Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A counter-organization?

This article might want to include the smaller but still existing counter-movement, entitled "The other 95 percent" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tea-parties-protest-tax-d_n_538747.html). It's not something you would devote a section to but I think it at least deserves a mention. And because I realize the Huffington Post might not be the most reliable source for Tea Party matters I found another link: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/obama-fans-storm-tax-day-tea-party-in-dc-video.php. Here's its website: http://theother95.com/. Guitarist Levin (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that it is worth mentioning, do you have a suggestion as to where to put it? --Donatrip (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Obama supporters are hardly a countermovement. The Tea Party is a countermovement to the current government largesse. The "The other 95 percent" are supporters of the largesse, ie the current state of government. Therefore they cannot be a group similar to the Tea Party. If they should obtain some substantial coverage they could be grouped into those that actively protest the Tea Party. Ironically, one of their claims is that Obama reduced taxes for 95% of Americans, while Bush reduced taxes for only the top 2.2%, which is so laughably wrong as to be abusrd to the nth degree. Arzel (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am on your side here, Arzel. However, this group was specifically made to protest the tea party movements, and since this is an encyclopedia, we should mention it on the Tea Party protests page. One sentence is enough. --Donatrip (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves even a sentence, unless it first gets some coverage in independent reliable sources. I checked the links, and it looks too new, too small and not notable - basically a little cheerleading squad for the Obama administration. Maybe in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"dismissive" media coverage? Not Neutral wording.

"Commentators promoted Tax Day events on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, while the Fox News Channel regularly featured televised programming leading into and promoting various protest activities.[13][14][neutrality is disputed] Reaction to the tea parties included counter-protests expressing support for the Obama administration, and dismissive or mocking media coverage of both the events and its promoters.[14][15][16]"

That doesen't seem neutral to me. Media coverage has been mixed (and anyone who watches fox news would understand that they promote them constantly). And while there is a significant amount of dismissive or mocking coverage by those on the left and in some media stories, I wouldn't characterize the media coverage of it as "dismissive" or "mocking" at all.

Is there any way that this could be rewritten without generalizing about the media's reaction and making the Tea Partiers (is that a word?) sound like victims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.252.93 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

there are Associated Press sources indicating perfectly the attempts at sabotage and misinformation. Furthermore, try wathcing MSNBC, the same way in which Fox unabashedly promotes the Tea Party, so does MSNBC and CNN mock it. Watch Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity, then flip back and forth hearing the two give their opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napkin65 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just watched cnn for a few hours including a few stories on the tea parties. Didn't see any of this mocking, how much longer do I need to watch? I know msnbc mocked tea parties and especially fox news last year, but now they seem just mostly critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot130 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

...reference to the Boston Tea Party

If a group of people would dress up as Muslims then hijack a container ship coming from China, then dump all it's contents into the ocean, then that would be in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party. Because like the East India Company, China dumps, and that cost Americans jobs. I don't see any of that.98.165.15.98 (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a protest against Taxation without Representation. That is the reason why the Boston Tea Party happened. Donatrip (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a gross over-simplification of events - a narrative trumpeted by the Fox News hosts of the Tea Party Protests. Please view the Boston Tea Party article. 24.199.34.245 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

POV statement tag after Fox News Channel...

Adding in that Fox News Channel was "promoting" the Tea Party protests is irrelevant. The way that this sentence is written, it makes it seem like the Fox News Channel company--as a whole--is one of the main channels Tea Party protesters use to "spread the word". The sentence shouldn't have Fox in there, unless they add all the other news companies that have political commentators that support the tea parties. Or, they could replace Fox News Channel entirely with something like "popular political commentators". You can even mention their names--but you can't blame an entire company for the views of a few shows! I'm sure MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc., have political commentators on their news channels or blogs that express their opinions. Does that mean the entire company should be blamed for that one person's opinion? What if they have political commentators from both sides? That creates a paradox, doesn't it? Adding in the source from "PolitiCo" doesn't help either...like in the Wikipedia guide (WP:NPOV), it listed an example of how one might say "the Beatles are the best band ever". That is an opinion. It would be better to say "In the latest Rolling Stone, it says that the Beatles are the best band ever." So in this case, you could say "News outlets such as MSNBC and PolitiCo say that Fox News Channel is promoting the tea-parties". Think about it! Donatrip (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that Fox News was promoting their coverage of the events. Everything else that follows is just a domino effect. MookieG (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Very astute comment Mookie, I concur Rapier (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples of FOX News promoting tea parties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZ0vaAwTtU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynTLYkvy-Kw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiUO25B1UJU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSPeMK6T0SQ&feature=related At 0:35, FOX admits it themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ZzMW5CqlU&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.231.193 (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The first video is irrelevant and goes right along with what I was saying about the political commentators. The next few seem to have something to do with the company as a whole, yes, but once again most are not Fox News reporters, rather, more political commentators that have programming on Fox News. And in the final video, Fox News does admit to promoting them, however, it was used in the context of the question "Why wasn't the other news media covering this?" (as they were the only ones) and even the "Title" that is shown at the bottom talks about Media Bias. As MookieG said, Fox News was promoting their coverage of the events. --Donatrip (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain, but this appears to be coatracking [WP:COAT] the irrelevance of the statement that Fox News is "promoting" the tea party movement, making it instead about the lack of mentioning other news agencies. Also, these comments provide no proof of other agencies promoting the tea party. Someone help? Sir Scarfalot (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sir Scarfalot

It isn't...I was saying that it was the political commentators on Fox News, and saying that there are political commentators on all news media, adding to my point that it isn't an entire companies opinion just because of the programming that may be on it. Another example: Newspaper B's columnist writes "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi." Does this mean that "Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi" is the official position made by the company? No, just by that columnist. The lack of mentioning other news agencies came from the fact that there are (as said before) political commentators on all news media, and if they share the opinions of the commentators on Fox News, does that mean all the companies that they work for should be listed along with Fox News? Because that would only be fair--it isn't fair to list one without listing the others. (I was saying that it would be easier to take Fox News out rather than list all those companies) --Donatrip (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hrm... yes, that makes sense now. Sorry about that. Sir Scarfalot (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sir Scarfalot

It's okay...we all make mistakes :) --Donatrip (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, FNC was promoting their "coverage" of the events -- which is true, and isn't really controversial. But FNC also promoted the actual "events" themselves, encouraging viewers to attend them, providing maps, dates, directions -- that is the part of the article being discussed, correct? While most cable news channels do have both a news arm and a commentary/opinion/editorial arm, the Tea Parties were promoted by both arms of FNC. Hence the controversy. There may be related content from just the past 48 hours regarding Sean Hannity, Fox News and the Tea Party Movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hannity is hired as a political commentator. Aside from that last part of your comment, you are correct to the point of FNC did provide maps, dates, and directions to people for these events. Having said that, when a news agency has someone that they are interviewing, do they not put up a link to that person's website on the screen? Do they not sometimes even provide links to "further coverage" of the person on their website, where it is inevitable that the person's website will have a link to it again? You may say, "But that is different, a website isn't considered promotion or endorsement; FNC did much more than that." The news arm of FNC did only those things. The problem is, where do you draw the line that defines commentator from reporter? One may say "America's Newsroom" with Bill Hemmer and Meghan Kelly is a news show, but doesn't Meghan have a segment called Meghan's court? Doesn't Bill sometimes chime in? So doesn't that make them commentators? All in all, if you do watch FNC and see the programs on there where it is clear that the hosts are reporters, you will see none of this "promotion" only promotion of their coverage of the events, and stuff like "Watch Glenn Beck tonight for his exclusive...." --Donatrip (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer your questions, does a news agency put up links to an interviewee's website? Not usually, but they may if they are promoting something related to that individual. Do they provide links to "further coverage" of the person on their website? Absolutely, but we're not discussing links to "further coverage", we are discussing links promoting the subject, like Find A Tea Party Near You! links. Links to tea party organization promotional videos explaining why you should go to a Tea Party. There is no reporting, or "coverage" there, it is simple promotion. The FNC news arm did only those things? What arm is "Special Report with Bret Baier", and was it "coverage" when he gave the TaxDayTeaParty.com website address to his viewers? What arm is "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren", and is it "coverage" when she lets a guest direct people to TaxDayTeaParty.com and Americansolutions.com to see what the Tea Party protests are about? What arm is "America's Newsroom", where Bill Hemmer displayed individual Tea Party locations, start times, contact information, and ended his segment by telling viewers to head to the FoxNews.com/americasnewsroom website to learn if there is a protest near them, and to see a growing list of upcoming protests. Pure promotion. I wasn't talking about Beck, Hannity, and the other talking-bobble-heads that don't serve as actual newspeople, but they, too, were right there every day saying not "watch our coverage", but instead saying, "join us at the protest, or if you can't travel to one of our events, find one closer to you!" That isn't promotion? I brought Hannity's name up because of this. And this. If it is okay for "commentators" (but not newspeople) to promote the Tea Parties, as you seemed to imply above, then why are the FNC bigwigs getting all bent out of shape about Hannity? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it to you that Hannity was pushing it. But once again, does Hannity's actions reflect on the entire company? Just the fact that the FNC bigwigs were pulling him from the rally should have said something. "If Hannity goes out and does this, it might reflect on the entire company so I will not have him do this." On an unrelated note, I reread the sentence in which the reference to FNC appears, and it seems that it wouldn't take much to change this sentence to make it more acceptable. Instead of "while the" make the entire sentence "Commentators promoted Tax Day events on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and the Fox News Channel, where they gave viewers information on how to join a tea party in their town." I know it would have to be tweaked to make it sound better, but if you changed this, you could keep your FNC in their, I could have my "Commentators promoted" in their, and it would also make it sound more as if the news arm of FNC was more into giving information about the tea party, rather than all out promotion (which is what the news arm was doing). Is this a compromise that you would be okay with, Xenophrenic? --Donatrip (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Hannity tangent is unnecessarily confusing the issue. Your observation that the FNC bigwigs, this tax day, seem to have an attitude change from last year, is spot on. It's not a complete abandonment of their cheerleading and promotion, but they have drawn back significantly. This is the content we are discussing:

Commentators promoted Tax Day events on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, while the Fox News Channel regularly featured televised programming leading into and promoting various protest activities.

Right? My suggested change to that sentence would be to add the word 'Fox' at the beginning, before "commentators", and maybe stick '2009' in there to differentiate that Tax Day from this one -- and leave the rest as is. You offer a 'compromise' that absolves the Fox news network of its responsibility for promoting the Tea Parties (which it did do, and not just through its political commentators), which goes against cited sources. You claim the Politico source article is mere opinion, but it cites significant, reliable secondary sources. Please take a look at this section of the movement article, paragraphs 3 through 6 Tea_Party_movement#Claims_of_bias_in_media_coverage, for another summary of the same topic. There is one statement you made in the initial paragraph of this discussion that I'd like you to clarify for me, if you would: The sentence shouldn't have Fox in there, unless they add all the other news companies that have political commentators that support the tea parties. Which other news companies that have political commentators promoting ('support' is the incorrect word here) the tea parties would you add, and with what supporting citations? I'm just curious. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One that comes to mind is Erick Erickson. He is a tea party promoter, and works for CNN (just recently he got the job as a political commentator). So if you include Fox News Channel, I suggest you include CNN too. (If you want citations, just Google "Erick Erickson on the tea parties" and "Erick Erickson CNN") There are probably plenty more, when they come to mind I'll look them up and post them for you. --Donatrip (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article content is about a news network (Fox) promoting the tea parties - they crossed the ethics line from journalism into advocacy. You mentioned "other news companies" should share the blame, but I find no evidence that any other news network promoted the tea parties. I re-checked CNN, and I cannot find one instance where they have promoted a tea party. Hiring a conservative (Erickson) as a commentator does not equate to promoting the tea parties, even if Erickson has done promoting prior to signing up with CNN. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should I take the lack of a response as an indication that there are no other news networks besides Fox that "promoted" the tea parties? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the other news networks crossed the line the other way. CNN and MSNBC advocating against the Tea Party movement. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the biased newspapers too, Arzel. Oh, and plus, if you notice, CNN and MSNBC aren't mentioned in the next sentence; it just says "media coverage". (The sentence I'm talking about is the one after the POV tag. Donatrip (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, is it time to remove the POV tag? Or are you indicating that you wish to relocate it? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To relocate it to the end of the second sentence...which I will do as soon as I get done writing this reply. Donatrip (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a new issue then. Could you please describe the POV issue in more detail here? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I came by to offer comment, but I honestly cannot tell what is being discussed after this thread. To speak to what I think is being discussed. The word promote when applied to Fox's coverage is non-encyclopedic and perhaps even weasle. The fact that Fox is placing more coverage than other networks is provable and factual. Their coverage of the protests is at best tangential to what this articles is about. Those are my thoughts, I do not know if they are relevant. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Cut&Pasted from 13 paragraphs above...) As noted above, FNC was promoting their "coverage" of the events -- which is true, and isn't really controversial. But FNC also promoted the actual "events" themselves, encouraging viewers to attend them, providing maps, dates, directions -- that is the part of the article being discussed, correct? While most cable news channels do have both a news arm and a commentary/opinion/editorial arm, the Tea Parties were promoted by both arms of FNC. Hence the controversy. The promotion of the events, in the opinion of many, crossed the journalistic line into the realm of advocacy. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad Behavior and alleged bad behavior

Regardless of what this section is to be named, it violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT and would make a nice WP:ATTACK page for the Tea Party protests. I believe we can create a small, summary style section covering that particular protest in D.C. on March, 20, 2010. Lawmakers claimed this, GOP quickly denounce, others question authenticity of claims, more people came out to support the lawmakers, etc. Four maybe five sentences ought to do it. We can add all the cited sources in the appropriate places for the reader. The current version is ridiculously POV. WE CAN DO BETTER by keeping the weight down to mesh with the rest of this [NPOV] article. The vagueness of our wording will take care of the coatracking, and will dissuade other editors from attempting to use this article as an attack page, by example. The ultimate goal should be to improve this article, not to play politics. This article could also benefit from assigning an impartial administrator to watch over the editing and work as a mediator for other editors. MookieG (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that specific claims of bad behavior at specific events should moved to the sections for those events. Grouping them together is synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe or not, this section is all about one day of one protest in the Capital. And the events might account for a couple minutes, tops. It's odd to witness something like this grow a life of it's own. There was a similar problem in the Tea Party movement article regarding a protest in Chicago and CNN, which led to edit warring and page protection before being mostly removed. I expect this to develop and conclude much in the same fashion. MookieG (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MookieG, but this isn't the only section that could be considered biased or "not-neutral", most of the article is written that way. Donatrip (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MookieG. It violates every standard of fairness, not to mention the Wikipedia policies he enumerates, to libel 24% of all ordinary Americans based upon these flimsy, politically-motivated charges by powerful politicians. It is especially egregious to let the unsupported libel charges stand while censoring any defense provided by Tea Party spokesmen. Freedom Fan (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this section accounts for approximately 30% of the text in the article, yet is only describing the actions of 10 or less people of a movement that is tens of thousands strong. Saying this violates WP:UNDUE would be an understatement. I think a good start for cleaning up this section is to remove the commentary from the congressmen--we all know what they allege; we don't need to include every quote they made to the press afterwards.

Ultimately, I would hope this section could resemble its "sister section" in the tea party movement article. There's no need to include every single accusation made of one person allegedly saying or doing something stupid. And incidentally, I don't see anyone adding any information to the SEIU page regarding their members being caught on tape assaulting conservatives at the town halls last summer.CH52584 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly an accurate description of the article section. Yes, it only gives 10 specific examples of poor behavior, but that in no way means those are the only examples that exist. Would you care to guess how many more "examples" can be added about disruption (and violence) at town hall meetings; posters using racial slurs and imagery; threats and obscenities posted at organizational websites or left on recorded voicemail messages; guns, gun-sights and "If Brown can't stop it, a Browning can..." signs - and that just scratches the surface. Of course we can't paint the whole movement in this light - it's just a minority segment, but it is significant. Even if you think the significance has been inflated by the media, it is still significant. I agree with you that the section is lengthy (and can get much longer), but stripping out commentary by those directly involved while leaving in commentary by partisan talking heads that weren't even there is disingenuous and not productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed 1/6th of the section without having to delete any meaningful content. Let's try to keep the commentary to a minimum.CH52584 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your removal also included the addition of inaccuracies, such as saying Shuler later denied something, which he didn't. An opinion piece claims that a spokesperson claims Shuler was misquoted. I'm reverting your stripping of 1/6 of the section, because there is apparently some disagreement about what constitutes "meaningful content". May I suggest, instead, that we work to formulate a short, concise description of the overall "behavior" issue - representing the significant POVs about it - and leave out the endless example list altogether? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, that is an excellent suggestion. Please feel free to write something up and let's discuss it. Rapier (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits, it would appear the same editors want to clone the "bad behavior" section from this article into the Tea Party movement article. The concise, encyclopedic summary I'd prefer would probably be more suited to the Movement article, as the subject matter has seemed to grow beyond a few incidents related just to specific protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently NO response to the allegations of bad behavior, yet we know for a fact that there have been responses to these allegations. As it currently stands this is a severe violation of NPOV, either include a response or remove the entire section. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently no response to the unnotable chick that says Barney Frank started the bad behavior? There is no response to the unnotable Owens guy that says he didn't hear nuttin'? No response to the Fox News cite that says several protestors say stuff never happened? You are right - we need responses to those. Do we have any? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then lets do the correct thing and remove the whole section which is nothing more than an attempt to demonize the entire group. This whole thing is nothing more than a "He said, She said" situation, very little of it verifiable, and most of it being done for political purposes outside of the party movement. Arzel (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, are you going to discuss this or continue to simply delete information? Arzel (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I've never "simply deleted information", I'll have to ask you to be more specific. What, exactly, would you like to discuss? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You continue to remove the section regarding Breitbart without any apparent concensus. Arzel (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an incorrect statement. I have only removed partial Breitbart sections - you know, the blatantly POV versions that are missing the balancing Breitbart content. You'll note I have left the NPOV versions of the Breitbart content in the article. You have been inserting the POV version without apparent consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then fix it. Your blatent removal of information shows no good faith leaving a FAR worse violation of NPOV then the one that you would surmise. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what you are asking. I have fixed it several times already. My removal of your one-sided, incomplete and misleading Breitbart segment has nothing to do faith, praise be. I'm equally fine with having the full, balanced and accurate Breitbart segment in the article (you know, with accurate wording, and with Trumka disputing Breitbart, and with the AP pointing out Breitbart was using a video clip of the wrong time as support), or having the whole thing removed. Hallelujah! You and I aren't the only ones with a say here, by the way. I've seen that same content added, removed and edited by several other editors. Amen! Xenophrenic (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your version is hardly a NPOV of the situation. You seem to want to expand upon the Breitbart issue and put him on trial. All that is needed is his reward offer, and perhaps Trumka. The specifics regarding the video clips are irrelevant to the issue. "X" says "A", and "Y" responds with "B", you don't need to go back and forth with the he said she said by setting up a false arguement. Now, if you want to make changes to the addition, then we can discuss and come to a compromise, but if you are simply going to remove then I don't see how this can move forward. Additionaly, your edit comments do not show good faith. You claim that you have some sort of concensus per talk, when that is clearly not the case. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the scope of this article is the protests themselves, information not related directly to protets should be at Tea Party movement. Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The content as it stands right now has claims by people that were there. The claim that racial slurs were used, countered by the claim that none were heard. The claim that anti-gay slurs were used, countered by the claim that Frank started it. (There's your balance, although a strong argument could be made for removing the two no-name supposed witnesses based on WP:FRINGE.) You want to add in an uninvolved conspiracy-monger's opinion that it was all part of a Pelosi master-plan to incite a racial incident, with the complicity of several distinguished lawmakers and several more staffers - oh, and his political theater grandstanding offer to make a donation if Lewis coughs up more proof. No, I don't want to put Breitbart on trial - there is really no need. But if he is going to be wedged into the Tea Party protest article when he had no involvement in that protest, then that opens the floodgate for balancing content from equally irrelevant sources, doesn't it? And yes, the video information is highly relevant because the fact is: Breitbart can't produce a single video showing that the slurs didn't happen. Oh, and your statement, "You claim that you have some sort of concensus per talk...", wrong - I never made such a claim. I said you didn't have consensus. Just check this talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono is right - information not directly related to the protests doesn't belong here. Breitbart had nothing to do with the protest, and he only inserted his opinions into the mix after the fact. Do we really want to open it up to supporters and critics that weren't even there? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Xeno, removal of Breitbart and calling it rewording to the sources in your edit summary is highly inappropriate behavior. If your edit summaries are deliberately misleading then this would fall under vandalism. Bring your problems here for discussion. Continued edit warring is NOT the solution. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never called the removal of your partial-Breitbart edit "rewording to the sources" in my edit summaries. My last edit reworded some content to conform to sources, so my summary said (rewording to conform to sources; ce). Removal of your POV version of Breitbart content was routine (see all the previous edit summaries). Your problem has already been brought here for discussion (many times) - just see above. I am glad that you feel your continued edit warring is not the solution, so how about we resolve the issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit by TS

I reverted an edit by Arzel [1] because it seemed to represent a breakdown in the editor's patience more than a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia. Please revert back and explain if you disagree. --TS 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

912 Project

Why is the 9/12 rally listed as a Tea Party protest? The 912 Project is independent of the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party organizers sponsored and promoted the event, but it seems to be a 912 Project rally (or at least was intended to be such). 24.199.34.245 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See also section

Per WP:SEEALSO, I am not sure why Tea Party Movement is being readded. It is linked in the lead and has its own section. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that TPM is not linked in the lead now and has a disambiguation link before the lead. Can we now remove this from the See also section? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I made 3 changes to this Article and I want to know why they were reverted.

The first was changing Congressman Cleaver's quote in which he uses the word "continuing", which is grammatically wrong,instead of "continued". The source of the quote has no [sic] so it must be assumed that the error is that of the source and not the congressman.

The second was to change Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "homo", a "fag" and a "faggot" several times.[133][134][135] to Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was allegedly called a homo, fag, faggot.

The reason is that every source cited for the former provides only his allegation and no proof beyond that.

The 3rd change is to replace:

Breitbart had posted two columns on his website alleging the claims were fabricated, and both led with a 48-second YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Breitbart noted as proof that racial slurs were not audible on the video clip. Later interviews have revealed the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when they say the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol — at least one hour after the reported incident. When asked about using a video from the wrong moment, Breitbart stood by his claim that the lawmakers were lying. "I'm not saying the video was conclusive proof," he said.[144]

With this:

Breitbart posted a 48-second video on his website showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol and walking through a crowd of protestors in which no racial-slurs can be heard. Breitbart noted as proof that racial slurs were not audible on the video clip. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus making the allegations claimed that the 48-second video that Breitbart was referring to was taken when they were leaving the Capitol Building and that the racial slurs were shouted at them when they were entering the Capitol.

Another 2:29 video captured Lewis, Carson and the other Congressional Black Caucus members as they were ascending the stairs to enter the Capitol Building, at the time they claim the racial slurs were directed at them. On that video no racial-slurs can be heard either, only the words “kill the bill”. The video does clearly show Congressman Cleaver get agitated after walking within a couple of inches of a protestor who is yelling through cupped hands and then wiping his face off as if he had been spit on. Whether the congressman was spat on intentionally by the protestor, whether he just got hit with some spit by accident as he walked by the yelling protestor, or whether he was actually spit on at all cannot be conclusively proven by the video.

Because

Providing actual video of the incident being discussed proves exactly what did happen with the TEA PARTY which is what the article is about, instead of just providing whoever wrote that some opportunity to take a cheap shot at Andrew Breitbart. Is this not an encyclopedia?Caesar81 (talk)Caesar81

The first edit was reverted because Wikipedia editors do not alter direct quotations. One might assume the speaker meant "continued" instead of "continuing", but one might also assume the speaker jumbled up his words, and the reporter transcribed it verbatim. It is not for us to decide. Direct quotes are not to be altered.

The second edit was reverted because the cited reliable sources state that Frank was called those slurs, not that he was "allegedly" called those slurs. Therefore, the content in the article must reflect that. Also, please see WP:ALLEGED.

The third edit was, I presume, reverted because it removed cited content without explanation, and inserted content only cited to a YouTube video. YouTube videos do not meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources. I also note a number of factual inaccuracies were added with the new content. I hope that clears things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood on the sources but have one more question? I have a couple other sources aside from You Tube for the video I cited, just wasn't sure which would be the most appropriate. I used You Tube because the video is the same on all the sources I located. I just thought You Tube would be the most neutral of them. I guess I missed the factual inaccuracies within the paragraph regarding Breitbart's 48 sec video. What was inaccurate? I'll look over it before I attempt to post anything else on that section. ThanksCaesar81 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Caesar 5/3/10

The video you linked shows Cleaver being spat upon while walking up the Capitol steps; it does not show the lawmakers leaving the Cannon building, where the reported racial slurs were yelled. Your edits removed a citation to The Guardian without explanation; you added the uncited and inaccurate text, "...the racial slurs were shouted at them when they were entering the Capitol", and "...as they were ascending the stairs of the Capitol Building, at the time they claim the racial slurs were directed at them." Again, they heard the racial slurs as they were leaving the Conner building, not when they were ascending the Capitol steps. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No that is not correct according to the source cited. Not according to the citation for that paragraph. The article cited as proof of that from the Guardian say it was when the congressmen were going into, not leaving, the Capitol:

Breitbart asked why the epithet was not captured by the black lawmakers' cameras, and why nobody reacted as if they had heard the slur. He also questioned whether the epithets could have been shouted by liberals planted in the crowd.

But the 48-second video was shot as the group was leaving the Capitol — at least one hour after Lewis, D-Ga., and Carson walked to the Capitol, which is when they said the slurs were used.Caesar81 (talk)caesar

"walked to" the Capitol, not "going into", as you have said. The congressmen heard the slurs as they left the Cannon building on their way to the Capitol, not on the steps of the Capitol as some have assumed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I know everyone here is an expert after building this monstrosity of a critism section but, they left the Cannon Building, not Connor, and there is video of them going down the stairs, not the clip mentioned in the article of them crossing Independence Ave. It was one thing for ABC News to report that a protester called John Lewis a nigger THEN spat on a black representative the night of the protest, its another thing to have a section of garbage weeks later. I suggest every editor watches this video in its entirety. †TE†Talk 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I work next to the Conner building, so I will be forever mixing that up with the Cannon building, I am sure. Thank you for pointing it out; I've corrected the spelling. I have also seen all of the footage in that video you have linked. While there is only audio of a few seconds of their several minute walk, it still managed to capture what has been called "punctuating the chants of 'kill the bill' with the word 'nigger'" at time mark 1:55 and 1:58. And I also note protesters rushing the congressmen at the 2:05 mark, as Carson described. Ditto with Carson's description that they didn't have police escorting them until they neared the Capitol building and the police noticed what was going on. (Strange that the police should be concerned enough to begin escorting, no?) Those clips also show that none of the three individuals were carrying cameras, so they couldn't be expected to "produce additional proof" even if they were so motivated. My comments above still stand, perhaps even moreso now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was as Carson described, that was the point of the video. For someone who believes a mob of racist protesters surrounded and hurled the N-word 15 times at black congressmen on the stairs of the Cannon building, I'm shocked you aren't taken aback by this video. Is this not where it happened? This video precedes the Think Progress 22 second clip and actually, the two vids share the same vehicles passing by, I've never heard any allegations down Capital Street. As I type I'm beginning to think you didn't watch the video clip of the congressmen leaving Cannon. Are you saying that the infamous 22 second clip contains the slur nigger, which was not heard by every and all media outlets that analyzed it? Please take the 6 minutes necessary to watch the entire presentation.

As for reporting, yes it's flawed and every source contradicts the next, but that's not the biggest issue. Nor is the POV presented in the RS's, or even the flaws in criticism and controversy sections in B;P's. It's the fact that daily gossip and partisan propaganda presents little to no encyclopedic value, and surely won't pass the test of time. †TE†Talk 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Carson described has been refuted by the video at that link, peppy soundtrack and clever editing notwithstanding. Yes, I have viewed all of that footage and listened to all of the audio (even the stuff left out of your link). It's like you and I are looking at two different sets of media. What you describe as a "mob of racists surrounded and hurled the n-word 15 times", I see as a group of protesters boisterously screaming stuff mostly about killing the bill - and mostly unintelligible from the vantage point of the recording devices. In fact, I can see people standing just a dozen feet in front of the camera - screaming things - and yet the audio doesn't pick up a single syllable of what they are screaming, let alone what is being said closer to the congressmen. Am I saying "every and all media outlets" haven't heard the "nigger slur" on existing video? No, because some have; I'm saying I haven't seen any audio media that proves the slurs were not made. That leaves us with several eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses that say it did happen, versus zero evidence showing it did not. What is shocking is that tea party defenders would go to such lengths to try to paint several individuals as part of an intentional deception conspiracy, instead of simply denounce the acts as wrong and in no way representative of the tea party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot prove the negative, you can only prove the positive. The Team Party groups have denounced these actions, and they also say that they do not represent the movement. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; one cannot prove a negative - one cannot prove something did not happen, yet Breitbart keeps trying, probably for the media-mileage he's getting from it. I find particularly entertaining his conspiracy theory that the events were all part of Pelosi's master plan to incite racial incidents for political gain, and that the many involved lawmakers and their staff were knowing accomplices.

Of course some Tea Party supporters denounce the racial and bigotted actions, and say they do not represent the movement. Other supporters deny the actions ever happened, or funnier still, concoct elaborate conspiracy theories about the media and politicians to explain away the bigotry. Still other supporters appologize for the actions, and acknowledge that in a movement that has no central leadership or organization or "membership" restrictions, you must take the good with the bad. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Trim the "Bad Behavior" sectiion considerably

Nearly this entire section is based on nothing but unproven and unprosecuted allegation and rumor.[2] The fact that there are allegations should be mentioned, as that is certainly noteworthy, but until we have WP:RS of the actual events, a listing like we have is, in my opinion, WP:UNDUE —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the link to the Media Research Center piece you linked. Uh... please specify the "nothing but unproven and unprosecuted allegation and rumor" in that "entire section" again? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, that is one example of a source that casts doubt on the voracity of one of the issues listed there. I should have made it more clear that it wasn't meant to be all-encompassing. And "Nearly the entire" is different than "entire". (mostly dead? grins). There are issues that should stay, but it needs to be pared down. I am at work and I don't have the time to sit here and write essays. All I can do is edit on breaks and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read it. It doesn't cast any doubt at all on any of the 7 specific incidents listed in the Wikipedia article. What it does is note that a newspaper incorrectly listed Shuler as one of the many eyewitnesses to the racial slurs, when he was only an eyewitness to the anti-gay slurs that day. The racial slur incident is backed by credible eyewitness accounts, while there is zero evidence to refute the incident -- despite "all those cameras" at the event. Looking at the other six incidents, I don't see that any of those qualify as "unproven and unprosecuted allegation and rumor". Ask your boss to extend your break by a few seconds, to allow you time to sign your comments ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look up. †TE†Talk 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Did. My statements stand. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Today I went on a rampage of editing on this page. A good chunk of it involved removing either unreliable citations (no, "WingNutDaily.com" is not considered a reliable source) or citations that did not include information on what they were supposed to be citing. I made a conscious decision not to fix the citation issues, but to remove them. I figured that false or misleading information is worse than no information, and gathering that there is no lack of interest in this page I don't see how others can't fix the problems.

I found that there was also a great deal of words and implications not meeting NPOV standards. I fixed as many as I can such as correcting "nationalizing of health care", a statement that the "March on Washington" was the biggest conservative march ever which used only inflated attendance numbers from right-wing sources, and a sentence implying that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has AIG bonus provisions in it which is bogus.

I don't want to get into a political debate about the childish tiffs Republicans and Democrats are having with each other, like others on the surrounding Tea Party pages seem to be engaging in. I am only interested in making Wikipedia the most accurate and neutral encyclopedia ever. Because I was following as many Wikipedia standards as possible, such as WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:REF, with a dictionary open, I am confident that my edits are accurate. Therefore, please bring your thoughts of reversions to the talk page before you execute. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I've made radical changes to this section. It has taken on different headings so I'm just calling it controversy. I've kept instances during Tea Party protests. I've removed what was flimsy, unnecessary and not-notable, in my opinion. I moved the parts that better belong in the Tea Party movement. I have read this talk page and that of the movement. The conversations were more about personal and partisan debating than what actually helps these articles. Grievances?.. Please post below. †TE†Talk 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Malke2010 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the section needs to be expanded. You're toning down how dangerous these people truly are.--99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is from an obvious POV Pusher. Try and keep the rhetoric neutral.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is all this just rhetoric?

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html

Congressman Spit On By Tea Party Protester (VIDEO) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html

Rand Paul Supporter Stomps On MoveOn Member's Head (VIDEO) (UPDATED) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html

Black GOP Official Resigns Citing Arizona Tea Party Threats http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/anthony-miller-resigns-giffords-threats_n_808116.html

New Mexican Tea Partiers Bring Guns To Anti-Obama Rally http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/new_mexican_tea_partiers_bring_guns_to_anti-obama.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Events redux

This section is slanted towards one point of view. I see no logical reason for the Breitbart response to be removed from the section, with the primary logic against being a strange negative fallacy argument. The current removal of balance to the section continues to be removed under the guise "routine per talk". I would like to see that presented here for clarrification. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the pretense of the removal of the partial Breitbart content. We can add the complete Breitbart content (including Trumka's direct response and the AP's investigation that shows Breitbart cited irrelevant video as 'proof', etc.), or we can remove the Breitbart content completely, since he wasn't there, and wasn't involved. The addition of just a POV, incomplete version of the Breitbart content has been routinely removed, as you have noted. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone does not have to be there for their opinion to have relevance. He is a notable figure within the movement. What you feel if irrelevant is not equal to what others feel is irrelevant. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to read more about that "notable figure" thing; source? As for Breitbart's opinions being relevant, you are welcome to your opinion, and I didn't say his opinion was irrelevant. Again you have misunderstood. If you'll read just one paragraph above, you see that I said the AP's investigation that shows Breitbart cited irrelevant video as 'proof'. The video Breitbart cited, and posted with his tirades, was not of the incident where the congressmen heard the slurs -- the video was irrelevant. As I've said before, I take no issue with having the Breitbart stuff in the article, although it is not my preferred choice. Let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you think about the video presented it says a lot more than you would think. Thus far the only video that anyone has presented has not shown any racist remarks that I am aware of...certainly not the use of the n-word. Do you really believe that this group of people suddenly turned racist for one specific point in time during that day while just being really pissed off and not racist the rest of the day? If I understand you correctly, video from the day which doesn't prove the Tea Partiers to be racist is irrelevant. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The video presented by Breitbart as proof was of the lawmakers leaving the Capitol building, more than an hour after hearing and reporting the racial slurs. It is irrelevant (and misleading, the way he presented it). None of the other half-dozen videos thus far made public (including TE's favorite linked in the following paragraph) have audio recordings of what the congressmen heard as they left the Cannon building, so they prove absolutely nothing about what the congressmen did or didn't hear. The audio pickup range for intelligible sound on all of those videos is about 15 feet. Do I believe the group turned racist? That is a laughable strawman -- of course not. According to the reports that were made, the word "nigger" was interspersed between the chanting of "kill the bill" by a few protesters. Out of the hundreds or thousands that were there protesting, a few idiots does not a racist group make -- yet you keep trying to mount a defense against an accusation that hundreds of people all turned racist. No one has made that charge. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this racism charge is a load of crap. Are there going to be fringers?.. Sure, like all movements. Could someone have dropped the N-bomb that day?.. Of course, just not where they claim according to video from many different angles. This event was hastily reported, which brought us many contradictions. You got people who weren't even there being reported as if they were. Cleaver was not there, a good reporter would have scrutinized his words. There was even a white congressmen misquoted as being there and hearing the dreaded N. Both were found to be false. You got this Trumka guy, disingenuously claiming to have seen protesters spitting on congressmen and hearing John Lewis being called the N-word. What a joke.

The fact of the matter is that shoddy journalism has it's place in wikipedia, provided they are considered to usually be reliable. †TE†Talk 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone have dropped the N-bomb that day?.. Of course -- and we have several credible eyewitnesses as proof, including Cleaver (who was there - but you go right ahead and keep repeating that falsehood that he wasn't). But as you note, shoddy journalism has its place in Wikipedia, so some folks try to add Breitbart. Do a few racist idiots changing the "Kill the bill!" chant briefly into a "Kill the bill, nigger!" chant, as the black lawmakers passed by, make the whole crowd racist? Of course not, but then I haven't heard that claim made. Do the few homophobic bigots that accosted Barney Frank in three different incidents make the whole protest group bigoted? Of course not. Does the tea party organizer who complained about "spics" and wished he had his gun make his whole group dangerous bigots? No, it doesn't. Do the guys carrying automatic weapons and signs that read "If Brown can't fix it, a Browning can!" to protest rallies make the whole movement extremist? No, it doesn't. Death threat voicemails? "Fringers", as you say. Nooses and swastikas faxed to the lawmakers? More fringers. Signs depicting Obama in whiteface, or as an african tribal chieftain, or as a chimpanzee, or as Hitler... obviously fringers. T-shirts saying "Obama, go back to Kenya!" or signs referring to "White Slavery" - even more fringers. Cut gas lines, spitting, birther signs, "literacy tests" as part of voter eligibility - these fringers do not represent the "real" tea party. Some have opined that the Tea Party would appear a lot more credible if they spent at least half as much time denouncing the bad behavior as they do trying to deny that it even exists. I think that is a valid point. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you react as if I just insulted your mother? I am just stating facts with my own personal opinion of the reporting. Cleaver was not there! It's not like I'm making it up, I am going by Carson's account:

• REPORTER: Outside of this building?

• REP. CARSON: Cannon....coming out with John Lewis out of the elevator with his chief of staff, and it was just the

three of us walking down the steps -- 'kill the bill', 'kill the bill'...n - word fifteen times.

• REPORTER: How many people were saying it?

• REP. CARSON: Maybe out of...how many people are out there?...four hundred? Maybe fifteen people about fifteen times.

• REPORTER: What were they saying? Just 'kill the bill'?

• REP. CARSON: 'kill the bill' and then the n - word (imitates crowd yelling racial slur) Lewis, his chief of staff,

and myself (a former cop) I'm closer to Lewis... [we were] very stoic, looked straight forward, and Capitol Police

got the idea. They started surrounding us. It was like a page out of a time machine.

See, no Cleaver. There is also video of Carson, Lewis and his chief of staff leaving Cannon and crossing Independence.

• From top of the steps
• From bottom of the steps
• From across the street

Again, no Cleaver, or Trumka, or Breitbart, or Jesus Joseph and Mary, and certainly no audible chants of "nigger". That's not saying it didn't happen, just not where and how Carson described it. I see you have listed every offensive sign or act associated with tea parties. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of tea parties. There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of participants? They have been covered by media and opponents during these well publicized events. Of course the examples you listed are of fringe elements, by definition. I think some editors may be too emotionally invested in these (tea party related) articles. †TE†Talk 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm acting like you insulted my mother? In what way? The three videos you have linked provide a grand total of about 15 seconds of the several minute walk the lawmakers took as they left Cannon. As I noted above, the audio from those videos is not proof. I'm also not sure what you mean by, "not where and how Carson described it." Carson said it was the three of them walking to the Capitol building, and the videos show three gentlemen walking down the Cannon steps. That sounds accurate to me. The videos also show, as Carson indicated, that they were not yet being escorted by police at that point. It would be logical to assume that is because there was nothing yet to "protect" them from at that point... but their walk continued all the way to the Capitol. Have you seen the videos of them walking up the Capitol steps? By the way, I have not "listed every offensive act" associated with the tea parties -- not even close. That was just a handful, and as you note, there have been hundreds of rallies since last year, so there is no dearth of sources for such behavior. The point I was expressing with those few examples was that claiming "that didn't happen because we aren't bigots!!!" draws up a little short in the common sense department. The "we aren't bigots" part is plausible, but that doesn't mean the fringe minority isn't also there in the midst of the movement doing stupid things. This guy sums up a similar sentiment. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Now it didn't happen at Cannon, eh? When did this happen? Let's take a look at your tergiversation...

• "Oh, and Andre Carson was one of the black gentlemen being called "nigger" as they left the Cannon building. [2], [3]. It is curious that no Tea Partiers are eagerly offering up video (or audio) taken near the Cannon building where the epithets were actually hurled."
• "it does not show the lawmakers leaving the Cannon building, where the reported racial slurs were yelled"
• "The congressmen heard the slurs as they left the Cannon building on their way to the Capitol"
• "None of the other half-dozen videos thus far made public (including TE's favorite linked in the following paragraph) have audio recordings of what the congressmen heard as they left the Cannon building, so they prove absolutely nothing about what the congressmen did or didn't hear"

To answer your questions the mother thing was me saying you seem to be personally offended. No I have not seen the video of them walking up the steps at the Capitol building because it doesn't exist. The video you keep referring to is them walking up the steps of the Cannon Building, at least an hour after the Carson, Lewis and his aide walked to the Capitol. This is the point I am trying to convey to you. †TE†Talk 05:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, rest assured, no offense taken. With regards your persistent stupefaction, I think you'd manage a firmer grasp of the sequence of events if you didn't take certain words of Carson's at the expense of others. Carson heard slurs after he left Cannon. He also described thusly:

• Soon after leaving Cannon, "I hear someone say it," said Carson, a former police officer. "You see one or two tea party people kind of look at him, and then you hear it again as we're walking. Then we walk across (Independence Avenue), and that's when it starts getting deeper." Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd. "You heard it in spurts, in the midst of 'Kill the bill. Kill the bill.' One guy, I remember he just rattled it off several times. Then John looks at me and says, 'You know, this reminds me of a different time.'"

Just like you, all I have to go on are the facts, and my own opinion of the reporting. Lewis never went to the press, but confirmations were there. As for Cleaver, he specifically says he heard the racial epithet from the crowd as well. "Distinctly", I believe was the word he used. I know Cleaver was not with Carson when Carson left the Cannon building; I also know that Cleaver was with (several yards behind, anyway) Carson when they walked from the Capitol to the Cannon building. When and where, exactly, did Cleaver hear slurs? I am unaware of any reports that go into that much detail, and I do know he hasn't been eager to "fan the flames" of the incidents with media interviews. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards your persistent stupefaction, I think you'd manage a firmer grasp of the sequence of events if you didn't take certain words of Carson's at the expense of others. Carson heard slurs after he left Cannon. He also described thusly on March 20th, minutes after the voyage:

• REP. CARSON:John Lewis...n - word, n - word at least 15 times...hundreds of people, and Capitol Police finally became aware and started protecting us. I want to know...those people who had cameras. I would love to get the actual [video].
• REPORTER: When did this happen...just now....right before votes?
• REP. CARSON: Just now.
• PICKET: What exactly happened? I'm sorry. I came in late here.
• REPORTER: Outside of this building?
• REP. CARSON: Cannon....coming out with John Lewis out of the elevator with his chief of staff, and it was just the three of us walking down the steps -- 'kill the bill', 'kill the bill'...n - word fifteen times.
• REPORTER: How many people were saying it?
• REP. CARSON: Maybe out of...how many people are out there?...four hundred? Maybe fifteen people about fifteen times.
• REPORTER: What were they saying? Just 'kill the bill'?
• REP. CARSON: 'kill the bill' and then the n - word (imitates crowd yelling racial slur) Lewis, his chief of staff, and myself (a former cop) I'm closer to Lewis... [we were] very stoic, looked straight forward, and Capitol Police got the idea. They started surrounding us. It was like a page out of a time machine.
• PICKET: What are your thoughts on the crowd outside in general?
• REP. CARSON: It's America. Welcome to America.
• REPORTER: I'm afraid I don't know who you are.
• REP. CARSON: Congressman Andre Carson...Indianapolis, Indiana seventh Congressional district--myself John Lewis and his chief of staff. It was unbelievable.
• REPORTER2: Coming out of Cannon?
• REP. CARSON: Yeah, I expected rocks to come. I mean...I'm walking with John Lewis who walked with MLK. It was bizarre, but he's been there done that.
• PICKET: You were scared of the crowd?
• REP. CARSON: Me? No, I'm a former cop, but I became protective of Congressman Lewis, and a person said, 'I'm being reminded of another time' as we're walking. It was like an old sage. For him to say that is (inaudible) been there done that. A young 35 year old like myself, I'm being protective of the older sage along with this chief of staff. We kept walking. The walk usually takes a couple of minutes. It felt like ten minutes.
• PICKET: Do you think the people outside are generally dangerous or no?
• REP. CARSON: Oh absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I'm from intelligence, and I'll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security...I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].
• PICKET: From groups like this?
• REP. CARSON: Oh absolutely.
• REPORTER: Was there any physical? Did they touch? Did they push? No one threw anything?
• REP. CARSON: No, no, no. I heard one 'go Carson'--obviously a Hooiser. It made me feel a little better, but then the Capitol Police finally got the idea--remember, it was just the three of us...my police instinct kicked in, (inaudible) and they got the idea.

When is your quote from?.. April 13th. I respect Carson's right to change his story, but it usually comes at the expense of credibility. Him being a cop, knows that the first version is the police report. The second would be on the witness stand (minus the oath), where a defense lawyer would pounce raise suspicion of the validity of his ever changing recollection. I'm glad to see that you finally concede that Cleaver did not walk with Carson, Lewis and his aide to the Capitol Building. I am also glad to see you also concede that Cleaver was indeed only with Lewis as the many of the CBC returned to the Cannon building, when Cleaver was spat upon (on the steps of Cannon). I am well aware that Cleaver said he distinctly heard "nigger," it's too bad he wasn't there when then slurs were reported by shoddy journalists. As for the level of detail in the reports, AP ran a correction from Cleaver's bogus statement that Capitol police arrested the sprayer. In it, they clarified that "Cleaver, who is black, was also one of several lawmakers who faced racial epithets as they walked to the Capitol to vote. Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the U.S. Capitol Police said in an e-mail later: "We did not make any arrests today." Well, at least we know that they (falsely) put Cleaver with Lewis during a trek to the Capitol building. If only they knew that the faux arrest was just one of many inaccuracies in Cleaver's official statement:

• "For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times.
• This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.
• This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the "n" word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans. He believes deeply that tomorrow's vote is, in fact, a vote for equality and to secure health care as a right for all. Our nation has a history of struggling each time we expand rights. Today's protests are no different, but the Congressman believes this is worth fighting for.

I mean, wow! That is one whopper for the record books. I actually feel bad for the media in taking Cleaver's word at face value. I also understand that they have a job to scrutinize his words, and failed miserably. So, I was just thinking about how bored I am of this complete waste of time. I consider this closed. I suppose you might want to deny your concessions or the fact that your story has evolved greatly in the past day, week, and month. That is just fine by me. Cheers. †TE†Talk 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree. Neither Carson, nor Cleaver, have "changed their story" since the events. Obviously, more details have become available as time passed and more reporting was done, but there have not been any reversals of reported major facts - only clarifications. Yes, Cleaver was there, while Breitbart was not, and Cleaver heard epithets, too. Yes, Carson heard racial epithets as he "voyaged" from Cannon to the Capitol building. Yes, Cleaver was spat upon, and he complained about it to the police. There is actually film footage (deadlinks now, go figure) of the spitter being led by the arm by police as they separated him from the crowd and spoke with him, taken by a channel 4 FOX news affiliate cameraman on those very steps -- while that doesn't constitute an "arrest", it is an easy assumption to make. I don't see the "whopper for the books" you see, TE. My point stands: If you try to portray the events just on select words from a single source, instead of all of the reporting that is available, you are going to paint a rather distorted picture. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TE makes a good point here. Also, editors might not be aware that the reporters actually get invited to the meetings the tea party groups hold, and so far nobody has written an article about any racism or homophobia within these meetings. That's probably because the fringers aren't invited to these meetings. So we're just talking about fringers and the more attention you give them, as does the media who want to sell newspapers and magazines and newshows, then the more it will seem like that is the sum total of the Tea Party protests/Tea Party Movement. But it is not. I know about the reporters, because I emailed a New York Times reporter recently and she told me she does go to these meetings and there is no racism, no homophobia, just folks talking about government spending, foreclosures, bailouts, the usual menu. So the question is, are you interested in the Tea Party protests/movement, or just the fringers and what they have to say? Because we can make a separate article for them, so we can get back to editing the Tea Party Protests/Movement articles.Malke2010 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If your question is addressed to me, Malke, the answer is "no and no". Xenophrenic (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal of coat rack and POV-check templates

Previous discussion on this page being tl;dr for me, is anyone opposed to removing the {{coat rack}} and {{POV-check}} templates from the article? ...comments? ~BFizz 22:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediocre prose: the pov section

The section labeled "Reports of abusive behavior by Tea Party protesters" has been given the POV sign. Not because the abusive behavior is 100% false, but because the section has mediocre prose that brings up several trivial or emotional examples rather than saying anything actually notable or of value. Being called "the N-word", “Schlomo Weiner", or "faggot" is not a shocking event. Most of today's movies depict much worse. Can someone familiar with the situation and press around this please cut the fluff? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediocre prose? MEDIOCRE PROSE!?! What're you, Faulkner? I've never read ANYTHING in Wikipedia that had decent prose! I'll settle for rationality. Triviality and emotionalism are another matter. richrakh````

Trevor Leach

He's mentioned prominently in the article, but it's not clear when he became chairman of the NY chapter. The best I could do in a 15-minute web search: http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/trevor-leach-appointed-yal-new-york-state-chairman -- not WP:RS. Anybody have a reference? Can we add a start date and "as of July 2011"? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests or Tea Party Protests in 2009?

I'm confused, is this article page supposed to explain Tea Party Protests or the 2009 Tea Party Protests? It seems rather lopsided if it's supposed to explain Tea Party Protests as a whole. I read a comment on this talk page that said, "This article, on the other hand, is about the protests that started in 2009," by Xenophrenic under the heading "Presidential campaign in 2007, not the protests of 2009." I would argue that this page should be combined with the "List of Tea Party protests, 2009" page that already exists if that's the case, or at the very least the title should be changed.

On the other hand if this is about Tea Party Protests as a whole why aren't there any references to the 2007 Tea Party protests? There are plenty of sources out there, including in The Tea Party Movement wiki. I can also provide sources if needed.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the Paul's 2007 "tea party" protests. There is also mention of other "tea party" protests earlier than those, in the 1990s and the 1980s. See the Background section. I believe this article, however, originated with the description of the protests of the present Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Presidential campaign in 2007, not the protests of 2009

See for yourself [3]--24.171.6.27 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a YouTube video from an unreliable mystery source purporting to show that Paul's campaign and supporters made references to the 1773 Tea Party and "revolution" as part of his presidential campaign. This article, on the other hand, is about the protests that started in 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the source of the video is irrelevant but the source(s) of the content within the video are relevant and also quite obvious. They are all clips from mainstream television networks and clearly labeled. In addition the video does not simply "show that Paul's supporters made references to the 1773 Tea Party" during his 2007 campaign as you stated. It shows they referred to their fundraisers and protests as Tea Parties in 2007 and it shows footage from a few of those protests. Furthermore the video includes well known mainstream media figures like Juan Williams, Rachel Maddow, Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd saying things like Ron Paul supporters started the Tea Party in 2007 and Ron Paul is the Godfather of the Tea Party.

While the video may not be a good reference for this article nor does it prove who started the Tea Party protests or when they started(as if that's possible), it certainly points out the fact that there are alternative views as to when they did start and who started them. It also points out that there were Tea Party protests in 2007. So far this page fails to represent the topic accurately and without bias because it fails to represent a well documented and widely held alternative view. The article opens with "The Tea Party protests are a series of protests across the United States that began in early 2009." That statement only represents one side of the argument as if it were fact and does not mention the 2007 Tea Party Protests.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The source of the video is very relevant. It is not from a reliable source (so is absolutely "not a good reference" for this or any Wikipedia article). It also does not "prove" anything about the start of the present Tea Party movement - which becomes even more evident once you see that it tries to claim origins as far back as 2007. It contains a number of video snippets, with no indication what was said before or after those clips, or what the context might be. There have been protests and demonstrations called "Tea Parties" since as far back as the 1970s (and probably farther back). If you believe there is a "widely held alternative view" that should be represented, we'll need reliable sources discussing that view, as well as it's significance. Are there any? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure here are just a few:

1. The vindication of Ron Paul. Will founding father of the tea party movement get his due from party leaders? (Baltimore Sun 11/2010)

Remember, it was Ron Paul supporters who kick-started the tea party into life on Dec. 16, 2007, when they dumped a $6 million "money bomb" into his presidential campaign on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Not that all or even most tea partiers are Paulians when the rubber meets the road.

• By opinion talk show host Ron Smith (radio host). Note that he describes the "Tea Party" as a campaign drive to elect Paul as president, not as the present movement that started in 2009.

2. Was Ron Paul, tea party re-inventor, right all along?(LA Times 04/2009)

Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who's now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and -- oh, yes – tea parties.

• ...another opinion piece, noting the movement of supporters trying to raise money get a single individual elected, rather than describing the present movement of protesters not beholden to any individual politician.

Paul's liberty campaign today sought to remind folks of its role in the re-genesis of tea parties in 2007.

• ...by issuing a press release in April, 2009, weirdly trying to equate a presidential election fundraising drive with the new protest movement: "The concept of the modern day Tea Party began on December 16, 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign came together and raised over $6 million online in one day..."

3. Tea Party Godfather Ron Paul Running for President (ABC News 05/2011)

Paul, a native of Pittsburgh, is both a spiritual father and actual father in the tea party movement.

• He has a son in the present Tea Party movement. Now getting back to the origins of the movement that exists today, note that this article says the Paul campaign and the TP movement both use "tea party" imagery -- but it separates Ron Paul's election campaigning efforts from the present protest movement: "As far back as 2007, long before people were evoking the fabled Boston Tea Party to symbolize their disgust with an overtaxing central government, Ron Paul was hosting a "Tea Party Fundraiser"...

4. JUAN WILLIAMS: The Surprising Rise of Rep. Ron Paul(Fox News 05/2011)

The Tea Party, which drove the GOP to claim a majority of the House in the mid-term elections, grew largely out of the ashes of his 2008 presidential campaign, which emphasized limited government and a return to constitutional principles.

• Another opinion piece trying to equate Paul's "2008 presidential campaign" with the present TP movement, by noting that Paul shares the "limited government and a return to constitutional principles" attitude held by today's protesters as well as other libertarians for decades now.

5. Paul tries to reap Tea Party seeds he helped nourish(Boston Globe 07/2011)

Four years ago, Ron Paul’s libertarian views became divining rods for the brand of strident antigovernment activism that grew into the Tea Party movement. “Now that there’s a shift in attitude, a country that’s getting in worse shape by the day, all of a sudden the message becomes very appropriate,’’ the 75-year-old obstetrician and 12-term representative said in an interview.

• This article makes my point. Paul has (as have many other libertarians) always been for limited government and cutting taxes, and has seven campaigned on those issues, but "Now" there is an actual movement, and he's hoping to hitch a ride on it. The article even notes that Paul and the Tea Party are separate: "Paul and Tea Party activists may be working from the same antitax, probusiness playbook, but when matters turn to personal rights or foreign policy, their views diverge."

--76.20.32.102 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

--Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Those sources, like many others, clearly establish that an alternative view exists. Just because you don't agree with the view does not mean it doesn't exist.

Excerpt from current wiki:
"The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest has also been used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters during fundraising events in the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives."

If that paragraph was written more fairly without a motive by someone with an unbiased opinion and included some sources like those I listed then the alternative view would be represented at least to some degree in a fair manner. The paragraph says, "which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern day tea party movement." Not only do "they" claim that but many others do as well and the sources I listed above like LA Times clearly demonstrate that. (apparently my old ip 76.20.32.102 expired so I decided to create a wiki account :) --JustaJason (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You have misread. I do agree with the view, as shown in the above sources, that Ron Paul has previously invoked the tea party theme during his presidential campaigning — holding protests called "tea party protests" is nothing new, and Ron Paul certainly didn't invent them (see the references given in this Wikipedia article to even earlier protests than his). That would be appropriate content for his Wikipedia article, not the Tea Party movement article, nor this one. The movement that exists today didn't start until 2009, even though there have been many "tea party protests" in the past. By the way, I don't see an "LA Times" source reporting on the origins of the Tea Party movement listed above; I only see an opinion piece by commentary columnist Andrew Malcom that was printed in the LA Times. In that piece, Malcom doesn't say Paul started the Tea Party movement; he says Paul & his supporters held tea party-themed protests 16 months earlier -- something on which we all agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You said "the movement that exists today didn't start until 2009." How is that a fact? What source is there that's not based on opinion with regard to the origin of the modern day Tea Party movement? If we all agree that Ron Paul supporters held tea party themed protests in 2007 and this article is titled "Tea Party Protests" then what's the problem?

You also mentioned "Malcom doesn't say Paul started the Tea Party movement; he says Paul & his supporters held tea party-themed protests 16 months earlier." I'm not sure there's much difference but are you implying that if he had specifically said Paul started the Tea Party movement you would accept it? Because plenty of people like Juan Williams have said that yet you don't accept it. He's as credible as most of the sources in the article page and he's even referenced in the current Tea Party Movement wiki as well. JustaJason (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm no expert on this topic but I did look at some of the old sources. I think it's clear that Ron Paul is "more recently" (as our articles say now) a godfather of the movement, and also clear that others preceded him (for example in 1991). Hope that helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Susan. I'm not too concerned about weather or not Ron Paul is credited with starting the movement. My point was that clearly Ron Paul supporters held Tea Party Protests in 2007. I agree there were similar protests even before that(though many years before). Since this page is called "Tea Party Protests" it seems the 2007 protests as well as the ones prior should be outlined in detail here. Don't they qualify under the current title? So far the arguments against including those protests seem to argue that this page is for modern day tea party protests. Then why not include "modern day" in the title? I suppose the argument then would be weather or not 2007 counts as modern day. JustaJason (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 2007 protests should be here. (And 1991 if you can find any material about them. I'm old enough to think that anything after 1950 or World War II is modern day, aka contemporary history.) -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback Susan and the helpful links you posted on my talk page. Obviously I'm a noob to Wikipedia so I'm still learning all the procedures. I noticed somebody changed a few very minor things to a previous comment of mine on this talk page. I'm just curious why. I quoted a portion of the wiki in a comment under "excerpt from current wiki." That portion was later edited within the Wiki article but it was also changed within my comment(I think, though all this is still a bit confusing). Here are the changes reflected in my comment. This is all new to me so I'm just trying to figure things out. JustaJason (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the changes were "automatic" or if someone else changed them (it is possible the text is linked and somehow automagically updated). Somebody else would have to answer that. I'm going on wikibreak for a week. Good luck! -SusanLesch (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is very difficult to edit

I clicked the "edit" button and was immediately confused. It is filled with so many random codes and brackets, that's it's impossible to understand what I'm looking at. Worse than looking at C code. Isn't there some way we can clean-up the article so it looks like a readable document in the Wiki-editor, instead of confusing gibberish? Thanks. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess not.  :-| ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of what?

Since 13 Nov., the Tea Party Protests article has included:

(Infobox civil conflict)

|partof = response to excessive government social and fiscal policies.

I think that "excessive" has to be modified or attributed. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NO response since, so I added "Perceived" before "excessive", etc. If that's too many "perceieved"s, then someone should just edit out the "excessives". I thought this more accurately reflected the situation...i.e. they're not against taxation per se, but what they perceieve as excessive taxation. To take away "excessive" make a change to what is being said, just as to not indicate that it is their opinion that it is excessive makes it sound like a factual statement (that taxation IS excessive, which is an inherently subjective thing.).204.65.34.168 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)