Malke2010 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Rakovich has only one, very-interested advocate (Freedomworks' Steinhauser) who's willing to state that she was the originator of the first Tea Party. (Bennett was only quoting Steinhauser's statement.) Carender has three, presumably-independent mainstream reporters (NY Times, The Atlantic and NPR) willing to say the same for her. (Zernike and Good attribute it to weasel-worded "other people" but not in a quote; Kaste says it outright.) That's why I only allocated one paragraph for Rakovich but four for Carendar. I was thinking about trying for a consensus: either to remove Rakovich entirely or to add something about the possible bias of Steinhauser. But I'll wait. No sense in having two consensus votes on the same topic at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I think the way you've balanced that (by giving a description of Carender's organized protest more content) adequately addresses this concern. I'd point out, however, that Good says "One of the first". That's not the same as Zernike, who says "other people" consider her "the first", or Kaste who says "organized some of the earliest". In other words, those three sources are each informed by carefully-placed caveats. I'd say that's consistent with what you were proposing before it was altered.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to inclusion of the following: " "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[43] [44]" It's not really adding anything & it's WP:UNDUE overkill. I'd like to remove it and replace it with RoyGoldsmith's previously proposed "Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law[40]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated." That really says all that is noteworthy.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

“ Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law[40]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated. ”

That is a beautiful summary. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And so now we're essentially back where we started. I might add that it would help if the "preview" function was used (something I neglect to do at times) more often, but it seems we've got more pressing issues at hand. So what exactly is there consensus for here? We've been focused on this off-and-on for the better part of a month and directly for the last week. I would say the present content isn't acceptable.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And again, we've been at this for a week and there is no consensus for the present content. I do see consensus at a minumum for moving the material back to what RoyGoldsmith proposes, re-merging the Rakovich and Carender sections under the previous title, ""Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Beyond that, I don't see any consensus for editing what Roy had edited in the sandbox. Instead, it was altered without consensus in a way that is WP:UNDUE. I'd simply note that this is unfortunately part of a familiar pattern that has emerged here. It should stop.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary style

As long as we're debating a reduction of the history section, I will reiterate my proposal to move the history section to Tea Party protests and only retain a summary. Currently we have most of the same content duplicated in both articles. But if TPM is really the main article and TPP is really the sub-article focused on the protests themselves... the details of specific protests should go in TPP. TPM should be focused instead on political views & impacts, who the movement is, reactions, etc. I had a proposed summary in the archives somewhere. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. (If you can get consensus from two groups of editors.) Perhaps some parts of our History section don't belong in TPp. I'm thinking of Background, Limbaugh's porkulus and even Santelli's rant. And the Responses section only makes sense if you know what they are responding to. Could you write that summary and insert it on this talk page so that we can see what you're actually talking about? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Here's the (admittedly too brief) draft I created earlier. All are welcome to work on it: User:MakeBelieveMonster/History section

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MakeBelieveMonster: I saw in an edit summary of yours that you wrote: Malke removed it. :(. Please tell me what you think I removed.Malke2010 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will answer that because MBM was responding to me. In [13] you inserted new text but that had the effect of separating a reference from an earlier statement so that it appeared to have been removed. The fix was to copy the ref from the Rove statement and add that ref to the earlier statement. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It underscores how easy it is to misinterpret what an editor has done.Malke2010 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As a casual observer of this exchange, I just can't help but comment how this reminds me of a similar problem from about a month ago. Apparently, the lesson went unheeded. It will save everyone a lot of time if all your edits are fully described in the Edit Summary. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You read too much into things.Malke2010 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)