Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Recent addition of anti-TPM material

99.112.212.201 recently added a comment from an intelligent op-ed (and sourced to it) which was critical to the TPM. To the folks who are forever warring to maximize anti-TPM material here, putting in intelligent high level stuff like this is the way to do it, not warring and wikilawyering to keep in stories on a twitter comment, BBQ grills or spending forever to keep in what you know to be an mis-characterization (isolationist) of Ron Paul that even you know is in error. Do you really want to list "I wikilawyered to keep the the TPM article in junk status" on your mental list of Wikipedia accomplishments? North8000 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This maybe a useful addition in the vein of North8000's comment, Will the Tea Get Cold? (March 8, 2012 issue) by Sam Tanenhaus of Skocpol's and Foley's books (in Further Reading) and the book Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution by Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots. The current review relates to the Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

And here is a Review Essay by Reihan Salam in March/April Foreign Affairs The Missing Middle in American Politics; How Moderate Republicans Became Extinct, regarding the Skocpol book and Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by Geoffrey Kabaservice, who writes for the National Review. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

These might be useful for astroturfing claim references. <reinstated comment> 99.109.125.170 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the wikilink for a FA article already included, David E. Campbell. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst Article EVER

Without even going into NPOV issues, this article is so filled with pettiness and irrelevancies it is completely UNREADABLE. I suggest setting a (low) maximum byte limit and going from there.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Needs to be completely rewritten. I'm wondering if Wikipedia has a place where the disparity between what is being done to this article and the Occupy Movement article could be examined. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

actually it's a good article on a controversial topic--the critics here are expressing their own political views about the movement, rather than sober analysis of the article. They have no specific complaints. The article covers all the major points, uses good sources, has a balanced tone, and is quite thorough. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider it to be 90% junk and the article to be in junk status. Most of it is trivia (tweets, BBQ grills etc. 2nd hand rumors that someone in a crowd might have said something bad etc) gamed in to leave a negative impression. POV warriors have made it so difficult to fix that most people have either given up or aren't trying to fix it. Yes, probably the worst article ever, at least on a major topic. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that the Tea Party is not an organized anything--it's a mood among some voters, and that rumors are what it consists of and what gets covered in an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are getting closer there. I think that it is an agenda,a mood, an identity and name associated with it. In a very loose sense a movement. Certainly can't treat or cover it as an organization. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you. The TPM is well-organized into different groups around the country and the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it IS true that the one common theme everywhere in TPM is fiscal conservatism. I guess that what I meant was that the organization aspect is secondary and that it is not monolithic. And that pretending that everything that everyone with that agenda does is ABOUT the TPM is how all of the trivia got gamed in. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I'm thinking its time to try to fix the article North8000 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed, a total rewrite is in order. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My own concern (and extensively and an ongoing one in feedback here) is the amount of trivia. To take out all of the "one low level guy did this" and "one low level guy might have done or said this" stuff. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The TPM is mostly a collection of personal activity --such as wearing costumes (is that trivial or representative?) --as for issues they mirror standard conservative themes. "fiscal conservatism" for example covers multiple contradictory themes (cutting budgets, cutting taxes on rich, cutting taxes on middle class, cutting deficits, cutting benefit programs, reduce borrowing from China, cutting waste, cutting the cost of medical care--all very different themes that show no TP unity. As for political unity their first big hero was a Massachusetts liberal (Sen Brown)--and one of their more famous candidates kept insisting she is not now and never has been a witch. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also TP elements not in favor of stopping tax breaks for fossil-fuel interest, per Talk:Tea Party movement /Archive18# Energy Policy resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 108.73.113.5 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My answer to your question is in my proposed fix below. In short, editors would not put in trivia because they think it is representative. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you use biased sources, you get a biased article. Use sources from here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit confused. Wikipedia is not a conservative political outlet. It is not owned by Koch Industries. It does not have to toe to party line on the Tea Party's agenda. It will use neutral sources such as The New York Times, not your partisan bullshit rakers. — goethean ॐ 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel's thoughts are mine exactly. Plus NYT isn't exactly a shining example....it's about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, and less than many of the sources that Lionelt linked. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Wikipedia-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Wikipedia's requirements. As for "trivia", I won't be relying on North8000's fine opinion as to what is or isn't "trivia" (or "junk", or "ABOUT the TP"...) until he has been published, and has developed the requisite reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Legions of equally unsubstantiated "Me too!" responses, with nothing more to advance the discussion, will be similarily considered. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

By "trivia" I meant putting specially selected local (specially selected from the millions of things that have been said or done at the local level) and putting into the top level national article. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"local"? "top level national"? "local level"? Interesting flip-flop there. TP apologists cry foul when the corporate and big money interests backing, promoting and steering the "movement" are pointed out, insisting the TP is just individual "grassroots" Americans organizing at the local level with no hierarchy or leadership. Yet when the focus is on these individuals, especially the ones who step up and take the reins in this movement (like the ones mentioned in this TPm article), the TP apologists throw the buggy into reverse and instead cry foul, insisting that these are just "low level" individuals, and dismissing them as not representative of the "top level national" movement. Yes, North8000, it is quite transparent what you really mean when you refer to particular article content as "trivia". Why do you suppose the WSJ, NYT, CSM, WaPo, Politico et al, "specially selected" these things to feature in their reporting, and which of those "millions of things" would you prefer to add instead or in addition? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Further response to Malke 2010. I guess my one other thought about treating it more as an agenda than an entity is that the latter has been used as a false premise to game in other material. Imagine that someone coined a term for people in favor of Obamacare, the "Careites". And pollsters found that people who favored Obamacare were also more likely to favor getting rid of laws against pedophilia. Considering the Careites to be an entity could be used as a basis for saying that the pedophilia poll material is germane to the Careite article and gaming it in. Such is obviously unrelated, but such has happened in this article. (for example, poll data on topics that have nothing to do with the TPM agenda)North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, you make an excellent point. The article is loaded with that. Let's work-up a plan for a complete rewrite. We can start with an outline. Also, Lionelt has made a very good point about the biased sources. The article is top-heavy with them. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt has indeed made a point about biased sources, and has even provided a link to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not? The left leaning bias of the NYTimes is legend. I agree that they do check their facts, but they are very selective about the facts they present and are very artful at how they present that selection. Mitt Romney will always be presented on the front page in a negative light, and Obama will always be presented in the positive. Mitt Romney could personally save the life of Mr. Salzberger, and his newspaper would find a way to make it sound much less than what it was. If you don't appreciate that, you haven't been reading the same NYTimes I've been reading here on the Left Coast. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your issue appears to be with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Wikipedia does not buy the right-wing theory that the New York Times is a leftist rag, and that right-wing sources are more reliable. Please bring up your issues at a more appropriate venue. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment was that NYT is biased just like the others noted. Wp:rs does not require objectivity, so biased sources can still pass wp:rs. So that doesn't mean exclude them, it just means that we have to recognize them for what they are. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite right.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You think that right-wing sources are more accurate than mainstream media sources. Wikipedia does not adhere to your world view. This is the source of the conflict. I suggest that you work out your differences in an appropriate forum. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Malke: You asked me, "why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not?" I commented about Lionelt's source list; I don't recall making a comment about the NYTimes and bias, nor is the NYT "my source", so I'm not sure what you are asking. I did remark that the NYTimes is a reliable source. As a wise sage once remarked, "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic, hello my friend. Love your quote. That is so you. Then we're all agreed that Lionelt's sources are just as reliable as the NYTimes? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When evaluating where we agree and disagree on sources, please recall my above comment; I'll repeat it here: Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Wikipedia-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Wikipedia's requirements. I would also add, having participated in many discussions at WP:RSN, that the reliability of specific sources for specific material often needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis. A source deemed unreliable for assertion of fact, for example, might be suitable as a source for attributed opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Goethean, please show me where I said that right wing sources are more reliable than left wing sources? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I intended to reply to User:North8000 (there seems to be very little different between your positions), who said that 'the NYT is about as biased as Rush Limbaugh.' No offense, but that's a crazy statement. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe my equating NYT degree of bias to Rush Limbaugh was a bit much, but implying that NYT is an unbiased (vs. left-leaning) source is also pretty crazy.  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk to people who are not Republicans sometime and you may find that the NYT is among the most respected publications in the world. By the way, this discussion right here is indicative of why we are making zero progress on the article. In the FOX News universe, the NYT is obviously left-wing propaganda. In the real world, it is a highly respected publication. Wikipedia is not part of the FOX News universe, and someone who lives in that universe will never be happy with this article. That's just due to a clash of worldviews. — goethean ॐ 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst article ever- proposed step 1 of fix

Take out the trivia and non-germane material. Anything that is not somehow ABOUT the TPM in general or some national (or at least regional) level aspect of it should go. This criteria would apply to the core topic of the coverage in the sources. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I replied above. Let's start with an outline for a new article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My idea was to start nuking out the trivia and items not ABOUT the TPM per above. Then's we'd have an article 1/2 the size of the current one. And then rbuild with quality relevant stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me on the nuke thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The first two that came to mind are the "propane grill damaged by a mystery person" and the "twitter tweet" items. Looks like the grill one is already in progress and so I plan to take the twitter tweet (by a low level guy) one out next. Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

on the propane grill incident--I read the articles and no person accuses the Tea party of any vandalism. The TP vigorously denounced vandalism. While Democrats accused REPUBLICANS of stirring up trouble--they did not accuse tea partiers. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article also does not "accuse the Tea Party of any vandalism". It does, however, accurately report that a Tea Party organizer from one city in Virginia, and the Chairman of a Tea Party organization in another Virginia city, posted what they thought was the home address of a representative who was voting for the health care bill -- and urged fellow TPers to visit him personally at his home to express their anger. It was relevant enough that other TPm leaders felt compelled to denounce the action.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has a following in the Tea Party movement, called the posting of Perriello's brother's address "appalling." "I think that is way over the line," he said. "I don't think it's close. It's an appalling approach. It's not civil discourse. It's an invitation to intimidation." (Link)

The section deals with more than just a cut gas line. It also is not about what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing; it is about the perception left with the public about the Tea Party activists, and how they handle it -- as noted in the first source article cited. (IMHO, they handle it with the pat response like all the others: denounce it as "not representative" of the whole group.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the "propane grill" was just the brief tag for it. It's also about 10 other things that have nothing to do with the TPM other than a Wikipedia editor wanted to put them in there for effect. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And even if all of that were not true, and everything that you said true, it still wouldn't belong. This is the top level article about a national US movement. Local items, much less local items seletected by wp editors for POV effect do not belong in there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. I prefer to abide by Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, instead of your proposal to edit war your POV edits upon the article over the objection of other editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism

Not exactly, but that is the POV some editors have gamed into the article. The actual core belief that unifies them is the pretense of fiscal conservatism while Obama is in the White House. There was no "national movement" against fiscal irresponsibility until after Obama was elected, and poll after poll show TPers to be quite split (and even contrarian) on taxes, deficit and other fiscal matters.

• accused REPUBLICANS ... did not accuse tea partiers

Oh, yeah ... totally separate folks there. The sources must have been confused.

• posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party

You appear to have misread. Neither Rep. Perriello nor his brother are TPers, and the intimidation attack wasn't "against the Tea Party".

• Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con.

Finally, a common sense suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The edits North8000 is attempting to make are legitimate. Nobody is suggesting an edit war. Please don't throw around labels like that. Everything mentioned above is nonsense junk that has been gamed into the article. These are legitimate edits and should stand. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to take your comment seriously when you say "don't throw around labels" in the same breath where you accuse editors of gaming "nonsense junk" into Wikipedia articles. North8000's proposal to delete content he doesn't personally like, over the objections of other editors, is the very definition of edit warring. A word-search of "nonsense junk" in Wikipedia's policy pages comes up empty, so I'll have to ask you to be more specific in describing your concerns (besides the obvious dislike of unflattering information usually exhibited by POV editors). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The cited articles DO connect, for example, the BBQ grill incident to the Tea Party Movement. To wit:

At the same time, the vandalism threatened to be a public relations disaster for the fledgling Tea Party movement, which has tried to argue that it is, in the words of Dick Armey, the chairman of the umbrella group FreedomWorks, “more well-mannered” than protesters on the left.

Leaders of the movement tried to contain the damage on Thursday, denouncing the violence and distancing themselves from those behind the acts. Some suggested that outsiders were responsible. In Colorado, where Representative Betsy Markey was among the Democrats reporting threats, Lesley Hollywood, the director of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, said, “Although many are frustrated by the passage of such controversial legislation, threats are absolutely not acceptable in any form, to any lawmaker, of any party.”

Much of the media coverage of the Tea Party Movement was negative. Media coverage of the movement regularly featured people bringing loaded guns to political events, people calling politicians racist names, people comparing the President to Adolf Hitler, etc. Wikipedia reflects the media's coverage of the movement. The fact that conservatives want to eliminate coverage of this material, and to make Wikipedia reflect the conservative media's coverage of the TPM, is unsurprising but irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst article ever- second attempt at step 1 of fix

My proposal is to take out all of the local trivia. Everything where the core of the item refers to actions by people who are not of national stature in the TPM or of national stature. And specifically to start with removal of the twitter tweet and propane grill paragraphs. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as nominator) Per extensive supporting arguments over the last 6-8 months. WP:undue, massive POV problem, not germane, wp:synth violaitons by juxtaposition, not relevant, emblematic of the junk loaded-with-POV-trivia state of this article, and too narrow (specially selected from tens of thousand of local item) to be included in the top level article of a national US movement. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think that you are supposed to vote for your own proposal. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, no one is supposed to vote for the proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Agree with North8000. Xenophrenic, my friend, relax. Time marches on, new things arise, and the article must change to keep up. There's far to much here that is undue weight, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite relaxed, Malke :-) Reclined, in fact! And yes, while time marches on, and articles change, Wikipedia's policy against POV-pushing has not changed. Let's keep all editing policy-compliant, shall we? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• support the article has several errors:
  • 1. the word "movement" is a distraction from the common usage of "the tea party"
  • 2. the tea party was born on dec 16, 2007 by Ron Paul supporters, 100% grass-roots, small contributors. [1]
  • 3. undue weight given to what others think about the tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Editors have always been encouraged to improve the article rather than removing sections which contain material which editors personally dislike. That invitation stands. Find prominent scholarly analyses of the movement and summarize them fairly and neutrally. I doubt that anyone will stop you. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Everybody who is doing it please stop with the invented "personally dislike" criteria crap. Persons say that are missing wp:agf by two levels....BIBF- Baselessly Inventing Bad Faith. My proposal is to take all trivia out. And dozens of people have said that the main problem with the article is that it is loaded with trivia. So, central to improving the article is removing the trivia. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, your near-constant advocacy, which has lasted for how many months now, of removing all of the critical material from this article, and replacing it with a more sympathetic narrative, has absolutely nothing — nothing, I tell you! — with your personal devotion to the Tea Party political agenda. I know. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that baseless guess at an insult has already been proven wrong. See above when I applauded putting in higher level criticism of / material negative on the TPM (rather than gamed-in trivia) North8000 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The tactic here has been to make too difficult / time consuming to fix the article so that nobody does it. In that light I'm not playing the game of dealing with your last few sentences literally as crafted. On the other items, anything where the core of it is about a national figure would not fall under the "local" criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The "tactic" here is to understand what you are really proposing. If you can't point me to an argument in support of your proposal, then I think I now understand perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pointing you to anything will not change anything. A year has shown that you flatly want to keep the trivia in. To put it nicely. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You exhibit the same lack of care in reading the past years events as you do in reading reliable sources. I ask you for a reasoned argument behind your proposal, and you balk -- more of the same. Let me know if you ever want to work on article improvement. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in your games, North8000. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Xenophrenic, stop going on about all that. The trivia North8000 is talking about is nonsense junk blown out of proportion. The article should better be titled, "What the Left-Wing Wants You to Believe About the Tea Party Movement." It's that obvious. One article from the New Yorker, and suddenly the Koch Industries has some kind of conspiracy going. Some nutty neighbor sabotages a guy's gas grill and suddenly the TPM is all about terrorism directed at Barack Obama (by way of a gas grill in Maryland? Seriously?) It's nonsense junk, and it needs to go. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We must be talking about two different things, Malke. I don't see any content about a sabotaged gas grill. I don't see any content about a nutty neighbor. I don't see any content about terrorism directed at Barack Obama. Are we even discussing the same Wikipedia article? If your outrageous characterizations of what is really in the article is an attempt to argue North8000's position by employing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule, well, you failed -- I see through your attempt. The content North & I have been discussing is not attempting to convey anything about gas grills, nutty neighbors or terrorism against Obama. The content we're discussing is about the serious escalation in threats, violence and confrontational rhetoric coming from the TP movement as observed by the public and reported on in countless reliable sources. From the disruption of the town hall meetings (remember those?), to the tangible anger at the health care protests and the countless specific reported incidents from TP "leaders" -- if it were "trivia", it wouldn't be so widely covered in the news report sections of reliable sources. You began your comment with the word "Seriously", yet as I read your post it became evident that you had no intention of discussing the actual content seriously. Please let me know if you change your mind.

Oh, and as for your proposed article name change, in order to meet your description we would have to rewrite the article based on left-wing commentary sources, and it would look nothing like what we have now. What we have now could accurately be retitled as "What the Words and Deeds of the Tea Party has led the Public to Believe About the Tea Party Movement". Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I find the combination of your intense disdain for the TPM (as you have communicated many times here) combined with saying that the negative trivia inclusion is "intended to convey" (or similar "to show that" type comments on prior occasions) to be very indicative of the problem that we need to fix here. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I used to find your expressed personal comments about editors to be caustic and disruptive; I see them now as part of your routine here at Wikipedia, and as they are unsubstantiated and unwarranted (Watch this: Hey North, please provide just one diff indicating "intense disdain for the TPM" from me. Golly, you can't? What a surprise! Rinse & repeat -- routine North8000.), a form of trolling that has become sadly humorous through repetition. To the rest of your comment, here is what I said: The content North & I have been discussing is not attempting to convey anything about gas grills, nutty neighbors or terrorism against Obama. If you see that statement as "very indicative of the problem we need to fix here", then I am anxious to hear your description of what that problem is. I made that statement to fix the problem of Malke misrepresenting what the TPm article actually says. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what needs to be fixed here. Xenophrenic, you've got to relax and stand back and let other editors offer their views and suggestions. You react so strongly and so quickly to him that it seems to be keeping you from hearing what North8000 is trying to say. Compromise is the only way to function on Wikipedia as you well know. I've seen you do it before, my friend. There's nothing on Wikipedia that is that important that it can't be revisited, reexamined. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Malke, as I'm sure you'll agree, compromise between two equally valid but competing ways of doing or saying the same thing is good and productive -- and you are correct, I frequently compromise in such situations. However, compromise between Wikipedia policy-compliant editing competing with policy-violating editing is not a good thing. We wouldn't say, "For the sake of compromise, go ahead and violate policy just a little bit this time..." POV-warring over the objection of editors is policy-violating editing. I don't do that kind of compromise, and I really hope that you are not suggesting that I should.

To the rest of your comment: why are you getting so wound up about this, Malke? Just take a deep breath, separate yourself from your emotional involvement, and review the present discussion from a detatched perspective. Here is the current status:

1) North8000 proposed the deletion of content from the article that he considers "negative" and "trivia". He claims, "Per extensive supporting arguments over the last 6-8 months."

2) I disagree with his proposal. Having witnessed the discussions during identical previous attempts to remove negative information, and not recalling "extensive support" for his proposal back then, I asked North, "Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions.

3) North has balked at the simple, polite request for his supporting argument. Apparently, it's either "too difficult / time consuming" to justify his proposal or point me to one of these past supporting arguments, or he feels that "Pointing [me] to anything will not change anything". Perhaps by that, he means he expects that his suggestion to remove unflattering information from an article will garner as much support as it has previously, when his "supporting arguments" are reviewed.

I would like to understand "what North8000 is trying to say", to use your words, and I've opened the door to that discussion. But I can't have that discussion solo. And I am 100% with you in an effort to "revisit and reexamine" the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's how the game goes. The way to prevent fixing it is to make it so time consuming so that people give up and go away. I've spent many many hours giving many reasons why the trivia should go. Xenophrenic, who has contempt for the tea party and does everything based on that, is never going agree to take the trivia out. So, instead of looking at all of the reasoning that I have spent so much time writing out an explaining, they say "point me to a convincing argument". Then, if someone points to one, Xenophrenic will say "that one's not convincing", and if they don't they can say " "xxxxx" wouldn't even do "yyyyy" " and try to get mileage out of that......sort of a win win situation for blockading progress. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how your game goes. I'm not interested in playing. If you ever develop an interest in article improvement instead of POV-pushing, I would be interested in working with you toward that goal. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

But what constitutes 'article improvement' in your view? That's the problem North8000 is telling he's having. All he encounters are reverts and circular arguments. You can't claim he's got a POV and pretend you don't. You can't claim all his ideas are POV pushing and your ideas, and resistance to his ideas, is not. POV pushing can also be claims that certain edits can't be changed, etc. And turning everything into a battle is definitely not the way to improve the article. There has to be give and take. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes article improvement in my view? You could review that way back in Archive 13 (search for the phrase: from an article-improvement position). Or for a specific example, look at Archive 14 (search for the phrase: If we can rewrite the article so that the content). Here is a cut&paste from Archive 15 of a suggestion I have made more than a dozen times (just search the archives for "laundry list" to see them):

North8000 and I share a dislike for the series of "This TPer said/did this bad thing" example list in the article, but for markedly different reasons. If I understand North's position correctly, he feels the list of examples is a POV attempt to create an "artificial construction", or a false narrative about the movement, implying that the movement is racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc., — and he would like to see much of that content removed outright. I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

North8000 keeps "encountering reverts" because he keeps attempting to simply purge content that he dislikes from the article, instead of replacing that content with a more encyclopedic treatment of the information. (There have been no "circular arguments" from me, by the way; perhaps you are confusing me with one of the many other editors that have also reverted the inappropriate attempts at white-washing.) I have never claimed that he has a POV and I don't; I have merely insisted that this article is no place to be pushing it. (It is no coincidence that this is also a Wikipedia core policy). Xenophrenic (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In case that there is anybody who truly hasn't noticed that I'm out to get non-germane trivia out of the article (not to slant it) there is an incident above which is the proof of the pudding. See "Recent addition of anti-TPM material" section above. Someone put in some non-triva, germane anti-TPM material and I applauded it. Xenophrenic, you can't say the same. The clear common theme of practically everything that you have done and said here is to make this article as anti-TPM as you can. In the item that you quoted above, you basically said the YOU know that the TPM is bad on race, and that the article should show that, that the trivia was a clumsy attempt at that righteous cause, and that higher level material supporting the POV would be better. Aside from the obvious Wikipedia problems with that, if that higher level material exists, why haven't you put it in? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a single sentence, attributed and properly sourced, and North8000 didn't revert it! Stop the presses; he has saved his soul! Oh...wait, this just in: that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, North8000, I can say the same. I applaud, and do not revert, properly added material as a matter of routine; something I've never felt the need to hold up and trumpet as some sort of exceptional accomplishment. In the item I quoted above, what I said (note: not "basically said", which is North-speak for 'misrepresented version') was that the content attempted "to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race." Note that I made no mention of what *I* know. Your conspiracy theories that every editor who ads unflattering content to this article must be an anti-TP operative on a righteous crusade to destroy the movement are rather absurd. Get over yourself already, North -- not everyone is as emotionally invested in silly politics. To your question about why I haven't researched scholarly materials on this subject and added them, I'll just quote myself: Been there, done that. I, and other editors, have posted good sources here many times over the past two years. However, I'm as guilty as the next editor of not finding the motivation to do the heavy-lifting required to improve the article. ... how shall I evaluate them to determine which come from "operatives of their political opponents" and which do not? Shall we just assume that any source that says anything critical or unflattering about the movement has obviously come from political opponents? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, who wants to do hours of real, scholarly work which will simply be rejected out-of-hand because it hurts the feelings of Tea Party adherents? — goethean ॐ 13:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Goethean I don't know whether your stated misreading of my intentions is accidental or on purpose, but my intention is only to have a quality article, not to have it biased. As indication of my credentials regarding this, when it has jeopardized article quality and npov, I have locked horns with people who want to push MY POV at the article to prevent them from doing so. A few bigger examples of that were at the Libertarianism article several times over the last month and the Intelligent design article about a month ago. Further proof/credentials regarding this is my post about 1 inch up from this one. So, if you sincerely, mean what you said, we're on the same page. If not, not. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that you sincerely want to improve the article, just as I do. But your beliefs and actions are a product of your belief system and world-view, as are mine. And as has been demonstrated again and again, our views on the Tea Party are in different universes. I think (with good reason, I believe) that the Tea Party was the result of astroturfing dollars contributed by the Kochs and other corporate billionaires, which played on people's fears, xenophobia, racism, and other regressive impulses like selfishness and tribalism. You believe, I gather, that it is an authentic expression of grass-roots concern about the national deficit, government spending, perhaps about the Obama administration's encroachment on freedoms, and other high-minded ideology. Yours is broadly similar to the view from inside the Tea Party, while mine is a view (although not the only one) from outside the Tea Party. Both of us are probably too close to the subject to write about it fairly. Me, because I can't stomach the sympathetic view (which I would characterize as gullible, facile, inaccurate and a tool of corporate/oligarchic powers) and the converse is (I imagine) true of you. In any case, it is probably true that any text which I produce, no matter how well-sourced, would be rejected by your 'side' as undue, non-neutral, biased, etc. And the converse is true of any text that you produce (assuming that it generally lines up with my summary of your beliefs).

That said, I do believe that my view is closer to what is acceptable on Wikipedia, and the recent conversation above demonstrates that. Conservatives think of the NYT as a left-wing rag, and just as biased as Rush Limbaugh. Apart from the fact that this is nonsense, more importantly, it completely inappropriate to Wikipedia, which is not a outlet for conservative/corporate talking points, and which needs to use the highest standard for reliable sources, a standard which the NYT passes, and which the above-linked list of approved conservative sources does not. This point is not up for debate, and needs to be discussed at WP:RS, if at all. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your view of the NYT only shows your bias is so strong that you are completely unaware that it even exists. Journalism in general is heavily populated by liberals, this is a fact. The NYT is read predominantly by liberals and feeds to their beliefs. It is not to say it is not a reliable source, just that it is very liberally biased. While it is inappropriate for WP to be an outlet for conservative talking points, it is eqaully inappropriate for WP to an outlet for liberal talking points. Only when you on the left argee to the second part will WP be an unbiased source of information. Example of Liberal bias for the day. Rush does his bit and the world blows up. Mike Malloy says that "God" killed those killed by the tornadoes last week, semaring them into greasy little spots on the concrete, and nary a word is spoked about it. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts at media criticism are off-topic and not of interest. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike who? Hey, my neighbor (a flaming liberal if I ever saw one) once remarked that one out of every three registered Republicans is a closeted, conflicted homosexual ... and now that I think back on that, I realize not a single word was printed about my neighbor's remark in the liberal press! Definitely proof that Arzel is on to something here. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Geothean's previous post. The NYT thing is a sidebar. On to the main stuff...well, after hearing all of that, if we have any fundamental difference it's that for your analysis you are treating the TPM as an entity. I, quite the opposite view it as a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations. And the agenda is only what is in common to all followers. (lower taxes, smaller government). Every possible thing that you are talking about about probably exists. (people trying to help launch it or make it bigger, people with other agendas (e.g. social conservatives, Republican party, people seeking to further their non-TPM-agenda goals/views, trying to co-opt it, make it their own, utilize it etc.). You seeing it as an entity leads to then considering it valid/useful to characterize that entity by all of these other things. Me seeing it as (for this sentence , for simplicity call it just) and agenda makes me say that the idea of such characterization is not useful or valid. But either way, this article goes beyond that, it incorporates trivia which editors have selected to try to build the case of that characterization. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I, quite the opposite view it as a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations.

Do you have a source for this? — goethean ॐ 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But either way, this article goes beyond that, it incorporates trivia which editors have selected to try to build the case of that characterization.

It incorporates episodes which were highlighted by the media. The state of the media coverage of the TPM is not the fault of Wikipedia editors. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations" ... North, that's basically an informal definition of a "movement". But something you said made me recall an article I read that began with the sentence, "The 'Tea Party' is less a classic political movement than a frustrated state of mind..." I remember that article had a lot of information and analysis based on recorded facts, an interesting sidebar and plausible summaries; I would like your (both of you) opinions about it's quality as a citable source. It's located here Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So far I just did a fast read but that looks like an excellent article. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It does look good. I'm talking for writing stuff that summarizes it, not pulling out selected bits. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that an overview or analysis that draws heavily from that source might make a good new subsection and of trying to build that. Rather than build it in a sandbox and drop it in I'm thinking of building it slowly in place. Any thoughts? 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) (North8000)

PS: not to delay our effort to get the trivia out, but to work in paralell with that. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly see why you like the article. It takes everything at face value without asking any questions. It presents the narrative that Tea Party funders would like to project --- of a completely organic, grass-roots movement inspired solely in response to Obama's alleged overreach. The article is dishonest in my opinion.

The implication of the article is that, one year after Obama won the election, tens of millions of Americans spontaneously decided that he was a socialist. The only cause mentioned in the article is Obama's liberal economic policies. No mention is made of the tens of millions of dollars contributed by conservative billionaires and spent by Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, or of the constant promotion of the Tea Party Movement by FOXNEWS. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are a lot of people either promoting it, supporting it trying to use or co-opt it, just as with most movements. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

North8000 expressed a sentiment that I think has traction: " ... the agenda is only what is in common to all followers. (lower taxes, smaller government) ... " This strikes a chord with me. Surely it is reasonable to differentiate between what TPM speakers at rallies say as opposed to what the home-made signs of individual spectators declare or insinuate? It would (for example) be unfair to associate Senator Harry Reid with some of the signs that have been held up at his rallies, as it would be to associate the individual actions of SEIU members with President Obama. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it determined what is common to all followers? If public opinion polls are used, then I think that anti-abortion sentiment is just as prevalent as concern about deficits, etc. Also, your Harry Reid analogy is flawed, because we are describing a movement, not a figurehead. If the article was about the Harry Reid Movement, then presumably homemade signs would be fair game. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, common to all followers is probably incorrect. But the logic is (I think) sound. What the speakers say on stage at rallies can be reasonably assumed to be the message of the movement. The same cannot be said about the messages printed on signs by spectators, no? All we can deduce from that is the belief of the individual carrying the sign. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the TPM more as an agenda than an entity, the answers to the questions become simple. Whatever the group is demanding/advocating is the agenda. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the Reid analogy was flawed. A better analogy would be if there is a a pro-gay marriage movement, and a pro-gay marriage parade, and gay-marriage supporter in the crowd has a pro-pedophilia sign. The content of that sign is not what the movement is about, it is simply not in their agenda. Even if a poll showed that 60% of pro-gay-marriage people where in favor of pedophilia, the movement is defined by it's agenda which does not include pedophilia. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be correct to say (in this hypothetical situation) that advocating pedophilia is not part of their agenda, in the same way that I think everyone here would agree that it's not part of the agenda of the TPM to advocate racism. However, if there was a wikipedia article on the scenario you've presented, and the pedophilia aspect had received significant media attention through public opinion polls, statements from individuals associated with the movement's leadership, and incidents that had happened at rallies (like signs promoting pedophilia), I think we'd see that covered in such a hypothetical article as well. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're headed towards our main dispute there. Rather than go there, at the moment I was more making the observation that things make a lot more sense and lots of complicated questions get simple if one treats it as an agenda rather than as an entity. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because treating it as an agenda only gives the view from inside the Tea Party. Wikipedia needs to give a neutral view, not one strictly from within the organization. Would you want the article on pedophilia to only describe pedophilia from the perspective of a pedophile? You are advocating that we use an analogous approach here. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't reaching that far. I guess what it boils down to is saying to cover the Tea Party movement as a movement rather than as an entity. This is easy to forget/ get mixed up on because the most commonly used label ("Tea Party") makes it sound like an entity rather than a movement. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

i hear the tea party often in conversation and media, not once have i ever heard "the tea party movement". I suggest we remove the term "movement".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs)

The word "entity" simply means "thing". The Tea Party Movement is verifiably a thing; otherwise, you should nominate this article for deletion. It is a thing which exists, therefore it is an entity. To say that the TPM is a movement is not to forget anything or to get mixed up about anything. It is simply to state a fact. — goethean ॐ 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst article ever - 2 action tracks under discussion

I like the source raised by Xenophrenic not because of any particular angle, but because it represents a medium-higher level of summarize by a source rather than the selected trivia and primary sources (e.g. selected individual polls) that 90% of this article consists of. For example, it includes a summarization of polls rather that inclusion of editor-selected individual polls as this article does. Geothean's criticisms were basically of uncovered areas; since the article is not a total summary of the TPM, I see "uncovered areas" as a reality but not a critique, being based on comparison to a standard which is not even claimed. When the article really is is an analysis of TP'ers, views/ motivations of TP'ers, the larger scale relationship with the Republican party, and impacts on the Republican party and elections. I plan to start building a section which would have such a scope, starting with this article, but which will seek and utilize other sources that include a level of summarization / analysis. I plan to build it in place, so it will happen slowly.

The other track is removal of editor-selected low-level stuff that is related to but not about the TPM. (what many have called trivia) We have the mini-RFC above on this. Not sure what's next, but I'm not going to let the topic get stonewalled by a few as has happened in the past. Whether we can move forward, or need a bigger RFC with more eyes on this or whatever. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I said that the article was dishonest and based on a false narrative. So in response, you decide that you're going to build an entire section of the article just like that article. Makes sense. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that I partially addressed what you said. You basically said that it's missing stuff, I said that of course its missing stuff because it doesn't purport to or need to cover everything. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Would the article's readers realize that the article has left out a major piece of the story? I don't think so. The article gave a coherent, seemingly-complete narrative. It filled in what's missing with Tea Partiers' internal motivation, giving the false impression that these motivations originated spontaneously, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened. In point of fact, these motivations were carefully cultivated by the well-funded conservative media. Please do not write a narrative which elides this key fact. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, expanded version of previous note) I think that I partially addressed what you said. You basically said that it's missing stuff, I said that of course its missing stuff because it doesn't purport to or need to cover everything. But your comment blended 2 distinctly different things together. One was mentioning relevant known things that it didn't cover, and those fall under the earlier sentence of this post. But you also seemed to be implying that it conflicted with a particular view that you hold....that somehow the TPM has gained traction primarily due to financial support of those two organizations etc.. I would argue that that is inacurate, but that is irrelevant. What I am saying, is find sources that do real analysis and presentation of these things rather than trivia selected by editors because it proves a point which the "know to be true" or talking points from obvious op ed and advocacy pieces. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you look for a good higher level analysis-type source or two source that says what you are saying (if such exists) and we can integrate that into it? North8000 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative media outlets were vital to the rapid launch of Tea Party activism. [Skocpol, Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism p128]

According to Skocpol and Williamson, Tea Party protest were first planned when web-savvy conservative activists took advantage of CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's tirade against the Obama Administration's foreclosure releif plan. [p7]

According to Ronald Formisano, Fox News Corporation was intertwined with the Tea Party during 2009. [The Tea Party: A Brief History p34]

The strongest support for the Tea Party was found in right-wing radio and television, such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly. [The rise of the tea party by Anthony Dimaggio p109]

— goethean ॐ 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds fine. It doesn't conflict with what the other source said but sounds fine. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that one track (removal of trivia) will require action in a contentious situation, and that the other (development of material from analysis-level sources) will turn out to be mostly non-contentious. I intend to work on both. IMHO our conversations should be by topics/content rather than blending things by people. I think that that approach would provide an amicable way forwards on at least one of the tracks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting on the latter building slowly, starting in a section with a generic name (analysis). Starting with the one source provided by Xenophrenic, lets find others. Lets find other sources that are providing higher level analysi and appear somewhat impartial. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

double-speak, can't be both...

• from the open, 'It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. this article is becoming double-speak.'
• from the we dont like it section, 'then he contrasted the fiscally conservative Republican party of old that didn't get involved in people's personal and family lives with "the current Republican Party, in particular the Tea Party, that is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian' Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We really have to go by their agenda / what the TPM advocates. Which is what quality sources will do. The latter isn't within a mile of either. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The section was inserted by a sock-puppet of a now-blocked right-winger. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party Patriots addition

I'm doing research on the Tea Party movement. I see that there is a lot of anger on the talk page concerning left-wing bias and factual inaccuracies within the Wikipedia entry. However, I do have some neutral information on the Tea Party Patriots that I will try posting in the next two weeks. Does anyone have any suggestions? Any feelings towards me expanding the Tea Party Patriots section of the entry? Anything would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranklinBarbosa (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While the motivation and result may be bias, the core problem here is that it's full of trivia, and the quality and "secondariness" level of the sources used. My advice is to make sure htat it is about the TPM on items that are inherently of regional or national significance, by sources that are doing analysis/summary level type work and are not too biased. And, if so, just put in it. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Analysis section

It's sourced to one article in USA Today, a paper not known for "analysis". Perhaps we could include the poll results if the actual questions were determined, but it wouldn't be under "analysis"; perhaps "composition" or just "poll results". I removed it, but perhaps it has a place — somewhere. The section as I deleted it is below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If the sentences containing the authors' (unsupported) conclusions were removed, I could see USA today as having a reasonable reputation for fact-checking on facts, but not as to the authors' opinions. (And removing duplications: "78% are non-Hispanic whites", and "Hispancs, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth..." are the same statement.) The part of the analysis which might represent a reliable interpretation remains (although I'm not sure about "older"; it may represent the authors' opinion not supported by the polling data):

Analysis redacted

78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. Tea party members "are more likely to be married and a bit older than the nation as a whole." 90% see the federal deficit as a severe threat, and are unhappy with the country's direction. They are less likely to see discrimination as a hurdle to minorities. 75% (vs. 50% for non-Tea Party supporters) say that minorities have equal job opportunities. They are less sympathetic to illegal immigrants 80% (vs. 52% for non-TPM supporters) say that in the long run they cost the taxpayers too much.

Analysis

According to USA Today writers Susan Page and Naomi Jagoda, circa 2010 the Tea Party is more a frustrated state of mind than a classic political movement. 78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. Tea party members "are more likely to be married and a bit older than the nation as a whole." They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks. Tea Party supporters are united more by their policy views than by their demographics or locations. At the core is a conviction that the federal government has gotten too large and powerful. 90% see the federal deficit as a severe threat, and are unhappy with the country's direction. They are less likely to see discrimination as a hurdle to minorities. 75% (vs. 50% for non-Tea Party supporters) say that minorities have equal job opportunities. They are less sympathetic to illegal immigrants 80% (vs. 52% for non-TPM supporters) say that in the long run they cost the taxpayers too much.

Response

All good points, but you'd need to read the previous talk to see what this section is. It is merely the starting point to build an article from at least attempted higher level summaries from sources with at least some semblence of impartiality. Not editor-selected trivia like most of the article is. The material there is it at least one step better in that respect. The "analysis" was a temporary name and temporary place to start growing this type of material. Please grow/modify it and replace material rather than delete. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Section renamed to be accurate. Note that extensive use of the copyrighted figures therein is a copyvio, and that the opinions must be clearly stated in that form (in the case at hand, citing them as quotations should suffice). I am unclear that this section belongs at all, but the form it was in was clearly not usable. And using a single opinion piece for a long section seems agaisnt policy in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to rename the sections to be accurate, nearly all of them will be "trivia and raw data selected by the wikipedia article editors",  :-) so I don't know why the focus for perfection on this particular section. But that's fine for now, knowing that this is just the start of something. Lets find other somewhat impartial overview type sources and build this into something broader. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

USA Today is not a reliable source for the significance of the the opinions (supported, or not) of its writers. Only the (probably not copyvio) actual poll numbers are appropriate, and that should be absorbed into the "Membership and demographics" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I agree with everything that you have said over the last few days here. But please understand that section is is just the start of something to improve the article. And that it is one step better than much of the rest of the article with respect to being summarizaiton/analysis in sources vs. an agglomeration of editor-selected trivia. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So, is it time to delete and start over? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be the only way to fix this mess. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of all the poll numbers and the wording associated therewith did meet copyvio - entire sentences were reused, and when the entire intellectual property of the poll is used, yed - it is a copyvio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The questions asked in the poll, and the responses, are facts. The exact wording of the article (which seems to be what is left, presently) may be subject to copyright, but the poll results are almost certainly not subject to copyright, or would be "fair use" even in the context of Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to Gallup <g>. [2] Unless otherwise noted, all materials reprinted must contain the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. In addition, the date of the survey, margin of error, and sample size shall be reported. and All materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. The source, by the way, includes the proper copyright notice for USA Today. Use of the entire poll results would seem, on its face, to go well beyong "fair use." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following. I took (paraphrased) the material from the USA Today article, marked the quote as a quote and heavily credited the article as the source of the information. (6 citations /credits in one paragraph, one on nearly every sentence) North8000 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In your edit you included: 2010 the Tea Party is more a frustrated state of mind than a classic political movement which is plagiarisim as the words are precisely those of the USA Today writers, and not placed in quotes. You have without quotes 78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. The sidebar has "78% are Republicans or independents who lean Republican, 77% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives. 62% are married, 56% are men, 47% are 55 or older." Entirely too close a usage. word for word. You have without quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks The source has " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Your only change is from "overwhelmingly" to "predominantly" which is clear plagiarism of the source. You use Tea Party supporters are united more by their policy views than by their demographics or locations. At the core is a conviction that the federal government has gotten too large and powerful. The source has "What unites Tea Party supporters is less their geography or demography than their policy views: a firm conviction that the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful and a fear that the nation faces great peril" Which is far beyond simple paraphrase. You have sans quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks. which is direct plagiarism of " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Cheers, but this does not fly. And is a copyright violation. Collect (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and fixing the paraphrases that were too close. I did cite the article that it came from 6 times in 7 sentences including on every one of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FORA.tv RS for contentious claim

Is a "collection of videos" and is no more RS than Youtube is for contentious claims (to wit - that the TPM the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks) which likely hits Godwin's Law squarely. Ought this edit be removed? Collect (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is an incorrect description. Fora is used as a source for opinions expressed by Noam Chomsky. It is a reliable source for what Chomsky said. TFD (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to RS/N for that claim -- in the meantime, the opinion from Chomsky, invoking Nazism, is UNDUE as well here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the only such comparison in the entire article so it wouldn't be considered Undue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky is a prominent critic of US policy. There's no plausible argument that devoting a single sentence in this article to him is undue. — goethean ॐ 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Selecting an opinion that likens the TPM to Nazis is inappropriate. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what Wikipedia policy? — goethean ॐ 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT for one. This is not a third-party source, it's a preview clip for a programme on the source's channel. Unless a third-party source gives weight to this comment, it's just a person's opinion. - SudoGhost 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This person happens to be a prominent source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A person giving his opinions like this isn't a secondary source. Why don't we try to actually improve this article instead of trying to game in extreme POV crap like selecting a primary source which is a quote of some guy likening the TPM to the Nazis?! North8000 (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The person being "a prominent source" means next to nothing if third-party reliable sources don't establish the notability of the comment. If a person is notable, that doesn't automatically make anything they've ever said notable and WP:DUE for the purpose of putting it into any applicable Wikipedia article. That's what third-party sources establish. If this is notable enough to insert it into the article, then finding said sources would be easy to find. If they don't exist, well then that speaks to the weight of the comment, doesn't it? - SudoGhost 00:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree and the included source of Truthdig is hardle impressive. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that the source is the actual TV airing and not a written summary of it (by that source) and therefor leaves the door open to cherry pick part of his opinion (not fact, which would be fine in most circumstances). I'd like to see either a summary of that airing, from the same source or any other RS. The relevance of Chomsky's opinion itself is not in question or doubt, no matter to whom he compares the TP.TMCk (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says that his opinion is notable? I see no difference between ForaTV and YouTube, and without a notable 3rd party source to establish some weight his comments are undue weight. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you seriously think that Chomsky as a person and thus his opinions when published are not notable you've lost me.TMCk (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have not understood my comment than I have. I stated that there needs to be a 3rd party source to present notability. Just because you think this particular opinion is notable is pretty much not relevant within the guidelines of WP. Aside from that. Have you read the article or watched the video? Because there are substantive problems with the section as sourced. In the video, the part that you don't have to pay to see (see usage of sources) Chomsky is refering to right wing media as those that are making the scenario. He does not link the Tea Party movement, and in fact you could equally link the OWS movement since the compaints that he mentions are pretty much the same between the two groups. The Truthdig article makes absolutely NO mention of the tea party movement. So not only is the section poorly sourced, the connection to the TPM is synthesis of material. I suggest you revert yourself and remove the section do to poor sourcing and synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right that I didn't watch the video itself and just trusted that he was talking about the TP directly. I'm pissed if I may say so and reverted again.TMCk (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He does make some interesting comments, however, about how the current environment in general is similar, but is careful to say that they are not the same. Arzel (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need to show that opinions are notable in order to present them and this is done through secondary sources that say things like, "Academic analyses of the Tea Party movement have tended to support Chomsky's description" or "Chomsky's views have minority support". However, there is the same problem with all the commentaries, and we are allowing editors to determine what views should be mentioned and which should not. Why for example remove Chomsky but leave in Arthur C. Brooks? TFD (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you watch the Chomsky video he is refering to what he calls right wing media, not specifically the TPM. The TruthDig source also specifically talks about right wing media and does not mention the TPM at all. The TruthDig source references the same comments as the Chomsky video. I was unable to find any reliable sources that link these comments to the TPM, and since it happened a few years ago you would think that there would be some. It appears that the linkage was synthesis of material since some of the issues that Chomsky mentions are the same issues that TPM members have also mentions, but at the same time some of these issues are also the same issues as those mentioned by OWS people. Chomsky was talking about the general mood of the public and the use of the media to drive these fears, namely Rush and Beck. However, to say that he specifically said that the TPM was an example is not true and the source does not back up that statement. Arzel (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I came here from the NPOV notice board where I also posted this comment. This comment by Chomsky is a significantly harsh comparison. It is merely the opinion of one person, which is given undue weight by being included in the article. The statement tends to be harmful to the group and is an inflammatory and non-neutral statement that is, as presented here, the opinion of only one person. Chomsky has a right to express his opinion but I see several Wiki policies that would warrant removing it from this article. In some cases, WP:BLP applies to groups and it might apply here. "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:Quotations states: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:NPOV Due and undue weight states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."Coaster92 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but there's absolutely no reason why a single opinion would be considered Undue, why it's not valid after going through a second-party source or even why it would be considered "a tiny minority," true it's particular harsh but most people do not agree with the tea party as the polls in the article make clear.

By that logic, a good deal of the sources from various think tanks should be removed from the article, since they are neither second party sources and arguably a "tiny minority." As far as I can tell if we want to remove Chomsky's opinion we would have to remove:

• Arthur C. Brooks
• Matt Taibbi
• Dan Gerstein
• Matthew Continetti
• Newt Gingrich (source is as obscure as Truthdig)
• Paul Krugman

CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that after listening to the video it is clear that Chomsky is not talking directly about the TPM. He does not even mention them by name. He is most concerned about what he calls "right-wing media". Even then he connection to the Nazi's is very muted and he is makes it clear that he is not making a direct connection. The truthdig source does not mention the TPM at all. Your initial entry, as it stood, was a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Consensus" and other issues

First of all, as a continuation of other issues, I just want to address the fact that since Arzel cited consensus, a consensus can't be based on violations of Wikipedia policies which this plainly is. Now I'll address the other points:

• Given the entirety of the Fora.tv talk, that is, outside that one clip, he addressed the Tea Party by name in the same context
• Chomsky also directly cited the Tea Party in the Real News interview which was another (by wikipedia standards) reliable third party source.
• My bad with the Truthdig article which is the only case of WP:SYNTH that I can see.
• The standards for Chomsky's criticism don't even hold up for the other six sources which are either not supported by third party sources or would be considered a "tiny minority opinion" based on Undue weight and polling for the Tea Party.

As far as I can tell either we include the Chomsky criticism or remove the six others which failing action on either would have to go higher up in arbitration which I don't want to happen. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And what policy does this consensus you're referring to violate? - SudoGhost 03:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Exclusion based on violation of WP:NPOV. It's uncontroversial that none of the six sources I mentioned earlier live up to the standards needed for the Chomsky commentary. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that becomes a violation of WP:NPOV. If you think that these other sources have issues, how would adding this one solve that? - SudoGhost 17:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, about 80% of this article needs to get deleted. (Starting with the grill and twitter trivia, but maybe some of those) But that's not a justification for trying to add something that is even more problematic. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have opined in other places that the term "Nazi" has been over-used and accordingly diluted. Noam Chomsky - certainly a notable person in his own right - is here drawing parallels between (on the one hand) a demonstrably peaceful conservative movement which espouses limited spending, lower taxes, and adherance to the constitution and (on the other hand) a hyper-violent regime of sweeping, muderous, unmatched brutality that plunged us into a world war and for which the term "genocide" was invented. Although Mr. Chomsky undoubtedly said what he said, the quote tells us much more about Noam Chomsky than it tells us about the Tea Party Movement. This does not mean that it has no place in this article. Perhaps such strongly partisan responses are a phenomenon worthy of note - though that may not pass the synthesis test, either. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I might go one step further and say that since I know who Noam Chomsky is and what Noam Chomsky has said in the past, this text is not unexpected. Outside of that context, the text is misleading. A short explanation that Noam Chomsky is left-wing, an anarchist, and/or a socialist might be suitable. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in the edits I didn't make it clear but Chomsky was comparing the Tea Party with the political climate of late Wiemar Germany, not a direct "Tea Partiers are Nazis" comparison. It's a violation of NPOV because it's excluding a notable perspective (that conforms to all the standards) for biased political reasons (namely you don't want to hear it). Secondly, he also makes the point that Tea Party is completely mislead and holds contradictory opinions with regards to government spending, ie they want to cut government spending but don't want to cut Medicare and Social Security etc

Anyways failing to take action, I'm putting in the criticism, if it's removed and the other six aren't removed for the reasons I mentioned earlier I'll take it higher up in arbitration. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I only oppose the inclusion out of context. Chomsky is a pretty fringe guy and that colors the significance of what he says, but the views of notable opposition figures deserve mention. I would approve of something like "Noted author Noam Chomsky, who characterizes himself as an "anarcho-syndicalist" and who is often described in news accounts as "left-wing" draws the following parallels between Weimar Germany ... " TreacherousWays (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a knee-jerk dislike of "criticisms" sections just because they can become real battlegrounds, but in this instance it might be constructive to better-define which segments of the political spectrum identify most closely with the TPM and which political segments offer the harshest criticisms. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you link it to Weimar Germany, rather than Nazi Germany (not that I have any delusion that that will appease the edit warrior)? — goethean ॐ 17:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the Chomsky text to reflect the content of the first reference; Chomsky expressly compares not the Tea Party but the political mood of the United States to that of Weimar Germany, and indicates that the TPM is acting like a lightning rod for the politically disenfranchised. Which is an oblique comparison of the TPM to the Nazis. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to delete based on all of the above reasons, but those tweaks address them just enough. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Expand Energy policy section, please.

• Do energy subsidies actually work? Governement subsidies are largely social experiments without any guarantee of success. Some pay off royally, while others are a waste of time and money. By Russ Finley, April 12, 2012

Reference above related to Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 18 # Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole 99.181.132.241 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure would be nice if there was a mention of the Tea Party in that article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What about this Welfare for (Very Rich) Oil Companies by Bill McKibben in the May 2012 issue of Sojourners magazine? 99.109.127.232 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredible (and not reliable) source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Polling data

In the section of canvasses and polls, I found the following statement: " ... the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole ... " My issue may seem like nit-picking, but that sounds to me like an interpretation of polling data as opposed to a report of polling results. Because I don't think the question was: "On a scale of one to five, with one being the least racially resentful and five being the most racially resentful, do you consider yourself to be 1-not racially resentful at all, 2-somewhat racially resentful, 3-racially resentful, 4-more than usually racially resentful or 5-very racially resentful." I think that the polling data are reliable, but that interpretation ought to be explicitly identified and explained or removed. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we cite the study's director?

"The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."[3]

— goethean ॐ 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We should really be looking for analysis, and at least somewhat objective analysis. The fact that they made such a blatant logical error (equating attributes of supporters to what the TPM is "about") to allude to the TPM as being about race indicates that they are not such. If more TPM supporters had red hair, then that does not mean that the TPM agenda is red hair. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One, your analogy is inapt. Having red hair is not really related to politics in the same way that having racist beliefs is, especially when we are talking about a group well-known for using extreme rhetoric ever since a black person was elected President. Two, the article, per my suggestion above, can simply quote the director of the study on what he believes the study found. It doesn't need to say that his analysis is definitive. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is the we CAN put junk in here. I'm saying that we should be looking for better. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Tea Party has habitually engaged in extreme racial rhetoric. Thus what an advocate of the Tea Party might describe as "junk", I might see as neutral description. The mainstream media, which Wikipedia articles are obliged to reflect, tends to be on my side of this issue, not yours. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My only objection is that the polling data have been interpreted and that the interpretation has been presented as polling data. If the data have been interpreted, then that ought to be explicitly stated. It's not unlike exit polling data - the numbers are irrefutable, but interpreting the data is a guessing game based on when the numbers were collected, in what districts, and what questions were asked. I would, honestly, just delete the text and leave interpretation to the reader. TreacherousWays (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, here is the research, and here are the actual questions that were asked (PDF). While I don't know if "racially resentful" is the most accurate/neutral wording that could be used in the Tea Party article, it is the wording the researchers and the reliable sources that cited it used. So I think that "resentful" may not be the best word, because that wasn't what was asked, I don't think the sentence should be removed from the article altogether either. - SudoGhost 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The TPM is a name, a slogan, and an agenda, not a group of people. Poll data about supporters does not define the agenda of the movement. My whimsical " If more TPM supporters had red hair, then that does not mean that the TPM agenda is red hair." was to make this point more clearly. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: I insist on making clear the dividing line between the poll questions and the interpretation of the data. I think that's both reasonable and neutral. Explanatory text ( ... the pollsters, members of a purely academic group focused exclusively on gender and race issues, used subjective interpretation of the polling data to conclude that the TPM members polled were "racially resentful" ... ) will detract from the otherwise neutral and acceptable poll data. Had the pollsters used the word "bias" I don't think that we'd be having this discussion, but the word "resentful" is non-neutral and has many connotations that extend beyond the scope of the poll questions (including "hateful" and "bitter"). From a policy standpoint, the poll data are reliably-sourced neutral facts and should stay. The interpretation of the poll data can be reasonably described as the opinion of an otherwise non-notable, non-neutral academic and should probably go. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My review of the poll questions reinforces my opinion that the "racially resentful" label is an almost purely speculative and subjective interpretation of the data. It's an unfounded and radical position to assume after a nine-question survey of 1,000 people, of which only four questions deal with race. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From a Washington Times article dealing with the Parker polling data: " .... Emily McClintock Ekins, a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles, said tea partyers have more faith in the fairness of capitalism, which she said could explain their attitudes on race. “This makes it less surprising that nearly all Tea Partiers believe that hard work, rather than luck, drives success. This might also explain their lower levels of racial empathy, as they are less aware for how opportunity may be different for particular groups of people,” she wrote in a working draft paper .... " I would consider her opinion to be more sympathetic, certainly, but more neutral - avaoiding as it does the loaded words. But either way, it is clear that the conclusions that can be drawn from the data vary. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful to this article reference

• http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/12/the-new-debate-in-the-republican-party-n “The New Debate in the Republican Party Needs to be Between Conservatives and Libertarians” Sen. Jim DeMint talks about the looming fiscal crisis and the future of the GOP. ... by Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch from the May 2012 issue of Reason (magazine). 99.109.127.232 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's reliable, but I thought the note on Koch and the ACLU was reliable. I think consensus is against you. Especially since it doesn't mention the Tea Party, and it's just the Senator's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add current involvements?

• Big Test Set for Tea Party Muscle Fates of Sens. Hatch, Lugar and Other Targets to Signal Staying Power of Republican Insurgency April 20, 2012
• Allysia Finley: Can the Tea Party Defeat Dick Lugar? After 35 years in the Senate, the Indiana Republican faces angry voters and a talented tea-party challenger (Opinion) April 22, 2012

99.109.127.232 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add parody for cultural influence?

• "The lead story involves Jack backing a mildly veiled Tea Party congressional candidate ..." from the A.V. Club per DVD Audio Commentary by 30 Rock Producer Jerry Kupfer, Brooklyn Without Limits is a commentary on the Tea Party.

99.181.137.3 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add recent "victories"?

• Richard Mourdock wins a Republican primary election in the US state of Indiana defeating incumbent Senator Richard Lugar.

141.218.36.85 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• support Lugar was mainstream GOP. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose There is widespread speculation that the Democrats have a better chance of winning Lugar's former seat because of the contender so whether it's a "victory" is debatable. As well, there is a general trend of decline as the last Tea Party action was in 2010. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party Decline?

I feel like there should be a section on the Tea Party's decline with articles like these. I think it's obvious to anyone whose looked at the movement that there haven't been any tea party actions since 2010. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an intelligent summary of key items from that article would be good. Don't start out through the lens of "decline", just follow it where it goes; do a quality summary of the key points of what is there. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CartoonDiablo, but I'm not seeing a strong case made in the article you linked that the TP has declined that much. It seems to be describing more of a change of focus and tactics (away from the costumes, silly signs, etc.) while trying to stay relevant and influencial in a more dispersed, local level. I agree with North that there is some good information in that article, but the point you are stressing might be better conveyed by articles like this. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure with quotes like "For the Tea Party movement, the 2012 presidential primaries have been a bust" and “The Tea Party movement is dead. It’s gone,” says Chris Littleton, the cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups in Ohio" it's pretty obvious there is a sheer decline if not dead.

Yes there is a small paragraph on how activists are focusing on smaller grassroots efforts but given the decline in numbers and lead assertion that it's dead, I don't think you can just say it "shifted to grassroots". CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it it where the summary of quality impartial sources takes it. The above looks more like looking for opinions that meet a particular notion. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Beast and Huffington Post both quote reliable sources like the Harvard professor. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very low bar except in a few arbitrary areas. Nevertheless, I found your additions to consist mostly of actual relevant information, in contrast to most of this article which consists of trivia gamed in for a certain (negative) effect. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Invalid Sources for "Use of term "teabagger" section

Footnoted as 312 and 313.

Footnote 312 is purely opinion - an OPINION written about a specific sign. The sign being cited as evidence of the OPINION. There is no proof or fact to back up this opinion. Furthermore this OPINION is contradicted by several other cites which aren't friendly to the Tea Party movement. (Two words on a sign "Tea Bag" do not equal "Teabagger." Just as the words "Way Off" do not equal the word "Wayoffer." The stance made in 312 seems to be biased by political mindset, and if offered as the only evidence, it is important to point out that the words used, in the context they are used, would also indicate those NOT involved in the Tea Party movement are also "teabaggers." Again - this takes a deliberate misreading/misinterpretation, and appears to be politically driven by the author.)

313 - broken link - goes nowhere.

It is possible that no one knows when the word "teabagger" was FIRST used to describe Tea Party members, or its origins, but it is debatable whether the term was self-ascribed, or only entered the vernacular as a derogatory statement. For this reason, I feel there are NO FACTS to support the section entitled, "Use of term 'teabagger'" and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.72 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the broken link (313); it has been replaced. Regarding your statement that (312) "is purely opinion" ... no, it's not. It's a link to a series of photo images. Perhaps you were speaking of a different link? As for your suggestion that the section "should be removed", are you implying that the "teabagger" phrase, in relation to the Tea Partiers, doesn't exist? What of the citations (314), (315), (316) and (317)? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy of "way-off / wayoffer" makes sense because "way off" is not used as a verb. If "teabag" is used as a verb, then the subject of that verb is a teabagger, just as when the word "talk" is used as a verb the subject is a "talker." If one engages in teabagging, one is a teabagger. Period. That's just the way the English language works. That said, I am skeptical about the origin of the term as identified with apparent certainty in the article. My understanding was that "teabag" was first known to be used as a verb in that context when activists circulated messages saying "teabag Obama," "teabag the fools in Washington," etc. as part of a tax protest than involved mailing tea bags to legislators. Furthermore, if the main reason many consider "teabagger" offensive is because the verb "teabag" has a sexual meaning, then the term "teabagger" shouldn't be vastly more offensive than any other usage (e.g. "Let's teabag Obama!") that implies "teabag" as a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

everyone reading this knows tea-bagger is a childish derogatory remark equal to farting in an elevator. the same children insist on making it part of an article about politics. it deserves the exact same coverage the term commie gets on the communism article, none. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It "deserves" the coverage that reliable sources attribute to it. It may be about as derogatory as calling editors children, but if multiple reliable sources give weight to the term, then it doesn't matter if we feel it's derogatory or not. To remove it for purely that reason would run afoul of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - SudoGhost 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

exactly which peer-review scholastic source used the term tea bagger? all li see are columns from pundits selling the electronic blog version of the enquirer. If WP:Due is applicable, why isnt commie featured on the communism page, perhaps you believe that term is less pouplar, or not mentioned in the same rags you claim to be rs here? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are an organic work in progress, so the lack of a term in another article doesn't mean much. Also, there are many types of sources; content does not require a "peer-review scholastic source" to be appropriate, it requires a reliable source. - SudoGhost 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

and those sources have been challenged by several editors. either replace them, or the content will be removed. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are these "several editors"? If you're referring to this discussion, there's nothing here demonstrating that all the sources in the section are not reliable. ABC News, Salon, Fox News are reliable sources for the purposes of verifying the information in that section. So no, the content will not be removed. Not on that reasoning, at any rate. - SudoGhost 15:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

welcome to the article Sudo, peruse the archives to see the past discussion on tea bagger for a list of those opposed. i am glad you listed the sources, and no, none of those are scholarly, peer-reviewed, or in any way appropriate for a political article. Try inserting fox news on Obama's page, LOL! and yes, i will remove it myself after giving others a chance to comment, you are free to revert and defend fox. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it will be reverted the moment you remove the content, because it's properly sourced information, and the reasons you've given for removing it don't fall within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't like it? Take it to WP:RSN, and establish some type of consensus that these sources aren't reliable. "Scholarly, peer-reviewed" sources are not the only type of reliable sources, not liking a source or the content is not, and will never be a reason to remove sourced information from an article. - SudoGhost 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Party is not libertarian

Libertarianism's defining tenet is the nonintervention of government in personal freedom issues. Can a group that overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war, etc. be considered libertarian? Certainly not. The tea party positions are frequently antithetical to those of Ron Paul and real libertarians. The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism. Therefore, I recommend the article's description of the tea party as conservative and libertarian be amended to simply describe it as conservative. I also suggest references (and photo) implying Ron Paul is a leader or quintessential representative of the movement be removed. Even polling data in the article reveals Ron Paul is not one of the most respected figures among Tea Party supporters.

Respectfully, there's at least 4 things mixed up in that post. Regarding "The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism." libertarianism is certainly not conservatism. The wording was selected by an extensive mediation process. Doubtless it was because the TPM contains both conservatives and libertarians. Where did you get ".... overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war," from? I've not seen those in any TPM agenda. Roughly speaking its agendas have been items where conservatives and libertarians agree, and have mostly avoided items where conservatives and libertarians disagree. Ron Paul has been prominent in the history of the TPM. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Although trying to define libertarianism usually leads to disagreement, it is not too controversial to say that libertarianism's defining tenet is not the nonintervention of government in personal freedom issues, it is minimizing the role of government in everything, not just personal freedom issues. The use of government power at the behest of gay activists to try to impose an acceptance of homosexuality onto society, as in the cases of NJ trying to force the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual scoutmasters, of CA schools teaching "gay history", or of trying to use the courts to redefine marriage, is not libertarian, although it is frequently excused by gay activists and their sympathizers by the claim that such use of government power expands personal freedom. Given the opposition of most Americans to the redefinition of marriage, as evidenced by the perfect record of state referendums and ballot initiatives which reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, support for changing the definition of marriage through judicial fiat or through state legislation is an anti-libertarian position since it involves using government power to force a minority political opinion onto the general population. In that sense, there is nothing anti-libertarian about the support of most members of the TPM for the traditional definition of marriage. Don't cite media polls on attitudes about redefining marriage as real evidence. Polls don't carry nearly the weight of referendums, especially given the attitude of most large media organizations wrt gay issues. On the other hand, the TPM certainly does not seem to be libertarian wrt the WOD or wrt international interventionism.75.17.243.139 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange argument- there is no doubt that many, but certainly not all libertarians support the TPM, and than many of the TPM are not libertarians. That does not mean that everyone in the TPM has exactly the same political opinions on anything much at all, but does imply that some of the positions held by TPM members are, indeed, libertarian. In short, have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, did you guys even read this article? 82 percent of tea party supporters oppose same-sex marriage, and virtually all the politicians identified in the article as tea party leaders (Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, etc.) oppose same-sex marriage and most of them have endorsed federal bans. They also tend to be very hawkish on military interventions -- again antithetical to libertarianism. Also, my statement "the only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism" doesn't suggest libertarianism and conservatism are the same. Libertarianism has liberal elements, but the Tea Party shares none of those liberal elements of libertarianism, only conservative elements. Hence, my contention that the Tea Party is essentially conservative and not essentially libertarian. If you disagree, provide examples of libertarian values shared by the Tea Party that aren't conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As a Libertarian Party member, when you look at our National Platform, and compare it against the Tea Party's ultra-conservative agenda, they are polar opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.82 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party and libertarianism are, of course, not synonymous, one being a party a political party and the other being an ideology. Your characterization of the the Tea Party as "ultra-conservative" is unwarranted. Most Americans don't support the legalization of recreational drugs, the redefinition of marriage, corporate bailouts, increased government spending, increased government interference or increased taxation. On those issues, the TPM is completely mainstream. You may have a better case wrt military intervention abroad. Although the TPM's generally positive attempt toward the US military is entirely mainstream, there is some indication of war fatigue amongst the general public regarding military intervention in the ME which seems to be less prevalent in the TPM. I'm not sure that the degree of support for military intervention abroad in the TPM rises to the "ultraconservative level, however.

Your personal POV is clear. The NYT etc. however do not appear to share that POV and specifically note the libertarian influence on the TPM. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT is ideological hostile to the TPM. Trusting it as a legitimate source of information regarding the TPM must be done with care. Certainly, there has been and continues to be a battle over the agenda of the Tea Party which reflects the ongoing culture war in America. The NYT comes down quite firmly against traditional values so it would not be surprising if it were to skew its coverage of the Tea Party in a way which marginalizes cultural conservatives. Honestly, the TPM seemed to me to arise out of opposition to the GM bailouts, the bailouts of the financial sector, TARP and most especially to Obamacare. While the opposition to these specific laws is certainly libertarian, I don't see any evidence that Ron Paul or "movement libertarians" had any real influence in the formation of the TPM. Opposition to tax-and-spend big-government has been a staple of American politics for more than 30 years. The huge electoral victories of Reagan, the "Gingrich revolution" of 1994, the punishment of the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008, and the TPM in 2010 all share the common theme of reigning in the size and scope of the federal government.

Dismissing the diametric opposition of several libertarian and Tea Party values as my "personal POV" seems like a cop-out. Again, please provide examples of Tea Party values that are libertarian in nature but not conservative in nature. If you can't do that, then describing the Tea Party as conservative AND libertarian without qualification is at best controversial and makes no more sense than labeling Merlot a wine AND a beer.

It is not up to anyone to prove that your "truth" - isn't. Rather it is up to you to provide relaible sources for your claims - noting that the NYT, inter alia, has specifically linked the TPM with libertarians as well as other conservatives. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

76.91.74.103, with respect to the article, the main point is that made by Collect, plus that this was extensively discussed and decided in a mediation process. But as a sidebar, you have several things scrambled up in the points that you make. First, stance on gay marriage (marriage being a special status conferred by the government) is a totally different thing than the libertarian stance of openness to homosexuality. Second, views of supporters does not equate to being the agenda of the TPM. If supporters preferred the color red, would you say that the the TPM agenda is to promote the color red? Finally, the inference of your last question is faulty logic. The TPM agend is, roughly speaking, the items in common with conservatives an libertarians (i.e areas where they don't conflict) It is baseless and faulty logic to say that it is required that the TPM have an agenda in conflict with conservatism in order for it to be considered partially libertarian. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources given in the article for the claim that the TPM is "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" (footnotes 4 and 5). The WSJ and Washington Post articles cited both describe the TPM as conservative AND DON'T EVEN MENTION LIBERTARIANISM. The one article that does mention it is a reason.com post suggesting that only a fraction of the party is "libertarian-leaning." I'm sure someone as concerned as you are with reliable sourcing of information agrees that the sources in the article by no means indicate that the TPM is best described as both conservative and libertarian.

And with respect North8000, it is you whose logic is faulty. It's true that if Tea Partiers preferred the color red that wouldn't necessarily make the superiority of the color red part of their agenda, however it would certainly indicate that the superiority of the color green was NOT part of their agenda. And contrary to your claim, if the TPM has many elements in common with conservatism that are not part of libertarianism and no elements that are part of libertarianism that are not part of conservatism, then it most certainly does follow that "conservative" is a more accurate label for the TPM than "libertarian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Try, inter alia, [4] New York Times:

Republicans and Democrats alike may have underestimated the power of the party, a loosely affiliated coalition of libertarians and disaffected Republicans.

Seems to disprove your position readly. Need more? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As before, Collect is making the important points. But as a sidebar, the premise of your final question was incorrect. The TPM agenda in general does not have items that are in conflict with libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: If my position was that the New York Times had never said the Tea Party contained libertarians, then yes, that would disprove my position. However, it does nothing to disprove my actual position, which is that this article's contention that the TPM is "generally recognized" as both conservative and libertarian is a controversial claim, whereas the statement that the TPM is generally recognized as conservative would not be a controversial claim. Even the source cited in the article itself for that very quote emphasizes that libertarianism is NOT a defining element of the movement, only a minority fraction of the movement. And even the title of that piece -- "Is Half the Tea Party Libertarian?" -- suggests there is controversy. It is fair to say there is a libertarian wing of the TPM (as the NYT has done e.g. "Tea Party Finds Power Leads to Policy Splits" 6-29-2011), but to call the movement itself libertarian is extremely misleading and far from generally accepted even among tea partiers themselves. Perhaps the wiki article should address the libertarian end of the TPM spectrum -- but mischaracterizing an overwhelmingly socially conservative movement as libertarian is not the way to do it.

North8000: First of all, the question is whether the article is correct in labeling the TPM libertarian, not whether there is conflict between the TPM and libertarianism. There is no conflict between the TPM and abstract expressionism, or between the TPM and quantum theory, but that doesn't make those things generally accepted as defining the movement. Furthermore, I listed several ways in which the policies advocated by tea party constituents and political figures DO in fact conflict with the social liberalism and noninterventionism that characterize libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Tea Party does not endorse libertarian ideas in many cases. It appears simply to be a right-wing or far-right faction of the traditional Republican voting block.--Drdak (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then get the NYT etc. to change their articles -- we do not use what you know to be the truth -- we use what reliable sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: It seems you are continuing to hold up a NYT article as evidence, while ignoring all other reliable sources -- including, as I have pointed out, sources that are cited in this very article! One line in an article saying the TPM contains some libertarians doesn't come anywhere close to showing that the movement is GENERALLY RECOGNIZED as libertarian. The fact is there is overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is conservative and there is NOT overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is libertarian. Mention that it contains libertarian-leaning factions if that's important, but don't describe the movement itself as "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" because it's simply not true! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually just about all the generally major outlets have used "libertarian" wrt the TPM - your "overwhelming sonsensus" - ain't. See WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not according to the sources referenced by the article. If you disagree with them, as you said: get them to change their articles. I'm not sure what your "overwhelming sonsensus" crack is supposed to mean. Are you now denying there is a consensus that the TPM is conservative? That hardly supports your case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The core points were stated above, and you've not really responded to them. There was a large mediation process that worked out that sentence, and it's sourced; I can't speak for each of the people involved. And you keep (I think inadvertently) setting up a straw man which that it would a unified agenda and that that agenda must be full-scope libertarian in order to make the statement that is made. That is not sound. But I think it's clear where it came from. It clearly has substantial participation by both conservatives and libertarians, and it's platform is things in common with those two. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is NOT adequately sourced. As I pointed out, 2 of the 3 sources for that sentence don't even mention libertarianism and that one that does suggests the libertarian credentials of the TPM are controversial. Thus, the very sources in the article (as well as much of the article itself) indicate the TPM is much more aptly described as conservative than libertarian. It is you that continues to ignore that point and not respond to it. I am making no straw man argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Populist?

I know this has been discussed before, but still the primary definition of the topic says that The Tea Party is a “populist” movement, which in my opinion (very humble one, as English is not my first language) is really not a NPOV word. If we cannot use some (in my opinion) less opinionated (e.g., I would vote for “popular”) adjective, couldn't we just drop adjectives altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Populist is not a laudatory term, it is a taxonomic political term, albeit with several different meanings. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Populism merely means that they claim to be the voice of the people and to oppose the elites. TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not Populist at all. It was an invented and well crafted movement. This false claim of populist would ignore the beginning of the movement funded by the Koch Bros. and organized by Joe Wurtzbicki as an anti-Obama tactic. Prior to starting the Tea Party cross country bus tours, Joe first organized the 'Stop Obama' tour with the same bus, same group of entertainers, and the same towns on the tours. They targeted Michigan and Wisconsin as they were key states in the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.82 (talk • contribs)

If a "movement" claims to be populist it usually isn't. A claim of populist suitably attributed to a number of sources would be fine. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The NYT has used the term "populist" [5] in a large number of articles - so it is quite likely that it would be deemed an RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the TPM is "an invented and well crafted movement" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is populist. TFD (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that certain editors, such as North8000, have been slipping in ambiguously POV specific material to give the tea party broader credibility than it actually has. It may be that the tea party can legitimately be called populist (even though it often seems pretty esoteric and elitist)but the claim that the tea party is generally recognized as libertarian is just absurd -- unless you think warmongering, gay-hating, Patriot Act loving, Christian fundamentalist establishment Republicans like Sarah Palin are libertarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.26.231 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted this edit, which purports to remove a "POV bomb", but in reality reverts many edits. Could someone please point out this "POV bomb" here so that it may be addressed? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a large entanglement which entangles and obscures the wors part of it, removal of the more neutral & TPM related coverage and replacign with a highly biased selection which implies that the only external was from one side and that the main factor (of al of the large issues involved) that determined the election was external money. Given the issues and that your addition is contested, the minimum would be to first discuss or present them in talk separately. And it's ridiculous to try to keep warring back in that huge entanglement which obscures and entangles the changes that you are trying to make. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a "large entanglement which entangles", whatever that might be; I merely copy-edited the huge entanglement which entangles added by the previous editor, Magicjava (an editor with only a dozen mainspace edits), and made sure that his/her new content conformed to cited sources. My edits actually result in a net-reduction of 2 bytes to the article. I hope that clears up your confusion. Given that you claim you contest Magicjava's "huge" Walker addition, it struck me as odd that you haven't removed it until they were "discussed or presented in talk separately", and instead only reverted the copy editing of that Walker information added by another editor. I know you certainly wouldn't revert-war (including the wiping out of several other editor's edits) like that intentionally, North, unless you were confused or mistaken; I'm glad we were able to clear that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(yep - the CSM opinions are given rather great weight - here, and might be construed as POV - better to leave them out) --Collect

Hi, Collect! I've reviewed your edit with the above edit summary; your edit doesn't "leave out" the Christian Science Monitor content recently added, it only moves it around in the article. Did you intend to remove the CSM Walker content, as your edit summary said, or did you instead intend to undo the formatting of refs, undo the movement of the TP Agenda closer to the top of the article, etc., that your edit actually did? Since your actual edit was nothing like what was described in your edit summary, and was actually unproductive, I've undone it. Clarification on what your actual concern is would be very much appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Specific entanglements which entangle, and other "wors parts"

Our Wikipedia article states:

The Christian Science Monitor reports that large amounts of out-of-state cash and the Tea Party both played parts in Scott Walker's recall election victory in Wisconsin. "Wisconsin was, in fact, flooded with record amounts of donations that helped Mr. Walker defeat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), with some of that outside cash coming from wealthy industrialists and financiers ... Walker’s ground game played a big role in pulling off a win, as he became the first governor in US history to survive a recall election. And like the recent GOP primary victory of Richard Mourdock over veteran US Sen. Dick Lugar in nearby Indiana, that ground game is being pitched by cadres of grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the leaderless tea party movement."

It is cited to the CSM source which states:

Disappointed progressives blame an avalanche of campaign cash from outside Wisconsin for their failed bid to recall tea party favorite Gov. Scott Walker (R), whose controversial gambit to shrink the influence of the public-sector unions became a national cause célèbre for both the right and the left last year. In a way, those critics are spot on: Wisconsin was, in fact, flooded with record amounts of donations that helped Mr. Walker defeat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), with some of that outside cash coming from wealthy industrialists and financiers. But there’s a second part to how Walker won. Walker’s ground game played a big role in pulling off a win, as he became the first governor in US history to survive a recall election. And like the recent GOP primary victory of Richard Mourdock over veteran US Sen. Dick Lugar in nearby Indiana, that ground game is being pitched by cadres of grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the leaderless tea party movement.

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article also states:

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in April, 2012 shows 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold at least a somewhat favorable view of Tea Party activists, while 49% share an unfavorable opinion of them. When asked if the Tea Party movement will help or hurt Republicans in the 2012 elections, 53% of Republicans said they see the Tea Party as a political plus.

It is cited to a Rasmussen Report with these poll questions which state:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold at least a somewhat favorable view of Tea Party activists, while 49% share an unfavorable opinion of them. This includes 23% with a Very Favorable view and 29% with a Very Unfavorable one. Question #5: "Will the Tea Party movement help or hurt the Republican Party in the 2012 Elections?"

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since your edit summaries don't convey anything close to describing the actual edits you've made, perhaps you'll take the time here to explain what your concerns are. I disagree with Collect that the above are "CSM opinions" and are better left out of the article; it appears to me to be a news report piece, and relevant to the Tea Party (and the Poll info has nothing to do with the CSM). I also disagree with North that Magicjava's content additions about the Walker recall election are "huge" or an "entanglement which entangles". It appears to be rather simple and direct information, and it adheres to the cited sources. I'm looking forward to your input on the above matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, please stop your edit warring to force in controversial material. Answering your one question, by entanglement, mean that you entangled the controversial and problematic material with some other innocuous edits, and *(as a sidebar) then mentioned only the innocuous ones in the edit summary. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, North. Please stop edit-warring to force in POV material. Did you have a specific concern with the material in the article, ("problematic material", as you say) and will you please describe that concern here so that it can be adressed and resolved? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And now you are trying to further engangle it by reinserting the tangled bundel and following that with other edits. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try on the "in the article" crap. I have a concern (expressed above) about the new problematic material that you are trying to war into the article, not about material the is "in the article" . North8000 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please specify what your concern is, so that we can address and rectify it? I've looked "above", and all I can see that might qualify as "concerns" is that I should check my edits with you before making them, and I have added no "new material" -- I've only edited material added by another editor. In the interest of finding a resolution here, please spell out your concern. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(Aside from the process maneuvers concerns described above) Again, the existing material (which you keep trying to delete and substitute) is both germane, lower key, and reasonably neutral. Basically mentioning the election & results, and that the TPM had some involvement/influence. The replacement version that you keep trying to war in is none of the above. Basically substituting a selection that covers only the angle of outside money and only the money that went to one side. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The source does not convey that Walker won only because of TP support; in fact, it lists that as just the "second part" of the reason (see source text above). The previous article version implied the TP was responsible, which actually is contrary to the cited source, which concludes by quoting “solidification of his (Walker's) grasp of the state was much bigger than the tea party coalition and appealed to the broader swath of the public.” Even the source article poses the TP influence as a question. "Reasonably neutral" does not mean mis-convey cited sources. Do you have a suggested re-wording of the content that would satisfy you, but still comply with what cited sources say? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the CSM - all we can say from the story is that "grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the ... tea party movement" played a significant role in the two campaigns. The edit draws an implicit connection between the money and the activists, which is synthesis. Also, it is not necessary to say inline which newspaper reports a story. TFD (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning CSM is unnecessary, if it is a news story. As for "synthesis" as to the direct correlation between campaign money and the TP, I was reading that more from the Bennett piece (mentioning Americans for Prosperity, etc.) edited in from the same editor. But that is an opinion piece, so I think you are right on that item as well, pending RS support. Thanks for the clarity. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Real Tea Party

I don't know what "semi-protected" means, so I thought I'd post this here hoping that some one could add it. It seems like the etymology section should mention a connection brought up by many commentators and historians (a few links below) between the original tea party and the one today. As the article explains, the tea party movement is often perceived as populist but is, in fact, supported by many business interests, such as the Koch family. The original tea party is often thought of as a protest by irate colonists over exorbitant tea taxes levied by the British government. It would be more truthful to characterize the tea party as an illegal effort by tea smugglers to prevent the cheaper British tea from reaching the market, tea which was made less expensive by the Tea Act. Essentially the government's attempt to tax the same tea less in the colonies than it did in Britain in order to pay for local (meaning colonial) government expenses was a threat to business interests, i.e. smuggling. These expenses were previously paid for by local taxes on the colonists and were now being paid for by the British government.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/04/24/tea-parties-and-the-real-tea-party/ http://www.boston-tea-party.org/smuggling/organized-smuggling.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwoodfor (talk • contribs) 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link is to a blog which cannot be included. It also seems to present an unusual perspective. You need to demonstrate that comparing today's tea party with the original tea party is a notable topic. It may not however be important, what is important is what people today believe the original party was about. Incidentally, since the colonists switched to drinking coffee, the smugglers lost out. TFD (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those links were examples. There were two of them, one of which was to the boston tea party historical society while the other, a blog, refers to six different sources including Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson. I have included a few sources below conforming more to Wikipedia's guidelines, but you should keep in mind that whether a blog can be included is based on context. The five pillars of wikipedia, one of which is that there are no hard and fast rules, trump source guidelines. In this case, the blog in question is a good example of the dozens of sources which come up with a google search of "boston tea party today." You may be right that this is not the best source, but you would do well to be more specific in you criticism rather than arbitrarily dismissing an entire medium. Most news organizations now have blogs.

As for being notable, considering that the historical comparison is explicit in the name "Tea Party" and the populist nature of the Tea Party message, the questioning of this historical comparison is clearly relevant.

By the way, the switch from tea to coffee occurred over a long period extending at least through the civil war. Wikipedia's coffee article cites trade issues during the war of 1812 as an early influence. Being born and bred British subjects, the colonists likely went back to drinking tea the moment the war was over, even once they became Americans.

NPR news source Opinion Article by Stanford History Prof Pwoodfor (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are absolutely different, nobody has claimed that they aren't. The questionable thing is trying to pretend that that isn't obvious and "analyzing" it, and pretending that such an obvious thing is somehow an "expose'". North8000 (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected from Beandog . . .why?

I wanted to know what a beandog was, and was directed to this page. Is a beandog a member of the Tea Party Movement? If so, that needs to be explained in the text.Beau Tibbs (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

http://gawker.com/5659351/twittergate-how-internet-jerks-pranked-the-tea-party

Looks like it should redirect to maybe Neal Rauhauser instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Redirects for Discussion. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Social conservatism in the Tea Party movement

There is a dispute[6] on Social conservatism about whether the Tea Party movement is socially conservative. I'm hoping the editors here would be familiar with the subject and be able to help us settle the dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a point at which your POV becomes too obvious. I think you would be well-advised to specialise in another area for a few weeks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a movement defined by its agenda. Social conservatism (or it's opposite) is not on its agenda. Further, the two main political groups that make up its followers (conservatives and libertarians) conflict on social conservative topics. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not socially conservative, but includes people who are. TFD (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Good clarification. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

[sigh] Yet another attempt at votestacking by this editor, but this time with some unintentional humor included. Clearly, he's angling to import some editors who will back up his POV about the other article. And just as clearly, he isn't likely to find them here. His failure to understand this merely reveals his ignorance of the subject matter. Belchfire-TALK 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What a joke. The first paragraph of the article says the "movement" is conservative. And in the talk section editors now agree that the movement itself is not conservative, but only "includes" people who are conservative? Furthermore, the article still contains the controversial claim (with inapplicable sources) that the TPM is generally accepted to be libertarian -- and the entire debate over that claim has apparently been purged from the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 76.174.24.153 (talk • contribs) 22:10, August 10, 2012

Well, actually, the movement is fiscally conservative. It appears that many of the members are socially conservative, but it is not part of the tenets of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The movement is whatever its members believe in. This clearly includes social conservatism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Biddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, libertarianism, and a few hundred other -isms. So what is your claim supposed to prove? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's factually wrong on one level and makes no sense on another level. With substantial presence of of libertarians and conservatives in its supporters, the folks within the TPM have conflicting views on social conservatism, so characterizing them as one or the other would be in error. The "makes no sense" part is that an organization or movement is defined by its agenda, not what the views of what its supporters are on unrelated topics. By that standard, if you polled a bicycling club and found out that the majority of it's members like hamburgers, then by the logic that you just used you would characterize it as a hamburger club. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad analogy: bicycles and hamburgers are unrelated. Instead imagine that scientific polls show the majority of bicycle club members believe that cars should be avoided because of their environmental impact. In that case, it would be entirely fair to say that the club is composed of people who are proponents of bicycle riding, largely for environmental reasons.

It might be helpful to look at my comment to Collect[7]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on both items. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Still's comment to Collect makes no sense there, either. The TP's tenets are all fiscal conservatism. Their Social conservatism would be either a coincidence or a consequence of the (possible) fact that fiscal conservatism is associated with social conservatism. To extend your analogy to hamburgers, it's likely and as relevant that bicyclers would tend to eat less hamburger than others, because they tend to be more fit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording came as the result of a large scale mediation. As most of those are, it was probably a crafted compromise. But I think a good one. A few statements which make require a logician to digest/ make sense out of:

1. it's tenets do not "match" conservatism or libertarianism
2. it's tenets are the items that are in common to libertarianism and conservatism.
3. it's tenets are a subset of libertarianism, and so do not conflict with libertarianism
4. it's tenets are a subset of conservatism, and so do not conflict with conservatism
5. the closest philosophy to it's main theme is libertarianism
6. in a country where everybody sort of knows what conservation is, and few (even many of those who practice it) don't know what libertarianism is, and few understand what the TPM's tenets are, and few understand the difference between defining tenets and folks who are followers, it's very common to (mis)classify the TPM as "conservative"
7. Using USA meanings, the farthest philosophy from it's main tenets is liberalism, by the the USA meaning of liberalism. BTW, the very different NON-USA meaning of liberalism and conservatism, the TPM tenets are probably closer to liberalism.

Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, what sausage factory produced that? All we really need here is a Venn diagram. Belchfire-TALK 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good comment, but a few aspects of it (public perceptions differing from the reality, and dramatically varying meanings of terms depending on geographic locations) are complexities that a Venn diagram is not able to handle. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Teabagger Section Movement

The section on the term "teabagger" should be moved under reception, since it has nothing to do with the background on the movement, if not removed: it is purely name calling, not related to the background of the movement.

If this change is not made, then I suggest that sections be added to other articles to balance the POV. For example, the background on the pages related to liberal movements should be supplemented with a section on the term lieberal.

There are always instances of name calling, whether left or right, but these should either all be included or all excluded to ensure a neutral POV.

137.207.51.171 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The section is hardly name-calling on the part of the article, it is simply summarizing news reports of the word being used by Tea Party members earlier on, and documenting it's adoption by comedians and those opposed to the movement. The origins of the phrase teabagger are as old as the movement, and stood a chance of becoming an alternate name for the party. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is, however, not an "alternate name" for the movement. The term is not used as a name for the movement in the New York Times, which suggests it is not a common name for the movement. In fact see [8]: teabagger, a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice. Seems sufficient to rule out the "they call themselves that" which was promoted. So your statement of what you "know" to be the "truth" - ain't. Collect (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I've NEVER heard the term used by supporters or opponents, or anywhere besides in this article. The same for the "somebody thinks that a TP'er sabotaged a BBQ grill" and the twitter comment and all of the other selected trivia that this article is loaded with. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

remove, time to debag the tea party, the term is an childish joke and serves no purpose here. pov pushing in an effort to co-op the intent of the term. only a fool would assume any member of this party joined to have its scrotum dipped, rather it is about taxes, grow up. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Only a fool" would assume that the article suggests that "any member of this party joined to have its scrotum dipped", because it doesn't say anything close to that. Selective removal of unfavorable content is "POV pushing". The article is over 160K bytes; a small sourced paragraph is not undue here, and honestly speaks more to the "childishness" of opponents than anything else. - SudoGhost 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Addendum: My comment above was based on this version, not this one. I don't think that the longer version is appropriate, and agree with the shortening. But I do think that some mention (such as what's currently in the article) is warranted. - SudoGhost 19:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it used commonly all over the Internet, and among everyone from politicians, to political commentators and comedians. It's very widespread, and I personally feel that removing any mention of it is just going to contribute to ignorance. Frankly, without the explanation of how the term came into common usage (and an explanation that it is not used by members of the movement itself), it can create impressions that it is non-derogatory and commonly-accepted as a self-designation. The fact that North8000 has never heard the term outside of Wikipedia seems rather shocking to me...and I don't even watch televised news. The word (as a political term) even became a finalist for New Oxford American Dictionary's "word of the year!" [9]. To me, deleting it actually works detrimentally towards the TPM as it essentially "sweeps under the rug" any discussion or denunciation of it. (NOTE: I was referring to the editor who said "Remove." I don't think any members use it as self-designation at this point...though probably it was used that way in the beginning by a few non-"street-savvy" individuals.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether or not the term is used. It's a question whether or not it is approprIate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Allowing this section here implies similar sections could be added to the democratic or republican articles. --Magicjava (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. This isn't an argument for "removing all mention"; it's an argument for moving it into a more appropriate section. Belchfire-TALK 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my "note," I was referring to DarkStar1st's comment, which appeared to be a call to remove all mention, Slick. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove it completely to comply with style of other articles that deal with similar issues. The term is derogatory, and it's use makes the article look amateurish. For good reason there is no section on "Spic" in wiki's Latino article, no section on "Rice head" in wiki's articles about Asians, etc. In all these cases the derogatory terms are either ignored completely or placed in their own seperate article. --Magicjava (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that people are born tea partiers and cannot change their political affiliations, or that other races created their own racial slurs. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no section on "Democrite" in the Democrat article, etc. The incluson of the term is unprofessional and not done in other wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicjava (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Democrat's haven't gained widespread media attention because of one of their own protestors carrign a sign identifying himself as a "democrite." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add a secton to the Democratic article relating them to the KKK because Senator Robert Byrd identified himself as a member of the Klan?--Magicjava (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference there being the Democratic party and the KKK both existed before one individual joined both groups, which connects them about as much as Larry Craig connects the GOP with homosexuals. This was an instance where one member of the fledgling movement identified himself as a member of only that movement in a manner that created a media frenzy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And David Duke was elected as a Republican. (And none of this changes the fact that the KKK is Far Right.) These kinds of swipes are for the uneducated and ignorant, and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Byron - I agree with you when you say "These kinds of swipes are for the uneducated and ignorant". That's why you don't include such swipes in an encyclopedia. --Magicjava (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian - With your ever changing justifications on why it's ok to include such a slur in this article, but for no other, I'm getting the feeling I'm wasting my time discussing it with you. Let's just agree to disagree. --Magicjava (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Duke is a former Democrat. And ran for President as a Democrat. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and IIRC also, Pol Pot was from the far left. Now, enough of the juvenile schoolyard sniping. Does anybody have a cogent argument against moving the verbiage concerning "teabaggers" to a different section? I don't think I've seen one so far. Belchfire-TALK 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What section would you move it to? --Magicjava (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Magicjava, "it is simply summarizing news reports of the word being used by Tea Party members earlier on," and " This was an instance where one member of the fledgling movement identified himself as a member of only that movement in a manner that created a media frenzy" are not two different things, they're just rephrasings of the same basic idea. Please actually read what I say before accusing me of anything based on what I supposedly said. All that's changed is you came up with different red herring comparisons to call the word a slur, and I pointed out the problems in those comparisons. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're saying the term is not a slur when even the text in the article specifically refers to it as a derogatory term. Twice. It says it's derogatory because it *is* derogatory. There's no other article on wikipedia that includes sections on derogatory terms for the topic that I know of. They're either ignored completely or placed in a separate article. The reason it's done is because including such things is amateurish, at best.--Magicjava (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: if it's such a derogatory term, then why is there an entire "Proud to be a Teabagger" movement among members of the Tea Party? [10] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the NYT makes no such mention in any article, I think it possible that this is an "urban legend" - we can not make such a claim without strong reliable sourcing, and the NYT column makes clear that it is derogatory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I take it from the comment that you didn't click on that link. Until you do the necessary research, your viewpoint is not going to be persuasive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So someone "hasn't done their research" unless they viewed the video on a blog that you linked and drawn the same overreaching conclusion from that source that you did. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still - If you go to YouTube and search using the words "proud" and " nigger" you'll find videos of black people who are proud to be called the n-word. That doesn't change the fact that the term is generally considered derogatory. And if someone in the media were to do a piece about "Proud Nigger" videos, that wouldn't imply that piece should be referenced in wiki's article on African Americans. --Magicjava (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

not in source given

from the second source: Truth be told, though, for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left, which seems to have adopted the joke en masse during an earlier round of these protests back in February., the first source is of a sign with the words "tea bag", not "teabagger"

"Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" section should go

This is a 920 word section about some people saying that a few of the 30,000 participants at one event said something bad. And even that was never substantiated despite a reward being offered to do so. The whole thing should get deleted. Or, if it stays in a reduced form, it needs to be put in it's actual context which actions by opponents / media to give such a thing so much traction. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a popular misconception. There was never a "reward". Breitbart offered to give $100,000 only to the United Negro College Fund for video proof of the slurs. It is improbable that a TPer would cough up a self-incriminating video of racism, when they wouldn't see a single dollar for it. Pretty clever of Breitbart, if you ask me. The couple videos we do have of that moment show that there were no news media cameras near enough to the walking congressmen to catch any audio — just protesters there — and there is no monetary incentive for those protesters to make their recordings public, even if they have them. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

remove, per npov. This section serves no purpose other than malign the movement with vague unsubstantiated claims. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Do you see any logic in claiming: Sure, some of the "loud and angry" protesters called the gays "faggots" and "homos", left swastikas on the Jew's desk and fax machine, called the Hispanics "spics" — but call a black man "nigger"?!? That's un-American, and I refuse to believe it happened unless I see it on 3-D Video with Dolby surround-sound! It makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've re-read the sources; they indicate there was nothing at all "vague" about the reports, and far from being "unsubstantiated", they were actually eyewitnessed, and some were even recorded on video. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(added later) You just conflicted what you just wrote. First you said "of course there's no such video" to dismiss my reward note, and then a couple inches down to refute my "unsubstantiated" note you said that the video does exist. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no conflict in what I wrote. My response about existing video was to DS1's assertion about "vague unsubstantiated claims" in that section, and not your assertion about the n-word slur. There is television news camera video of TPers clearly calling a Congressman "faggot"; news video and audio of the faxed and voicemail bigotry; video of a Congressman hit with spittle (intentional or accidental, believe what you will), etc. As for the specific n-word report, of course there is no self-incriminating video, and there never was a "reward". Hope that clears things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

such behavior does not reflect the movement's principles and has been denounced by the tea party. the issue is weight, which is unbalanced in the article to the negative. perhaps you could write an article about the specific health care protest incident as it has no relevance here. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has said such behavior "reflects the movement's principles". This isn't the Principles of the Tea Party movement article; perhaps you should create one? As for "specific health care protest incident", to which of the many incidents do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would rather see serious sources that discuss alleged racism etc. in the Tea Party used. When we list a number of events that reflect poorly on them we are presenting a POV. While there is a temptation to make the Tea Party look bad, the function of the article should be to explain the group and report mainstream opinions about it. Much of the popular liberal conception about them is not supported in academic writing about them. TFD (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us full-circle back to the question that gets asked each time we have this discussion: do we have "serious academic sources" from which to draw good information? Previous consensus was that the "movement" was still too new, broad and ill-defined for there to be much in the way of serious academic study ... which is why we have an article predominantly sourced to news reporting. It's been several years, so are there now some better sources you could suggest?

If you are Editors feeling a "temptation to make the Tea Party look bad" should probably avoid editing the article, and the same goes for editors that are tempted to promote or whitewash (no pun intended) the Tea Party. Significant segments of the movement's history, whether they reflect positively, poorly or otherwise, should be explained responsibly and accurately in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is full of selected trivia selected to try to make the TPM look bad. Take a look at the Occupy movement article for comparison. They just excluded out a brief mention that 5 occupy folks tried to blow up a bridge (they even flipped the switch) with evidence so solid that they got arrested and indicted for it as "wp:undue" Here, we have a 890 word section on how somebody thinks that somebody in the 30,000 people said something racist, and that an unknown person damaged a BBQ grill line in somebody's yard after a TP person gave out their address, and a whole section on a twitter comment by one low level guy. And this has a "controversies" section which isn't even supposed to be in articles due to being a POV coatrack/fishing pole. This article needs huge fixes to get it out of junk status. Deleting this section would be just a start. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that song several times before, North -- I'll just direct your attention to the responses given each of those times. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Those were maneuvers, not responses. None even addressed the raised core issues. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your comment to me is grossly insulting and misrepresents what I wrote, as anyone can plainly see. Please retract. TFD (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, TFD; that was not my intention. I took your assertion, "While there is a temptation to make the Tea Party look bad", as a personal observation of yours -- I apparently misunderstood. I in no way meant to convey that you have or would edit in such a manner. I've reworded my comment to be more clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The fix of this junk article has been blocked by a few for an immense amount of time via various maneuvers. Someone has to do something. Not today now but sometime soon I plan to blaze through it and take out the trivia. Then we need to find more quality, informative stuff. I know that that will be harder, but maybe not that hard. In a reversal of the usual situation, the stuff I read in the papers and the news, from both supporters and OPPONENTS of the TPM is far more intelligent that the Wikipedia article on it. In the news opponents are acknowledging and challenging the TPM agenda as being focused large cuts in government, government spending, and taxes and saying that that agenda is a bad idea. Come to the Wikipedia article and you hear about a BBQ grill line that was cut years ago, or a twitter comment by low level guy years ago or 890 words on how somebody thinks that, somebody in a crowd of 30,000, (years ago) said something racist, or about behavior by individuals that the TPM continuously says that it opposes and which has nothing to do with the TPM agenda. I think that this article could win the award for the junkiest major Wikipedia article of all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "someone said that someone of the 30,000 people said something racist" and twitter comment material and Xenophrenic put them it back in. Also did org work to try to get more substantive content built. We need a section with real debates on the substance of the TPM agenda and I think I rearranged to start that.North8000 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets delete/leave that trivia out and start building a real article that isn't a laughingstock. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Lionel reporting for duty, sir! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, if it stays in a reduced form, it needs to be put in it's actual context... --North8000 Agreed. Let's do that. Wholesale deletion of significant matters in a movement's history and development, and covered in numerous reliable sources, is against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As I think you know, I wasn't talking about the trivia part being discussed here. I was talking about the other half, the half with the commentaries. The trivia half should stay out. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove it or greatly trim. It's guilt by association. Using alleged actions of a small number of fringe fanatics to tar the whole organization.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Racism

The section on Racism is marked as Undue weight. I personally would agree with this. The entire section is little more than he-said she-said quotes. I'd personally recommend removing the racism section altogether. Failing that, limiting it to the one poll that tracks the non-Tea Party and Tea Party opinions on the issue. If the racism section is kept, it should probably be moved under the Controversies section.

There are also several other collections of he-said she-said quotes in this article. I'm not sure any of them add much to the article. They just make the article as a whole difficult to read. This article is marked as only "mid-level importance" by wikipedia. I'm not sure that justifies walls of text that boil down to nothing more than opposing "yay for my side" comments.Magicjava (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That whole section is a bunch of selective trivia gamed in to give a certain impression. It's time to get it out. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

an obvious bias, i had an edit removed from the occupy movement page about the 5 members charged with a wmd plot, one already plead guity, yet somehow not notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if they made a twitter comment or somebody thought they messed with a BBQ grill it would be more notable. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:Undue, which specifically states, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." While there may be valid concerns about weight and presentation, wholesale deletion is not supported by the prevalence of reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully half the article is devoted to charges of racism. That's ridiculous. Ultra Venia (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is ridiculous. Not even 20% of the article is devoted to racism. Based on the prevalence of reliable sources, what would you suggest is the proper weight? Should it be expanded? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert-to-reinsert bundled 2 different "racial" areas

One section (the somebody "said that that somebody of the 30,000 people said something bad" and twitter comment section) I think has been discussed a lot, nobody posted any argument for it, and nobody weighed in in favor of it except Xenophrenic by trying to war it in.

The other section which is basically just accusations / commentaries from one side and commentaries from the other side. There may be some confusion, we hadn't discussed this. IMHO keep some of it in under a different title which reflects the actual content. Like "accusations of racism and responses". If it stabilizes as it is now and certainly doesn't get bundled with the "trivia gamed in for effect" then I would then intend to bring back the accusations/commentaries material under such a modified title. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

even after the massive 20k cut, this article is still longer than the GOP article, something must be unbalanced, clearly slanted to the tea party is bad side. i suggest we ditch the comments by obama and anything else not related to the actual party. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking about the section I deleted, no I don't think it should be reverted. It was discussed (it was the only section on racism marked "undue weight") and it was poorly written to boot. I don't mind adding a much smaller section on racism at some point in the future, but the old section should stay gone. Even now, after I deleted the entire 10k racism section, there is still too much space given to racist accusations in the article.I do support deleting all the Obama commentary. It's WP:UNDUE IMHO. Obama has talked a lot about the tea party, but he has not said anything noteworthy. --Magicjava (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I 90% agree with you. But I think that intelligent commentary from both sides is a good thing. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

but the sheer size of the article would reflect either notability, or complexity. is the tea party really more notable, or complex than the gop? if not, why the long article? at least half is he said she said about things not core to the movement. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to compare apples to oranges; a political party to a political movement. The GOP has been around more than a century and a half, and therefore is well known, established and can be described more succinctly. The TPm, by contrast, is a mere 3 years old, and is still very dynamic, changing and still grasping to define its own identity. You would experience less confusion if you were to compare the movement to another movement; say, the Occupy movement, which at last glance was at 182K (larger than this article) and still growing. "Movement" articles will settle down (and shrink) eventually, once the subjects are no longer new and in a state of flux. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"I don't mind adding a much smaller section on racism at some point in the future, but the old section should stay gone..." --Magicjava

That's not how we fix a content issue that you have described as possibly "Undue" or "poorly written". Instead of wholesale deleting it now and re-adding it in the future, how about fixing it? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it because no one objected to it being deleted, not to re-write it later. I'm just saying if someone wants to add a racism section later, I won't object, so long as it's fair ly brief. --Magicjava (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you keep bundling in / reinserting the trivia section along with the one being discussed. Pleqase stop. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Magicjave, I'l try to fix / balance/ shorten the section under discussion. It does look like a bunch of quote shopping to synthesize something right now. See what you think. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit. Will do more later. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is the Racism section is just like the rest of the article: a collection of overly long quotes. If we're going to keep the section than is should be summarized succinctly down to no more than 3 paragraphs. --Magicjava (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. It's like 60% of the rest of this article. Selective quote, polls, factoids, specially selected by the Wikipedia editor to try to give a particular impression. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar: But since the TPM is really defined by it's agenda, I think that arguments for and against it's agenda would be a good area to build. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just trying to delete as much of the existing junk as possible before adding new stuff.--Magicjava (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic keeps trying to war in the "total trivia" half of it. They just reinserted. It's clear that there is absolutely no consensus to have it in something like 5 to 1 against having it in, with good arguments made by all 5. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a strong charge there, North8000. But the fact is, I'm not adding it or "trying to war it in" -- it's been there for years. You have boldly removed it, and I merely put it back: WP:BRD. So let's discuss your removal of what you mischaracterize as "total trivia". How about we start with the best and most persuasive of your 5 "good arguments" to do so. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Other agenda items" section is misleading, should go

I've checked the link contained in the reference to the "no hire" section. It's a Think Progress story that takes you to the Tea Party Nation (TPN) blogs, but not a specific blog entry. Further:

• The Think Progress article says the TPN blog entry was written by someone named Melissa Brookstone. There are no articles by someone with that name anywhere in the TPN blog.

• The Think Progress article says the TPN blog entry is named “Call For A Strike of American Small Businesses Against The Movement for Global Socialism”. There are no TPN blog entries with that name.

So either the TPN blog entry never existed or it's been removed. Either way, it doesn't seem the contents of the blog entry represent TPN's agenda.

Just in general, trying to pass off a blog entry from a blog where anyone who signs up can post as an agenda item is a bit dubious. Therefore I've marked the section WP:UNDUE.

Also, the Think Progress article never claims the actions by Brookstone are part of the official agenda of the TPN. Therefore, I've marked the section WP:OR.

Note: My entry here has been extensively edited due to originally mistaking a different blog entry for the one being talked about by Think Progress.

--Magicjava (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything in this article sourced from hyper-partisan, truth-averse Think Progress. Belchfire-TALK 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made some sort of error. When I click on http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/, I see the article. It's by Marie Diamond and is entitled "Tea Party Group Urges Small Businesses ‘Not To Hire A Single Person’ To Hurt Obama". Please try again, using a different browser; there may be some bug on your end. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, about Brookstone, look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/tea-party-melissa-brookstone-occupy-wall-street_n_1020710.html. Then look at http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/liberals-at-work. In other words, the blog entry was hidden/deleted, but we know it's real. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More sources:

• http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/10/randian-action-for-victory-2012-pull.html
• http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/235049/20111020/tea-party-nation-small-businesses-should-stop-hiring-melissa-brookstone.htm

Note how this is not just being reported by leftish or non-mainstream publications. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Internet does not have a delete button. You can't unpublish something once it gets noticed. Here's an article that contains the full body of the now-missing post: http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4178:a-moment-of-pure-astonishment-again Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the main point which is that that this isn't an agenda of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still - I can see the Think Progress article just fine. But the Tea Party Nation blog entry it refers to does not exist in the Tea Party Nation(TPN) blogs. Since we have the text of that blog entry from other sources than the TPN blogs, its a reasonable bet the blog entry was deleted from the TPN blogs. From that, it doesn't seem the blog entry represented the TPN agenda. --Magicjava (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, considering Think Progress's reputation, it's more likely that the portentially reliable sources copied it form Think Progress, who made it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

After some searching, I found a post where the Tea Party Nation (TPN) specifically says Ms. Brookstone's post does not represent the views of the TPN. Here's the relevant quote: "Melissa Brookstone wrote a blog on Tea Party Nation, which we featured on Tuesday. [Snip] Tea Party Nation features a lot of blogs and bloggers. The only time something is an official position of Tea Party Nation is when it comes out under my byline or the Tea Party Nation byline.". The link to the entire discussion is here: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/threatening-the-left --Magicjava (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Even so, reporting a blog entry "that anyone can post", even if it were reported by a reliable source, is not something we should consider as indicative of anything other than the poster's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you. --Magicjava (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My $.02 on the above arguments after reading the sources: A TPer named Melissa Brookstone does exist, and she did post a "call to action" on the Tea Party Nation website. It did briefly stir up some minor chatter, from both supportive and critical perspectives, before the TPN removed the post from their website. Less obscure sources like this, this, and FOX's take establish that the post was indeed made, and probably hastened the removal of it from the website. That being said, describing it as "an other agenda", with it's own section no less, of the Tea Party is not really supported or convincingly conveyed by existing sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation: referring to sources of information as "hyper-partisan, truth-averse", instead of considering the actual information, is unhelpful -- which is why sources such as FOX News aren't scrubbed wholesale from the project. "Considering their reputation," that is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. We must always evaluate sources for reliability and POV (and other factors). On those very rare occasions when Think Progress publishes unvarnished truth, it is invariably a case where they are parroting information available elsewhere. There is no reason to use them as a source. Belchfire-TALK 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonesense. We must evaluate sources for reliability, yes, but not for POV. I'm not saying that Think Progress has "established a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that Wikipedia requires of sources used to support assertions of fact, but citing "POV" as a disqualifying factor is incorrect. See FOX News reference above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

POV = unreliable in many respects (but typically not on matters of fact.) 19:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since someone has to argue for what they want in order to try to get it, agenda is pretty obvious. Even if the F grade source was accurate on who said what, that would be one person's idea for a tactic to achieve an agenda, it's not the agenda. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's funny. We all agree that the post was made, that it generated huge responses from all sides, and then the post was deleted by TPM, which disavowed it. This is what we should be reporting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that further reinforces that it is not an TPM agenda item. A totally different argument might be whether to cover it or not under a different heading. Regarding article quality, I think that that would be whether it view had any substantial prominence in the TPM. Opposing media would cover if a TP supporter did a loud fart; that keeps certain wp:policies from excluding it, but still wouldn't be quality/informative article stuff. But if that view had some acceptance at at least a regional scale (or within a larger one of the 1,000 TP organizations) then it would be informative to cover it. But again, certainly not as an agenda item. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that trolling blogs open to the public hoping to dig up dirt is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Definitely WP:UNDUE, IMHO. There's already too much he-said she-said unsupported innuendo in this article. There's over 100k of text in this article (WP:SIZERULE), most of it couldn't get published in the National Enquirer. We should be looking for ways to make this article smaller, not bigger. --Magicjava (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur's position is persuasive. And I agree with Magic that this is UNDUE. I think there is a consensus that this is not encyclopedic and should be deleted.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)