Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

TPM origins (2007 not 2009)

I joined the protests in December 2007, but since I know original research doesn't mean much here, I also found references: www.prisonplanet.com/tea-party-co-founder-concept-has-been-hijacked-by-false-leftright-paradigm.html and VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8 and thousands and thousands of more references from google to the 2007 and 2008 Tea Party:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+tea+party+2007 and http://www.google.com/search?q=Campaign+For+Liberty+tea+party+2008 . I know it's an inconvenient truth to have thousands of references challenging your beliefs, but nevertheless they are there. Late 2007 was the birth date, with rapid growth throughout 2008, and especially in protest of Bush's Banker Bailout. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that they are right, if one is talking about it's beginnings. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Possible. However, prisonplanet is not possibly a reliable source, and the video is not likely a reliable source. If it were a legal upload of a CNN broadcast, or if it were a Ron Paul campaign ad uploaded in 2007 or 2008, then it could be used (but you'd still need to put a time-mark for the information.) You'll have to find a real source, as difficult as it might be.
I've restored the note, but noted that you don't have a credible or reliable source yet. Many of the thousands of references note that (a) Tea Party movement opposed Ron Paul in this election, and some noted that his (second) "money bomb" in 2007 was on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, but few use the term "Tea Party" to refer to the (then) current campaign.
Also, the google searches in question needs to have the strings quoted.
As a further note, if you can find a reliable source, you can put grassroots in the lede, where it belong. Some of the blog entries from the search would also support grassroots, if they were reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The video is timestamped by Youtube as "November 11, 2007" so I don't know how you can claim its not a reliable source. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It's probably a copyright violation, and I'm not willing to watch the video to find a mention of the "Tea Party". If you can provide a time-mark, we could verify that a "Tea Party" movement was described, but it might still require a reliable source to connect it to the group now known as the "Tea Party movement". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me remind you that the problem with grassroots is not that we couldn't find support, but that there was so much opposition that we could not ignore it. We'd have been forced to have a phrase like "which has been considered grassroots by some and astroturf by others". Is that what you really want? Likewise, your objection to calling it libertarian is based solely on your strict, personal definition of libertarianism. Wikipedia is not limited in this manner. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. Even so, if we can provide reliabie sources for the origin being grassroots, then that should be in the lede unless you can find reliable, contrary statements about the origin, even if there were reliable statements that it is not now grassroots, although I still haven't found any in the references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, we both know that there are already reliable sources accusing the movement of being turfed. Astroturf is incompatible with grassroots. No "interpretation" is needed, past knowing the meaning of the terms.
I'll say it again: we can only mention the claim of grassroots as an attributed claim, and then only when balanced by claims to the contrary. We do not get to disregard one side of this based on our own political views. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll say it again; we do not have reliable sources to the contrary, only editorials, columns, and statements by politicians. We have sources that it is (now, at least, in part) funded by outside money, but I have not seen any evidence of reliable sources stating that that money changed anyone's views or was provided in a directed manner. Such a statement would be required for an assertion that it is not grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You can say it all day long, but it's entirely unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion. My opinion is that Nancy Pelosi's statement is entirely unconvincing, and not worthy of notice in an encyclopedia. If you can point to an assertion from a reliable source that the organization is not grassroots, I'll concede that point. None of the sources added qualifies. On the other hand, I can't recall seeing a definitely reliable source which stated it was grassroots; if there were any, they didn't stay long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a good thing it doesn't come down to opinions. For example, your opinion about Pelosi is entirely irrelevant: she's a reliable source and belongs here even if we disagree with her. Reliability does not mean conformity with your biases. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, the sources you're leaning on are not appropriate to support the inclusion of that content per the language in Policies (IRS, NOR and Verify specifically). It is the (and only) rule for how we will decide on this issue. As editors we don't have any choice. Please read them from start to finish if you have not (it isn't fair to us if you have not). For starters, please consider the language from the Specific Contexts section: Academic Consensus Individual opinions should be identified [in the article] as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated-simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.
And also: Statements of Opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. and ...when using them, it is better to attribute [in the article] the material in the text to the author.
And also from NOR: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
And very important, from Verify: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.
Please understand that the onus is on you (and the editors who agree with you) to demonstrate that the content satisfies the demands of the policies. Please think carefully and try to apply each of these maxims. -Digiphi (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
By this logic I have to go change the "birthdate" on the Democratic Party wikipage to 1860, because I cannot locate any sources on the internet to "verify" it was born in 1792, even though we all know that was its origin. (goes off to edit article) ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You really should hold off on that. IRS does not limit sources to electronic media, or even sources which can be accessed via the internet. It's great if they can be, but certainly not a requirement per policy. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


One more thing. Dylan et al., you're really all over the place. If you want the Astroturf/grassroots labeling debate, then post in the section for that. You can do the same for discussions about funding and populist/conservative stuff. Editors shouldn't have to debate you all over the page about the same issue. Things don't get done on talk pages where sections don't stay on topic. Don't get tricked into derailing them by Anons.
Theaveng North8000 Arthur Rubin: the article should reflect the date as accurately as can be sourced. You should find—and I'll start searching too—an RS that mentions the primaries Theaveng has found. Alternatively, find any RS from 2007 that mentions the TPM, and we can include it with an in-text attribution. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Listing policies I already follow does not persuade me to edit any differently. If you have specific issues with the state of the article, you are welcome to share them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Dyl, the word onus means the responsibility to demonstrate the propriety of your view. Several of us have now impugned either the appropriateness of the source or the way it's being used to support content. I've thrown you some bones and now I want you to go through the motions and make your case. This is a debate, so have at it please. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any specific objections to the removal of these tags? If so, please state them below. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Back on track: The question of the date. Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other in 2006 actually
1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot
2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot
-Digiphi (Talk) 02:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not seeing Ron Paul mentioned in the sources about this movement. The name was shared for the rally a few years ago but nothing I see relates it with the movement. Am I missing a source?Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find. I support your edit. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in "The Virginian-Pilot" sources relates those minor non-notable events to the current TPM. As I've said in edit comments, no material in the article relates any political events before 2009 as being a specific part of the current Tea Party Movement. BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, you said in your summary that you didn't want to take it to talk. So I'm sorry if that offended you. The edit summaries in the removals complain about the lack of association with the TPM in sources. The first source ref name "deseret" begins with the headline: Anti-tax-and-spend group throws "tea party" at Capitol
it says in the text "The event was part of what has become known as the Tea Party Movement"

If you want to remove the Ron Paul stuff, that's good and fine. But but leave the rest about the time frame of the event.

Actually that SLC paper is from 2009. Forget what I said. You're right scrap the whole thing. Sorry for the mix up. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No offence taken at all. This came up before and it is one thing that has annoyed me. Basically, it is clear that Paul's thing a few years ago was called a "Tea Party". However, I have yet to see a source that says it is the same thing as the movement. It appears unrelated and both groups of people jumped on the cheekiness of the historical name. If it was related I assume RS would have made it clear months and months ago.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahh... OK. Digiphi caught his own dating error in proposing that the Deseret source supported material on events prior to 2009. Good. BigK HeX (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag clean-up

I just went through the article and removed a number of tags, for a variety of stated reasons. If for any reason you disagree, I recommend explaining yourself here instead of launching into an edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, you just reinserted a whole bunch of tags. Presumably, you have some specific objection to their removal. This is your opportunity to explain them. Go ahead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it Bud. Those tags are there because the items to which they are attached are contested, and is each the subject of an ongoing debate on this very talk page. When there is consensus in an individual debate, then the tag attached to its respective content in the article will be removed (due either to consensus that the content is not controversial/tag-worthy, or consensus that the content ought to be changed). So we don't need a talk section to discuss the value of the tags. The ongoing debates concerning their objects does that for us. If you don't like the way one of those tags looks in the article, you should spend even more time working out the issues with editors in the corresponding discussion section. While the debate is ongoing and consensus has not developed, we do not remove tags as though the debate is ended. That is unfair to the readers and the editors in the discussion, and violates policy. If you're frustrated by the lack of consensus in a discussion, then you need to somehow make peace with that fact rather than removing the corresponding tags, because it subverts the editing and consensus building process.
This section is unnecessary, and encourages all the specific debates in other sections to migrate here. You should get rid of it. -Digiphi (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me I just realized that you've made a companion section to the already dangerous Tag section. This is ridiculously redundant and waste of space. I'm deleting "Tagstorm", and if you insist on having this discussion it can happen within this one section. -Digiphi (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Dig, you seem to be struggling with the concept of justifying these tags, so I'm going to assume good faith and spell it out for you. The first tag I removed in that section was about url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html. The premise was that it's unreliable because it's an op-ed page. This is a misunderstanding of WP:RS; an op-ed page is explicitly stated to be reliable, just so long as the opinion is attributed. We attribute to Krugman, who is quite notable, so there is no reason for this tag. If you disagree, please explain. If you choose not to explain, then the tag will go away. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. That tag doesn't indicate that someone thinks the NY Times isn't notable, nor that editorials are prohibited by WP policy. It indicates that the way the source is being used to support content has been challenged and is the topic of ongoing debate. I wrote once and I'm going to rehash that the ongoing discussions from other sections will not be dragged into this section to create break-away debates. The specific tags in question will remain until their respective debates have ended. However I'm not going to entertain your questions in this section in every instance that a tag is prematurely removed and needs to be restored. If the tags bug you, then you can participate in the discussions to speed them to conclusion. -Digiphi (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The tags have been removed. If you want to restore them, it is up to you to explain why.
I took the case of a single tag, explained why it was invalid, and then asked you to refute this. You have refused to. At this point, the most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you are unable or unwilling to do so. This is sufficient reason to keep the tag off the page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the now-removed tag next to the Krugman section was "{{verify credibility|failed=yes|reason=OpEd}}". As you can see, it clearly did invoke the op-ed status of the page as the alleged reason for its lack of credibility. Whatever Digiphi imagines, the tag itself contradicts him entirely. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... IMO, tagging a well-known Krugman op-ed for somehow being an unreliable source for assertions quoted from Krugman is pretty silly. I removed that whole set of tags. Looks like they were used as a weapon, rather than for cleanup. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Without disagreeing, I'm going to avoid speculating about motives. Instead, I'll just stick to the fact that the tags are not justified. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The {{verify credibility }} tags are not justified if the sections are properly marked as opinion. However, please discuss the {{verification failed}} and {{off-topic?}} tags. Mayer didn't actually say that, and Mad as Hell, if it does say what is quoted, only applies to funding of Tea Party events, not of the Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot fund your events without simultaneously funding your movement. The tortured logic you use to try to separate the two is unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your original research. You can be sure that I will give it due weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, Mayer says that the Kochs founded (not funded) AFP, and AFP supports some TPE and training of TPM members. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
They founded and fund it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. If you want it in the article you'll need to purchase it's entry with a proper source. As to what Arthur Rubin said, and what you said in turn, it isn't original research.
If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE.
Arthur gave an analogical example of the original research policy, exactly as is done on the policy page (here) such that ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
For the conclusions you've drawn to appear in the article, the facts would have to be analyzed and laid out in a reliable third party source, like a an op-ed in the NY Times written by Paul Krugman, for instance. We have a source that meets those criteria exactly. But−and this is a big but−any mention of the conclusions drawn by Krugman in his piece must be accompanied by attributions to the author at every instance, as per policy (here and here). It states that "when using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact,." -Digiphi (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's correct, Digiphi. Also, Dylan Flaherty, please don't remove tags and then demand that editors "explain themselves" if they disagree with the removal. You haven't fixed anything, you've simply removed the tags. The tags are there because the article has problems that need fixing. The tags alert editors to look for the problems. Unless you've fixed something, leave the tags, and please don't make any more unilateral decisions that they aren't needed. Also, please see WP:OWN as well as WP:CIVIL. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke, with all due respect, I am hardly the only editor removing those excessive tags. The big difference is that I pretty much stuck to removing one at a time, with a stated reason for the removal. I am free to remove any unsupported tag, and will use that freedom. All you have to do is actually support the tag and that will prevent me from removing it.
You need to understand that whoever puts a tag up is filing a complaint and is obligated to follow up on it. If they fail to do so, then that complaint is summarily rejected, and the tag is removed. That's the process. I encourage you to embrace it wholly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's correct Dylan, in part. The follow up you're looking for is taking place in the ongoing discussion on the talk page (this is the talk page). That people want the tags up means that the issue is controverted. You have several times explained to me that you've read all the policies and guides. Therefore, you are surely familiar with tags and understand why they are put in articles. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pelosi

The tag for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587745,00.html reads "{{off-topic?|reason=personal opinion, and no claim that the funding influenced the movement}}". The complaint seems to be without merit. First of all, the quote is in the opinion section, so being her personal opinion is hardly an issue, even if it were only an opinion. More to the point, she is notable and the quote comes to us through a reliable source. As for the stuff about how the funding did or didn't influence the movement, it has absolutely no bearing on the relevance of the quote. I move that we remove this spurious tag. If you disagree, please state your reasons briefly and concisely, referencing specific policy if needed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

[Dylan, you've just recently created this section "Tags Clean-Up" for the express purpose of discussing tags. As you know I dispute its usefulness, but it's completely absurd to make another new section (which you've titled, "Pelosi") to discuss a specific tag when you've just created "Tags Clean-up". I'm doing you a favor and making it a subsection of your "Tags" section.]-Digiphi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
(formatting Digiphi's comment)
That tag is no longer appropriate, as it's in the "opinions" section, provided the quote is accurate. There's no justification for assuming that she means middle class when she says "middle class", though. We have a guideline against wikilinking within quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know what place putting insults from an opponent has in the article. What next.....in the Barack Obama article, put in 2,000 words of what newspapers say that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin say about him? Plus 700 words on each unfounded accusation that was ever published in a "RS". And then if some "RS's" say that he's a Socialist, then change the lead description to "Socialist President". The double standard has made a mess out of this article. It should be neutral, informative coverage of the movement. If there are questions about funding, organization, how it came to be etc. then it should really delve into those topics, not just repeating content-free insults by it's opponents. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
North, you seem to be raising a different point from the tag comment. Mostly, you seem to be arguing against including criticism.
Neutrality requires us to include criticism, but the statement in question is more analytic than critical. It is Pelosi's analysis of the origins of the TPM in relation to the GOP. As such, I do not see anything in your comment that would be a compelling argument for exclusion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on what is to be done. The polls and demographics need to go back into their own section or eliminated entirely. The so-called "funding" is nothing more than claims of astroturfing and that section should be restored. The allegations of racism, same thing. These section headings were contributing to the overall neutrality of the article. Without them, the article is misleading and POV pushing. That's how the article got the tags, which were not there before.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke, the reason I broke this section out was to get people to focus on this one tag. If you won't do this, please post in some other section or make a new one. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I am commenting on this tag. We need to come to a consensus as to what is to be done. The neutrality of this article needs to be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Analysis" from Pelosi? (Pause while catching my breath from laughing.) Actually, it doesn't matter. It's her opinion, and she's not an expert. The tag should probably be removed, but only if it's clearly marked as "opinion". I'm not sure the present state of the article has adequate marks, as it's been moved from an "opinion" section to a "commentary" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the show of naked bias, but you are still incorrect. While we do have to attribute the view to her, we do not have to hide it in an opinion/commentary/criticism ghetto. In fact, it is almost always wrong to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

I removed the so-called "Opinions" section that featured exclusively the old comment by Paul Krugman. It's WP:UNDUE to give him his own section when the "Commentaries" section is clearly where this type of comment belongs. Krugman's comment was formerly part of the "Claims of astroturfing," section which has been removed without any consensus. It would be best if this section were put back so that neutrality on the issue can be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it had opinions by Krugman, Pelosi, and others (which were moved without comment to "commentary", rather than "opinions".) The paragraph still has opinions by Krugman and Pelosi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. All the content Arthur mentions ought to appear in an "opinions" section. Placing only one of those things and its source alone under that heading would be undue. =Digiphi (Talk) 17:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
All of the "commentaries" are nothing but opinions. The whole section could be eliminated. There needs to be more edits about the Tea Party movement individuals and why they joined the movement, what their experiences have been, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting observation. What do you mean exactly? Anecdotes from blogs? Description of polls? I'd have an obvious problem with one. Also, let's perhaps table the discussion of whether the whole section should be eliminated for the time being, and right now move toward agreement that if the section stays, it must absolutely be under the heading of "Opinions" or "Allegations of" or something to that tune. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ----[I'd like to amend this comment to invite you to discuss this either on my talk page or in the well established section far up this page. This section here is not useful to the mission of the discussion page, and shouldn't be grown.] -Digiphi (Talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me. It can easily be titled "Opinions." It may have even been called that way back when. Also, we need to restore the Astroturfing section so that there's no question that these are allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

grassroots redux

I've restored the reliably sourced 'grassroots.' In looking over the discussions in the threads above, there is consensus for this edit. Also, there's no reliable source provided that shows the Tea Party movement isn't grassroots. I've noted Arthur Rubin, Digiphi, North8000, and myself all seem to be supportive of the edit. At the same time, the editor who objects has not provided any reliable source to show that the Tea Party movement did not arise as a grassroots movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that action. If you haven't seen this already, these sources lend weight to your (our) argument that the this should be reflected in the article.

Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other back in 2006, actually, both arranged locally

1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot
2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot
-Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to remove it now. We cannot have "grassroots" in the lead without:
1) Attributing it to named individuals.
2) Immediately balancing it with the view that the organization is astroturf (attributing this to such named individuals as Pelosi and Krugman).
I appreciate your bold edit, but the role of such boldness is to get reverted and open up a new discussion. In this, you have succeeded. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are no reliable sources that the organization is "astroturfed", only that it is considered "astroturfed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
By that token, there are no reliable sources that it is grassroots. We cannot use either term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the three sources listed are reliable. (Well, at least two of them.) All of the sources (so far presented) to the contrary are political commentary. Even Mad as Hell doesn't state that it's "Astroturfed", only that some (OK, many, although not yet supported by quotes) TP events were funded by outside sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The consensus is for the 'grassroots' to remain. There is no policy on Wikipedia that demands that this must be attributed to "named individuals." And it absolutely does not need to be balanced by Pelosi and Krugman. Those two are giving their opinions. The newspapers that are calling the movement grassroots have sent reporters to attend these rallies. They've been there from the beginning. They've seen that this arose from grassroots efforts. THAT is what makes these newspapers reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That is correct. Dylan please examine the sources. Furthermore, the above Virginian-Pilot news pieces report Tea Party event as early as 2006, and report their local organization by community members. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As for the astroturfing, it belongs in a section called, "Claims of astroturfing." These are only allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, all the citations for the grassroots are reliable sources. Boston.com is the Boston Globe website. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. We need more detail in the references, so that editors can more easily determine provenance. As for "Claims of astroturfing", WP:WTA suggests we not use that word. ("Claims", not "astroturfing".) Although I agree that all we have are "claims", that appears not to be WP:NPOV phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
We can call it "Allegations of Astroturfing," or "Accusations of Astroturfing."Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans that ignores the rules and cherry-picks sentences from sources can damage an article for a time, but is in no position to make lasting changes.

Allow me to support my accusation of cherry-picking. The first article you cite in support of the grassroots designation is http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html. But if you read the entire article, you find lines such as:

"Although Tea Party organizers have insisted they created a nonpartisan grass-roots movement, others have argued that tea parties were largely created by the clamor of cable news and fueled by the financial and political support of current and former Republican leaders."

This makes it clear that the grassroots designation comes from the TPM organizers, and is genuinely controversial outside of the movement. This explains why we find sources on both sides of the issue, yet you wish to base the lead upon selectively ignoring contrary views.

Muddling the interpretation of the controversy is the demand that we rule absolutely on whether the TPM is grassroots or astroturfed, when in fact we are not in any position to do so. Not only are we obligated to show all mainstream views, there is no one answer to be found. Some parts of the TPM are grassroots, others are astroturf: there is no single, cohesive TPM that is just one or the other. In the quote above, the counterclaim is that it is "largely", not wholly, astroturfed. And for an example of a reliable source that tells this balanced view, you need look no further than http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685795. The last section is particularly relevant. You could also look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-tea-party-lesson-pass_b_779712.html, which says:

"Surely this election -- with the tea party mobilization both the authentic and the corporate Astroturf parts -- is demonstration of that."

Given this, an unattributed claim of grassroots origin is unsupportable by the sources. As for the idea of hiding all criticism away in a ghetto section, that is likewise in violation of the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No Dylan. The Borosage piece is an blog/op-ed, and Borosage's opinions may only be added in the the appropriate section for that, with the proper attributions at every instance. Furthermore, the sources available, and accessible to you as every other editor, report the TPM as far back as 2006, either expressly as "grassroots" in the text of the sources, or in language remarkably devoid of anything "astroturf". -Digiphi (Talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to politely note that you did not address my argument. But thank you for the incidental comments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What does "A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans" mean?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Which part is unclear to you? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you answer the question? Are you implying wrong-doing or are you not clear on consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I am clear on this not being a consensus at all. A consensus includes all editors, not just three out of four of the editors active on a slow Sunday afternoon. Moreover, a consensus cannot stand in opposition to the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What rules? The edit is well sourced. You haven't shown otherwise. This has been a consensus, you just keep removing it. It was a consensus in the other thread, it's a consensus in this thread.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, I'd also like you to answer the question, clarify the "consensus-of-three-partisans" bit. I don't get your meaning. I'd also like to see you write to the questions of the sources currently available to the article, and what you feel if wrong with them. Finally, please write to my denouncement of the Borosage piece, and by extension your suggestion that it's unreasonable or against policy to include in the article the conclusions reported in the aforementioned sources. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Also. Agreement of 3 out of 4 concerned parties is, by definition, a consensus of whatever opinion the 3 share. However, the mission of this section "Grass Roots Redux" is not to reach consensus. It is really a discussion, started in good faith and for the edification of other editors, on the consensus previously developed in the original thread. The content has not changed, nor have the current event and sources reporting on them. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Since "RS's" (by the narrower definition) are all over the board on most disputed topics, I tend to start on these things with a "what do you sincerely think" type discussion, and then move on to sourcing the consensus. If you look at nearly any metric of grassroots, the TPM is about as "grassroots" as any movement of that size can be. Not that it's 100% grassroots, but probably about 90% which is about as high as it gets. De-centralized, spontaneous, random beginnings, dis-organized, and frequently clashes with the establishment (the GOP) that many feel they are the closest to. If I had any qualms about it in the lead it's that the lead sentence is getting a bit adjective laden, and the term is a bit vague/uninformative (as is populist). That first sentence probably needs to get split into 2 more explanatory sentences. The "conservative/libertarian" probably needs a bit more explanation too, like "with both conservative and libertarian leanings" North8000 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If you were to say that 90% of the TPM organizations were grassroots, you might be right, but the distribution is such that this does not even entail that the majority is grassroots. The WashPost survey found that most of the registered TP orgs were unreachable, and that the remaining ones followed a power-law curve, with a few large ones that were financed by the usual suspects (Koch's orgs), and many tiny ones that were ineffectual and irrelevant. Is this what grass roots look like?
As for "both conservative and libertarian leanings", that's misleading. First of all, the TPM is 99% conservative. The other 1% must have wandered in looking for their AA meeting and stayed for the free beer. The libertarianism is not as universal as the conservatism, and some of our sources even suggest that it is injected by Koch instead of being a natural part. However, libertarianism is a form of conservatism, so there's no "both". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely grassroots. That other groups astroturfed is questionable, but there is no evidence that Keli Carender and the others who held rallies and then formed groups were doing so at the behest of a 3rd party organization run by the Kochs or anybody else. It's clearly grassroots, it is recognized as such by reliable sources like the New York Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, Washington Post, St. Louis-Post Dispatch, the Los Angeles Times, and many others. All of these newspapers have sent reporters to these rallies, they witnessed the formation first hand, and they've called it what it is. There's consensus for the edit as well, so there's no problem here.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
misinterpreted posts, no offense intended
=

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, in the future, please do us all the courtesy of at least signing your false accusations. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as I had to sign it for you, I've taken the liberty of adding numbers. This allows me to briefly respond to each:
  1. This is an actual reversion: I removed the inserted "grassroots" from the lead.
  2. Removed an undue-section tag, as part of a block of edits.
  3. This is an exact duplicate of the previous link. I can only guess that you made a mistake.
  4. Removed the verify tag from Krugman after verifying it, as part of that same block of edits.
  5. Removed the off-topic tag from Pelosi after determining it was on topic, as part of that same block of edits.
  6. Removed the last four tags, for varied reasons, as part of that same block of edits.
  7. This is an actual reversion: I removed the tags that had been restored without justification. But see next.
  8. You forgot about this, but immediately afterwards, I self-reverted.
In short, there is nothing even approaching a 3RR here.
I performed tag clean-up in a contiguous block of edits, all of which count as a single reversion. While I did revert one editor's attempt to reinsert the tags, I thought better of it and self-reverted. Then, sometime later, I reverted an entirely unrelated change exactly once.
Based on your sloppiness, including the duplication and the lack of timestamps, I'm going to assume good faith and conclude that you simply don't understand WP:3RR. That's fine, but now you know that you don't understand it, so you need to read it more carefully before you start throwing around false accusations. Got it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you are totally correct, you edited in a block and that counts as a single edit so there is and was nowhere close to a 3RR violation, I am sure malke missed that, and I suggest this can be removed if anyone wants to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked him, on his talk page, to remove it. Let's give him a chance to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't follow this. (maybe something was deleted?). May I suggest we move on? North8000 (talk)
I'm fully in favor of moving on, although I'd prefer that Malke remove this section, so that there is no question about his acceptance of the conclusion.
I did my best to make this followable, but if you have any further interest and would like me to go over this in detail to explain why nothing even close to a 3RR occurred, I would be willing to as a courtesy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't even find the 3RR claim that you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The initial claim was made by Arthur Rubin, in an edit comment, but he did not follow up on it so I ignored it as obviously false. Then this section was created, with the topic "3RR" and links to edits by me. This is a follow-up to Rubin's claim, as it seeks to establish the existence of a 3RR violation. Does that help? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I just think its a bit of a mistake and there is nothing to look at, I will happily delete the whole section in the spirit of moving on and getting on, it is clear that Dylan has not violated 3rr. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd really rather that Malke did it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
North8000, there's been no accusation made of 3RR here. Dylan Flaherty is the one refactoring the post into an accusation. I've not accused him of anything. And Rob, there's no need to delete anything. The post shows there is no accusation. Dylan Flaherty is making an issue where there is none.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke, are you refusing to remove this section that you created? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I cn't see an actual accusation either. Suggest just forgetting all about it and moveing on.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if someone were to create a heading labeled "Copyright violations" and fill it with links to your edits, would you infer any sort of accusation in those circumstances? :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Since this is a user specific issue it should have been brought to the user's talk page not here. TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
There does seem to be general agreement that this section should go away. However, Malke put it here and he seems to disagree. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I just asked Malke point-blank whether he's going to remove this or not. If he does not answer in the affirmative, I will be glad to remove it for him. If he edit-wars to restore it, I will regretfully have to report his behavior and request a block. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We can hat the discussion, but I won't allow my posts to be refactored or removed. There's nothing wrong with them.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Come on geezers, I suggest just blanking it, shakin hands and moving on, its all about nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree and have attempted to remove it, but he restored it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

God, Guns and Gay's

According to Tea Party co-founder Karl Denniger who has now left the tea party movement. In the meetings that he attended as Tea Party leader the debates in the Tea party would all end up over god, guns and gay's. And very little about the fiscal and economic problems of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You would need to at least link us to a reliable source for this quote. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Karl Denniger, whether the founder of a TP group or the president of India, needs to be reported as having said something in a reliable source for it to be mentioned in an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if a reliable source reports him making statements, exactly as you have described, they may be appropriate for the article about whichever group he might have been affiliated with (if there is one), but not on in this one about the TPM. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw quotes in reliable sources when I did the search, as I saw he is talking about the tea party in general not a specific branch, but I also am from the UK so I am not editing just joining in and doing a bit of research. It is true that Karl_Denninger is not presently mentioned in the article so he may well be a minor player. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not a reliable source. In the video Mr. Denniger, the co-founder of Fed Up, says that at a meeting of a Knoxville, Florida—is that it? I can't make it out in the video; some town in Florida, anyway—group the conversation ultimately ended up being about "God, guns and gays". Everything else is from the text of the page. http://market-ticker.org is an unaffiliated blog not authored by a professional and is not a reliable source, defined here WP:newspaper and magazine blogs. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the new British Tea Party contrasted itself from the American one by saying "We are less concerned with 'God, guns and gays'"[8]. Yet another reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs such as http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/karl-denninger-tea-party-founder-tea-party-is-a-joke/ have links to videos that are primary sources. I don't think reliability can be seriously questioned anymore. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2222649 contains Denninger's own words, directly. Given that Denniger is notable, we do not need a secondary source to quote him; his own article is authoritative about his own opinion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, what a political group that is not affiliated with the topic of this article (such as the "British Tea Party") is reported to have stated about itself is not appropriate material from which to draw and mention conclusions for this article. Also, the organization, MSNBC, is a reliable new source. However, the content of the video, an opinion piece, is inappropriate to support content presented as fact in the article. Denniger's words in the video about the subject are limited to, verbatim, "[at his visit to a meeting of the Niceville, Tea Party group meeting] It essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." [timestamp 6:49].
Everything else is language from the blog, which is not a reliable source because it doesn't pass the test outlined here. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
When the leader of the new British extension of the TPM speaks of the American one as being fixated on the 3 G's, that's very notable, and our source is reliable.
What you say about blogs simply is not the case. Read the rules again and then tell me how any of that applies. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I should probably remind you that Denninger goes on at substantially more length on this subject, in the article you didn't read. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, I've read the text of the source and it doesn't matter what Denniger states in it. I've written above that the text of the source doesn't matter because the source doesn't matter. You've asked me before not to quote policy to demonstrate the my disagreement with your suggestions, but I'm going to do it now anyway. We have very straightforward policies regarding sources and verifiability. The policy on blogs states that they "are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
The case of Denniger's blog is addressed by the blog policy, which states that "self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs [emphasis my own], Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Also please understand that ""blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." -Digiphi (Talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you're familiar with the rules. Are you also familiar with WP:ABOUTSELF? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It states that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities[emphasis my own]." That content may be appropriate for an article on the topic of Karl Denniger, and you may write that article, but it is not fair game for this article. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and "his own activity" is... founding the TPM. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, this is a pointless debate, because we reliable sources about his notable statements: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The text is still inappropriate, as much in HuffPo as a tertiary source as in MSNBC's report as a secondary source. Like MSNBC, the organization, Huffington Post, is a reliable source but, just like the MSNBC, it's the text of his statements in the video which are inappropriate to support that content in the article. It's the text that is being impugned, whether it's reported by MSNBC, HuffPo or treated as a primary source. I addressed this several posts above in this section, writing: Furthermore, if a reliable source reports him making statements, exactly as you have described, they may be appropriate for the article about whichever group he might have been affiliated with (if there is one), but not on in this one about the TPM. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No, HuffPo is a secondary source here, as it directly refers to the primary source. We have reliable secondary sources finding his statements about the TPM to be notable. Actually, even as a primary source, he is speaking with an expert opinion due to being the founder of the TPM. In short, the quote stays. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the HuffPo piece summarizes MSNBC's (Dylan Ratigan Show) report on Karl Denniger's firsthand account of an overheard discussion, along with additional analysis. It's a tertiary source. And, if it was a secondary source, or even a primary source as the written account on his blog, the problems with using his story to support that content in the article are the same. Also, he's not speaking about the TPM. In the video he says, verbatim, "I've given two speeches at the local chapter here in Niceville, Floriad, and, uh, it essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." [timestamp 6:45].
Also, neither the Huffington Post, nor MSNBC reported that Karl Denniger is the founder of the TPM. I've removed the quote from the article and removed it from the edit history. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to call you a liar to your face. Instead, I'm going to point out that there appears to be some disconnect between what you say and what anyone can see for themselves. For example, you claim that the HuffPo article does not call Denninger the found of the TPM, but the article starts with "Karl Denninger, an original organizer of the Tea Party". Something is very wrong with your comments, so I am simply going to disregard them as being from an alternate universe. Feel free to join us in this universe, though. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not calling me a liar, to my face. As you stated above, neither the HuffPo piece nor the MSNBC (Dylan Ratigan Show) segment report that Karl Denniger is the founder of the TPM. As to my comments, you don't have to read them, but you should understand why some sources don't make it into articles, and how they are supposed to be used to support content. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
And back here in the real world, the HuffPo article is entitled "Karl Denninger, Tea Party Founder, Blasts Palin, Gingrich & 'Douchebag' Tea Party Groups" (emphasis mine). Really, come join us. The grass on this side of the dimensional portal is greener. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, the headline state states "Tea Party Founder" and reports that Karl Denniger co-founded the tea party group in Niceville, Florida, which he describes in his interview with Dylan Ratigan. He isn't the founder of the TPM, and the HuffPo piece does not cast him in that light. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
How is this an argument against his views of the TPM being notable? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
(And, to clarify, I don't accept your claim. At 4:29 into the interview, he is identified as "One of the founders of the Tea Party movement". Not just one particular group, but the movement. And that's not my opinion or yours, but that of two different reliable sources. I rest my case.) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR (2)

Rubin, if you'd like to retract your false 3RR accusation here, that would also be acceptable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I miscounted when I prepared the edit summary, although I didn't add the list of reverts. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours and 6 in 48, but never 4 in 24. And I also don't think you were gaming the system, as many of the reverts were only "technically" reverts; not simply undoing an edit, but generally an attempt to improve the article. (I think the attempts were misguided, but that's another issue entirely.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't even count 3, but as long as we're agreed that there's no violation, I'm fine with that. Thank you for your response; I'm sure it was just an honest error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
And that's exactly what posting the diffs was meant to show.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If so, then its purpose has been served and now we can remove it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll hat the thread, but I won't remove my post. There was nothing wrong with it, and I've done nothing wrong.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't remove discussion sections from talk pages when the debate has closed. Eventually they will be archived. The whole point is to have a record of what has been discussed and what consensuses have developed. We don't just wipe the slate clean every time we agree on issues. The record of deliberations remains forever. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's completely true regarding our consensus on this article. However, it does not apply to what turn out to be false accusations that ought not have been here in the first place. Malke ought to have left me a warning on my talk page and then reported it to the appropriate venue. Instead, he cluttered our TPM discussion page with an issue that has nothing to do with TPM. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You are continuing to accuse me of something that I have not done. Arthur Rubin accused you of violating 3RR. You did reach that bright line, but you did not go past 3RR. That's what the post shows. You refactored the comments into a drama that has been nothing but a timesink. Please stop these comments. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. http://www.prwatch.org/node/9012 - Analyzes various TPM groups and identifies some as grassroots, others as astroturf.
  2. http://www.iacenter.org/o/us/teaparty102610/ - States that the movement is now astroturfed. References additional sources in support.
  3. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/pelosi-this-is-astroturf-not-grassroots-protest.php Pelosi interview, saying it's astroturf.
  4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html Tea party founder accuses movement of being hijacked by GOP.
  5. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685795 Koch behind the current TPM.
  6. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101025/NEWS0108/10260313/Tea-party-draws-many-to-politics Article ends with section on why it's not grassroots.
  7. http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-donor-patriot-one-raymon-thompson Tea Party Patriots donor outed as Raymon F. Thompson, donor to GOP and Heritage Foundation, calls TPE astroturf
  8. http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/tempest-tea-party Not grassroots
  9. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/lobbying-clients-teaparties/ More on Dick Armey and astroturf
  10. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/scott-payne-Tea-Party-movement-should-be-leery-of-Bachmanns-Caucus-99118569.html Perception of grassroots is essential, it says.
  11. http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2684&posts=5&start=1 Differentiates between grassroots and astroturf
  12. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/a-fissure-in-the-tea-party-movement/59994/ Concerns about lack of grassroots behavior
  13. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/01/15/4431927-tea-partying-for-profit TPM groups as for-profit orgs

Those are just a few, and there's plenty more where that comes from. I post these to clearly establish the fact that "grassroots" is a highly disputed claim, even among partiers. There is too much dispute for us to state, without qualifications and attributions, that this is a grassroots movement. There's also some good material here about funding in general. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To pick a random choice, reference 6 quotes the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party as saying it's "not grassroots". Nothing in the editorial voice. If your other examples are as bad, we probably shouldn't even mention the term "astroturfed". Have you anything better? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I see, so the the chairman of the state's Democratic party is not notable? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The Chairman of the Democratic Party has an obvious bias here and no evidence, just his opinion. This is becoming a timesink for everybody. Especially the links to Mother Jones and ThinkProgress, a George Soros production. The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement. There are reliable sources to back that up. There are no sources that show the grass is astroturf.
Nobody refutes Keli Carender and the others who organized rallies and set up blogs, and used social networking to get people to attend rallies, spread the word, etc. And then went on to organize tea party groups in the aftermath of the rallies. The articles of incorporation are there for everybody to see. If the article had more about the actual tea party members this would not be an issue right now.
Maybe if we get Kate Zernicke, the New York Times reporter who attends tea party meetings, to come and make a mention on the talk page that yes, it is grassroots, that might help close this out. It's obvious to the investigative reporters at the New York Times and other newspapers.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence from your response that suggests you have looked at any of the links. Therefore, I am weighing the value appropriately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at every link, Dylan. You're using ThinkProgress? MotherJones? If the situation were reversed and any of us tried to use "sources" like these to delete an edit sourced from articles, not opinion pieces, from the New York Times, et al, I'll bet you'd have something to say about that. This is a timesink.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, now we have evidence that you read the URL's and prejudged them. That's progress. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's what I said. I read the articles. And they don't say what your comments next to them suggest. And the Tea Party Express is not a real tea party. It's a bus tour. Everybody knows that and it doesn't mean the movement is astroturf.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It does when the bus is paid for by the GOP. My comments, for the record, are brief but accurate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are cryptic, and, when I can determine what they mean, are almost always inaccurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From this, I can only infer that you have failed to determine what they mean. If you disagree, you'll need to offer a concrete example, as opposed to hand-waving. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I've yet to see anyone actually address these sources. If you cannot do so in a manner distinguishable from "I don't like stuff I disagree with", we're just going to have to move forward with the removal of "grassroots". Let that motivate you to actually engage in adequately sourcing this article. Or sit back and watch me erase that term again. Your choice. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed #6; it doesn't support an assertion that the TPm is astroturfed. My wireless network is intermittent at the moment, so I won't check the others, immediately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you did not address it, you merely complained that the view was by someone who isn't neutral. That's exactly my point! We are obligated to give the view of a notable Democratic official just as much as we are the view of Sarah Palin. Not because they're neutral, but because they're not. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So every proponent will say grassroots and every opponent will say it's not grassroots. And if a newspaper carries their quote, it's an "RS" for Wikipedia purposes? And if a rant website has one biased person look at the other biased person's writing before publishing, they meet the "RS" paragraphs of wp:ver. May I suggest the 2nd def of RS which gets applied when these things are taken further, which is a source that is objective and knowledgable on the topic. (did their homework/analysis). And, if's largely grassroots (which is what I believe to be the case), then the term applies, and, if it's largely not grassroots, then the term doesn't apply. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some of the people shouting the loudest about astroturf are tea partiers, including one of the founders of the movement. It really is not as simple as left/right. Within the TPM, there seem to be genuine strands of grass, as well as fibers of plastic, intermixed. We cannot look at this cyborg lawn and rule it 100% organic, nor can we claim it is wholly artificial. We have to report what our sources say, and they say one, the other and both. It's not enough to be "largely" anything, because the TPM is not a single, cohesive group that can be characterized adequately by such a generalization, nor are we in any position to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:Here's what the 'sources' actually say: Every one of them confirms that the tea party is grassroots. All of them are talking about the actual tea party grassroots groups versus the "glomming on" by the Republicans and specifically the Tea Party Express which is a bus tour formed by a Republican PAC, and, the Tea Party Nation which held the Tea Party Convention.

Neither of them are tea party groups. Tea Party Nation was formed as a for-profit specifically to sponsor and profit from the first Tea Party Convention.

  1. Blog that acknowledges Tea Party Patriots is grassroots and Tea Party Express is not. It's a bus.
  2. Blog that uses information from a brochure. Uses Rachael Maddow and Frank Rich for "facts."
  3. Blog: Talking Points Memo just repeats the Nancy Pelosi quote that she believes TPM is Astroturf.
  4. HuffPo: Shows Denninger is angry at Republicans for stealing the "thunder" of the actual grassroots movement.
  5. Looks like a blog: admits the Kochs "didn't birth the tea party movement."
  6. Cinncinati News (an actual hard news source) says, yes, it's a grassroots movement and that Freedom Works is not grassroots. It's not a tea party either and it doesn't claim to be.
  7. Mother Jones, talks about the recent election and claims that the Tea Party Patriots grassroots leaders borrowed a private jet to fly around the country to visit other tea party groups under it's umbrella. Acknowledges that the Tea Party Patriots is grassroots.
  8. Mother Jones again, this time repeats complaints by actual tea party members who are complaining that the GOP “glommed” onto their grassroots movement, specifically the Tea Party Express which is not a tea party and never said it was.
  9. ThinkProgress is a blog paid for by George Soros.
  10. Washington Examiner says Congressional Tea Party Caucus founded by Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is not a tea party, a fact that is obvious since all the members need to be Congressmen.
  11. This is a primary source called America’s Independent Party, that really only complains about the Republicans.
  12. The Atlantic Monthly talks about how the Tea Party Federation, which is a loose organization of tea parties founded to address claims of racism, kicked out the non-tea party Tea Party Express.
  13. MSNBC talks about the Tea Party Convention sponsored by the non-tea party Tea Party Nation, which is a for profit group and not an actual tea party.

Every single one of them acknowledges the Tea Party movement is grassroots, and they all mention the "glomming on" of the Republicans stealing the thunder and trying to co-opt the message. That’s it.

Suggest we go to Mediation Cabal and ask for intervention. See here. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your comments are entirely accurate. See below
  1. This is not MySpace, it's the web site of a non-profit which exerts editorial control. In any case, the article is valuable for the quotes and references alone.
  2. Yet another org, and chosen because it's a tertiary source for a secondary source that references primary sources. And yes, Maddow does count as a source, even if we dislike her.
  3. This is a political news org recognized by secondary sources. In any case, contains Fox interview with Pelosi. Or is Fox officially not a reliable source?
  4. As mentioned, when a founder of the TPM accuses the GOP of astroturfing the movement away from grassroots, this is a very high-quality source.
  5. Contrary to your claims, this is what we call a newspaper. Not only does it declare astroturfing without attribution, but it also brings in a secondary ref to the "Astro Turf Wars" documentary.
  6. Another hard news source, and it has an entire section called "Not Grassroots". Besides it own conclusion, it also contains a notable (if partisan) view in this direction.
  7. Contrary to your summary, explicitly denies that it's grassroots.
  8. As you admitted, it quotes TPM activists as saying it's not grassroots anymore. It also gives hard numbers. What is your objection to this article?
  9. Who cares? This article is full of links and references that are relevant.
  10. Hard news outlet directly stating that perception of grassroots is highly important to the success of the movement. The Caucus is given as an example of astroturfing.
  11. Yes, it complains about Republicans. In specific, it complains that they're astroturfing the TPM. Primary sources can be used; we just have to be careful.
  12. Another hard news source, and it directly states that TPM activists are concerned about a lack of true grassroots.
  13. Hard news source talks about cashing in on what was once a grassroots movement. The key is Palin's involvement.
I am led to conclude that you skimmed without full comprehension. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, none of them are saying what you claim. What I've posted is accurate. The tea party movement is acknowledged as grassroots with the Republicans trying to "glom on." That's very old news. The movement is grassroots, it's notable, verifiable, it's well sourced with actual hard news sources, and it has consensus.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the conclusion you draw is not in any way supported by the sources. I suggest that you read these again, more carefully. 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke's right. :::
As for the "founder of the TPM" accusing "the GOP of astroturfing the movement", well 1.)He's not the "founder of the TPM". He co-founded a local tea party group, supposedly. In the video he only says, verbatim, "I've given two speeches at the local chapter here in Niceville, Floriad, and, uh, it essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." [timestamp 6:45].
Everything else is written on his blog, which is not a "very high-quality source", but one prohibited for use the way you want to use it in the guidelines. Also, when anyone "accuses the GOP of astroturfing the movement," why would we treat it any differently than the instance of Nancy Pelosi accusing the same? -Digiphi (Talk) 14:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, but you're repeating an error that I corrected earlier: he is "a founder of the TPM", not "the". The article identifies him as such, and barring some compelling counterargument, we are obligated to accept this. Likewise, you seem to be misunderstanding what constitutes a blog or a primary source, so your conclusion about reliability is simply wrong. I would appreciate it if you would be more careful about these issues in the future. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about the Mediation Cabal? I think we need outside intervention here.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems worth a try, if all the parties are willing. (And, yes, I'm a party, and I'm willing, provided the moderator is not someone I've had conflicts with.) We also need to specify what the subject of the mediation would be. Just "grassroots" vs. "astroturfed", or do we need to deal, in detail, as to what the sources say, whether they are reliable for statements of fact, and whether they support the statements written (or anything similar)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm for mediation. And it would be best to limit it to the discussion of whether to keep grassroots in the lead, and not replace it with astroturf. The question of whether to put the various commentaries and op-ed pieces about "astroturf" in under an "Opinions" or "Allegations" heading is a separate discussion and should remain so. If it needs mediation, we can always consider it later. This contention is about the lead, and we should tackle that here and now. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The focus seems to be Dylan's claim that his sources prove the tea party movement is astroturf. Also, on the commentaries/opinions section, I was thinking we could just call it "Views on the Tea Party movement," and break it off into a separate article. There's enough there and it an be added to. What do you think? I could make a subpage showing how it will all look. The article is way too long and needs to be lightened someplace. The 'commentaries' are not that relevant and take up space that could be used for including actual tea party movement content.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the core question is simply keep vs. remove grassroots from the lead. "Astroturf" is an insult term from it's opponents. Both based on reality and on the the pejorative nature of the term, I don't think that there is serious consideration of using "astroturf" as an adjective of the TPM in the lead sentence. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. We could easily make the question "to keep or remove grassroots." The simpler the better. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
-Malke:That's a good suggestion about the commentaries, and we should explore it, but perhaps a little later?
-North8000:Yeah. If we're going to have mediation, let's design it to the question of the lead, and whether certain "sources" are appropriate to support declaring the TPM an astroturf organization for readers there. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Digiphi, definitely we can wait on the commentaries. I just wanted to mention it since you'd touched on it earlier. Okay, I have to attend to RL for a bit, so if necessary, I will go along with the majority and you can tell anybody that. When I get back, I'll write up the mediation request, if everybody would like that, then show it here first for comment. Then we can post it.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Whenever you get around remember to look for Arthur Rubin's input like he stipulated earlier. He probably knows what he's talking about, so we probably don't want a moderator that he isn't comfortable with. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I filed the Mediation Cabal request. It was just a form that gets filled out with the bare basics. I would imagine we can edit it if something isn't right, etc. [9]. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't support using either "astroturf" or "grassroots" in the lead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Understand that your volunteering "mediator", Arthur Rubin, is from the Libertarian Party (United States)/Republican Party (United States) (the same as the Oil Coal Koch family). 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that the anon be indefinitely banned for personal attacks. (This IP seems stable; in regard our guidelines on indefinite bans, perhaps 10 years would be adequate.) The claim that the Libertarian Party (United States) is (the same as the Oil Coal Koch family) is a personal attack against me, as well as a WP:BLP violation against members of the Koch family. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
That's highly unlikely to happen, based on this single post. My advice is to move along... BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Also note that I wasn't volunteering as mediator; I was noting that mediators who have been in previous conflicts with participants should not generally be accepted; and I was specifically noting that I would not accept a mediator with whom I have or have had recently an active conflict elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I think we all understood that. Don't know why the IP thought otherwise.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the IP has a different view of reality; that everyone who disagrees with him (on, say, global warming, or even details of global-warming-related articles) is allied with everyone else who disagrees with him. At least, that's what previous edit comments have indicated. At least, that's the only way I can interpret some previous discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Is he following you around? Probably best to let it go. Hatting it was a good idea.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Refs

Hi

Is there some logic to the amount of refs used here ? Double and triple refs are the norm it would appear and five refs for one sentence seems a little OTT is plain crazy. Can someone try and get them reduced.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaos. Point taken. However, a lot of the content in the article, even individual sentences, is so heavily controverted both on and off Wikipedia that the apparent overkill of refs is necessary to satisfy the written policies and the page editors. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it like this, the recommended definately split to different articles size is >100kb
  • File size: 387 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 71 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 230 kB
  • Wiki text: 119 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 40 kB (6694 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 42 kB
As you can see the references make up around 60% of the page size ...
To avoid tagging with "please split off into new articles" the refs could be cut down.
Any good Wikieditor will know a valid, well sourced ref when they see one - note the one :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to start taking the junk out of the article, which will also reduce the references. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Start with the "Agenda" section, which is just a copy of another article.   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We need to split the article. I was thinking "Views on the Tea Party Movement" which would move out the commentaries and leave a paragraph describing various views, maybe even just bullet points. Same thing with the racism, etc. Leave the salient points in a summary or bullet points, and create a new article with a title like, "Accusations of Racism at Tea Party Rallies," or something like that.
The Agenda can be reduced to the ten points and doesn't need all that explanation about how it came to be. The link to the article can handle that. And for the Election Cycle, that can be reduced to a graphic like the kind you see on filmographies for the actors. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. Breaking out the views, which are often quite negative, would lead to what I understand is called a "POV fork". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Effects on 2010 Election Cycle

I'm going to update this with November 2nd results and edit it down to help lower the kilobytes here.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "teabagger"

Would an unbiased source say the "teabagger" is not a pejorative term? I may be biased as I am not a democrat, but the term teabagging has a definitive meaning and it is a pretty offensive. The page could at least cite sources of Tea Party protesters calling themselves teabaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.47.43 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you would include a section about the label "teabagger" -- other than perhaps making a biased connection to the slang sexual term. Most people probably are not familiar with the slang term. It is unlikely that an article about New York or Winnipeg would have a section about "New Yorkers", or "Winnipegers" -- the term used by the residents of these two cities. A cute pun (Tea Baggers)that came and went does not warrant inclusion in this page. (Ukrcanadian (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

The Tea Party movement has apparently embraced the term "teabagger", giving it yet another meaning. Given its previous meaning, that might not have been wise. However, it's not our job to pave over their PR gaffs. We just report the (verifiable) facts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not correct, Dylan. The term teabagger is frequently used pejoratively by detractors of the TPM. On the other hand, there is no pervasive use of the term by prominent TPM figures in self-describing contexts. So it would be inappropriate of us to label people in the movement this way within the article. Ideally, we should instead describe them with their endonym tea party patriots, or better: tea partiers. Better yet—and to avoid POV complaints—we should probably just use members of, or people in the TPM when describing them in the article.
- Digiphi (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
To be clear: I don't believe in the necessity of a section examining the use of the term. The term shouldn't appear in the article at all, for the same reason that libtard doesn't belong in the Coffee Party article, even though some TPM-minded bloggers have used it to describe that movement. -Digiphi (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
We don't judge the noteworthiness of material, the sources do. A dictionary considering it for word of the year shows that some mention is appropriate. I agree that a whole section may not be necessary, though. As long as it doesn't overwhelm the tea bag article again I don't care that much what happens.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that the members of the Tea Party called *themselves* "teabaggers" at first, when their initial protests manifested themselves in sending boxes of tea bags to members of Congress. This term was used in FOX news broadcasts as well, until someone must have pointed out the current meaning of the word in the popular vernacular. I agree it can be used pejoratively by detractors of the movement. The reason it is important to point out that the 'baggers themselves coined the term and popularized it, however, is that it is a clear example of the right-wing media's effective use of the "victim" card (against the terrible, childish liberals) when challenged on their own mistruths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.192.207 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about the media and victim card doesn't have any bearing on what we do here. We have written policies that guide us in making edits. If you've witnessed someone using the term, or if you've observed an account of someone using the term, your knowledge is not a suitable source for the article, per policy. If an editor brings reliable sources describing the pervasive endonymous use of the term teabagger by members of the TPM, then we'll make the appropriate additions. Otherwise it's pejorative and doesn't belong in the article, per policy. -Digiphi (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I recall multiple editors previously submitting several RS on this. Are they no longer in the article?Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No RS is linked. There's a video from Rachel Maddow's show, but that's not credible per the policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.47.43 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, a digital copy of the Rachel Maddow Show is a credible source to report something said on the Rachel Maddow Show. But you're dead-on correct in what I think you mean, which is that it's not appropriate to support reporting the use of "teabagger" as an endonym throughout the article.
To me this isn't any different than the reasoning by which we don't report "some niggers", or "many niggers in the movement" to refer to people in the prose of the Civil Rights Movement article, even though many credible sources support Bull Connor, a notable figure, referring to them that way. Like "nigger" for that article, the term is used pejoratively and obviously isn't worth reporting in the article, even though some Black people have at some time addressed each other that way. The same is true of possible documentation of some TPM people saying it.
Furthermore we wouldn't write "some political pundits have called the protesters "niggers,"" or "some in the movement have reportedly used the term to address each other." And likewise we wouldn't create a section "Use of the Term "Nigger"". Like "nigger" for the CRM article, "teabagger" is inappropriate for this article. It's pejorative and absurd that it be addressed. The measure of a good article is what's relevant. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying again on Fundraising and Support

A couple of weeks ago, someone proposed addressing this section so that we could pull off the tags. That attempt foundered on a large number of objections. I thought I would try to restart the discussion with some sample text that addresses WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other issues. I have a suggested drop in text for the whole section below. You can see this fully formatted in the context of a full page, as of Sunday morning, in my userspace at User:MBMadmirer/Tea Party Movement. Anyways, the proposed text:

Various claims have been made about the funding and support of tea party organizations. In October 2010, The Washington Post surveyed Tea Party organizations and found that approximately half that responded were not connected to a national organization and that 46% had received some funding from a national organization, with 10% saying that they get the majority of funding from national organizations.[95] Gardner found tea party groups who claimed to be linked to, in order of size, Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, local Republican parties, the 9/12 Project, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty.


In addition to financial support, local organizations have received training from national organizations. For example, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty have organized training programs around the country.[96]

These organizations have some wealthy backers and the combination of organizational support to tea party groups and donors has lead to claims that the tea parties are astroturf organizations.[97] In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor.[98] In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.[99] Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles.[100]

In addition so-called tea party candidates had fundraising successes. Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.[101] Sharron Angle raised $14m in the 3rd quarter of the fundraising cycle.[102]

I would very much appreciate additions. A good chunk of this is just re-organized text from the existing page, with some framework on the core issue from a recent story from The Washington Post. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Good call, Digitphi. The existing section is:

In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor.[98]

Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles.[99] Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.[100] In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.[101][not in citation given]

Kate Zernike, writing in the New York Times describes the Kochs as founders of the Americans for Prosperity, which they[who?] say has supported the Tea Party movement.[102][relevant? – discuss] Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the latter supplied in part by Charles and David Koch.[103][unreliable source?] David Koch of Koch Industries, who sits on AFP's Board of Directors, has help fund a number of Tea Party causes. His group is identified as one of the key groups, with FreedomWorks, behind the April 15, 2009 national tea party events. Its Hot Air Tour organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.[104][relevant? – discuss]

MBMadmirer (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Let's please put this in the existing discussion section, or at least move this new section to a position immediately beneath the original, for the purposes of organization and keeping the original participants in the discussion. I feel very strongly about this. Would you please delete it and move the text, or at least move the section upwards? I'm going to drop a note on your talk page too. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but it's fine where it stands. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Astroturf" is the insult term hurled by their opponents, which sort of means "phony". If everything said in this discussion section were true, it would still provide no support for use of that term. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is why we can't state outright that the TPM is astroturfed. We can and should give attributed statements from notable sources which claim this, but then again, we should also do the same for claims to the contrary. With all of this complication, I don't believe we can safely call it "grassroots", though, at least not as a flat statement in the lead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
(to Dylan) Well, it is a continuation of a discussion which you clearly lost, above, but I suppose it's acceptable for MBMadmirer to try to avoid the unreasonable editors.
(to MBMadmirer) Mayer still didn't say that. Otherwise, a reasonable approach. Perhaps Krugman and Pelosi ahould be moved to this section (in a separate "opinions" subsection), as their "commentary" is only as to funding. Also, [97] needs to explicitly state "claims of astroturf" and be a reliable source, not just a marginally reliable source making claims of astroturfing, per North8000's comment.
(to North8000) I hadn't considered that. If my last comment to MBMadmirer were taken into account, would that solve the problem?
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I like the idea of moving Pelosi and Krugman into this section. I think it is important to include this as part of the description. As you note, the astroturf claims focus on funding, so I think it is important to include here. Perhaps a "controversy about funding" section more than opinion? MBMadmirer (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I must confess that I don't even know what the exact proposed change is. If I had my way we'd delete all of the "insults and inuendo by opponents" sections and instead start trying to substantively cover any areas that are the things discussed by the insults. If there is a question about donations/finances/funding, let's really cover donations/finances/funding as well as the importance/non-importance of such to the movement. If there is an accusation or inuendos implying that the movement was orchestrated into existence by "powers-that-be", then let's examine and cover that area more thoroughly. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't dispute this. Funding and support is genuinely an issue for the TPM. On the one hand, it very clearly states that it is grassroots. On the other, there are reliable sources which disagree vehemently. Ultimately, we need to put both of these labels aside and simply report the facts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Correction to "(to MBMadmirer)" above: Reference [97] is an example calling the TPM "astroturfing", I don't consider it adequate support for "claims that the tea parties are astroturf organizations." We would need a reliable 3rd-party source that the claims were made, rather than just a notable example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that we should avoid the claim that tea parties are astroturf. I tried to contextualize it by describing the specific, demonstrable relationships that are elided to make the astroturf claim. That's why I included it. It is notable that people make the claim, and Paul Krugman making that claim seems to qualify to me as notable. MBMadmirer (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying we must avoid making the claim as an unattributed statement of fact, just as we must avoid making the opposite claim in the same manner. We are not going to be the ones to rule on this controversy; it's just not our job to do so and we are ill-equipped. Worse, it doesn't seem that there really is a fact of the matter. We have lots of reliable source saying some parts of the movement are real grass, and lots of sources (often the same ones) saying that the movement is now largely made of plastic. There is no single answer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Right. It is all notable (and not-notable) opinion. That's why I cited Krugman, who is notable, for the Astroturf claim. MBMadmirer (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all a fan of Krugman, but as you say, he is notable. In short, I don't think we disagree. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Did we reach consensus on this? As I said above, I feel like we should add in the Pelosi stuff. I feel like the Washington Post story by Gardner provides some good facts, balance, and framework. Any other thoughts? MBMadmirer (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions + full protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've proposed sanctions on this article. It's being discussed at the administrators' noticeboard. Please bring all discussion there: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sanctions on Tea Party movement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have made a few non-trivial edits to this article (for clarity's sake, they are here: [10] [11]). Most of my involvement came here on the talk history: Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 9#Categories and External links. If anybody thinks my involvement as an administrator is unseemly, feel free to take it up at WP:ANI; however, I believe the result would have been the same (protection in any case), and the version I've protected has nothing to do with what I was giving an opinion on (the libertarian focus of the TPM vs. the "grassroots" terminology). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magog, I don't think anybody will mind you being involved. Also, the 'grassroots' has consensus and should be restored. Dylan Flaherty is the only one arguing against it.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke is making a statement that we all know to be false. Right now, there is at least one person in the mediation who joins me in being against "grassroots", and another who argues for using the term only with a qualifier (such as "mostly"). In matters involving me, Malke has been less than entirely candid. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following this on Magog the Ogre's talk page before reading / seeing the above:
Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks.
But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock? North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Two weeks is too long.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How can I know you guys aren't protesting the two weeks just because you want to reinstate the text? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I'd AGF. But second, I wasn't aware that the page is locked because it isn't allowed to have the word 'grassroots' in it. So are you saying, the page must stay locked until the rest of us agree not to include the word grassroots even though the consensus is to include it? Is that binding on every editor who comes down the lane? What happens if we start to edit some other part of the article, we agree by consensus but there's still only one or two who object? Do we have to forfeit the consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that's a misinterpretation. I just want the edit warring to stop. Did you really think I meant that or you were throwing a loaded question at me by design? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's a proposal to Magog's question. This section becomes a contract for a little while. They make a promise here not to do it if you un-protect the page, against which you're prepared to start banning, as the terms of the agreement. If it happens there will always be a record here for as long as necessary and you know how to tell if someone made changes. I'll throw in too.
As to the edit, it'd be a cool gesture if after removing the block you took a quick glance over the page history for the concerned parties' reverts for the last ten days, probably starting here and moving forward, with the understanding that if you notice BRD ought to have it stay until consensus confirms the proposed removal, then you'll put it back. And if you don't find that to be the case, you won't, and all parties agree to drop it whatever you decide. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Btw just to be clear, the terms of the agreement are about the back-and-forth reverts now. If the mediated discussion going on right now about "grassroots" decides that it stays, then it should at the time of that discussion's conclusion. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good idea Digiphi.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)One thing I'm thinking of doing is putting the article on semi-protection with a 1RR rule. It's been awful hard to get consensus though with irate and indignant editors who have a stake in this spamming the AN discussion and providing an incomplete view which only gives their own side. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, what do you mean by "indignant editors who have a stake in this spamming the AN discussion..." What is spamming, and who is indignant? The only editor I saw upset was Cptnono when you said he was edit warring when he was not.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. On the one hand, there are arguably other changes that could be made to the article. On the other, the problem isn't just the presence or absence of "grassroots", but the general breakdown of communications. Maybe we should make lemonade when admins hand us lemons by using these two weeks to work out our differences and come to some consensus on the other issues that divide us (which also working on the mediation). Otherwise, the lock will come off and the wars will start again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that editors make use of the page protection to reach consensus on this dispute. If need be there are established procedure. WP:DR.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Will, we're currently in mediation over the "grassroots" inclusion, so I'm thinking maybe it would be best to discuss that issue primarily on the mediation page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've drawn up another proposal at WP:AN and encourage comment. I don't want the article protected either. But please continue to discuss this until implementation and even after implementation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean that we could only change one thing? Some of us want to rework some of these sections. And since the consensus is to keep grassroots, that should stay until the mediation is over. That in itself with stop any disruption. The rest of us want to work on the article without limitations. You, being an admin, could put in an embedded message that grassroots can't be removed for now. But the rest of the article should be fair game for everybody, except the IP's. I understand your point about the socks, etc., and that they could make more trouble during this time. But the rest of us should not be restricted to one section, or one edit per day, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No, what the section means is that you (and everyone else) would be restricted to one revert per day on the same piece of text. This would allow more than one revert per day, so long as we're talking about different sections of text. This would allow editors to significantly edit the article, and would presumably encourage the BRD cycle. If an editor can't agree not to make only one revert per day on the same piece of text, then frankly the problem may lie as much with that editor than anyone else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I think I wasn't entirely clear. Maybe it would help if I called it a relay-race as opposed to tag-team. The way it will happen is that R1 removes the term, I1 reinserts it, then R1 passes their baton to R2, who removes the term, only to watch I1 pass their baton to I2, who restores it. This continues until everyone has had their 1RR card punched for the day. It still amounts to a pretty ugly edit war.
Is that clearer? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion at one place: WP:AN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alright, this article is unprotected. Please also review the probation notice at the top of the page before making any edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for your work and efforts on this overall. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Source recommendation

As an editor for WorldNetDaily, I would like other editors to consider the following source for inclusion; it characterizes the Florida Tea Party as being "unlike" 90 grass-roots tea-party groups, and thus has a direct bearing on the content issues in the mediation case, where I have been commenting: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=190445]. I think it would be appropriate as a WP:SELFPUB position statement from a significant movement organizer, though not of course as a movement overview. It's possible I will have other source recommendations, or may make edits not related to WP:COI, but that remains to be seen; I have deliberately not looked at the article yet. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 18:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanx. No objection from me, but you should be specific about what you want to say or are saying that it says. If it's about the mediation subject, maybe we should have it there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Florida Tea Party that purports itself to be a third political party?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a good model to navigate this article towards, out of the mess that it is

It's Democratic Party (United States) This shows the type of content that should be in an article on an organization. Not like the dumb stuff that constitutes 50% of this article. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that that article is about a formal political party, not a movement. Also, note that it is a parent article. Much of the content exists in child articles, see Category:Democratic Party (United States). There are only about two child articles of this page: the agenda and the protest articles. So there are limits to how thae model of that article can be applied here.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, do you know of any articles we could use as a model?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I do. The African_American_Civil_Rights_Movement. Not because the two movements are ideologically similar, but because the topics of their articles are categorically similar, and the CRM page is very well done. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a great idea, better than mine. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've read through the article, Digiphi and it does have a good organization. One thing we need to think about here is adding content relevant to the actual tea party movement, who they are, what they're doing, get some comments/quotes from actual organizers, etc. We can add new sections to cover this content. One thing I wanted to work on is the election results. I think that could all be summarized in a sortable table.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlocked

Again, Magog, thanks for this and your work and efforts and time here.

Lets resolve to not let this get crazy, and to move the mediation process along to a conclusion. Wanna flip a coin on which version to use between now and then? North8000 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa WHOA. Let's focus on the mediation page for starters, like you said, and just wait a few hours and think about the supposedly contested item. If we feel the same as before, with the majority recognizing the BRD standard that it stays until consensus that its proposed removal go forward, then it stays. If we feel differently now, then it doesn't. Or something. Or we just go ahead with putting it back, and let the sanctions determine if it stays or goes, kind of a Wiki-natural selection. Or something I haven't thought of. But stop scaring me with this coin toss, North, you terrorist ;D -Digiphi (Talk) 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There's this idea flying around in most of the pro-"grassroots" editors' comments, yours above for example, that a headcount of editors concerned with this article represents consensus to include the term. This isn't really correct; project-wide consensus, i.e. policy and guidelines, weigh very heavily indeed, and I would say that determinations about this content element's relationship to WP:NPOV and WP:OR, for example, are far more important than headcount. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the coin-flip idea. Actually, this is how I propose we do it: I take the last digit in the old ID of this edit: if it's odd, we put it back in, and even, we remove it. I'll take it a step-further: the entire mediation is decided this way, and I permaban any editor who reverts the decision, or as much as questions it. No exceptions. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that there is project-wide consensus for using that methodology to resolve content disputes. :) If doubles were involved, however... —chaos5023 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know what to tell you but to read WP:CONSENSUS. You do not speak as if you understand it. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously consensus means an administrator placing his will on the article by fiat, right? I almost had to block this editor for his recent biased edit. Am I doing this right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not how consensus works. The word 'grassroots' has consensus here. Let's not subvert the process. The coin-flip is disrespectful of those of us who have been working in the process and not edit warring. But thanks Magog for unlocking the page. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Whew, getting pretty wild on us there! I think we've been working you too hard! North8000 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Go Yobot!Malke 2010 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, are you feelin' okay? Do you need a hug? —chaos5023 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Magog, I might amenable to that. I'm not 100% on deciding the entire mediation this way. Actually, fine, your solution is perfect for the time being. It will be decided finally in mediation. -(Digiphi) 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My idea was just roll with the mediation and get it done. In the mean time the coin toss. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, a few random questions:
  1. Did you flip a coin to decide what state the "grassroots" matter would be locked in when you protected it?
  2. Did you unprotect it with the primary goal of changing that state?
  3. If there's a consensus in either direction, why are we in mediation?
  4. Would an edit war, even a slow-motion one, help mediation progress?
Just some things you might want to consider. You'll do whatever you like in the end and my life is too short to worry about it any more. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Ominous much? -Digiphi (Talk) 02:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
[12].Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I flip a coin for all decisions I make. The love of my life left me because I wouldn't marry her; pity it turned up tails, when I cast lots to gain the favor of my god in making my decision. ;)
  1. No, seriously, I didn't flip a coin, it's humor guys, humor!
  2. No.
  3. There isn't consensus.
  4. No. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There is consensus, it just doesn't count here for some reason.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
But I will accept whatever the baby in the youtube video decides.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Apropos of the tenor of this thread, I made my first two, carefully selected, thoroughly neutral edits to this topic, visible here: [13]. Looking forward to more constructive contributions! JJB 03:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke, continuing to repeat that your preferred version "has consensus" irrespective of the progress of events is not an effective rhetorical mechanism; it is, contrariwise, a sign of tendentiousness, which is not a place that you really want to go, for serious. I rather have to recommend less "staying on-message" and more collegiality. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Chaos, I recommend not singling out an editor in offering your opinions of what they may or may not be doing. It's best to comment on the edits and not the editors, especially as this is the article's talk page and not my talk page where comments of that nature are more appropriate. As regards obstructive editing, it's very clear I'm not that kind of editor, especially as regards dispute resolution on this page. Many of the regular editors here, I'm sure, would be happy to point that out to you and can do so with diffs. As regards collegiality, I have an excellent record in that regard, especially on this page, as again, many of the regular editors here can attest with examples of where I've been instrumental in resolving disputes and helping build consensus.

A closer examination of the recent talk page posts will reveal I am the one who suggested the Mediation Cabal which in my experience on Wikipedia is not something that obstructionists tend to suggest. As the editors here are still dealing with a contentious issue, it's best to seek common ground all around, with all editors, rather than attempting to single out an editor for what can easily be interpreted as ridicule in an effort to discredit their views. Any other comments you wish to make about me should be posted on my talk page. And of course, you are always free to visit the relevant noticeboard of choice should you remain unconvinced of my intentions. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to speak to your intentions. I'm commenting on behavior, as it happens, in the context it's happening in. I don't think that's inappropriate. Do you mind if I ask on what basis, specifically, you're making your repeated assertion of consensus in favor of your preferred version? (I can sift through history, but I have no way of knowing whether I'll zero in on the same material you're talking about.) —chaos5023 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from any further 'behaviour' comments. Any further discussion is best carried out on my talk page. This page is for discussions on how best to improve the article. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, um, no. As long as Wikipedia has behavioral policy and guidelines, editor behavior remains a valid subject, and when that behavior impacts the maintenance and development of a particular page, it is germane to the relevant talk page. That aside, I would still like to know the basis for your assertions regarding consensus. Who knows, if I saw the material that convinces you of this, I might agree with you. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Chaos, Malke made the assertion that there was consensus and that the consensus was not being followed. Instead of addressing that, you go after him/her accusing them of tendentiousness and being un-collegial. Probably not out of bounds, but lets be nice.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I kinda have been trying to find out more about the root assertion for a few iterations now, though, with Malke entirely unresponsive on the topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to single out Malke, by the way; if you look early in this discussion, I had related things to say to Digiphi. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool. There's a pretty lot on it at the mediation page. which is about that specific topic & word. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OUT OF ORDER

When "anti-liberal" was added, I had my doubts about its appropriateness, but I saw that it was removed on a questionable basis, so I put it back and raised the issue here. My goal was to demonstrate how reasonable people react to bold changes to the article. In my imagination, we would have discussed the issue, come to a consensus and acted on it together.

Clearly, I was deluded. Instead, just as we are starting the discussion, the change was reverted again. This is NOT HOW WE DO THINGS. This is how we got the page locked in the first place. Frankly, I am disappointed and even disgusted. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to the issue as raised on my talk page. I don't think we need to protect it yet; I think editors need to calm down, really. My sense of how this happened:
  1. An editor added a statement [14], IMHO one with an unnecessarily pejorative tone mind you, but it was legitimate by process.
  2. The item was removed per WP:BRD [15].
  3. Dylan F readded it [16]. This was probably a violation of the BRD cycle, but, assuming good faith, Dylan was readding the statement thinking his new source was reliable.
  4. Arzel removed the statement [17]. Because we've assumed Dylan's statement to be a completely new one (not a violation of BRD), then Arzel is thus removing an entirely new statement per BRD (not to mention that he's right; the second source was just as much an opinion as the first).
Again, we need to calm down; if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Recently I had a day where I lost my cool over an issue, so I took a wikibreak for something like 30 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Like a self-block? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
[18]. Never said I'm perfect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm perfectly calm. However, I'm not at all happy with what this tells us about our lack of progress.
I believe that, in a healthy environment, the "anti-liberal" term would have been removed by mutual consent. Instead, it was first removed in a BITEy way based on the source needing an improvement. This was already counterproductive, but I thought it could be salvaged if we fixed the error and had an actual discussion about the edit.
I made a good faith attempt at leading this discussion, but it was cut short by yet another BITEy edit. Edits like this are why so many people have been scared away from this article! They're why we're in mediation over a term that is a patent violation of WP:LABEL. And it's why we've gone through page protections, interaction bans, and other disciplinary procedures. There is no good faith. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
1) Boy these conversations are hard to follow with you guys, weaving in between comments! :P
2) Again, both removals were per BRD. And neither seems particularly bitey. If I have to lock up the article now, it means we'll never get anywhere on it. Locking the article is a last resort method to avoid edit warring; the only other possibility would be blocking. I'm sure you wouldn't have preferred that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a little too fast and crazy, but not an edit war. IMHO up to point of an addition and removal of it is fine without going to talk. After that it should go to talk. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

North, I didn't say it was an edit war, but I'd agree that it was too fast and crazy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an errand to run and I'm not going to have network access while away. Let's take that as a short wiki-break. But do carry on amongst yourselves. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Compared to biting yet another newcomer, yes, I actually would have preferred simply locking up the article. This would force editors to communicate here, not through edit comments as they revert each other. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. But, WP:BRD, you know? No one's walking all over you. What happened with that edit was pretty reasonable. —Digiphi (Talk) 06:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who got walked over. Twice. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Folks, please calm down. Two suggestions: First, everyone should adopt a voluntary 1RR (no more than one revert per day). An alternative to edit warring is the "boldly added, deleted, discussed" cycle. If you want to add something, add it. If someone objects, they can delete it. Then the editors discuss it. Second, on the issue of adding terms to the lead, I suggest that only the most common descriptions should appear in the first paragraph. Anything we put in the beginning should probably have at least several sources. As for this exact phrase, "anti-liberal", I searched and found it used about a dozen times in opinion columns, but never as a direct description of the TPM. If we can find better sources we might add it to the general views section, "Agenda".   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A routine sequence of edits, and, my opinion, the first person to do something (slightly) questionable in it was Dylan. A controversial edit gets added, then reverted, then Dylan essentially reverted the revert. No biggee. But then Dylan creates a zillion words of drama over it (here and at Magog's talk page) and asks to have the article locked up. Huh? Life's too short.....let's move on. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, I was able to find better links, I think. Regardless, anti-liberal doesn't add anything above the simpler "conservative", so it doesn't belong on the lead. As I've tried to explain, my concern here is about the process we followed, not this redundant term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping conversation in order

We all know that when we cut in on another editor's comments, it puts the discussion out of order and makes the thread difficult to follow. Not to mention the mess with the indentation. So from now on, when we want to address a specific editor, we should use that editor's name at the beginning of our posts, but in consideration of others, from now on, please let's not cut in. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Article spin-offs

This has been discussed briefly before, but the article is now around 122 kilobytes and it is at the point were new articles could be spun-off. We could create a page with commentaries since there are so many of those, yet the ones here don't really offer any comments from actual tea party participants. Also, the race issues are relevant and could be expanded into their own article. This would free up space to add more tea party movement content. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be for anything that would include more summarizing and use of overview / analysis by reliable RS's that are doing overview and analysis. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, things need to be summarized, and with new articles spun-off that will be possible since the link to the new article will be there for those who want to read more. And the content I'd like to see added includes expanding just who these tea parties are, how did they get organized, etc., and offer much more on the financial issues like TARP, etc. The agenda addresses some of them, but actual quotes from tea party members on their foreclosure experiences, why they joined, what they do for the movement, can all be easily added. There are plenty of good articles out there. Just need to take the time to make the edits.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
On that topic I think I did find a article with objective analysis and overview in a reliable RS on several of these topics. A new article in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/17361396?story_id=17361396 . I generally consider them to be the highest caliber weekly news magazine.....written in Europe....may a bit left of center, but really good. I have to settle for what's on the web because it's like over $200 per year to subscribe. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea to me. My main thought would be that the refactoring should be done with a lot of care directed toward avoiding a situation where the sub-articles look like WP:POVFORKs. Given how controversial many of the subsections are, a fork that isn't carefully managed could wind up seeming, or legitimately being, unbalanced in POV in a way that wasn't the case within the context of the broader article. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
North8000, I hear ya on the cost. Also, I'm going to miss Newsweek. It was once a very cool source. Even if they did publish the Hitler Diaries in the '80s. I like New York Times, WashingtonPost, etc. Wall Street Journal has some good articles on the TARP thing, etc. Also, given that we're saying libertarian, conservative, etc., we need to clarify what that means. The libertarians are fiscally conservative, small government, but they also allow social programs like welfare, etc? Because at some point, the Tea partiers, and they mostly seem to be Baby Boomers, are going to retire and take Social Security, Medicare, so they can't be against all gov't programs. Anyway, the labels we've given them need to be expanded otherwise, the reader won't understand why they're in the lede. Gotta go for now. Good flying weather today.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Whilst on the article page I click on the "Toolbox" drop down on the left hand bar of the page and then select "Page size". Present size is:
  • File size: 390 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 71 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 231 kB
  • Wiki text: 119 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 40 kB (6694 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 42 kB
the previous mention was at these sizes:
  • File size: 387 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 71 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 230 kB
  • Wiki text: 119 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 40 kB (6694 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 42 kB
This means that the article has actually grown in size by 3kB. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
My angle is by content rather than size. If one compares to either example in the "good model" section, I think that a whole lot of the real coverage, overview, analysis and information is missing from this article. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Malke, I agree with you partially, but would like to make a couple points. While there is some variation in what the term Libertarian means over the last century and in various places, the tenets of small and less intrusive government are core to all of them. Taking the US Libertarian party as an example, while it does not have an explicit statement about welfare, it does about encourage private charities which I think implicitly means reduction of government in that area. I think that if one looks at either the folks in the TPM. or it's tendencies,I think that one would need to say that it significantly has both conservative and libertarian people and tendencies. And so I think that NEITHER single term can be used to overall characterize the TPM. With respect to it's PRIORITIES I would call those Libertarian. If you look at it's contract from America, in the areas where Libertarian and Conservative views conflict, NOTHING of the conservative agenda is included in those priorities. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, got that. We need mention in the body of the article, explaining those positions. That's something you would be good at writing since you are so knowledgeable about it. I don't worry about parties much. I just vote for the person. But the libertarian viewpoint is interesting and I've seen it mentioned in many article about the TPM so it should be there. Also, these guys all seem to be Baby Boomers. Need some more demographics on them.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A logical spinoff, which has already been discussed a little, would be something like "Tea Party movement controversies". We also need to finish spinning-off the "Agenda" section.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds good. The agenda thing can be reduced to the 10 points. We don't need all that preamble about what's his name coming up with it as that is in the main article. Just go take that out with a brief mention of when the points were adopted. We could call the section, "Ten Point Agenda" or something like that.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I edited the agenda down. Also, I was going to put the election cycle into a sortable table.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Will, I agree that the article is a bit large and could be broken up more. However, I've read about POV forks and this sounds like one in the making. We need to be careful to keep the main article balanced instead of relegating criticism to baby articles nobody will ever see. Ok? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. However remember that any spinoffs will still have a summary here.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then we need to make sure the summaries are long enough to be neutral and at least make mention of enough details that someone might want to click for more. It can't be "Some crazy people have boring, patently false criticisms. Don't bother clicking." :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Summary length depends on the length of the daughter article. But they are usually from one to three paragraphs long.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What source do we have for TPM candidates?   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you are asking. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It got confusing because of added messages. My question was in regard to Malke's plan to "put the election cycle into a sortable table." It'd be good to have a secondary source that lists the candidates.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reliable sources to show where the various candidates were given local tea party support, if that's what you're referring to. We do need to show that the candidates did have support. It can't just be that Sarah Palin showed up and campaigned for them unless the local tea party group paid for her expenses, etc. Usually, they would make an announcement on their websites and email members, sponsor campaign rallies, etc. That's what you mean, right?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
So we're going to assemble a list from primary sources? I'd be surprised if no one in the news business has done so. If we can find one then that's what we should use. The second-best option is to use secondary sources to identify individual candidates. Using primary sources, especially self-published ones, doesn't seem like it would meet Wikipedia standards. Since there is no membership involved, anyone can claim to be a Tea Party candidate. And any group can all itself a Tea Party group.
I suggest turning this section into a prose summary based on the many election wrap-ups and analyses, and spin-off the list into something like "List of Tea Party candidates, 2010". There were a reported 138 of them, so it could contain the entire list (if there is one) or just the notable ones.   Will Beback  talk  10:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  10:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Condensing of "Contract from America Section"

OK, I think that the condensation was nice. But it made another issue worse. The whole "what is their agenda" just got cut down to about 2 1/2% of the article. We obviously nee more other content there.

And, now we have 184 words on the entire agenda of this multi-million person movement, and we have a 710 word section on one unsubstantiated incident of somebody alleging that an unknown participant said something racist at a particular rally. What a mess this article is! North8000 (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem. We can't scalp from the article the essential agenda of the tea party movement. Those ten points need to be expanded and each point could also include discussion by tea party members etc. on how they lobby congressmen, etc., and put pressure on politicians, how it effects support of candidates, etc. Why is that their agenda? That's missing. There are so many aspects that could even become their own articles. But this one needs to get back to being about the tea party movement and not about criticism and largely opposing views.
Also, there needs to be mention somewhere in the article that the tea party movement is not a political party and that when news outlets report on "Tea Party candidates," the candidates are not running on the tea party "ticket" they are running on the tea party "agenda." Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's expand the content about the non-Contract agenda. The Contract has an article of its own.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The contract is a thing, not a person. The tea party movement is made up of the people who helped create the agenda points. That these are the core goals of the movement should most definitely be expanded on. There are plenty of reliable sources we can use, also. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
We can expand on the Contract at that article. What we now have here is the verbatim text of the then basic points, minus the long descriptions. As for this article, the actual platforms of TPM candidates wasn't identical to the Contract. Most campaigns end up focusing on a few issues, and there will always be local variations even on a quasi-platform like the Contract. We're not here to enforce an orthodoxy, just to report what actually happens according to reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it can be expanded. I'll work on that this week.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Expanded and spun off. I don't think a list of 140 candidates would be appropriate for this article. Here are some lists: [19][20][21]   Will Beback  talk 

Anti-liberal

I just restored "anti-liberal", because it turned out to be easy to find reliable sources. However, not everything that has a RS belongs in the lead. Is there any consensus for removing it as redundant with conservative? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That source is an opinion regarding the 2010 elections in general and are not specific to the Tea Party Movement. In any case, it is really an anti-progressive movement rather than an anti-liberal movement. Arzel (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Arzel, while I have my doubts about the appropriateness of "anti-liberal", which is why I raised the issue here, let's please decide this on the right basis. We can find more sources easily (http://stores.washingtonspatriots.net/-strse-template/about/Page.bok, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html, etc.)
The real issue is whether anti-liberal is redundant with conservative. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The term anti-liberal was several meanings, and in academic writing or writing outside the U. S. has a meaning different from the one in the source. TFD (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so do you think we should remove it due to the differences? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should remove it and find a good source for the lead, avoiding American usage of terms such as conservative, liberal, progressive, unless the use of those terms is spelled out in the lead. TFD (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed American words can be avoided if international words will suffice. That said, it is about an American movement reacting to American events; "conservative" may apply better than any other label out there. It is unquestionably a movement dedicated to smaller government, which tends to be conservative in the US context. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, we went down this path earlier, when someone suggested the more international "right wing" in place of "conservative". The reason I objected is that the term, in American usage, is usually reserved for something a bit to the right of conservatism. For example, the John Birch Society is considered right wing. (Coincidentally, the father of the two Koch's who keep coming up in this article was a founding member of that organization.)
I think it might be clearer to follow the lead of non-American, English-speaking newspapers, which use the American term and then explain it. In our case, we get to link to it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party is to the right of "conservatives" including GW Bush and McCain. Outside the U.S. similar groups are not normally considered conservative. Populism, anti-elitism and libertarianism are not normally associated with conservatism. Perhaps we should just describe them avoiding labels until we find high quality reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, we're currently in mediation about how we can use sources to describe the TPM, with an emphasis on the issue of "grassroots". So, yes, I agree that we need to improve our sourcing and exercise extreme care when it comes to labeling. In particular, if the label is disputed or self-created, it cannot be used without balancing.
The movement is perhaps to the right of the GOP as a whole, which is why it endorsed only the more conservative GOP candidates. The sort of libertarianism found in the movement is itself a form of conservatism, so I don't think there's any conflict there. My concern is that we need to be able to express how conservative it is without derogatory terms or unfair comparisons. It is a truism that those who lean heavily to the left are quick to label anything right of them as "fascist", while those who lean heavily to the right jump to "socialist/communist". Let's not make this sort of mistake! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree about "right of conservative". And on a different topic, Our last conversation on Libertarianism (on my talk page) trailed off, but, respectfully, I think that equating Libertarianism with Conservatism indicates not understanding what Libertarianism is. We're working on sourced derivation of core tenets at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 which has some good info on this.
As far as political ideology, I don't think that any one term can be applied to a decentralized movement of million of people. However, I think that there is a lot of evidence that there a lot of both Libertarians and Conservatives in it, plus a lot of people who would not characterize themselves as either. Conservative and Libertarian views conflict in some areas and coincide in others. Where they coincide (primarily smaller government, less taxes) is the core agenda of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Add March 5, 2010 Psychology Today "We Need to Have Empathy for Tea Partiers" ?

Add We Need to Have Empathy for Tea Partiers Empathize with Tea-Party paranoia in order to fight it published on March 5, 2010 Psychology Today by Michael Bader, D.M.H.? 99.88.229.175 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? (And why should we call him a "D.M.H."?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
After reading the article, I think we should cease to consider Psychology Today even a potentially reliable source, unless we can distinguish personal opinion columns from news. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a poorly written rant, not an article that looks like it has received any editorial oversight.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a good example of why we should not use opinion pieces even though they are published in mainstream media. We have no way of knowing the degree of acceptance of the views expressed. BTW, Will Beback, this article follows the same analysis of Wilentz, but is written in a different tone. TFD (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to jump on the same wagon, in that I don't recognize the significance of that article. TFD, you're right to a point. I submit that there's always a place for content taken from opinion pieces in "claims" or "controversy" sections. Still, certainly not this one. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that piece was actually published in the mainstream media. It's a blog.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we look for more real content instead of trying to game-in even more swipes by opponents, which this article is already overloaded with? North8000 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Other than the anon editor, I don't think anyone wants to use this as a source.   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. Good example of why it's not a good idea to use opinion pieces.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
There are different qualities of opinion pieces. There's nothing wrong with using high-quality ones that represent significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts: it's ok to use high-quality opinion pieces but this isn't one of those. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

possible new section

Maybe we should mention the candidates that defeated the tea party backed candidates, like this: [22]. Of course, this might be more the result of voters being 'against' Palin, than against the 'tea party.' Might be worth looking into.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should have both a discussion of the effects of the TPM on the 2010 elections, and a complete list of candidates (in another article) with the outcomes of their races.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Erwin Chemerinsky's 2010 book The Conservative Assault on the Constitution?

Add Erwin Chemerinsky's 2010 book The Conservative Assault on the Constitution? 99.27.174.251 (talk)


Could you expand a little on what you are saying / what it is saying? Didn't see anything on this in that article. BTW the article looks like it needs a lot of work.

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Google books can't find any mention of "Tea Party" in that book.The+Conservative+Assault+on+the+Constitution&cd=1#v=onepage&q=tea%20party&f=false If it's correct then that would not be a good source for this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Not relevant. TFD (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Will, if I understand correctly, Google will not let you search the whole book, just selected pages. So there might be something about the TPM in there. Dylan Flaherty 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
So, we have to either buy the book and read every sentence to prove a negative, or let 99.27.174.251 present the relevance. Doesn't seem like a tough choice. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you cannot search this book on Google books. However, it is about how conservative judges have interpreted the constitution, not how the Tea Party interprets it.[23] TFD (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Try your local library. They have it at our library if anybody wants me to get it and look up things. Couldn't do it before Tuesday though.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
In the overview at the link, the subject seems to be the areas where conservatives and libertarians conflict. As a libertarian,VERY interesting to me personally, but I don't see TPM activity in these areas, nor any indication that the book covers such. . (not surprising since the TPM has both conservatives and libertarians in it) North8000 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No it does not. Here is a link to your Google search. Here is a link to a book with "snippet view". The second book has a search box, while the first does not. TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't really matter. If someone finds something in the book about the TPM we can include it. Otherwise, not.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
"The Tea Party's Constitution" on the Social Science Research Network[24] provides an interesting view of how they see they constitution, but unfortunately it has not yet been published in an academic journal. TFD (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dale Robertson Section

I changed "Tea Party leaders state that he was ejected from the event because of the offensive nature of the sign and is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org, but as of November 2010 Dale Robertson is still shown as the President & Founder on the TeaParty.org/about.php webpage" to → to "It's been reported that he was ejected from the event because of the offensive nature of the sign, and Houston Tea Party Society leaders ousted him from the society shortly after. It has also been reported that he has sold and is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org, but as of November 2010 Dale Robertson is still shown as the President & Founder on the TeaParty.org/about.php webpage."

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

The refs don't state that about Tea Party leaders or chronicle that he was ejected. And according to the sources only Dale Robertson has stated that he was selling the domain TeaParty.org. —Digiphi (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are two:
  • Meanwhile, Dale Robertson, who owns the website TeaParty.org, has filed papers to run as an independent. He was repudiated by the Houston Tea Party Society after being photographed holding up a sign with a racial epithet. He does not deny carrying the sign.
    • Squabbling threatens to ice 'Tea Party' momentum Kathy Kiely. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 5, 2010. pg. A.4
  • After a picture of Robertson, carrying a sign that prominently displayed the N-word (misspelled) at a Houston rally early in 2009, Tea Party Society founders in Houston declared that Robertson "is NOT a member of our Leadership team. ... has never been a part of organizing any of the Tea Party rallies" and "[w]e do not choose to associate with people that use his type of disgusting language."
    • 'Ultimate Civics,' tea party groups should do homework RICHARD FINEBERG. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Apr 4, 2010. pg. B.7
I think that second one would count as a statement.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the page on the TPS site that carries the "repudiation".[30]   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That one is crystal clear. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Will. Sure. But look at the language I'm referring to. My complaint isn't that he was reported, or not reported to have been repudiated. Do you see? The previous version of the article seemed to state that Tea Party leaders had ejected him from TeaParty.org. In fact, he owned, and might still own TeaParty.org, and only he is quoted as stating that he intends to sell it. It sounded like a group of people had made a claim, and had been caught in a lie, according the "About" page on TeaParty.org. —Digiphi (Talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I just checked: as of this very moment, he still owns it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Nice work Dylan. So now we can see why it would be silly to report that Tea Party leaders state that "he is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org" and then report a refutation, like Aha! They aren't telling the truth. He is the only proprietor of TeaParty.org. Furthermore we should probably add more clear language that he was repudiated by the Houston Society, the organizers of the event which he attended with his sign. —Digiphi (Talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the only problem here is that my original research is, well, original research. To avoid undue synthesis, we would need to find someone else -- someone notable -- who did the same trivial research I did. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right. We should just delete the bit about his website completely.−Digiphi (Talk) 03:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I suggested no such thing. Rather, I spoke of finding better sourced. Please try not to misunderstand my statements so consistently. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well gee Dylan. You made a really great argument against original research. The only source supporting that passage is an image grab of the web page. Looks like OR. I agree wholeheartedly. It probably isn't relevant. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's 0 for 3. It's almost as if you were trying to misunderstand my words.
It's not original research to visit a web page. It's original research to bring up a rebuttal that nobody else has seen fit to offer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah you're right. I'll get rid of it. —Digiphi (Talk) 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, you somehow managed to misunderstand me again. Don't worry, though: I corrected your error. The fact that he put it up for sale is well sourced. The fact that it's not for sale anymore is trivially verified: the eBay link shows the item as cancelled and the domain is clearly still registered to him. Most likely, it just plain didn't sell. Now, I'd be happier if we got some of crossed the t's and dotted the i's by having a source that says all of this together, but we already have all the pieces and some of the bridges. Removal would be unwarranted. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah that's not it. The question isn't whether there is a source listed for anything in the section. The question is of why the fact that Dale Robertson at one time considered selling his domain, but ultimately did not, is relevant to the section about him attending the HTPS event with his controversial sign. If anyone believes that the sign holder's consideration of selling his website is relevant to the controversy about the sign, and the description of his repudiation by the HTPS, then it can at least reflect the source.-Digiphi (Talk) 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second, are you suggesting that his attempt to sell the domain had nothing to do with being expelled? Really? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No. What the guy who brought the controversial sign said he was thinking of doing with his website is irrelevant. The Dale Robertson article is a good place for that content. —Digiphi (Talk) 03:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you managed to miss my point again, so I'll repeat it more loudly and clearly. The fact that he responded by trying to sell the site is itself notable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New issue here: Why on earth are the words "It has been reported" in this paragraph? Weasel words like these are not usually included in articles because they imply ambiguity as to the truth of the statement. If there is a source that states "what was reported", then it should be included. If there isn't, then remove it. Was this wording part of some compromise that isn't apparant here? Rapier (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because none of the statements are true (or at least reported by credible sources), so "it has been reported" is really all that can be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins

I know that there has been some discussion on what role, if any, that Ron Paul has had on the current Tea Party movement, so I thought I would bring this to the attention of those who are more familiar with this article and the consensus on what should or should not be included. An article by Ron Smith (radio host) in The Baltimore Sun credits Paul as "the founding father" of the movement, saying he "sparked a new American Revolution", as well as his supporters for "kick-starting" it. See Smith, Ron (November 18, 2010). "The vindication of Ron Paul: Will founding father of the tea party movement get his due from party leaders?". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved November 19, 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |pmd= and |trans_title= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help). Location (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly news to me. Dylan Flaherty 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think he is one of it's inspirational engines but TPM really doesn't have a founding father. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, North8000, it doesn't have a founding father because it's founding was the result of grassroots organizing through social networking that produced the rallies, at first locally like Keli Carender's and then exploded when Rick Santelli said Congress shouldn't be bailing out losers. That struck a chord nationwide, and the social networking really took off. I have reliable sources if needed.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan".   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Which explains why so many non-tea party entities want to glom on to the success of the movement by co-opting the message and polluting the air with their bus.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please. I certainly agree that the term "founding father" is a bit a nebulous, but the point is that there are plenty of people in reliable sources who point to Paul and the grassroots work of his supporters as the beginning of the movement (e.g. Scott Rasmussen's book, Ethan Fishman's book, David Neiwert and John Amato's book ). I do think the article gives the appropriate weight to Paul, however, it seems to dissociate him from the current movement even though the December 2007 Tea Party moneybomb preceded Carender's "Porkulus Protest" by only 14 months. Location (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
While Paul's supporters (not Paul himself) ran a grassroots campaign, it did not turn into the Tea Party, although some of his supporters have become Tea Party supporters. TFD (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the Tea Party movement and I've just supplied four sources that credit the origins of it to Paul's supporters. With that said, I don't deny that other sources place the origins of the movement elsewhere. Location (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, certainly there Ron Paul peeps were out there and familiar with the setting up rallies and using blogs, etc. And one of the reasons the groundswell rose up so fast was the fact that people were already out protesting with FedUP, and the anti-Tax groups who'd been around for 30 years. The tea party movement seemed to give them a common voice. I'd have to agree that the Ron Paul peeps certainly had an influence in getting things going especially as the Libertarian aspects are easily discerned if you read those tea party websites. But it would not be fair to say that it was an organized, coordinated action by the Ron Paul peeps that got it going. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Location, I am a Ron Paul fan. He might even be iconic of the TPM, but he's not the founding father of the TPM......it doesn't have one. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above and did not mean to give the impression that the TPM was organized or coordinated by Paul or supporters. Cheers! Location (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Populist??? How??

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the appropriate article's talk page section). No further edits should be made to this page.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. This conversation seems to be relevant to the matter of reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Add http://www.zcommunications.org/tea-party-poses-threat-to-democracy-by-roger-bybee Z Magazine by Roger Bybee November 2010 issue Volume 23, Number 11 ?

Add Tea Party Poses Threat to Democracy: There have been ugly incidents at Tea Party events as well as openings for progressive dialog by Roger Bybee November 2010 issue Volume 23, Number 11 ? 99.54.142.12 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, this is a great teaching opportunity for you! Would you please explain what precisely makes this source unreliable? (I'm sure it's not simply our disagreement with it's content.) Dylan Flaherty 08:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubin? Anything? Dylan Flaherty 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It's an opinion piece in a little-circulated opinion magazine. And just for kicks, it's written by a little-known guy.-Digiphi (Talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, I'm very impressed. It's almost as if you've possessed Digiphi and speak through him. However, I'd really prefer if you spoke for yourself, so nobody has to wonder whether Digiphi is saying things you would support. Dylan Flaherty 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Your ownership template must have been accidentally removed from the section head or something. So, how do you feel about the Z item? Do you think it should go in, or just playing devil's advocate? -Digiphi (Talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Add "European polluters fund US candidates" The Guardian, example BP

Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters: Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000 24.October.2010 The Guardian and "European polluters fund US candidates" in recent issue. 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.86.138 (talk)

Speaking as someone who also opposes the influence of the Tea Party Movement on American politics, your comments are completely unhelpful and borderline spam. Please contribute to the discussion in a mature manner or just shut up. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I wouldn't even know where to start with the issues and problems with that. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Voting for lede/lead

Our mediation cabal mediator has left the building, so I propose Nillagoon's suggestion for the lede/lead:

The Tea Party is a populist political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.
The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.
The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity.

Please indicate !vote here:

Suggest we deal with that separately/later. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
TFD, East India Company had a monopoly granted by the Crown. All the ships that arrived were from East India Company. But let's worry about that later.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Grassroots" is much worse than "populist" in my opinion. "Populist" describes a highly debatable type of political belief, and the TPM does see itself as populist. "Grassroots" describes a matter of fact, however, and thus is inaccurate when applied bluntly to the TPM, (which, given its billionaire funding and corporate support, is clearly not a grassroots phenomenon, although the TPM does see itself as grassroots). — goethean ॐ 16:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Republican candidates, and consistently demonizes Democratic candidates. Additionally, they have been funded and supported by Republican organizations like the Wall Street Journal and FOX News. This central, defining characteristic is absent from the proposal. I submit that the lede as proposed has given excessive credence to the internal myth of the tea party movement, which falsely sees itself as independent and separate from the Republican party and Republican organizations. Sources that are external to and independent of the Tea Party movement and Republican organizations should be used. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's an 'oppose' then?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a suggestion. If you ignore my suggestions, then yes, I oppose the proposal. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You could say that Tea Party enthusiasts see the Tea Party movement as a grassroots phenomenon, while critics see it as astroturfing. That would be accurate and easily sourced. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, rather than putting grassroots in unexplicated quotation marks, it should be explained that the movement was funded and supported by national organizations which attempted to give a veneer of local grass-rootedness to the movement. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a Republican organization? I don't think you could even make a case for conservative. This argument fails the common sense test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
For your info TWSJ was boughten by a born again christian who no longer thinks it is enough to "just deliver the news." references available. Richrakh (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Richrakh is correct; the WSJ is generally considered to be a conservative newspaper. It's highly regarded, and rightfully so, but let's not pretend it's politically neutral. Dylan Flaherty 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Informed critics of the Tea Party now describe it as grass roots, while stating that it was spawned by professional activists and that some groups are funded by wealthy donors. TFD (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting generalization, but I'm not sure that it's accurate. Dylan Flaherty 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Would the third paragraph be more fully explained in the body of the article? Specifically the assertion that it is "often cited as an example of grassroots activity" because it has no central leadership. I never looked at that as a defining characteristic of "grassroots". I also note a lack of explanation in that proposed lede for why the movement isn't universally described as grassroots, instead of just "often cited". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have an excellent point. A truly and unquestionably grassroots movement could still wind up with a central leader, and a movement with no central leadership . To be grassroots, it would need to have origins in the common people, untainted by existing political organizations. It's basically a claim about historical origin and authenticity. This is precisely what those who accuse the movement of being astroturfed bring up; they claim that it has been coopted by the GOP, the Koch's and other extant political organizations, to the point that it is no longer true to any grassroots origins it might have had. Having a single leader is, frankly, a red herring.
Let me offer an example. Imagine if the GOP actually walked the walk with regard to the the states-rights views it espouses and decided to disband the national organization in favor of 50-something local ones, with representatives from each voting at a national conference. This would make the GOP a decentralized organization, but would it somehow become grassroots? For that matter, if it's true that the DNC astroturfed the Coffee Party Movement, would its apparent lack of central organization make it grassroots? Dylan Flaherty 08:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Objection - I've been spending time with my family over the holidays, so I have not been keeping up with this page. As such, I am not ready to support or oppose anything. I realize some people are frustrated by the mediation process, but switching venues like this is not a step forward, or even sideways. Generally, I agree with accepting some variation of Nilla's lead, but I cannot support the ones I've seen so far (including the one I proposed as a draft). In the next few days, I will try to catch up with what's been happening here and update my stance. Dylan Flaherty 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't support anything that says "populist" in the first line. I do not dispute that it has been called populist (and they even might be) but applying labels like that without clarification is problematic. More importantly, many people read these articles without wikilinks and without the explanation in that wikilink we cause confussion. There are too many different definitions of the term and some are contrary to the group. If "populism" is explained in the lead (half a sentence even) out of the first line I will be behind it.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, I share your reluctance with regard to controversial characterizations. My thinking is that "populist" is different from "grassroots" in that the former speaks of the stated platform ("down with the beltway elite", etc.) while the latter is a factual claim about its actual organization, origins and funding. There's quite a bit of debate over whether the movement is truly grassroots, and it's easy to see how it can be argued, regardless of what view you take. However, how would someone even dispute the populist label? Short of arguing that the movement doesn't speak out against what it sees as the government elite, there doesn't seem to be anything factual to grab onto. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty 08:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Populist has a few different meanings and it is often linked to the left. This has caused confusion. We cannot rely on the wikilink due to two reasons 1)knee-jerk reactions 2)not every reader of this article will have that wikilink. I'm completely understanding of why we should make sure it is mentioned but it is better off outside of the first sentence while still in that first paragraph somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to a description of populism (which includes Jim Hightower and right-wing U.S. movements). It describes it as an appeal to "the people" and some form of anti-elitism. There are different types of populism, but there seems to be only one definition. TFD (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I got busy with life. If needed, I can still work on this. I just need to know if that is wanted or not. Hamtechperson 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. IMHO I think we should take this back to the mediation page. And deal just with "grass roots" plus (only) any other uncontested changes. So, discuss potential deletion of "populist" separately. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not want to delete it. I want its relevance (which is there) to the subject briefly explained a line or two down since some readers cannot click on wikilinks. Whether it is "forms" or definitions", the word can convey several (and sometimes contradicting) aspects. If it did not, editors would not continuously react to it. Something like "The movement has been called populist due to..."Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
North8000, there seems a consensus for making the edit. Let's go forward, shall we?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK with me. Basically, it is compromise wording on "grassroots" and no changes in other areas of contention, although with substantially improved wording. My suggestion was intended only if this starts to discuss new proposed contentious changes. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
All right. I think, though, that Cptnono has a good point. So we'll put in the edit as it is and then we'll open up the question of the populism thing. Because he's right about the wikilink thing and making it understandable to the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. There are enough supports. I would appreciate it if we were able to continue the discussion to get a draft and consensus on a line about populism. That can be adjusted after this main edit is made if consensus forms.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I put in the edit, so let's now open a section about the populism thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the mediation issue is the treatment of grassroots. While the TPM "is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity", it also "is often cited as an example of "astroturf" political activity". This POV is likely not insignificant, but receives no treatment in the discussion of grassroots in the proposed lede. BigK HeX (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I see some folks above indicating that consensus has been reached. Could someone please provide for me a link to that consensus conclusion? It isn't present in the above discussion, as I see there have been several concerns raised that still have not been addressed. As a reminder: Consensus is not achieved by voting (or !voting); it is achieved by agreement upon a solution that addresses all reasonable concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, Xeno. It looks like 7 to 2. We have to count Nillagoon, you know. It's his proposal. The discussions been here for a while. I think it's safe to make the edit. Also, I have no objection to adding in that some consider it astroturf. I know other editors get touchy with that, but I'd be happy to write that in. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hiyas, Malke. "7 to 2" is meaningless to me, as we're talking about achieving consensus, not voting. All edits are safe to make, as are all reverts. :-) The problem arises when we have disagreements regarding those edits, as we evidently do with the most recent ones. It is time to address the unresolved concerns so that actual consensus can be achieved, and you have rightly identified one of those concerns: how to address "astroturf" (or the complete lack of addressing it) in the lede. I didn't mind this version, although I would have wikilinked "grassroots" if astroturf is to be wikilinked. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree with this. I think we could go with that for now. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
A quick notation like that seems to cover the bases appropriately to me, too. BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
To date, this whole process has been about one contentious issue (grass roots) and non-contentious wording cleanup. Now in the 11th hour we're tossing in another contentious proposed change (astroturf) and moreover, a pejorative term hurled by TPM opponents. I think that the astroturf change should be dealt with separately. Maybe "draft" it in now (in order to keep this whole thing moving) but consider it something we'll look at later. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the issues are distinct. Consider how BigK had some objections to "grassroots" but was willing to accept it so long as we also said "astroturf". It may well be that the way out of this is to include both. Dylan Flaherty 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm in. But let's be clear what we're deciding, It's the proposal at the beginning of this section, except with the last paragraph changed to this. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, if you change the article to that version, North8000, I will not revert you. As for whether or not the concerns of other editors have been satisfied, I can't speak for them. I do believe your clock is a little off, however: this is not the 11th hour with regard to this issue ... it's about the 3rd hour now, as this topic is more than a year old, and is likely to still be debated a couple years down the road. Also, 'astroturf', being the antithesis of 'grassroots', is and has always been part of this particular discussion. Naysayers of the TP movement have acknowledged grassroots components of the movement, and TPers themselves have acknowledged astroturfed components of the movement. Defining the movement as wholly one or the other isn't supported by reliable sources; defining the movement as absent either of these characteristics is also not supported by reliable sources. Our article should reflect this. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My "11th hour" was just referring to the recent cycle of working on this. That said, you and Dylan made some good points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Go with what Xeno suggests and make the edit. I think it'll be okay.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, I agree that we do not have a consensus at this time, and it's wise not to speak in terms of reverting. Dylan Flaherty 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we've had a structured discussion for weeks. It's 7 wanting to move forward and see what kind of response it brings, and 2 against. Potentially 8 for, if we count Nilla. What do think a measure of consensus is? This works fine. If it's awful and ends the world then more editors will start showing up here in a hurry to discuss it. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We've had structured discussions on this matter for over a year, off and on. I do believe everyone involved in the discussion, far more than 7, want to move forward. As for seeing what kind of response a proposed edit will bring, I think we've already seen that over the past 24 hours when such edits were made. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 2 are against going forward (you kids and your new math), but I haven't seen anyone express that. I do see many editors raising concerns with the above proposed edit from myself, and Goethean and BigK and Dylan and Captnono and an IP (anyone want to claim that?) that I can recall from memory. What do I think a measure of consensus is, you ask? I've already explained that, 9 paragraphs above this one; perhaps you missed it. I agree with you, this works fine. So let's not sidetrack the process by "counting heads" — as if that makes any difference whatsoever to our achieving consensus. Moving on, what are your thoughts on the latest wording being discussed? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"What is consensus" is a complicated question, but "unanimous" is usually not possible nor one of the answers. I'm ready to bite the bullet on "astroturfing" in order to move forward SOON, otherwise not. I plan to wait another approx. 1/2 day and probably then put in what was discussed above and see what happens. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right that defining "consensus" can be complicated. However, it frequently becomes necessary to remind editors of the not-complicated part of building consensus:
Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Responding YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE is not useful except for moral support. Responding (DIS)AGREE per user X's argument is better, presenting a novel explanation of your own for your opinion is best. The goal is to generate a convincing reason for making one choice or another, not to decide on the mere weight of public expressions of support.
Every time someone starts throwing numbers around, claiming "we have X number of people agreeing, and only Y number of people disagreeing...", they need to be reminded that 'counting' is not part of consensus development, while 'resolving legitimate concerns' is. As for you trying out an edit to see how it flys, go for it. As an aside, I'm puzzled by the implied urgency in your last comment, and the expressed need to do something 'SOON'. Perhaps I can get the deadline extended... ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I just meant that speaking only for myself, biting the bullet on "astroturf" was for and conditional upon taking that compromise proposal to the finish line. I'm a "let's get it done" (when appropriate) type, and I'm thinking that now might be that moment. Unanimity will never happen. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, just to recap the version we were discussing above

OK, just to recap the version we were discussing above

The Tea Party is a populist,[1][2][3] political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.[4][5][6] in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning [7][8] movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.
The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.
The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

As I indicated, as of today, I'm still willing to bite the bullet on Astroturfing in order to move forward.

I didn't put the above in when I said I was going to, but I'm going to put it in and see what happens. We'll never be unanimous, but maybe we close enough to move forward, or maybe we're the closest we're going to get. Otherwise, back to mediation and unbiting the bullet. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I chickened out for the moment, plus we still have the lay the references into the above. Also clarify, the above to be substituted for the current first paragraph. I'll wait a 1/2 day and then do it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Support, although I wish that the above passage would constitute the entirety of the lead. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So I moved over the cites from the first paragraph which had a place in the above. The "partially in response to" (which has a lot of cites) is not in the new draft. But rather than lose it, as step 2 we'll move it and it's cites somewhere else in the article. The second two paragraphs need cites (and I think past version of the lead have them)I'll share the fun and leave those for somebody else to put in. So, this is not a new draft, but just a recap of the proposed version of what we have been discussing. I'm going to put it in and see what happens. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Temporary paste of the current first paragraph.

The Tea Party movement is a populist,[9][10][11] conservative and libertarian[7][12] political movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.[4][5][6] The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[13] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[14][15] and a series of healthcare reform bills.[16]
suggestions for wording line about populism

Please add suggestions here: Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the exact issue regarding "populist". From reading the discussion above, it doesn't seem that anyone disputes the statement that the TPM is a populist movement per se. The concern seems to be more that "populist" is an inherently vague term that people may not know how to interpret. But in fact, the various definitions seem to be pretty consistent. "Populist" is a legitimate word with a clear and specific meaning; there's no need to avoid its use as a matter of course. NillaGoon (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nilla, I think I can explain. In fact, there seem to be two different objections, which may be part of the confusion.
My objection is that, while the movement is populist in its explicit "anti-elite" message, the term itself has various connotations and associations that might be confusing, particularly for those with a more global view. This is because, in regions such as South America, populism is more likely to be associated with left-leaning than right-leaning movements. I think this can be easily addressed in a variety of ways. One way would be to link the word "populism" to Right-wing populism instead of populism. Another would be to substitute an equivalent phrase, such as "anti-elite". I suggest the former.
The other objection I've seen floating about is more serious. It's based on the notion that, since the movement has the support of GOP cronies, super-rich Libertarians and so on, it's only populist on the surface. Without endorsing this view, I recently posted some text suggesting that populism is being used by the movement as an effective way to reach out to non-Republicans and non-Conservatives, by giving them a common enemy in Washington. I believe that the best way to address it is to avoid the issue in the lead by using indirect language. We should still describe the movement as having a populist message, which uses the p-word word and is uncontroversially true, without endorsing it as actually being populist.
Does that help? Dylan Flaherty 14:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the following section in Right-wing populism:

Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape "conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s.[13]. The Tea Party movement of 2009-present had been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010) They add, "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right -- manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement."[14]. The New York Times reports, "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent".[15]

Based on this, maybe we could just quote R&S by calling it "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement". This would let us move "conservative" and "libertarian" to the next sentence. After that, we could tackle "grassroots" and "astroturf". Better? Dylan Flaherty 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Note:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement has a new referendum on what to do with the mediation. Hamtechperson 03:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ What's Behind The New Populism? NPR, February 5, 2010
  2. ^ Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right New York Times, February 16, 2010
  3. ^ Party Time Newsweek, April 06, 2010
  4. ^ a b Servatius, David (March 6, 2009). "Anti-tax-and-spend group throws "tea party" at Capitol". Deseret News. Retrieved June 16, 2009.
  5. ^ a b "Anger Management" (Paid subscription required). The Economist. March 5, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
  6. ^ a b Tapscott, Mark (March 19, 2009). "Tea parties are flash crowds Obama should fear". The San Francisco Examiner. Retrieved June 16, 2009.
  7. ^ a b Dick Morris, "The New Republican Right," TheHill.com October 19, 2010
  8. ^ See following for information on Tea Party Movement Conservatism:
  9. ^ What's Behind The New Populism? NPR, February 5, 2010
  10. ^ Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right New York Times, February 16, 2010
  11. ^ Party Time Newsweek, April 06, 2010
  12. ^ See following for information on Tea Party Movement Conservatism:
  13. ^ Barnes, Tom (March 8, 2009). "Harrisburg Tea Party protests ongoing bailout". Local/State. Post-Gazette.com. Retrieved April 9, 2010.
  14. ^ Ferrara, Peter (April 15, 2009). "The Tea Party Revolution". The American Spectator. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
  15. ^ Seleny, Jeff (September 12, 2009). "Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government". New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
  16. ^ Evan McMorris-Santoro,"The Town Hall Dog That Didn't Bite", Talking Points Memo, DC, April 5, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_12&oldid=1142446308"