Wikipedia

Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 9

< Talk:Tea Party movement
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Will Beback in topic Know Nothing
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

First sentences

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I was hoping for some feedback. It has recently been changed from this:

The Tea Party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.

To this:

The Tea Party movement has been described as a political movement in the United States for populist Constitutionalism. It emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.

Thoughts? I'm a fan of the former. †TE†Talk 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I changed it but have changed it back as you recommend. My concern was that "populist" could imply politically left as well as right, but adding either "conservative" or "libertarian" is problematic, as, no doubt, has been discussed in the past. Hence the idea of referring to the Constitution, which seems to be an important reference point for the movement. But it may be too awkward and/or bordering on WP:Original Research to used "Constitution" derived terminology in the first sentence. As time has gone by since the movement's founding, I think "populist" would be more generally agreeable to editors, because recent news has seen media stories about "establishment" conservatives becoming increasingly frustrated with the movement's influence, in particular with respect to Republican Congressional nominations. If conservative "elites" have expressed concern about the movement's influence, it is difficult to content that they represent the movement or control the movement in a significant way, in my view.Bdell555 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks, but I was just looking for some dialogue. Adherence to the Constitution probably belongs in the lead, and I'm surprised it's not really represented in the article. These are problems that need to be addressed. †TE†Talk 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Re:Populist -- I'm probably with you on that and previously opposed it as troublesome. †TE†Talk 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Populist was the subject of previous lengthy discussion and consensus last winter. I agree with Bdell555 that if the conservative elites are complaining, then the movement isn't really coming from them. Also, the CREW people, who seem to only go after Democrats, are now going after Christine O'Donnell regarding her use of campaign funds to cover personal expenses. The Republicans are howling about her win because she soundly beat an establishment Republican. She's apparently saying all the things the Tea Party want to hear. I think the TPM is becoming like a third political party, although they didn't seem to start off that way. They just wanted the Fed policy changed, and were against the bail-out, etc. I'd keep the "political movement," in the lead.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would definately remove the 2009 part in that paragraph. Whoever added that obviously has only done original research, or has clearly done biased research (this article is obviously biased against the Tea Party) and I contest the factual accuracy of this article. The REAL Tea Party began in 2006 as the "Boston Tea Party" and began as a LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.162.145 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if Christine O'Donnell is supported by the Tea Party movement and this story is true, it doesn't sound particularly libertarian.Bdell555 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The Borowitz Report seems to be a joke site as the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Post don't seem aware of this 'protest.' Also, the tea party movement does have antecedents from as early as 2007 that I know of when the first round of mortgage failures began to make news. And the anti-tax groups had tea parties even earlier. That doesn't even account for the FedUpUSA people. I think the article had mentions of these things at the beginning of the summer, but not now.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been tea party movements from December 16, 1773 on. This article is about the tea party movement as it is known as of now (September 2010). Rick Santelli's diatribe against the bank bailout on February 19, 2009 clearly was a significant event in present tea party movement. Before February 19, 2009, Ron Paul and Ron Paul's followers were the ones focused on the tea party idea. The present tea party movement doesn't go back to 2006. Obama won the presidency on November 4, 2008 and I don't see how aspects of the present tea party movement - the one the article is about - could have originated before November 4, 2008. In short, the first aspects of the present tea party movement likely occured some where between November 4, 2008 and February 19, 2009. The 2009 in the first sentence is reflective of Rick Santelli's diatribe and the events that occured shortly after that - all of which were in 2009.JeffreyBillings (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
ThinkEnemies liked this comment. :-) †TE†Talk 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Funding section within Astroturf removed

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments6 people in discussion

I've looked into all these citations. First, the Tea Party movement is amorphous. So claims that Koch or anybody else is giving money to the "tea party movement" can't be used. There's no such organized group.

Koch gives money to something called Americans for Prosperity which is not a tea party organization.

Here are the citations used to support the edit:

New York Observer (the first citation) says this: "Mainstream America is finally getting to know the billionaire brothers backing the libertarian movement, thanks to a pair of dueling profiles in New York and The New Yorker. Now that we've heard about their charitable giving, David's 240-foot mega-yacht and role as patrons of the Tea Party movement, it's time to ask a more serious question: How libertarian are they?"

This just comments on the New Yorker piece, which says:

"In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”

There's no specific mention of funds changing hands with a specific tea party group. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=2#ixzz10r6Meor2

And this last citation is a synthesis of the New Yorker, again, no specifics of money changing hands.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/koch-brothers-accused-of-funding-supposedly-grass-roots-tea-party-movement-102010803.html

"As for the Tea Party, Hess points out that it hasn't needed billions to thrive in the midst of a devastating recession. 'The movement is not really the product of raising money from billionaires. You don't suddenly have almost 30 per cent of Americans feeling comfortable with the Tea Party because there's some billionaire pulling the strings,' he said. 'They're the flavour of the year in a country that's cyclically in the midst of religious revivals or populist movements. We've lived this before; it often comes in times of economic upheaval when people are frustrated, scared or, worse, unemployed. The real question is where would the Tea Party be if unemployment suddenly went down to five per cent?'"

I've not found anything in a Google search that comes up with anything to support any claim that the Koch brothers have specifically given money to a tea party group. Nor is there listed anywhere, a group calling itself "The Tea Party Movement." Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of presentation so we don't violation WP:OR. There's plenty of reliable coverage that indicates that the connection between the Koch's and the Tea Party Movement should be included. The question is how to do it properly so we don't violate WP:OR. Looks like we could describe them as "patrons" or the like. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and it needs to be very specific. Even the New Yorker writer was not able to show any funds changing hands. It might be more appropriate to point out that they have something called Americans for Prosperity, but then again, what does that do other than give out lists of politicians names to tea parties. But of course, the question then becomes, what tea parties receive these lists, and do these tea parties then follow up? It might even be that Americans for Prosperity, if it's a non-profit, is nothing more than a tax deduction for the guy.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the wikilink: Americans for ProsperityMalke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malke and all. I apologize for the heading and anything else that was construed from my two edits (I did not add any citations, only made subjects in two sentences for what was already here). I think that you've scalped the article now though, if you'll pardon the expression. Here for example is a source that would indicate that Koch Industries belongs here, Kevin Freking of The Associated Press in BusinessWeek via Bloomberg. Thanks if you'd please restore Koch in some capacity.

"The company's owners, David and Charles Koch, were the subject of a recent article in the New Yorker highlighting their financial support for Americans for Prosperity, an organization that has worked closely with tea party groups since the movement's inception."

-SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"Financial support" is more descriptive than "patrons," but we can use both. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Also Malke, "Tea-Party Movement Gathers Strength" in today's Wall Street Journal seems to say that the tea party is a movement and is quite a lot more than an "amorphous" group.

"The tea party has emerged as a potent force in American politics and a center of gravity within the Republican Party, with a large majority of Republicans showing an affinity for the movement that has repeatedly bucked the GOP leadership this year, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found."

-SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article hasn't been scalped. Unsourced, original research has been deleted. The Tea Party is amorphous. There is no central leadership, it is comprised of various groups all across the country that are not connected. Some tea parties provide financial backing to local politicians, others do not, such as Tea Party Patriots. They no longer backed candidates. Instead, they go to Washington and visit/harass congressman to change the laws on the stimulus, health care, etc.

You want to say that Koch is directly supporting the Tea party movement. He's doing no such thing. He's supporting Americans for Prosperity. You want to take quotes such as the one you placed above and use that to say Koch is financially supporting "the tea party movement." He supports Americans for Prosperty, which claims it provides lists of names of politicians to tea party groups, and "other support," that is not clearly defined. We can't take these various quotes and build them into "Koch provides financial support for the tea party movement." He does not.

Nor can you make the claim that the central core of the Tea Party movement is the Republican Party. If anything, the local Tea Party support has devastated the Republican field. Many Tea Party members are self-described independents. There is no reliable source so far that says Americans for Prosperity provides financial backing to tea parties. Nor has anyone defined Koch's political agenda.

What we can put in the article right now is that Americans for Prosperity claims it supports tea party groups, but haven't named any such groups. And that Koch has donated money to Americans for Prosperity.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the edit was put back and I removed it. This needs to be worked out here first, especially as regards the citations. The New York Observer is just repeating, it doesn't do the level of reporting that the New York Times does. And the use of "mainstream American media," to start off the sentence, is not informative to the reader. Use the source. "The New York Times reported," etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malke. I think that you should make these changes to the article because you are the only person here with specific objections and ideas. Nobody else can say what you'd like them to say. Would you please add Koch to this article in some capacity? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually just working out something.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll finish writing up something and put in the edit tonight, as I'm working right at the moment and there are two reliable sources I want check on. In the meantime, if anyone can locate other reliable sources, I'd appreciate it.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
So far, what I've discovered is that Americans for Prosperity has two organizations, one is AFP and the other is AFP Foundation. Apparently, the Koch family trusts donate money to the AFP Foundation. Also, a lot of their money seems to go into cancer research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is probably why Jane Mayer in the New Yorker couldn't find anything except this:
"In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”
To claim that the Koch brothers personally or their foundations are donating money to the tea parties will need reliable sources, and I can't find any. It sounds like this is one of those rumors and since the Koch brothers are living persons, there are BLP issues to consider. Maybe we should run it by Ballonman as he's an admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Malke. I've tried to be patient with you. But no source will satisfy somebody who reads so selectively. You're welcome to call in your friends. (Balloonman has made three edits here so I don't know why else he'd be selected.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I searched for reliable sources and could not find any. Also, I do not need to "call in your friends," as you've suggested. Instead, I tried to call in reliable sources. I've not found any. My suggestion to run this by Balloonman was only because he is an admin and might have a better knowledge on whether this would okay to include. I still do not believe it is. As I explained above, after a very thorough effort at finding a direct connection, there is none.
An opinion by Yasha Levine in the New York Observer is not reliable. The New Yorker Magazine piece makes it clear there is no evidence of Koch or the family or the company or their foundations making donations to any tea parties.
Why you want to include this appears to be merely a desire to drape this mantel on this family. Websites, etc. are not reliable sources. If it's to be put here, it needs to be reliable. I've no care either way only that the edit be reliably sourced. It is not, as I made quite a bit of effort to find out.
As it is, I've learned a great deal about this people, more than I ever wanted to know, and the gist of all their giving (from reliable sources) is that they give their money to think tanks in order to influence government regulation of the industries they run. With the rest of their money they seem to be intent on curing prostrate cancer, as one of the brothers is suffering from it. All of this is reliably sourced and well known, notable even, but not a wit is out there to support the claim that this family et al is supporting the tea party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Malke 2010's efforts, there's no reasons why we can't simply report what is presented in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, this is why I suggested we run it by Balloonman. See above reply to Susan L.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that he/she is agreeing with your ostensible statement (report what is in RS's) but not with your implied one (that this is reported in RS's)North8000 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the sourced content. You are free to propose an alternative wording. I am not going to put any more effort on this now. However I do believe that this issue (astoturfing and financing) should go into the lede. I may also need to include the 2009 reporting on the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No it won't go into the lead. It's not notable in any way, and it's not likely to stay in the article without reliable sources. If you want it here, please do the work and find the sources to back it up rather than putting it back into the article and leaving it for others to look after. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think I can make this any clearer but again, these are the so-called sources:

  • What it does say, at the bottom of the article under the bit about the author is that Levine wrote about the Koch brothers and their supposed connection to the tea party movement for Playboy. However, the author blurb fails to also provide the important detail that because the piece contained libelous claims, Playboy retracted it entirely and removed all evidence of it from it's website.
  • Next comes the op-ed piece from Frank Rich in the New York Times. We don't use op-eds because they tend to just report gossip because they can. They're opinions. Note the lack of a story anyway in the New York Times about the Koch bros/family/foundation giving money to the tea party movement. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1&hp

My suggestion to run this by Balloonman, as I think he's neutral, knows the rules presumably better than the average editor otherwise, why give him the tools, could offer some advice. And SusanL. please note, yes, Balloonman has only made a few edits, but then so have you. So what? If you want to mention the Koch brothers/family/foundation, here's about all you can say:

  • They deny giving money to the tea party, and I'd use their quote directly from the New Yorker.
  • They give money to the Amerians for Prosperity Foundation, not the AFP, which also apparently doesn't give money, it sends out lists of policies it wants changed, and then they hope the hell the tea party will take them up on it.
  • They do give their money to Massachusetts Institute of Technology for cancer research and
  • They do give money to think tanks in order to influence white papers on what should and/or should not become public policy regarding government regulation of the industries they control. Another word for that is paying lobbyists to get them what they want.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Doubly so because this is BLP. Making unsupported or weakly supported statements about what a living person purportedly did is the subject of one of the most stringently enforced WP policies. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your comment. It seems a BLP to me as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
We've plenty of sources to draw from. We just need to be careful with the presentation.
I agree that we there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to mention in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Malke, Balloonman's cool. I'll check back in a couple days to see what he thinks. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Per request Balloonman's thoughts

Ok, I have taken the request to review this discussion seriously. When I was first approached on my talk page, I wasn't sure about getting involved (I tend to avoid political dhramas here at WP), but when I saw Susan's comment, that I was "cool" and thus had the respect of both "sides" of the controversy, I decided to take this a little more seriously. I decided to look at this as if I were closing a controversial RfC/AFD. To address Susan's concerns, the limit of involvement here dealt with a single BLP concern that I removed because it wasn't adequately sourced. As soon as a valid source was provided, I no longer cared about the statement---the manner I handled the situation appears to have caught Malke's attention. Prior to this past week, I don't think we've ever dealt with each other (I know you Susan and would consider you a wikifriend before I would Malke.) This page entered my watchlist after I found myself in a discussion on Tea bag, wherein I argued that despite the pejuorative/sexual nature of the term, that Tea Bagger was a term used by both supporters and detractors of the Tea Party movement, thus was appropriate for inclusion on that dab page. For the record, there are others who know and understand the BLP policy better than myself. That being said, I've spent over four hours reviewing the articles and links provided here and elsewhere. I've tried to be fair and impartial in my analysis.

From what I see, the allegations that the Koch's funded the Tea Pary boil down to two articles. The first being an article on playboy.com which has since been removed as potentially libel---the author of that article then attempts to paint the removal as being strong armed by Koch. Playboy, unlike other adult magazines, has garnered a reputation as a reliable source and it likes to be somewhat controversial as that drives sales (well despite the obvious sales driver). Based upon their reputation, I personally find it unlikely that they would kowtow to a legal threat unless the legal threat has legs. The second article is the New Yorker article. The New Yorker tends to be a liberal source but is deemed to be a reliable source. While a source may be reliable, our policy reads, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. So lets take a look at the New Yorker article dealing with the Tea Party Movement.

  • It starts out by saying that there was a fund raiser "Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence." It makes the statement in the manner of trying to say, "but this isn't true." The article uses this summit, which there was no evidence that the Koch's were involved with, to tie the next five paragraphs together through the summit's organizer.
  • It then cites a Koch spokesperson/Koch denying involvement with the tea parties in 2009. The presentation again is designed to make people question the validity of the statements. I mean, the implication is, if there is no truth, then why was the statement made? Perhaps because of the playboy.com article which had recently been published?
  • It then quotes a White House spokesman making allegations that unnamed billionaires are behind the tea party. But the White House doesn't mention them---but the implication in the article is clear it's the Kochs (if this were Wikipedia we would call that synthesis.)
  • It then quote a "longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups." Political operative is a clearly charged term, but beyond that, what does it matter? The fact that a person who has at some point in time (since 1994) worked for an organization that Koch founded said something ties Koch to that person? No, the "political operative" may associate herself with Koch, but that does not mean that it is a two way street or that she is authoritative for Koch. That is hardly compelling evidence.
  • The article then spends the next three paragraphs tying the "political operative" to various people, who are thus linked to Koch? Again, if this were Wikipedia, we would have have challenged the inclusion of those paragraphs as WP:UNDUE. The author is trying to draw lines and create an impression based upon a person who used to work for an organization that at one time had connections to Koch? I mean, the person who organized the summit that Koch was not affiliated with, gave an award to somebody who called Obama the "cokehead in chief"? Please. Drawing a line between Koch to that blogger is tenuous at best.
  • The article then talks about Americans for Prosperity and how that group has supported Tea Party movements... it does not show that the tea party has accepted their advice or guidance. Rush Limbaugh regularly offers up advice to the Democrats, that does not mean that the Democrats recognize Rush. The KKK, Black Panthers, Christian Coalition, Rainbow Coalition, ACORN routinely offer advice to various parties and might have voter registrations. That does not prove a connection or tie-in. Again, the connection here is flimsy at best. Lets use another comparison. Through my former employer, I could give money to the United Way. The United Way has a history of working with Planned Parenthood that goes back 40 years. According to logic used here, if I gave money to United Way, I was then supporting Planned Parenthood, and thus contributing to abortions! Faulty logic.
  • The article then states, "The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs." Again, Wikipedia would have called that WP:NPOV and unsupported. And even if the Koch's rejoice, so does Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and millions of others---that doesn't mean they funded the tea party movement.
  • The most daming material comes from, "Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis." Bartlett has some highly critical words for Koch. But Bartlett was fired from the NCPA, which means that he might not be an objective source on the subject.
  • It then cites an unnamed "Republican campaign consultant" who says that the Koch's started the Tea Party. As pointed out elsewhere, the Tea Party isn't a single group.
  • The article then says the Koch's declined to respond "a prominent New York public-relations executive who is close with the Kochs put forward two friends..."
  • Finally, the section tying the Koch's to the Tea Party, cite a Democratic political strategist who decries the Koch's as being the "epicenter" of the anti-Obama movement. Ok. Let's suppose they are. Does that draw a line to funding the Tea Party?

When dealing with Reliable Sources, we have to look at specific examples. While the New Yorker is generally considered to be a reliable source, this particular article and this particular section are ripe with hyperbole, synthesis, and misdirection. Hell, the whole article is written with a strong bias (the next section begins by tying the Koch's to Stalin.) If this were written on Wikipedia, we would have never allowed it to be published!

That being said, I don't think we can exclude inclusion of the allegation in the article. While *I* don't find the New Yorker article to be compelling, it has been cited and picked up elsewhere. So what do we say? Our current wording leaves a lot to be desired:

In August 2010, mainstream American news organizations[137] started making allegations about the funding sources for the Tea Party Movement. Claims were made that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity.[138][139][140][141]

So let's look at that statement:

  • "Mainstream American news organizations?" The source that supports that statement is Yasha Levine in the New York Observer. The Observer is not a mainstream media outlet, but that isn't what raises the red flag on this source. Yasha Levine appears to be the author whose original Playboy.com article got the ax. But the source does NOT support the comment! It cites the New Yorker article described above and an op-ed piece in the New York magazine. I would not call either of those "mainstream" and even if I did, those don't support the statement. So how about our other sources? All of the other sources cite the New Yorker magazine. The New York Times magazine in a partisan Op-Ed piece, but cites the New Yorker. But needless to say, the source has to go as it does not support the claim.
  • "mainstream American news organizations started making allegations"---no, organizations plural did not start making allegations. A single magazine, the New Yorker, made allegations that others have repeated. There is a huge difference there.

The second sentence, is OK, but in my opinion, based upon the dubious reliability of the New Yorker article, we need to attribute it. In August 2010, the New Yorker magazine made allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity.[138][139][140][141]---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[Note post North's response below: there was a question about BLP. IMO, BLP would not be an impedement. BLP does not protect one from negative reporting, but rather requires reliable sources. While *I* question the source for reasons mentioned above, failure to include the allegation, especially as it has been cited elsewhere, would be Original Research.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)]

What a huge amount of excellent work and analysis! North8000 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The New York Observer quote is irrelevant, I only added it after some IP changed "mainstream" to "some" – to source my OR conjuncture that The New Yorker and The New York Times are mainstream. As to repeating the allegations, what is notable is that practically every American news organization has repeated them in one form or another. This is in fact the essence of being mainstream. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The NYT I would consider mainstream, but the Op-ed piece used is highly partisan screed. I would consider mainstream to be news articles in NYT, Washington Post, the main TV networks, Time Magazine, etc---those haven't been shown. Even if it was, I would find the sentence to be OR and questionable if all they are doing is citing the New Yorker. Reporting on an allegation made by another source is not the same thing as making the allegation oneself. Right now, with the exception of the NYT's op-ed, all I've seen are other sources repeating the allegation---not adding to it/confirming it/expanding upon/delving into more details ets. Again, lets draw an extreme parrallel. Rush Limbaugh makes an allegation against Obama/Reid/Pelosi. The various mainstream news outlets repeat what Rush said, are we going to then conclude that those mainstream outlets are making the same charge? No, those sources are repeating the allegation, but not making it. Plus, the main purpose behind making the statement is to make the New Yorker allegation appear to be more mainstream/accepted by the major outlets than it really is.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. This is an excellent analysis. And I might add that the Kochs' are not household names. Notice that all of this is being reported in New York publications, which yes are distributed nationally, but not picked up by reliable sources elsewhere like Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore-Sun, St. Louis-Post Dispatch, Dallas-Morning News, which have no mentions of this. On the other hand, if the Kochs' were well known on the level of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, it would have been looked at, sources examined, etc. So just on notability alone I'd say it shouldn't be here. We would need to add so much content for the reader to understand what this is all about, and with no specific tea parties identified, it would all become top heavy. Thanks, Balloonman.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I support Balloonman's solution, to read: "In August 2010, the New Yorker magazine made allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity." Sounds AOK to me. Thanks for your help and all your efforts on this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'll put in the cite in a bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. I added wikilinks and expanded the cite. So, good work and thanks again, Malke. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Welcome.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Y'all should write a book on how to settle differences of opinion in Wikipedia. I think that this is the first time I've seen it actually occur. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Give it a week and there will be something/somebody new...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No Evidence Corroborating Protest Slurs

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

It's appropriate to mention that no evidence has come light in the midst of these allegations. Furthermore, it's impossible to cite a source proving that evidence of something DOES NOT exist. It's likewise impossible to find a source for the lack of evidence that John F. Kennedy was killed in a train crash, or the lack of evidence that OJ Simpson is a Martian. If you become aware of any evidence let me know and I will post it and link it. Or please ask for mediation. Otherwise, leave it alone.Digiphi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello, Digiphi. Per WP:BRD, I reverted the addition of the comment "No evidence of either the alleged slurs or the spitting has emerged" because it's unsourced commentary which suggests a conclusion. You have pointed out that it is impossible to source the non-existence of corroborating evidence, which is true, but suppose an editor added this statement instead: "No evidence that the alleged slurs or the spitting did not take place has emerged." They would also be correct in asserting it's impossible to source the non-existence of corroborating evidence, but it still wouldn't be an appropriate comment to make. There are witnesses from both sides of this issue at the time and place of the alleged incident who make contradictory and opposing claims (some say it happened, some say it didn't happen), so adding the declarative comment you've inserted four times now just isn't appropriate in my opinion. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. You're taking a dim view in the example you've created. When you're accused of something, the party prosecuting you will only be successful by providing convincing evidence that your alleged actions took place. If the prosecution cannot do this, you are not subject to a presumption of guilt by failing to provide your own evidence that your alleged actions did not take place. The people making charges of racial slurs and spitting at the protest are declaring that actions took place. To date there is NO evidence in support of this accusation. It's necessary for the purpose of impartiality that this indisputable fact be available to readers in the context of the litany of accusations. Your position that it's impossible to find evidence that the slurs and spitting did not occur is predicated on the idea that Tea Party people should be presumed guilty of the alleged reprehensible acts until proven otherwise. That's a bias. I'll await input before jumping to revert.Digiphi (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a court of law trying a criminal case, with the prosecution's affirmative burden and the defense's entitlement to the presumption of innocence - it's a Wikipedia article, where edits are based not on WP:TRUTH but WP:VERIFIABILITY. The assertion that "It's necessary for the purposes of impartiality that this indisputable fact be available to readers in context of the litany of accusations" is flawed and pushes a particular WP:POV and bias; an opposing editor could make the same argument for the reversed comment about the slurs pointed out above and would run afoul of the same problem. Neither comment should be in the article. Additionally, the assertion that "there is NO evidence in support of this" ignores the fact that witnesses are a form of evidence, and the article as written presents sourced statements from witnesses on both sides claiming that the slurs both did and did not happen. From there, it is up to the reader to decide. Per WP:BRD, I would suggest you discuss the issue here on the Talk Page and seek consensus before jumping to revert and re-insert your comment. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not the point of argument that Wikipedia is a trial court. The example still illustrates what is wrong with excluding the fact from the article. Much of the reaction, described in the following section, concerns the search for documentary evidence beyond just witness statements. It is necessary to state definitively that to date none is known to exist. It is important to readers to have the facts. It was to me when I read the unimproved article. I had to perform searches to satisfy myself that no evidence exists. It ought to be stated plainly, as it is an undisputed fact, so that readers can form judgments on the presentation of all known facts pertaining to the subject. The reason you and I are troubling ourselves to participate in this discussion is an interest in perfection in impartiality in articles. It would be appropriate to replace and bold the statement to improve attention to this discussion. Let us know the counsel of other editors.Digiphi (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Digiphi. Welcome to Wikipedia (not a courtroom; not a democracy; not a forum in which to push personal beliefs as "indisputable fact"). You are a bit late, considering all of this was heavily discussed six months ago. You are encouraged to review archives 4, 5 and 6. Yes, slurs were used. Some were caught on tape when the press was near, like the assaults on Barney Frank. Others were witnessed by several people when only tea partiers, and not the press, was near -- good luck getting incriminating tape from them, especially when they won't see a single penny for it. Yes, spitting occurred, also caught on tape - although some have tried to explain it away as accidental spittle from a screaming protestor. I guess only the protestor knows for certain if it was accidental. The congressman knows for certain that an apology was not forthcoming either way. Your claim of "no evidence emerged" is patently false. As the "spitting" video shows, evidence exists, even if disputed. Video evidence of slurs exists in several forms, but is also disputed.
If an "indisputable" edit of yours is removed, then you may consider it disputed. If you plan to return it to the article, you must also cite it to reliable sources. "I had to perform searches to satisfy myself that no evidence exists. It ought to be stated plainly..."; no - it ought not. That would be a violation we call original research. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither of those vids support either party's position. That no evidence has emerged is not a personal belief. Whether or not you subscribe to this definition, it is a fact. Mentioning the lack of evidence qualifies the dispute over whether these things happened. None exists. I should like to extend to you the same encouragement to present real documentary evidence. Do so, and I will champion its proper place in the article against any opponents. Until then, the article remains biased without mentioning the lack of evidence.Digiphi (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You are allowed your belief that the above linked evidence doesn't support either party's position. You are not, however, allowed to claim that evidence doesn't exist in a Wikipedia article. Please be sure your edits conform to Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not merely my belief as you imply. The vids you are leaning on are not conclusive by any standard. Specifically, neither satisfies the challenges described in the following subsection. More specifically, Breitbart's solicitation (described in the subsection) has not been satisfied. In light of these points, I can be persuaded to compromise on the lack of documentary evidence being mentioned in the subsection, nearer to the context of the challenge for evidence.Digiphi (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You have nothing of value to compromise with. Your sentence is your opinion. You just made it up, and it's by your own admission uncited. It's synthesis, and we don't do that. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, you could only add it if you had a source that commented on it, such as say, the NYTimes does a follow up article and in it they say, "To date no video evidence has been offered to Breitbart," etc. Then you could put that in because it's being reported in a reliable source. But you can't just add it there without a source because then it is read as original research and that's not helpful/informative to the reader. It's also against policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright; that works for me, for now. I recognize the OR parameters better than previously. I will brainstorm for an uncontentious way to either include this fact in the article or balance the section otherwise. You are very good, Malke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiphi (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad it's been clarified for you.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing Tea Party rallies here

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, an editor is wanting to keep this edit [1] which is a list of tea party rallies. I reverted it but he put it back. There is already several articles which cover the rallies and reproducing them here doesn't seem informative nor feasible. As this article is now at 98 kilobytes, it's probably a good idea to just provide a link to the list of tea parties, but not include a section which could quickly become unwieldy. But I'd appreciate hearing what others think. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At most, a summary section that's about half the current size, linking to the list articles. Alternatively, work on a Tea Party movement footer template that would have a good summary of the TP articles, including the event list articles. That said, probably quite a few of those on the list will have notability issues, but that's something for those articles, not here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am for whittling down the summary to, say, three of the largest, or most covered, or most controversial (some kind of superlative) events, and linking to the lists. Each of the three events that make the list should have a brief description of only one or two sentences.
-Digiphi (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm for deleting it altogether and leaving the links which Ravensfire just deleted. These links belong at the beginning of the article. The list of tea party rallies is unnecessary duplication here. This article is focused on the overall Movement and not individual rallies which are sufficiently covered elsewhere.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am fine with that: deleting the summary altogether, but keep the event list links either at the top or where appropriate in the middle. We can always revisit the issue if it becomes pertinent to future developments. If everyone feels good about this, then I will make the changes.
-Digiphi (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the links back.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Some sources...

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion
  • Add Resource Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America (2010) by Kate Zernike ISBN 978-0805093483 99.102.178.29 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Inspired by the other edits; from Washington Post September 26th article (from page A1, and on page A8 also): Kitchen Table Patriots operates out of a two-floor office, paid for by the American Majority which is tied to David H. Koch Family via an initial investment by the Sam Adams Alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.153.196 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
See Tea Party movement "hardly" edits, plus Talk:Americans for Prosperity and Talk:FreedomWorks besides The New Yorker article and Boiling Mad book.
Agreed, the 1984-founded Washington D.C.-based FreedomWorks is hardly-grassroots per the Washington Post article, but the Boiling Mad book page reference is the Koch family, in particular David H. Koch and Americans for Prosperity. The two are related, I agree, but your comment did confuse me. There does seem to be a connection though, same conflict of interest.
Any comments from those who seem to believe FreedomWorks IS grassroot and not a form of astroturfing? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said FreedomWorks is grassroot, and we could include that fact in the article on FreedomWorks. There is no credible source for the Tea Party not being grassroot. All the sources we have for FreedomWorks being involved say they were quick to take advantage of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That is good, Arthur. You are correct in your position. WP is an encyclopedia. This article is about the Tea Party. This article is not about FreedomWorks. Battle it out at the FreedomWorks article. There may very well be a place for it there. It is inappropriate and misplaced in this article. The professional and impartial thing to do is keep it omitted and maintain the proper links to the FreedomWorks article. Readers can learn what they will from the facts about FreedomWorks at its specifically crafted page.
-Digiphi (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


I have restored (and refactored) this section against Ballonman's objection. By careful reading you find a relevant summary of reliable and relevant sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – Mentioning "Coke" does not make something a WP:BLP violation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you've 'refactored' anything 'against Ballonman's objection.' Can you show us a diff?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ballonman objected by removing the whole section. I refactored by removing the redundant subtitles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. Yes, I like having those sources to look at. It's nice Balloonman is here. He's a good troubleshooter. Btw, I saw another article about the TPM using "Rules for Radicals." I can see where they would rely on it as so many of them are Baby Boomers. I'll track it down again and put up the link if it's okay.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Refactoring does make a HUGE difference here... as presented by the IP, it was nothing but disjointed garbage. My concern had nothing to do with pronounciation of Koch (my wife went to OU---and the Koch's have a building named after them.) But rather some of the statements about specific individuals, but I will trust that they are covered in the two sources provided at the end. As originally presented, the section was a rambling screed and the sources got lost in a sea of blue overlinks. Also, there is no "against Balloonman's objection." That is a mischaracterization as far as I am concerned.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I see now why you did that. Also, here's an interesting article from today's NYTimes about the coming house races. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/number-of-competitive-house-races-doubles-from-recent-years/?hp Malke 2010 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Every now and then as editors add to the page, it gets filled with redundant links that are distracting for the reader. If XYZ is already highlighted in a photo caption and in the lead paragraph of a section, then it is not necessary to link it again. And if there are multiple sections that mention XYZ, the link only needs to be at the first mention of XYZ, it doesn't have to be linked throughout the article. Newt Gingrich is an example. He's the former house speaker in the photo caption, in multiple sections, etc. Same thing with the news outlets. In a section that already mentions MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, CBS News, etc., subsequent paragraphs that mention these outlets do not need to be linked again. I've started to remove some today. It will take a while to give the article a close read, so if anybody has the time, help is appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also working a removal campaign piecemeal, whenever I notice them. If everyone keeps this in mind it should be cleaned up very quickly. I recommend placing a template or tag or whatever in a high-traffic spot (top of the talk page?), mentioning this problem to serve as a heads-up to editors of this article.
-Digiphi (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Or maybe we could embed a message, so that editors would be careful about the linking when adding content to a section. It gets to where it's off-putting to the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Funding

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lets make clear that a large chunk of funding comes the oil and gas industry through billonaires such as Koch:

"It likes to present itself as a grassroots insurgency made up of hundreds of local groups intent on toppling the Washington elite.

But the Tea Party movement, which is threatening to cause an upset in next month's midterm elections, would not be where it is today without the backing of that most traditional of US political supporters – Big Oil.

The billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, a private company with 70,000 employees and annual revenues of $100bn (£62bn), used to joke that they controlled the biggest company nobody had ever heard of.

Not any more. After decades during which their fortune grew exponentially and they channelled millions of dollars to rightwing causes, Charles and David Koch are finally getting noticed for their part in the extraordinary growth of the Tea Party movement."

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.122.243 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Pro-Tea Party bias

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments13 people in discussion

This article seems extremely biased in favor of the tea party movement. I see no images of the hundreds of recorded racist signs and slogans or the various audio available of racial slurs being used in chants. This article is vary hush hush on the darker side of this movement. There is also no mention in this article of any of the arrests of tea party members for assault or harassment. There is little mention of the tea party's collaboration with scientology, or any mention of the ludicrous amounts of money scientology has given the tea party. Wikipedia is way better then this and is by their own words committed to neutrality and this article is just anything but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because they don't exist??? Andrew Breibart has offered a $10,000 reward for hard evidence of the alleged "racist slogans" and so far nobody has collected. Breitbart's article exposing the race baiting tactics you are espousing, and his announcement of the reward can be found here: 2010: A Race Odyssey - Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes, or How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark

heres another one for you, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI&feature=related. 5 minute long video full of racist tea party signs. Who knows if racists represent the tea party or if the tea party is a racially motivated movement(it sure isnt a fact based movement) but i do think its worth noting the overwhelming racial tendencies of tea party demonstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.196.76 (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Andrew Breitbart?? Really? This Andrew Breibart?: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/01/rnc-cancels-breitbart-fundraiser/?fbid=fI3vSfBraBh The guy who admitted to manipulating the video to smear Shirley Sherrod? That in itself was a racist move to generate white resentment. I can't believe you are quoting him to defend the teabaggers.

PS.. how come no information of the slavery letter in this article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/mcconnell-on-tea-party-racism.html155.95.80.253 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have hard evidence, you can make yourself a cool 10 grand...DrHenley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

henley are you for real? Really? no racist slogans? Have you actualy been to one of these events or god forbid did a image search?

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/teapartypic.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRJ2UmyHhxI http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/tea-party-racism/

There I would like my "cool 10 grand" Or was that part of your pathetic attempt to troll this article as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg Here is another racist sign, calling obama a monkey. My argument is that because the over whelming majority of the tea party has rather extreme and often racist and hateful slogans, there should at least be mention of that in the article. This article reads like its heavily policed by actual tea party people, much like the scientology article was very one sided before people started to take notice. I am not saying this article is of the same magnitude, however I am saying if somebody who knows little about the tea party where to read this article they would still not know very much about what they really are. The whole anti-tax stuff they go on about despite the fact that 90% of them are in a tax bracket that has the most tax cuts BECAUSE of obama. That is something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So why is it the pictures of President Bush morphed into a chimpanzee and the far left commonly referring to the President as "the chimp" is protected political speech. Not just protected free speech but an act of patriotic duty to be admired by all. But when President Obama gets the same treatment it is racism. In fact just disagreeing with the President or his policies can win that label for your very own. I've covered a number of Tea Party gatherings. The racist signs and comments are from a very tiny minority of those present. In a couple cases I saw event organizers remove the offending people from the event. Yes, there are probably some racists among those supporting the Tea Party. Yes, that may well be something worthy of note in the article. But that does not make tea party supporters racists anymore then Rev. Wright makes President Obama a racist. In fairness, if the racist angle is to be included, then that is the way it should be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalRiverWhiskey (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most incendiary that I've seen. (Picture is uncensored on this site.) BigK HeX (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's one illiterate and racist bastard. Why is he on this talk page? Hate to point out the obvious, but every organization or movement has uneducated racists. Hell, sometimes they're well-educated (I live near a popular Black Liberation Theology church on the south side of Chicago). Anyways, I hope we're not pushing inclusion in some way (guessing if the photo was not already copyrighted, it would be here). We should try not to deface halfway decent wiki articles for kicks, or POV. Don't you agree? †TE†Talk 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"Deface"? Even ignoring WP:NOT#CENSORED, are you trying to say that apparent racist themes within the Tea Party haven't been a notable part of the Tea Party coverage??? BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm just saying that our profound knowledge shouldn't be used to disparage organizations and/or movements. Apparent racist themes can be found in any and all of them. Call it lazy, call it ethical, but I don't think we should focus on it. Whatever you believe it is, we should avoid it for the sake of the project. Like I said before, I have somewhat personal knowledge on articles that I've never touched. Imagine if I did. Imagine 10 more people lacking my restraint. Do you think wikipedia would be better off? I don't think so. †TE†Talk 07:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
think enemies you need to realise that wikipedia is about neutrality and full documentation of a given subject, not just the portion of it that is appealing or easy to stomach. If everybody took your attitude then half of wikipedia would not exist. There is the simple and documented fact that a large portion of the tea party is driven not by political goals or ideals but instead by fear and hate. Anybody who has been to one of these things will back me up on this. The movement has no real practical way of policing itself other then kicking out different branches or leaders. They do not have the ability or at least have not demonstrated the ability to specifically discredit or disapprove of these racist or cultish elements. There are people in the tea party that swear on their mother that obama is a space alien or the anti-Christ. These people are not in any way addressed by the internal forms of moderation the tea party claims to employ. If this article fails to mention these things then the article is grossly violating POV and neutrality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"There is the simple and documented fact that a large portion of the tea party is driven not by political goals or ideals but instead by fear and hate. Anybody who has been to one of these things will back me up on this." I have, and I don't. I have found the majority are kind, friendly, and if not color-blind, very supportive of minorities. Unless you are defining "large portion" as 1% or 2%, you have a clear bias. Please recuse yourself from further discussion or editing of this topic. Thank you. Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I realize much and edit in a very neutral way. All political, religious, and civil rights movements have those who harbor fringe views and theories. They shouldn't dominate the narrative of the article and don't on any comparables from any ideology. You may believe these people are driven by fear and hate, but that's just your opinion. You may think kicking out racist or unruly protestors from events and dropping branches/leaders that exhibit similar behavior isn't effective policing, that's also your opinion. Try reading up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. You don't want this article to be an attack page, do you? †TE†Talk 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What a snooooooze! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.153.35 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the "racist" signs and proof there of? There are certainly more than one isolated case. While the majority of Tea Party folks are likely honest and culturally competent people, you can't honestly deny the examples.

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lionafrican.jpg

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/jews.jpg

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg

http://www.myvoiceoverguy.com/voice-over/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/tea-party-racist-signs-04-back-to-kenya2.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.112.97 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Tea party agent provocateurs? A simple Google search returns About 88,500 results. Doesn't this deserve some kind of mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.21.59 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Really? You guys thought that those were racist? Maybe if you guys stop being too sensitive and actually tried to discern their point or what they're trying to say you would actually understand what those posters mean. For example, the Jews one were not an attack on Jews. It didn't say Jews should be killed in the Holocaust. It's basically comparing the American taxpayers today to Jews in the Holocaust. Whether it is true or not, that's not the point. The point is that that poster isn't racist. The Obama monkey thing, no one said that black people are monkeys. Nowhere. It's just an old phrase of "monkey see, monkey do" with a little bit of change in it. The REAL racists are those who think that very poster are racist. Think about it, if you guys see monkey and quickly associate it with black people, I think you really need to ask yourselves about YOUR racism. 67.85.190.202 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Teh racism section displays a ridiculous amount of Pro-Tea Party bias. 92.11.174.68 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

I removed some. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The "articles" can go, I have restored the categories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I was about to do the same. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Conservative Movements category is not appropriate for this article. This is not about the Christian right. It was never about the Christian right. It has nothing to do with any group like that including Glenn Beck's 9/12 group which is not a tea party group. I have no idea what Beck's group is, but it isn't a tea party group. It was founded before the tea party movement, etc. Please don't put the category back and start an edit war. Discussion first. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what the Christian right or Glenn Beck's group has to do with the appropriateness of this article into the categories. Is there a prior discussion I'm overlooking? --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Part of the category includes the Christian right. And please don't add it back. The page will end up getting locked.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The "Christian right" are not the only conservatives. Restoring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories look appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi BigK HeX, how did 'tea party' get added to the category box on this one? Go look at it and you'll see what I mean. The other categories I'd agree with, but 'Tea Party' next to Christian Right doesn't make sense. If Christian Right came out of there, I wouldn't have a problem.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be all manner of confused. Your edit obviously had nothing to do with anything directly involving the label "Christian Right". Currently, "Christian Right" is only mentioned as an American Conservative movement, which is a pretty-well established classification. And even worse for your position, your disdain for (what you inaccurately believe is) an categorization of the Tea Party with the Christian Right label actually would have a plausible RS basis [see: source], so even if someone were to associate the two in the future, you'd still run into problems trying to revert it out. BigK HeX (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was confused. When I saw, "christian right" in the category, my concern was that the CR inclusion in that category with the words "tea party" right next to it, would be interpreted down the line as associating the TPM as an outgrowth of the Christian right agenda and that is not the case. Those are two very different agendas. The core agenda in the TPM is financial, relating to the foreclosures and the debt burden on the U.S. taxpayer for the bailout, etc. Nobody started a tea party in 2008/2009 because they wanted prayer in public schools. Editors sometimes, even with AGF here, apply categories as a way of POV pushing. The edit was a revert and I should probably have just removed the one category.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The consevative category is a parent category of the tea party category and is unnecessary per WP:CAT. --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CAT#Eponymous categories is ambivalent as to whether the phrase "most specific categories" applies to this instance, but thank you for providing an argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What do people think of the "Right-wing populism" category? It seems to apply. I don't see the relevance of the edit summary when it was removed, "They are not right-wing populism, although I know that is what most Dems and Left media are trying to push." --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it's difficult trying to sort out whether or not labels apply. I don't think Tea Party Movement members would identify themselves as right-wing populists, nor have I heard Democrats decrying them as ring-wing populists, but there are elements of the description for right-wing populism that might apply. Here is the article lede from the entry on Wikipedia, with some portions bolded for emphasis. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Right Wing Populism (also known as radical right-wing populism) is a political strategy and rhetorical style combining right-wing ideology with a populist style of campaigning. Right-wing populism is a core element of several New Right political parties and movements in contemporary Europe. European radical right populists founded the Euronat association in 2005.
The strategy of right-wing populism relies on a combination of ethno-nationalism with anti-elitist populist rhetoric and a radical critique of existing political institutions.
Right-wing populist parties and movements differ from many far right parties in that they accept representative democracy and disavow violent political tactics, yet they are considered radical because they oppose the present political system; right-wing because they oppose the welfare state and have traditional policies on immigration; and populist because they appeal to the fears and frustrations of common citizens. These parties and movements sometimes distinguish themselves from the traditional Right by their support for social welfare programmes, gender equality, gay rights, and separation of church and state. These parties often present themselves as the defenders of traditional liberal ideas. Other RRP parties wish to preserve the dominance of the Christian values as a means of preserving the national culture.
Some scholars see populist movements potentially serving as a precursor creating the building blocks of fascist movements. For example, conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism" in the United States, argues Mary Rupert. Mark Rupert sees echoes of this in some far-right isolationist movements that view globalization as a threat to American interests. Other researchers have found that right-wing populist parties draw voters who are concerned about the cultural impact of immigration, poor economic conditions, and perceived unresponsiveness of mainstream political parties.
The last paragraph sounds more like what they call 'fringe' groups in the U.S. The TPM is mainstream. The fringe groups in the U.S. seem to be the KKK and militia types who live in the woods, etc. I don't see any of that applying to a group like Tea Party Patriots who make bus trips to D.C. to lobby Congress, or the groups who regularly protest Fed policies, taxes, etc. The TPM agenda is right in the article. Doesn't sound fascist. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Malke that the paragraph describing Rupert's particular opinion doesn't really apply to the TP movement, but the rest of the article appears to describe the movement to a 'T'. It appears to be an applicable description, but the issue would be easily resolved if a reliable source describing the TP movement as such were cited. Perhaps something from the "Left media trying to push" that description? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the TPM regularly labeled a right-wing populist movement without much contention - and I would agree with the label as well (but of course that's original research). I've also heard it labeled a far-right organization (IIRC, even the BBC called it as such), but that label has been debated as well (the WSJ, for example recently published an editorial complaining that European press on the TPM tented to be unfairly slanted in this direction - and it actually made a good argument for it as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The history of the movement, defined in this article, clearly puts them outside what would be called far-right. They started as a response to TARP, and grew in response to the Stimulus and Health Care Reform laws on the basis of government overreach and government debt. These are clearly Libertarian beliefs. Even the so called boogymen (Koch's) are well known libertarians. The political Left is trying to label the movement as far right to make it less likely that independents will be part of this movement. This is all quite obvious and reported. If the movement really was a far-right movement they would not have nearly the strength that they do since they would be nothing more than a subset or the Republican Party. If you really want a view of a far-right movement look no farther than the Christian coalition from the early 90's. Their movement was almost completely related to moral issues, and largely anti-abortion. Those movements started in churches. Outside of a few oddballs, the TPM is completely void of true right-wing players. Hell Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is basically required reading. Arzel (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"This is all quite obvious and reported." Howso? --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, did you read the mediate link? Have you watched MSNBC for a day? Arzel (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
How about simply answering the question? --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I do have to agree that this is a movement with a primarily libertarian focus, and that defining an economically libertarian movement could go either way. In this case, though, the movement isn't always heavily libertarian; in fact most of its causes have been taken up by the Republican Party, one of two major parties in the US, and many are supported by a majority of Americans. By that definition, we'd have to call the anti-war movement of 2003 to be far left, a truly unfair label IMHO. Mind you, there are far right elements to the movement (e.g., people that want to dissolve Social Security or the Federal Reserve), just as there were far-left elements to the 2003 anti-war movement (protests by overt communists come to mind). This is the only fair characterization. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party candidates don't sound like right wing populists. They sound like Reagan Democrats. "It's morning again in America, yay!" Remember that?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not radical right

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

the key terms in the definition of radical right = radical because they oppose the present political system. The Tea Party does not oppose the American system of states, taxes, federal government, Courts, Congress, elections etc. They take a normal part and expect the people they elect to participate in Congress. They insist they are following the rules and no RS has challenged that. -- for example, they do NOT recommend people refuse to pay taxes (the 1773 Tea Party did refuse to pay the tax on tea). Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You all might be interested in a recent New Yorker article by historian Sean Wilentz. For what it is worth Wilentz compares the Tea Party and some of its favorite sons like Glenn Beck with older groups that he has no problem calling "far right", e.g. the John Birch Society.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
the Wilentz article focuses on Beck's use of the history books written by Willard Cleon Skousen a professor at Brigham Young University. Wilentz notes that Skousen "did not join the Birch Society". Skousen seems to have gotten many of his ideas from Georgetown History professor Carroll Quigley-- Quigley also greatly influenced his student Bill Clinton, according to Clinton. Rjensen (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that Wilentz appears to be an unabashed Clinton liberal I don't find it surprising that he would collate Beck and the Tea Party with "Far right" ideology. There seems to be common theme that Social Libertarian ideals are fine, but Fiscal Libertarian ideals are far-right. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good point about it being okay for social ideals but not fiscal.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What I find most interesting in the New Yorker / Sean Wilentz article is the way it explains the rise of the Tea Party. No astroturfing, but simply as lack of leadership in the moderate centrist wing of the Republican Party. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at how they behave, and I'm not talking about the fringe that shows up, they do seem to be the moderates. They also sound like they have Reagan Democrats in their ranks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, Wilentz may have his own political motivations. Fair enough, but Rjensen is not characterizing the article accurately. 1) Wilentz does draw a direct comparison to the John Birch Society right off the bat. 2) He then discusses Skousen, whom he identifies as even more radically right than the John Birch Society. Anyway I have no desire to discuss the content of this entry any further. I just wanted to offer you all an additional source. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes article on Tea Party movement/candidates

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Found this today. Interesting read. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/10/15/us/politics/20101015-tea-party-groups.html  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the Tea Party

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

The article is about the Tea Party and its issues, and how supporters and opponents respond. So I dropped long quotes by Obama defending his record in a general way, while keeping one pointed directly at the Tea party. Likewise poll results on scads of unrelated issues don't fit here. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The opinion polls are direct information, so should stay. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The Obama quote is directly apropos, and should go back as well. PhGustaf (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is about the Tea Party movement and its issues, including the responses of its biggest target: the Obama Administration. I returned to the article responses from the administration that specifically illustrate that certain Tea Party positions do not make sense in light of actual facts. In particular, placing blame on the recovery act and claiming excessive taxing when taxes have been reduced for 95% of Americans. I also returned other content that the cited sources convey as directly related to the Tea Party movement. With such a loosely defined, wide-reaching movement such as this, attempting to pigeon-hole it in a neat little article that only describes one side of the coin is not likely to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When the Obama Admin talks about the Tea party it can be and is quoted; every day the Obama people boast about their record--that's what politicians always do at election time--and it is not relevant to this article. Keep in mind that the Tea Party mostly criticizes Congress (not just Obama) and includes attacks on Republicans--many of whom were defeated in primaries by angry Tea Partiers. As for polls, the main results come from a poll deliberately selected for attention because of its results, which differ sharply from Gallup and other national surveys. The U of Washington poll, it turns out, was based on N= 117 strong supporters and N = 66 strong opponents in six selected states. (source = http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html )That does not pass the reliability tests used by pollsters for reporting data, and does not pretend to be a valid national sample (it came from 6 states). Furthermore the data was put here, according to the footnote, because it caught the attention of an anonymous blogger who looked for info hostile to the Tea Party. That is, it was deliberately selected instead of the many polls that gave the opposite conclusion because the commentator could use it to demean the movement. That violates NPOV rules that insists Wiki articles must strive for balance. (The blogger asked "Are tea partiers racist?" and said "So a new poll by researchers at the University of Washington caught my eye." -- ie it was selected to prove racism, as opposed to polls that don't show racism. The blooger admitted it was an outlier poll: "These results cast the tea-party crowd in a different light from other recent surveys." source = http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/04/09/new-poll-finds-tea-partiers-have-more-racist-attitudes.html )
I have already pointed out in detail how that particular poll is worthless, yet because Newsweek produced a biased report using the worthless results it does not matter. Unfortunately this study didn't recieve much attention in the MSM so it's obvious flaws are not reported either, even the preposterious claim in the section "A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology". The Newsweek source is original research (bad at that) from what the actual poll says, when it should be noted that it is Strong supporters against Strong against. Sections like this show all that is wrong with WP and there is little that can be done to fix it least it be called original research. Arzel (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When the Obama Admin comments on the Tea Party, it can be, should be, and is quoted. If you would like to remove those quotes, please come up with a justification stronger than "it sounds like he's boasting about his record." Most of that "rhetoric" also directly addresses the TP's core issues of taxes (he's actually reduced them); recovery spending (experts across the board agreed it was necessary); and spending solutions (viable ones completely missing from the TP positions). As for polls: Of course all polls that produce unflattering results are flawed, everyone knows that, and everyone knows all unflattering poll results are produced by biased, unscrupulous cretins with hidden agendas. Unfortunately, they are also reported on in reliable sources that convey the poll results are both relevant and applicable (your personal interpretations notwithstanding). Xenophrenic (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
@Rjensen. You deleted a block of opinion polls, yet your edit comment only objected to a single-state poll. I restored the remainder of the text not covered by your edit comment. I'll note that my edit should not be taken as having any particular prejudice against the poll of Washington state, and that it may well be worthy of inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Your edit restored what? As I look at it now, it appears only to have deleted text. Mistake? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably a mistake then. Maybe someone already restored the entire block, which means my edit would only have deleted the Washington State-only text. I meant to (mostly) undo the large deletion in this Rjensen edit. BigK HeX (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
yes I agree, and I deleted the rest of the Washington poll. It has multiple flaws: a) based on 110 tea partiers (far lower than any other poll); it is not national; it is not a well-established poll; it does follow standard polling rules as it does publish its margin of error data (which may be around +/- 9 for n=110) Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I returned the polling data. I've reviewed the reliable sources to which that content is cited, and I see no indication in those reliable sources that the poll "has multiple flaws" or doesn't "follow standard polling rules". (The margin of error is 3.1%, by the way.) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The margin of error for the total sample is 3.1%, the margin of error for the smaller splits is no where near 3.1%, it simply not mathmatically possible. Arzel (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely don't see any reason to discount the reliably-sourced multi-state study over an editor's unsourced claims that it "has multiple flaws." BigK HeX (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I misread the section header as "Stick it to the Tea Party." Needless to say, I was unimpressed with the neutrality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Heath Shuler

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Heath Shuler was not there. Story from the WSJ. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely is a source for Shuler's claim he wasn't there, plus that the entire matter is utterly confused. Ravensfire (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuler

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've been requesting reliable sources which justify the deletion of [newspaper article] sourced material. BigK HeX (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


The source provided so far is a WSJ op-ed (here). If it's even regarded as reliable, then I'm still not sure that justifies deletion of text sourced to an actual news article. Was there something more substantial? BigK HeX (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems pedantic, but I was able to find another source here. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better source. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good, I am glad we can agree. Arzel (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Know Nothing

Latest comment: 14 years ago59 comments8 people in discussion
Extended content
Extended content

Discussion

Commentators often compare TPM to the 19th century Know Nothing party. The comparisons cover several different aspects of the Know Nothing party's existence, especially as a populist third party and as a nativist, anti-immigration movement. Here are some excerpts of editorials and analyses, but there are many more like them. I suggest that these comparisons are so common that they merit mention in the article. It's probably worth a two-sentence paragraph in the "Other commentaries on the movement" section. Maybe something like, "Several commentators have drawn comparisons to the 19th century Know Nothing party. Journalists and editorialists have said the movements share these qualities: ...", with a list of some of the comparisons.   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, interesting comparison but it could be construed as a form of 'journalistic astroturf' to discredit the movement. I don't think you can reach back to a setting with entirely different circumstances and apply them to present day. This movement arose from the massive financial crisis, not from shared concerns with the Know Nothing Party. I could be wrong. You should ask RJensen. He knows a lot about that period in history. Also, can anyone speed up the archive bot? That guy who tinkers with archive bots changed the settings and we've got stuff here from July. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the bot.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party is obviously one of a long line of poplist movements in the U.S. I suppose some liberal columnists may use the comparison with the Know Nothings (who were also populists) because of the double meaning of KN. But we should stick with notable opinions, and none of these sources meet that. TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what "notable opinions" are, nor why they apply here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. There are multiple, independent, reliable sources. That should suffice for any NPOV, OR, NOT, V, etc concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Notable views would be ones presented by people who are experts in history, and their views would be published in academic journals. It does apply elsewhere in Wikipedia. Plenty of sources claim that Obama is not an American, 911 was an inside job, etc. But we give no credence to these views unless the experts do. In fact we do not even report these views in articles about these movements until secondary sources have begun to write about them. Using common sense, if I wanted to know about Know Nothings, I would read a history book nothing a current newspaper column by someone who is not a historian. TFD (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather we follow NPOV and NOT rather than censor what information is presented in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Unless you can should that these views are widely held, NPOV does not allow its inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"There are multiple, independent, reliable sources. That should suffice for any NPOV, OR, NOT, V, etc concerns." --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not. We do not conduct our own original research into how independent sources view topics, but find reliable sources explaining how they are perceived. In other words you need to find a source that says, "Many writers compare the Tea Party with the Know Nothings." As Rjensen pointed out there are over 700 scholarly papers on the Tea Party and none of them compare them with the KNs, let alone acknowledge that the comparison has any credibility in the literature. TFD (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD is right. And, to put it a couple of other ways, sources fulfill sourcing criteria. There are other criteria for inclusion that must be met. For example, synthesis, undue weight and being germane to the article. Also, if the source is the one initiating the assertion, then they are primary and not suitable even if they meet other RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is not being subjected to such standards of sourcing (and probably cannot be given the very recent origins of TPM). The imposition for such standards on a single topic to exclude that topic violates NOT and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What you just said does not address what I wrote. And wp sourcing standards apply even if the topic is new. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you don't mind my chiming in here, I have to agree that this information is well-sourced and belongs in the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
North8000, "What you just said does not address what I wrote." Sorry, I believe I already had. Please explain what specific policies, guidelines, etc you're think are applicable. You didn't mention any in particular, so I assumed that they were the ones already mentioned and addressed. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That your proposed edit violates OR, NPOV and RS has already been explained and no further explanation is necessary. If you would like to use the available noticeboards or some type of content dispute resolution then go ahead, but please it is unhelpful to keep repeating the same points. TFD (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so controversial. Here are two paragraphs in the current article:

  • Dan Gerstein, a former Democratic political advisor, argued in Forbes that the protests could have tapped into real feelings of disillusionment by American moderates, but the protesters put forth too many incoherent messages.[1]
  • According to Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, America is locked in a culture war in which either America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise, limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces, or America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. Brooks states that while some have tried to dismiss the Tea Party demonstrations and the town hall protests as the work of extremists, ignorant backwoodsmen or agents of the health care industry, this movement reveals much about the culture war that is underway, and it is not at all clear which side will prevail.[2]
  1. ^ Gerstein, Dan (April 29, 2009). "Dangerous Thoughts: Tea Party Foul". Forbes. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
  2. ^ Post Store (May 23, 2010). ""America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control", by Arthur C. Brooks, ''The Washington Post'', May 21, 2010". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 9, 2010.

The views of Michael White (journalist), Joe Klein, and Jacob Heilbrunn seem equally noteworthy. For an overview, the Egyptian paper notes that observers have made this comparison (though it disagrees with it). If dozens of newspaper editorials express a certain view, then devoting 50 words to that view is consistent with NPOV, which requires that we include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the Salon.com piece was written by two historians.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to be a synthetic assertion, a journalistic form of astroturfing. The Know Nothings were not in these circumstances, the Tea Party movement is rooted in the economic meltdown. I've never heard a tea party participant make a reference to the Know Nothings. If a tea party did that, like they did with the Boston Tea party, then you'd have something. That would be reliable.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to know that I'm on HWY 66 to be on HWY 66. Self-awareness is not a requirement for a condition to be true. What is "a journalistic form of astroturfing"? Are we saying that journalists are not a reliable source for this topic?   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Will, no I'm just thinking that the journalists, like astroturf groups, have their own agendas. And Joe Klein was in Obama's corner and said some pretty nasty things about Hillary Clinton, brilliant presidential candidate, now goddess of American foreign policy and Joe Klein is not. And I think Joe might be astroturfing the playing field.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Everybody has some kind of agenda. We quote a number of folks who have obvious ones, like Newt Gingrich and the head of the AEI. We also quote journalists on other aspects of the movement, such as journalist Howard Kurtz talking about its coverage in the media. I don't see how professional commentators giving their opinions is like astroturfing. If anything, it seems like the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Newt's and Howard's commentaries are very different animals than the comparison to the Know Nothing Party. Trying to characterize the Tea Party movement by using something from the very distant past, before World War I, and before the Great Depression and before the Second World War, is just not credible. The world, and America in particular, are entirely different places from that time period, and nothing specific like the Boston Tea Party that spoke specifically to taxation, etc., is being shown with the Know Nothing Party. But as I said, you should ask RJensen as he is very familiar with this period in history and he might have some ideas about it. :-) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If commentators said a modern political movement had things in common with a citizen's uprising in Ancient Greece, would we evaluate that claim using our own analysis and decide whether or not the comparison is credible? No, I don't think so. It's not our job to decide if the conclusions drawn by commentators are credible. It's our job to summarize those that are significant, regardless of whether we think they're right.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)If the comparison to the two was as widely notable as the comparison to the Tea Party movement and the Boston Tea Party, yes. To the Know Nothing Party? No. That's not credible. It's just what I said it was, journalistic astroturfing. They're simply putting another label on the TPM to discredit it, and they had to grasp at straws to come up with this comparison. It's silly. It's a nonstarter. There's no wide spread notability here. It's isolated to a handful of pundits with an agenda. I'll leave a note on RJensen's talk page. Gotta go, now Will. Talk at ya later.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of "journalistic astrotrurfing", and the term doesn't seem to make sense or be applicable here. The view is widely repeated, so I don't know how you can say it isn't notable. Are the other views which we do report more notable? How so? Is Gingirich agenda-less?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Will Beback here. I think if an editor should never enter material on Wikipedia that he thinks is probably erroneous or is not well argued. Editors are decision makers, after all. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So RJ, what do you think of this comparison to the Know Nothing Party?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone think it's untrue that these commentators have said these things? That's the question here. We don't second guess opinions. If we did, we could have a similar discussion about the "credibility" of every view expressed in Wikipedia articles. We write articles about political and religious beliefs without judging whether those views are "true" or not.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
that's the other role of editors-- to SELECT from the huge stock of tens of thousands of pages of media material on the Tea Party. Lots of effort is being made in this election campaign to discredit the Tea Party--it's a standard technique, much like calling a Democrat or Obama a "Socialist." Items that are selected because an editor thinks it will demean the Tea Party are no-no's because they violate the NPOV rules--the goal here is to stand above the political debate swirling around us and take a genuinely neutral position. I will add that there is unanimous agreement that the Tea Party is not a third party; it is a faction inside the GOP, where it defeated numerous party favorites. Comparing it to a third party is so much a stretch that one suspects the goal is to discredit it. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point about the GOP thing. I also think it's politically motivated to come out with this so close to the elections on November 2nd. If this were widely notable comparison, it would have been drawn long ago.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the recent past, I've seen the Know Nothing references without actively looking for them, so it well could be a notable view on the Tea Party. It could just be a partisan slant, but I generally don't pay much attention to hyperpartisan sources, so I'd guess there is some notability for me to have become familiar with it in passing. I'd have to look back and check the sourcing, but it seems like a legitimate aspect to discuss. Just my 2cents... BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added some more excerpts, some of which go back to September 2009. There are letters to the editor which made the comparison even earlier, not that it matters. When the TPM started, it was not connected to any party, and there's nothing in the article now that says the TPM is merely a faction inside the GOP. If we have sources for that then let's add it.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The NY Times reported that the Tea Party is pushing 138 candidates for Congress, all in the GOP. Are there any at any level in the Democratic party--I don't think anyone of note has been reported. The noted primary campaigns were all in the GOP as well. That makes it a faction of the GOP--it's very hard to call it "independent" with 138/138 for one party. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine, we can add the article to Category:Republican Party (United States) organizations.   Will Beback  talk  04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

  • Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement is one of a series of predominantly white populist movements, including the 19th century Know Nothing party, that have shared a "fear of displacement".[1] U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd also compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying the movement seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America".[2] Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of the Know Nothings and other third parties in U.S. history that have faded quickly.[3][4]
  1. ^ Fraser, Steve; Freeman, Joshua B. (May 3, 2010). "The strange history of Tea Party populism: The resentment fueling today's Tea Party movement is as old as America". Salon.com.
  2. ^ Koch, Robert (September 19, 2009). "Senator looks back on difficult year". Washington. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.
  3. ^ Heilbrunn, Jacob (February 21, 2010). ""The 'tea party' dance; Will the movement sink or save the conservatives?". Los Angeles Times. p. A.28.
  4. ^ Wickham, DeWayne (September 7, 2010). "'Tea Party' is today's 'Know Nothing' movement". USA TODAY. McLean, Va. p. A.11.

This is a neutral account of a significant point of view. It cites two historians, a U.S. Senator, and a conservative columnist.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Salon article compares the Tea Party with the Sons of Liberty, Know Nothings, Populists, Huey Long, Couglinites, Goldwater, Wallace and Nixon supporters, McCarthyites, and Birchers. Why single out the KNs? Why not just say that they have been described as populist? Rather than use this magazine why not look at the academic literature to see if there is a consensus or majority view on how they are described? TFD (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if we want to upgrade the sourcing for this article to only include academic sources then we can start rewriting it. However I don't see any academic literature cited in the article now so we'd have to start from scratch.
As for the KNs, we have 17 sources that compare TPM to it, which adds weight. How many sources compare TPM to Couglinites?   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The news archive provides 29 hits although they include blogs.[3] Other hits: George Wallace, 114[4] William Jennings Bryan, 38[5] Ross Perot, 304.[6] TFD (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Then let's find the best sources and add something about Perot too.   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I looked at all of the "Father Coughlin" hits.[7] There are no usable sources in the entire lot. Most of them are reader comments or duplicate links, and the rest compare Beck, not the TPM, to Coughlin. I wouldn't trust those Google numbers unless they're confirmed as relevant, usable sources. There appear to be a significant number of comparisons to the John Birch Society. Maybe we can broaden the paragraph into something like "Observers have compared the TPM to previous movements in U.S. history, including...." Let's keep the list short.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is that if you are looking for something you can find it on Google. But a review of the literature shows that the most common comparisons are made with right-wing populism in Europe and similar movements in the American past. The number of hits is highest with the most recent populist movements - Perotistas, Wallace supporters, Birchers. There are more comparisons with William Jennings Bryan than KNs. TFD (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to sift through the Bryan hits and see if there are any usable sources then go ahead. I think that the Google numbers are useless because the net Google casts is so indiscriminate. I've been using the Proquest archive, available for free through many libraries, because almost all of the hits are reliable sources, and it just necessary to filter out duplicates and the rare false-positive (more of a problem with search terms like "tea party" and "know nothing"). Anyway, getting back to the proposed "Observers have compared the TPM to ..." format, is that preferable? If so I'll make a new draft.   Will Beback  talk  08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist, nativist, or secretive movements and third parties. Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement is one of a series of predominantly white populist movements, including the 19th century Know Nothing party, that have shared a "fear of displacement".[1] U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd also compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying it seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America".[2] Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order.[3][4]
  1. ^ Fraser, Steve; Freeman, Joshua B. (May 3, 2010). "The strange history of Tea Party populism: The resentment fueling today's Tea Party movement is as old as America". Salon.com.
  2. ^ Koch, Robert (September 19, 2009). "Senator looks back on difficult year". Washington. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.
  3. ^ Heilbrunn, Jacob (February 21, 2010). ""The 'tea party' dance; Will the movement sink or save the conservatives?". Los Angeles Times. p. A.28.
  4. ^ Wickham, DeWayne (September 7, 2010). "'Tea Party' is today's 'Know Nothing' movement". USA TODAY. McLean, Va. p. A.11.

We'd still need to add a sentence on connections with the earlier Reform Party, etc., once sources are found.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why of all previous populist movements you would choose the Know Nothings. I don't know if you saw Gangs of New York but it is not the first thing I would associate with the Tea Party. I do not see how a Salon magazine article should be used as a source. How accepted is the "fear of displacement" theory anyway? Neutrality requires that we state this which is why we should use academic sources. And I see no reason why we should go into detail about the history of populist movements in this article. TFD (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TFD, this is getting over the top. Just because a couple of pundits want to write a biased article in time for the elections, as if they could sway American voters, is no reason to suddenly believe there is a new direction in the Tea Party movement. It is the same Tea Party movement. It is using the Republican Party that is often at odds with it, but it is not at all in existence as the Know Nothing Party was. This is entirely original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The mission here should be to write an accurate, informative article about the TP, not to try to game the system to see how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings") one can torture into the article to pursue the personal agendas of editors. For those who can't follow this higher calling there are only the policies and guidelines. In the cases in this article, the RS section of WP:ver is the least relevant of the wp policies and guidelines regarding deterring this, folks keep pretending that if something meets that one section, that all other policies and guidelines are canceled. The other ones (which must also be met) do apply and need to be applied. Two relevant ones are wp:undue and the restriction on use of primary sourcing in wp:ver. Covering a chosen detractor's opinion about a multi-million person movement violates both. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work! I think we're taking the necessary caution to avoid WP:SYN issues, and we've plenty of sources to meet any NPOV concerns and even the extra-high-quality-standards that some editors insist is required here. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. It's not original research to add accurate summaries of reliable sources that directly address the subject. Salon is just as good a source as any other used in this article. No primary sources are being used. There's no "gaming" involved. If there are no other suggestions for improving the text I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You are basing this on opinion pieces. There is no widespread notability by credible reporters with evidence that the Tea Party movement is using the platform of the Know Nothing Party. This article is being used to push a POV. You are not doing great work to avoid pushing a synthetic issue, you are pushing a synthetic issue put forth by left wing pundits.
If Joe Klein decides to liken the Tea Party movement to the KKK, should we add that, too?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"You are basing this on opinion pieces" I believe we have multiple sources that meet WP:RS. That should suffice.
"There is no widespread notability" there doesn't have to be per WP:NPOV
"the Tea Party movement is using the platform of the Know Nothing Party" No one is saying any such think, thankfully! --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, notability does count. And opinion pieces comparing/contrasting the Know Nothing Party, is original research. Show us where the Tea Party movement began as an effort to stop immigration to America? Where is that? What are these pundits basing this on? A couple of ivory tower professors with liberal backgrounds who are paid to write a specific piece for Salon does not make for notability. Show me the New York Times article that connects the two groups. Where's the investigative reporting, the widespread news reporting? There is none. This is not notable. This is pure POV pushing.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
All irrelevant as far as I can make out. We have multiple reliable sources meeting WP:RS, that present a significant viewpoint per WP:NPOV, and we're not making an improper synthesis from the sources per WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"RS" has two meanings in WP; one of them is that the source is suitable for the use according to wp:ver. This fails that. The sources are asserting the viewpoint, not covering it. The other is meeting the RS subsection or wp:ver (which does not cover other wp:ver requirements such as primary/secondary).....meeting that is not sufficient to meet wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We obviously disagree. Take it to WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That could deal (just) with the primary source issue which I raised. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We could ask Balloonman.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

North8000, which one is the "primary source"?   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I just reviewed the references for this article and found that there appear to be at least a couple of dozen op-ed pieces used as sources. We also use videos of people speaking, including pundits on the Glenn Beck show. I think if folks are concerned about op-ed pieces and pundits then they'll need to do a lot of work to bring this article up to the standards being applied to this text.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_9&oldid=1137220643"