Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Tea Party movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Not plagarism; but too much WP:ABOUTSELF?

Okay, so, there is mass plagarism in the article, please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism to learn how to cite your edits properly. Any writing that is not your own summarization of a source must be placed inside quotations. WP:Quote should also be read over, particularly the parts on extensive quote use.

I am going to cut out some of the ridiculous text from the article such as the "our God-given individual freedoms" part (no quotation marks, no source).

The NYT is reliable, so I will remove the tag, if there is any objection please actually bring it up at WP:RSN rather than just doing another drive-by tagging. Furious Style (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That text you removed is not Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the taking of anothers ideas or thoughts and presenting them as your own. Those sections were attributed to the owners of those thoughts. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It may not be plagiarism but it is all propoganda from primary sources. We use third party material here. Please respect that ----Snowded ^TALK 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please undo your addition of the plagarised text immediatedly. Those sections were not attributed properly. Trust me when I state that anytime you see phrases like "our God-given individual freedoms" or "our Country" in a wikipedia article and they are not inside quotation marks the article either contains plagarism or does not confrom to MOS. Furious Style (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That is clearly not Plagiarism in any sense of the word. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

While Furious Style raises many good points, it is okay to use primary sources in the agenda section. The various tea party groups do have their own agenda. Summarizing what these groups describe as their agenda is fine and using their website as the source is okay, too. If a tea party group has as part of it's agenda a defense of what they are calling their "God given individual freedoms," that can be quoted, too. The only question then, are these groups truly notable, and is the editor failing to use quotation marks where appropriate. The edit that was added by Xenophrenic, and is now deleted, seemed to have settled an argument and everyone seemed happy with it. I recommend putting it back, with appropriate quotations where needed. The article is, afterall, all about the groups that constitute the tea party movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, since this article is about a movement not an organization, I do not see how any primary sources would be acceptable at all. TFD (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Those organizations are what make the movement. That is like saying, here is a description of Cake, what it tastes like, what it looks like, how much it costs, what it is used for, how often it is used....etc.. unfortunately I we can't tell you what any of the ingredients are. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You can explain the ingredients of cake because they are reported in secondary sources. What you cannot do is say anything about the ingredients not found in those sources, because that would be original research. For example, you cannot write about the evils of sugar, battery hen eggs, GMO grains, exploitation of chocolate plantation workers etc. using sources that are not about cake. BTW the discussion is about the Wikipedia guideline plagiarism, not the Wikipedia article plagiarism. The two may differ and if you disagree with the guideline the place to do so is on its talk pages, not here. TFD (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is a correct interpretation of the guidelines (which I doubt), we must remove any discussion of the agenda, because of WP:UNDUE weight. If all reliable sources are extremely biased, we cannot say anything. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please self-revert per WP:BRD and await resolution of the issue here. TFD is correct on process here and you need to pay attention to it especially as it looks like Arbcom will be investigating behaviour on this article ----Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the revision of early March 2 (UTC) by Xenophrenic as the appropriate status quo to work from, with technical corrections. Before that, the section was too severely biased to be a basis to work from. And I admit not doing a good job of improving it before then. Mulitple sources are needed to indicate the agenda. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The only difference in the "Agenda" section is my assertion that reference 29 (Al Hurt) may be unreliable, and is certainly unnecessary. (I suggested that version without checking the details, although it did appear to have an addition about the size of the sections now removed; it was the first version with more than one TPm source, and the first version with more than one non-TPm source.) I'm willing to remove the {{rs}} tag for the moment, but I don't really see that it is an RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And to a degree that was my main concern. However the Tea Party stuff needs summarising, its more or less cut an paste at the moment and I can't help thinking we need a secondary source rather than this ----Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you question the sources's reliability please do the appropriate thing and take it to RSN already. The current article is unacceptable as it contains plagarism. Text such as "our God-given individual freedoms" which is both not within quotation marks, even though it is a quote, and does not have the source attached to it, is plagarism. Furious Style (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The notion that a Wikipedia article on a topic as controversial as this would allow a section called "Agenda" to be defined solely by advocacy groups seems to be absurd.

What the members of a decentralized "grass-roots" movement largely funded by multinational corporations portray their "agenda" as is not the way everyone (perhaps not the majority of people) sees their agenda.

Until there are some counterbalancing statements in relation to the "agenda", I think it should be more of a concise overall summary than a collection of verbatim policy platforms of every advocacy group falling under the umbrella of this topic.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not plagarism. I think the erroneous claim that it is, is sufficient to require an RfC, if not an RfC/U.
The section is not, and has never been, solely the TPm member's statements about their agenda. The version you think improper is dominated by the statements. Actually, I think the TPm individual statements should be at the end of the section, now that they have been presented with sufficient weight.
The claim that it is not a grass-roots (dis)organization is just that — a claim. It is also completely irrelevant to what should be in this section. (I would have no objection to the section title being changed to Stated agenda, though. There is no possible source for any actual agenda.)
The problem with creating a summary of what the individual groups state as their agenda is that the person summarizing will be biased. We all know that. One way to avoid bias would be to let the organizations reveal their own biases.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the NYT column taken from the IHT column is not a reliable source. I don't see how anyone who actually read it could think it was an "article", or intended to be an "article". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussion on the NYT article. Otherwise the charge of plagiarism should be dropped, but equally you should stop arguing for primary sources. I'm amazed an editor of your experience and status is making that basic error. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion on the IHT column did not indicate a consensus or a reasoned argument why it is possibly reliable. On another forum, it was suggested that it was reliable because Hurt is an expert. Submitted to WP:RSN#Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of inherent contradictions in the so-called Tea Party Movement. The two most prominent of which seem relevant here are that it is, on the one hand, a decentralized agglomeration of sometimes somewhat disparate groups, while, on the other hand, it is funded somewhat surreptitiously by wealthy, multinational interests that might be seen to be trying to harness the energy of discontented and disenfranchised segments of the population.

I would not necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of the statements of the groups--even though they are primary sources--so long as there are some secondary sources that make synthetic statements regarding the "agenda" of the TPM. I'm fairly confident that there are quality academic sources that do (though I don't have the time to look into that at present), whereas I doubt that the same can be said with respect to the advocacy groups, because that would-in and of itself-be something that goes against the decentralized ethos of the movement.Ubikwit (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

great point, we seem to have two articles living as one, the Koch brothers organized AstroTurf, and the disorganized, independent, grassroots groups who received no support from Koch. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mix of professionals and grassroots. What they each say about themselves should be allowed. A secondary source would be fine unless it distorts or uses opinion, and they almost all do. If a tea party group says it's agenda is to support candidates who promise to cut spending, then I don't see why we need an outside source to come in and confirm that. And we already have a commentary section where all sorts of types weigh in with their opinion. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Is a split possible? I know we cannot untangle individual groups, but perhaps something could be done. I doubt it, though.

I would be in favor of academic sources over newspaper articles (or columns), but I wouldn't know where to look. (We would also need to be sure we were talking about academic articles, not letters to the editor, editorials, or Op-ed columns. There has been some problem with that in articles related to homeopathy and chiropractic; I see no reason why it would be better, here.)

I also don't see why reporting what a group says its agenda is violates any guidelines other than WP:PRIMARY. It may be biased if the groups we select are a biased selection, but it doesn't seem unduely self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so long as what the group says is not self-serving. For a group to declare something about themselves that on it's face would be self-serving, obviously we don't include that. But when it's a mission statement, that is the group explaining what their purpose for existing is. If a group says we are the largest with 15 million members, like the Tea Party Patriots, there are RS that say they are the largest but they don't confirm the number. So a solution would be to just include their claim at being the largest. That would be reasonable. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the TPm didn't have registered "members", so I would be interested in seeing how this alleged membership is calculated - both by the Patriots as well as outside reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, no I meant that as an example. If the group is claiming something about themselves that seems self-serving, what does an RS say? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, we do not need to remove any discussion of the agenda of various Tea Party groups, merely restrict our sources to sources about the Tea Party. Dozens of books, hundreds of learned articles and thousands of newpaper and magazine articles have been written about the Tea Party. If we decide to include information that they have omitted, then we will wind up with a POV article. TFD (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable argument. However, there is no policy or guideline (other than WP:PRIMARY) which is violated by including the stated agenda of any group which is sufficiently notable to have mainstream articles about it, even if those articles do not include the stated agenda. Again, it's hard to see how a stated agenda could be "unreasonably self-serving". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from another NYT article by Hunt, related to the question of "agenda"

"A major divide is between a smaller group that said 'focus on fiscal conservatism' and a larger group that includes social conservatives," said Judson Phillips, of Tea Party Nation, who is disdainful of the fiscal-issues-only crowd.

That sentiment is returned. “He’s a lunatic," said Mr. Meckler, whose Tea Party Patriots emphasizes the fight against big government. “He has no credibility in the movement."

Mr. Phillips once suggested the solution to illegal immigration was to take a "planeload" of undocumented workers and “dump them in Somalia." He also was a devotee of the anti-Obama birther movement.

On the Tea Party Patriots’ criticism, Mr. Phillips replied, "If I am a fringe Tea Party person, I'm the biggest fringe Tea Party person on the Internet."

Ubikwit (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources (if reliable) are preferred to primary sources, but there is no reason to exclude what the groups say about their own agenda. That Hunt article includes what (at least) Mr. Phillips and Mr. Meckler say about their respective groups, and might not be a bad thing to summarize in "agenda". Although I still don't think Hunt's columns should be considered reliable, they should be considered reliable for direct quotes.

I still say that the primary sources of groups talking about their own agenda is better than having no comment on individual groups' agendas. There is still no possible guideline it violates other than WP:PRIMARY, and possibly WP:UNDUE in the selection of groups. I had not considered WP:UNDUE before, but there should be no objection in reporting what a reliable source says are the major TPm organizations say about themselves, whether or not from an SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel and Arthur about the definition of plagiarism. There has been no plagiarism; Editor Furious Style has misunderstood the concept. I hope we're past that. However, there may be an issue of too much WP:ABOUTSELF-sourced content, and a related issue of whether that content is unduly self-serving (see stipulations 1 & 5). Wow, now I've agreed with Arzel and Arthur, and they have both edit-warred to keep an edit of mine IN the article? These are truly signs that the end times are upon us.

The core of the dispute is over how the "agenda" of the movement is conveyed to our readers. Pro-TP groups within the movement are obviously going to use the most flattering descriptions with the widest public appeal. Critics of the TP are going to emphasize the least appealing qualities of the movement. Uninvolved reliable sources (and hopefully Wikipedia as a result) should be able to provide us with a neutral presentation of what is accurate, regardless of whether that information is considered flattering or critical, positive or negative. Further complicating the matter is the acknowledged fact that the movement doesn't follow one set of rules, leaders, goals or agenda. Arthur wants "groups talking about their own agenda" to have a prominent place in the article, but that raises the problem of which groups? Many groups in the movement, for example, stress the importance of non-fiscal issues (Guns, God, Gays, Immigration, etc.). It would appear some would prefer to have those agendas minimized or squelched. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It could start with what RS appear to identify as the most visible groups. These seem to be Tea Party Patriots, Freedomworks, etc. The ones most in the news. A Google search would turn up that information. Then put in what they call their mission. What you had edited in earlier seemed fine to me. I didn't think it contained plagiarism. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the areas of agendas, self-statements by advocacy organizations tend to be accurate because agenda statements are an important step towards action on that item. In short, what you define as a goal creates action towards that goal, and leaving it off the list does the reverse. So a mis-statement of agenda would be self-defeating. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, I think that there is informational value in such statements so long as they are balanced with analysis thereof by secondary sources.

The reason being-aside from violations of policy on primary sources, etc.-is that the TPM comprises groups and factions that are funded by multinational corporations that have interests that do not always necessarily jibe with what the platforms promulgated by the groups they are funding represent. Furthermore, those groups have adopted opposing stances on some issues, so they are in competition for followers. High level analysis is required to make sense out of that, and Hunt's articles contribute to that effort for the reading public.

The discussion on the RSN board has slowed, but it doesn't seem that there are valid reasons for questioning Hunt. Questioning his status as an expert is indirectly challenging the choice of the NYT for paying him to publish his articles in their paper, and that doesn't seem to be an appropriate target for WP editors with respect to the editorial prerogatives of the NYT, especially with respect to articles published in the news section as "articles".Ubikwit (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

One of your arguments here is absurd. That the Times (actually, the IHT) considers Hunt an expert would not mean that he's an expert under our definitions, and, anyone who has actually read page six items would realize that there is nothing, other than placement, distinguishing gossip columns from news articles. "Placement" on a web site is problematic. Contrary to common sense, your view seems to be gaining weight at WP:RSN, but this argument is absurd, whereever it is placed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I don't follow your reasoning for attempting to disqualify Mr. Hunt, I'm simply going to blockquote passages from the WP article Al_Hunt for you to reference and refute point-by-point, if you care to, his qualifications with respect to his being cited in this WP article as an expert/reliable source, etc.

Prior to joining Bloomberg News in January 2005, Hunt worked for the Wall Street Journal. During his 35 years in the newspaper’s Washington bureau, he was a congressional and national political reporter, a bureau chief and, most recently, executive Washington editor. For 11 years, Hunt wrote the weekly column, "Politics & People." Hunt also directed the paper's political polls for 20 years

Hunt has also served as a periodic panelist on NBC's Meet the Press and PBS' Washington Week in Review, as well as a political analyst on CBS Morning News, and a weekly panelist on CNN's Capital Gang. He was also a panelist on Evans, Novak, Hunt, & Shields. He is co-author of a series of books published by the American Enterprise Institute, including The American Elections of 1980, The American Elections of 1982 and The American Elections of 1984. In 1987, he co-authored Elections American Style for the Brookings Institution. In 2002, he contributed an essay about campaign finance reform for Caroline Kennedy's Profiles in Courage for Our Time.

Hunt is a member of the Wake Forest board of trustees; the board of the Children's Charities in Washington; and the advisory board of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. He teaches a course on the press and politics at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications.

Ubikwit (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I said your argument was absurd, not necessarily the conclusion. You have asserted the following (probably false) claims:

The IHT column "Letters from Washington" reprinted in the NYT contains NYT articles.
- Clarly false. It might contain IHT articles, but we don't yet know where IHT reprinted it from
If the NYT times considers him an expert, then Wikipedia should consider him an expert.
- Our requirement is the he must have published in reliable sources in the field. Their requirement could be only that he has written material which they consider interesting and correct, without any requirement it could be published.
The NYT times considers him an expert.
- Actually, we don't even know that, although it's probably correct. All we know is that they consider his work interesting enough to publish. There need not be a belief that it's correct. We can be fairly sure that it doesn't contain libelous material, although Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does offer the NYT protection if it were only published in their online edition.

And, until now, no one, either here or at WP:RSN, brought up the argument that he should be considered an expert. At RSN, I brought it up as a possibiity, but no one wanted to support it. I'd have to say that, assuming our Wikipedia article on him is correct, he is almost certain an expert on politics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I assume you would be in agreement with withdrawing your opposition to characterizing his articles (writings) as WP:RS. Correct?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Until now, no one brought up the argument that he should be considered an expert? If only someone had said something like:

In my opinion, the applicable rule is WP:NEWSORG, which states in part, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

If only. I agree with Arthur that he qualifies as an expert on politics. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism, Resignation of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller

Out of context version:

In 2011, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned after NPR's top fundraiser called Tea Partiers "xenophobic" and "seriously racist people" who are "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."Ref

Version with context:

Meanwhile, in 2011, NPR's top fundraiser, after clarifying that he was giving his personal opinion and not speaking for NPR, 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, particularly the Tea Party, that is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian—I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."Ref, Ref Schiller expressed pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism, and said some highly-placed Republicans believed the Republican Party had been hijacked by this radical group, and they characterized them as "Islamophobic" and "xenophobic ... seriously racist, racist people".Ref, Ref

There are two points related to the relevant contested edit content. First, the preceding statement relates to a countervailing statement regarding accusations of racism and the TPM, attributing them to liberals and the media. Therefore the statement of the NPR chief fund raiser is pertinent because it offers a different viewpoint, attributing some of them to mainstream republicans. Second, the resignation of the CEO is said to be related to the statements of the fundraiser, but the context and content of the statement itself is glossed over in a manner that denies the reader information necessary to arrive at a reasoned assessment of the situation based on facts. What are the specific allegations relating to WP:UNDUE?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The out of context version misleads the reader into thinking that Vivian resigned because of those specific remarks, which is not true. There were other remarks, and other events, which culminated in her resignation. It also misleads the reader into thinking those characterizations were all Schiller's, and that he was speaking on behalf of NPR, also not true. Am I to understand that certain editors consider context to be "irrelevant" and "UNDUE", and would prefer that the reader be mislead? I recall that there was quite a dust-up over what people first saw in the misleadingly edited videos of those remarks, versus what was really said. Are we reliving that here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My first inclination is to leave the new content out completely, as it consists of opinions expressed by someone who is neither a TPer, nor an outside reliable source on the TP (he's not with NPR's news division; he's just a money-moocher raising funds for NPR). But if there is consensus to include the material, it will need to be presented accurately. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

His statements are quoted as the reason for the resignation, so the relevant context has to be filled out, otherwise it seems to be presented as a biased POV. I don't think it is a question of him being a RS for anything other than his statements in the events surrounding the resignation, which itself is presented in relation to racism in the TPM (as per the preceding sentence).

If the NPR CEO's resignation is notable, and the NPR fund raisers statements are notable in relation thereto, then the whole picture has to be presented.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What you call "the whole picture" is not accurate; if it were, the statement wouldn't be relevant to this article. That he was speaking for himself is not relevant; if it were, we would have to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members. Some information that the fund-raiser was contrasting the "TP" and current Republicans to past Republicans, and that the CEO's resignation was not entirely due to the fund-raiser's statement should be included, if the matter should be included, at all. I think the fund-raiser's statement probably fits under "media views" here, and the incident should be covered in more detail at NPR and at biographies of the unrelated Schillers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That he was speaking for himself is not relevant; if it were, we would have to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members.

No, Arthur. He specifically emphasized that he was speaking only for himself, and not as an NPR person, just before the cherry-picked quotes. That makes it relevant. You are welcome and encouraged "to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members" who likewise specifically stated that they were not speaking as TPers.

Schiller didn't make a "statement", by the way. We're discussing a surreptitiously recorded private conversation that was then deceptively edited, so there is no "media view" here, and it's already covered in more detail at more relevant Wikipedia articles. The CEO resigned after a series of incidents, and after comments besides the ones we're trying to include in this article. Is the intent of the proposed content to misleadingly convey to our readers, "NPR said nasty stuff about the TP, then the CEO resigned for it"? Since that's not what happened, I am curious about the flurry of objections ("irrelevant", "UNDUE") to conveying what actually happened. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The "version with context" above does not accurately reflect what actually happened. Now, I'm not sure anything about it should appear in this article; if it should, we should give the fund-raiser's name and probably not the NPR CEO's name. I'm saying that most of the arguments given for inclusion of the long version are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very interested in hearing exactly what "arguments given for inclusion of the long version" are not consistent with exactly which specific "policies and guidelines". Please explain, Arthur. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should leaven some of this with weight issues. The TPM has matured a bit and whether or not someone on the outside has called them bad names, is that relevant? Does it make it true? I'm not seeing a need for any of this in the article. Not saying it can't be there, just not convinced in light of what is happening in congress today with tea party elected reps. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The "context" version is very confusing. Who is this "He" person? Shiller appears to be referenced as a guy multiple times, yet Shiller is a she. The "context" version doesn't make any sense at all. Arzel (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two unrelated Schillers; the fund-raiser is a "he", and the CEO is a "she". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that will have to be made more clear. Unless you know the exact story behind the paragraph it makes no sense. Arzel (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very interested in hearing exactly what "arguments given for inclusion of the long version" are not consistent with exactly which specific "policies and guidelines". Please explain, Arthur. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

McAllister revisited

I removed:

During an interview on NPR with Michel Martin, McAllister and columnist Cynthia Tucker discussed racism and the Tea Parties; Tucker wrote about the interview, concluding that McAllister's take on racism was that "he'd seen enough racist signs at other Tea Party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement".< ref> Tucker, Cynthia (May 6, 2010). "A black tea party supporter offers advice on the movement's struggle with racism" (Document). Atlanta Journal-Constitution. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)</ref >< ref>The Tea Party and Race; NPR; April 16, 2010</ref >

for the following reasons:

It doesn't add value to McAllister's comments.
As all of us who have been interviewed know, interviewees can be (sometimes even inadvertently) tricked into saying something they didn't mean We weould need evidence that Tucker is sufficiently expert at psychology that her believe as to McAllister's views doesn't become a BLP violation. Alternatively, we could write "Tucker opined that" rather than "Tucker concluded that", making it gossip, but not a BLP violation.
I've previously made the argument that McAllister's comments already take an WP:UNDUE part of the article; that argument has been ignored, rather than dealt with. This just adds to the weight problem.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget these reasons, too:

4. the entire McAllister section is flaky, not just the selected quotes from the interview which we are fighting over. --Arthur Rubin

5. McAllister is only a reliable source for his own opinions, and I question whether they are notable and/or relevant enough for inclusion. IIRC, all the other people referenced around there have some notability independent of the TPM. If not, perhaps their comments aren't relevant, either. --Arthur Rubin

I think the reason your arguments have been "ignored" is because they keep changing, and morphing as they are addressed and refuted. Excessive? BLP vio? Undue? Flakey? His opinions don't matter? This one sentence of the four sentences doesn't "add value to his comments"? Could it be that you do not want to see a frequent conservative TP speaker acknowledge that there is an issue here, albeit a "fringe" one? Have you read his exact comments in the NPR interview? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to use his quotes from the interview, then to use one of the interviewer's interpretation of his quotes from the interview, even though it appears clearly that he sees racism. We're dealing with non-expert interpretation of the opinions of a living person, so we're stuck with WP:BLP. My previous arguments, although adequate for trimming the section, have been ignored, rather than refuted or trumped by other arguments. <justified attack on your "arguments" redacted; to be saved for the RfAr> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't one of the interviewers. She also isn't interpreting opinions from the interview. We're citing a journalist with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution who is referencing his written work as well as his interview comments, so there is no BLP issue there. I don't see the merit in your other arguments; "tricked into saying something they didn't mean" huh? I'm going to have to ask you once again if you've actually reviewed the cited sources. Was he tricked into writing what he didn't mean, too? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Might the solution be to ask, Where exactly does Lenny McAllister, a black conservative, actually say that "he's seen enough racist signs at other Tea Party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement,"? It seems to me that if you want McAllister to claim that racism is associated with the Tea Party movement, you could simply quote him directly. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We could add direct quotes in addition to the outside reporting, true. There are plenty applicable ones in his writings, TP speeches and his interviews like the one with NPR. Would that get excessive? And I don't "want McAllister to claim that racism is associated with the Tea Party", just so we're clear, he's already done that. My concern is that our article content be conveyed with appropriate weight and sourcing. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good news. So just get the quote and add it in. This same issue has been argued before, as you probably remember. It will be nice to put it to rest. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this same issue has been argued before; do you feel a more substantive effort has been made this time around? (The last argument was that a source violated WP:OR, an argument that fell flat on its face.) Here's a quote, by the way:

"I can still go back to incidents when I've been at Tea Parties and have seen images of President Barack Obama with a bone through his nose. I've seen images where they had Barack Obama standing in front of the White House and on the back of the inscription of the White House it says: da crib. Would you have done that with George W. Bush? And, again, they're not common, but they have happened."

Specifically about the incident of the N-word heard by congressmen, he continued, "It is not that far of a stretch to say, okay, now if I've seen that among 5,000, out of 50,000 people did one person possibly cross the line? It's definitely possible." Another quote of his:

"Well, my take is there are some people that have taken it too far and they have used this movement, a good movement at its core, to justify some of their underlying hatred. There are some people out there. I've seen the signs and I've said this on other interviews and I've said this in other articles where when I see the signs, I confronted, I've confronted it from the podium. I confronted people face to face."

Some of this is already summarized in our article, but if you think piling in more direct quotes would improve the article, we can do that if there is consensus. But as I've stressed before, it's not my preferred way to handle public perception in an article. Oh, and as to Arthur's contention above that McAllister isn't notable, I just read somewhere that he's throwing his hat in as the only Republican challenger for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in April. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

McAllister is going after Jesse Jr's seat? Interesting. I looked at McAllister's wiki bio and also thought he wasn't really notable, but if he's running for Congress, that will raise his profile. But since he's going from relative unknown to known, I'd like to see a real quote from him and not Ms. Tucker's opinion of what he said. And something newer, as opposed to old. He'll certainly get grilled on any tea party support and no doubt someone will ask him about racism in the tea party, so we'll have that. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a syndicated columnist, frequent TP speaker, author and frequent political contributor to several top-rung media outlets as well (CNN, for instance) -- so he's not unknown, not even relatively. (Maybe I should update his bio.) Outside secondary assessments like those from AJC are preferred by Wikipedia over primary quotes; here's another one from WaPo:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue. "I feel like the tea party movement is at its core a good thing for America. It is a group of citizens that have not been previously involved," McAllister said. "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

...but we can certainly add as many direct quotes as consensus agrees is warranted. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. And I agree his bio needs an update. It would be great if you could update it. I don't have time at all this week. I'm working on a legal article for the wiki. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul and other recent edits

I've seen recent edit summaries that present some interesting claims:

Ron Paul is not part of the Tea Party...

Is this true? The article presently states, "The Tea Party movement's membership includes notable Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, ... has become the 'intellectual godfather' of the movement as many now agree with his long-held beliefs." Our article also displays a prominent image of Paul, and states that Ron Paul was a runner-up (behind Herman Cain) in the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit poll. There appears to be a conflict here.

giving [Paul] the first paragraph in this section gives him far too much WP:WEIGHT

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why, and where you think the proper positioning in that section should be — but did you intend to delete the content completely?

Far too much WP:WEIGHT given to commentary criticism by political opponents, particularly the anti-smoking lobby. Moved it to the end of the section...

You also re-named the section from 'Commentary' to 'Criticism'; that is inaccurate, as not all the commentary in that section is critical. You also added verbiage that asserts HuffPo was "publicizing" something, when the sources indicate only a report on a news story. Can we get an explanation for that? (It was previously reported here.)

appropriately identified their political motives...

Who's "political motives", what are they, and from what source did you derive these political motives? They appear to be unsourced at present. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The poll I'm reading shows Sarah Palin with more than twice as much support as Ron Paul from within the Tea Party. If anyone deserves such a prominently placed and lengthy statement defining the Tea Party's position on foreign policy, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's Sarah Palin. Find an equivalent statement by Sarah Palin and I would be more than happy to support placing it in such a prominent position with so much WP:WEIGHT. In the alternative, I would support a statement by Herman Cain in that space, although more recently he has receded from his former position of prominence. On this topic, both Palin and Cain are in sharp disagreement with Ron Paul, who represents a tiny but vocal and very well-organized minority. If a similar poll were taken today, I suspect the leaders would be Ted Cruz, Palin, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, in that order.
If such adjectives as "liberal" for Juan Williams and "left-wing" for the Huffington Post really need to be sourced, perhaps you haven't read their stuff or the Wikipedia articles about them. These are well-known as liberal and left-wing sources. If you'd like to substitute the word "reported" for "publicized," I have no problem with that. But the fact is that most people hadn't heard of the study when it was published by "Tobacco Control," and most people still hadn't heard of it when it was mentioned on the UCSF website, but HuffPo was what gave the story "legs." After that, a lot of people had heard about it.
If you want to split the section into one titled "Criticism" and another entitled "Commentary," be my guest. Most of it is criticism, and any other label for criticism is inaccurate; and all of it comes from liberal or left-wing sources, so let's identify their political leanings and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about motives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Would that poll in relation to Palin be the one from 2010? That hardly seems very current for a current events related topic. It seems to me an effort to homogenize the party line by eliminating the statements by Paul, which date from the same period, apparently.--Ubikwit 　連絡・見学/迷惑 09:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to the three bullet-points above: (1) I don't see a problem with adding a statement from Palin or Cain on foreign policy. (2) I acknowledge your opinions that Juan Williams is a "liberal", or that HuffPo "gave the story legs", but such opinions shouldn't be conveyed as fact by our article -- and wouldn't be relevant even had they been factual. (3) I didn't say that I wanted to split the section. The reporting in that section is not "all from liberal or left-wing sources", but thank you for admitting your intent is to leave readers with the impression that there is some secret "motive" behind the reporting of facts. That appears to me to go contrary to our WP:NPOV policies. If you have concerns about the information conveyed by the cited sources, why not bring forth additional reliable sources that would help illustrate those concerns, so that we can discuss them? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In a subsequent edit, I removed a non-RS cite to a blog (supporting an unnecessary identifier) -- you cited a characterization of a living person to theprogressiveprofessor.com?! There was an unexplained change of sourced wording on immigration, a weird unexplained insertion of a link to 'Social Democrats'(?) in addition to the above listed edits.

I looked at your addition of the interview with Palin about Foreign Policy; are you very sure you want that specific source, rather than one that is a little more ...um... polished and substantive? I noticed that source never mentions the Tea Party, unlike each of the other sources in that section, but she is one of the TP darlings. Do you feel the opinions she expressed are in line with those of Tea Partiers in general? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus

While fixing deadlinks, I noticed that Bachmann has scrubbed all mention of the Tea Party Caucus from her website (the original source of the "membership" of this caucus). The "Official Website" for the caucus is rather sparse, and doesn't seem to list who the present members of the caucus are ... can someone find a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the Tea Party Caucus never existed. [1] But according to Slate it will get a reboot April 15. [2]. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging up that info, Malke. April 15 is just around the corner, so I'll keep an eye on it to see what happens. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

pro gay marriage

perhaps we can find room for this in the article, [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 March 2013

Not a reliable source, not a significant story. TFD (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

here is a better source. how did you determine this is insignificant? [4] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a "dog bites man" story and you need to demonstrate that it has received widespread coverage, that it is important. We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage. They should have run with the headline "Tea Party Boycotts Coffee". TFD (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin

Xenophrenic has uncovered an excellent source [5] concerning the origins of the TP. the NYT journalist covering conservatives since 2003. Kate Zernike directly contradicts the current article which reads, the tobacco industry and the Tea Party could be traced to a 1971 memo, with The tea party started out organized by young libertarian-leaning activists who were concerned about the stimulus and the bailouts. i suggest we rewrite the commentaries on origin section removing weasely text like, Others have argued, were connected with, provided funding for, an extension of. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The weasely text in regard the tobacco industry is in the source. We could argue that the source is unreliable, but I am not sure as to the relative reliability of Tobacco Control and Kate Zernike. Perhaps both statements should be included, noting the contradictions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit, but I didn't "uncover" that source. I mentioned it above (along with several others) and asked what other editors think about its reliability (or lack thereof). It was recently "uncovered" by ThargorOrlando (see archive 20), and before that by some IPs. I'm not sure those two sources contradict each other as much as they cover two different but related aspects. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

2 different aspects, plz explain? one claims a tobacco lawyer invented the tp to manipulate tobacco tax, the other claims young libertarians did 40 years later in response to big bank bailouts. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- the tobacco lawyer used the term -- as did hundreds or thousands of non-tobacco people over a great many years. This whole thing has become ludicrous indeed! [6] (American Patriotism, American Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties By Simon Hall; University of Pennsylvania Press, Jun 6, 2011, 224 pages, pp 109-110) lists a bunch of totally independent usages - dating back to 1965 at least. And not related in any way to tobacco. I decline to believe in tachyons, so suggest 1965 was actually temporally before the 1970s. YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece on the whole tobacco 'connection' and one that seems most plausible. [7]. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting, because what it basically does is add more material for the exegesis of corporate sponsoring of a pseudo grass roots movement (AstroTurf) to present a false front of popular advocacy for corporate interests and agendas. Enron is a particularly interesting entry on the list.

But the fact is, CSE wasn't just funded by big tobacco. Like all these groups, they were funded by a whole host of big, right wing corporations. Here's just a partial list of CSE's corporate clients/supporters:

Archer Daniels Midland
DaimlerChrysler Enron General Electric Koch Industries F.M. Kirby Foundation Philip Morris U.S. West ExxonMobil Exxon Hertz Microsoft
U.S. Sugar Corp

--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have proof that all of those companies are Right-Wing companies? Becuase GE does not fit the bill, and most companies care are relatively apolitical. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is the article I'm quoting there, directly. The article is fairly long and actually puts its focus on toxic mortgage bailouts for Wall St., though I believe that argument would be difficult to sustain. A protest on income tax day and anti-Wall St. protesting are not equivocal. In fact, perhaps the quotes from Santelli are most representative of the "capitalists" sector that he was advocating for against the "losers".

The article may be correct in the following asertions

One, it was meant to put pressure on legislators, including moderate Republicans, to defeat the Democrats mortgage relief plan, and any future measures the Democrats might try to pass to appease the country's rising populist sentiments.

And two, it was a preemptive strike against a rising protest movement against the Wall Street.

--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So your answer is "no" and since the Daily Kos is probably one of the least reliable sources (if not the least reliable) from the left we can pretty much disregard it completely as little more than rhetoric. Arzel (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GE is a huge defense contractor, and there have been issues General_electric#Legal_issues.

The also sponsored Ronald Reagan's TV career, if you read the subsequent section.

Any company that connected to the defenses industry would be hard to characterize as "liberal", even if they have supported some liberal causes from time to time. They are a household name, but their days as a producer of consumer electronics are long gone. But you may have a point that such activities don't necessarily equate them with the right wing.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, would you object to adding a few words from the Kate Zernike source to the origin section? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a reliable source, but I don't have a copy or the time to read it at the moment.

As a metaphor the "tea party" would resonate with many Americans, and I'm sure that there were many unaware of the corporate sponsoring behind some of the affiliated groups.

I quickly looked at a review, and it seems that some of the accounts she details may offer up a good comparison with the anti-corporate welfare stance of the Occupy movement. There may be people in the TPm whose reason for participating overlaps that of some of the people that participated in Occupy. That would all make for interesting reading...--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And Simon Hall's tracing it back to 1965 at least? Collect (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the RS you mention is only representing the fact that the "tea party" event in American history resonates with Americans, and has been raised in the past in relation to perceptions of unfair taxation, which is normal. Note that the 1960's case relates to property taxes, and the 1970's mentions occur around the time of the 200th anniversary of the namesake.

On the other hand, I don't think that there is a direct connection between those occurrences of the recourse to evoking the "tea party" and the present movement, whereas there are RS that demonstrate attempts by corporations to misappropriate that populist theme to serve their own narrow interests, unlike the property tax protesters of the 1960's.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting list of 'big right wing corporations.' Have you reviewed the public records of corporate giving to political parties? Have you ever heard of this fellow? You might want to read about him before you commit General Electric to the 'big right wing corporations' list. Archer Daniels Midland? Reagan's Justice Department started the investigation into the lysine-citric acid price-fixing conspiracy by ADM. United States v. Microsoft began in 1991. I believe it was this fellow's Justice Department that got that ball rolling. You might want to reexamine that list. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I seem to recall something about GE paying zero corporate taxes, which is, of course, ludicrous.

Microsoft has also been involved in the past in lobbying for the huge tax break on profits repatriated from abroad.

Both of those are forms of corporate welfare that promote a sort of corporate hegemony over the global economy and place the burden for funding the government on citizens.

Whether such activities are a legitimate basis for characterizing those corporations as "right wing" is questionable, but I should point out that it was you that provided that source.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is left-wing politics, not right-wing. GE is a huge backer of the Obama administration. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE was selected by Obama to run his jobs council. GE is the poster child for crony capitalism, a decidedly leftist approach to the market. Arzel (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Crony capitalism? Hardly an apt characterization under the circumstances. GE is not ENRON, at any rate.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Enron was fraud. A manipulation of the market through trading schemes. GE is crony capitalism. Enron has nothing to do with this. Arzel (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

proposal

i suggest we add Kate's piece contradicting the assertion the tp originated in a tobacco lawyers office. (please state oppose or support at the beginning of your response, other comments will be moved to a comment section. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: You're talking about Kate Zernike? I think it would be okay to just add it in. I don't think anyone would object to her as a RS. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that there is a definitive source or a unipolar origin of the TPm, so of course her source could be included in the discussion of 'origins', but that wouldn't prejudice the inclusion of any of the material in the tobacco control article in any way.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
support i think Ubikwit meant to add that to the beginning of his comment above, plz clarify if i am mistaken.

additional proposal

a second source [8] directly contradicts the big tobacco claim. i suggest we add it as well, or remove the disputed tobacco reference entirely. please respond with "support/add Kos, support/remove Tobacco, or oppose, then explain. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Under almost no circumstance would I accept a DK source for any claim of fact. That article is just as stupid as the Tobacco study. Assume that either of the two are true. That Big Tobacco or some other group has been trying to start a Tea Party movement for the past 30-40 years. It sill ignores that there had to be some catalyst which actually started the movement. Santelli made a statement on CNBC which galvanized millions of Americans into exploding with the TPM. The only reason why this is simply not accepted by the left, is that they cannot accept the fact that people on the right can create a grassroot-movement. Arzel (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

I'd like to correct the grammar after the current version of the article, but it would undoubtably be a revert, and correcting unreadable grammar is not an exception to 1RR or 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking we should rewrite the agenda section with three subheadings, 1) fiscal 2) Immigration reform and 3) Obamacare. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of consensus on how to mention immigration

There is clearly no consensus and surveys aren't a good replacement for an RfC in any case, so why not do something more official? And I don't know if it's relevant, but [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/changing-american-opinions-on-gay-marriage-and-immigration.html?mbid=nl_Daily%20%28212%29 this recent New Yorker article} says "On immigration, during the years between 2006 and 2011, Gallup found that more Americans wanted to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to the U.S. than find a way to legalize the status of those who were already here. Last year, the balance shifted the other way, and last month, in a Pew poll, more than two-thirds of Americans expressed support for legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country, while barely a quarter wanted them to be sent home." Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Poll questions are always troublesome. They don't provide a very good historical view of anything, they can be influenced by single events and cause big jumps in results in a very short period of time. However, here is an article that pretty well illustrates the fear of Amnesty (which is really what this is all about), in that it won't solve the underlying problem. Arzel (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think the New Yorker article you reference answers your question. The issue is illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. There is nothing there about 'anti-immigration.' An RfC will not provide RS to support 'anti-immigration.' Also, there does seem to be consensus not to include 'anti-immigration.' Malke 2010 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And either way certainly no consensus to say "anti-immigration". North8000 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See the second bullet point under WP:NOCONSENSUS. When there is no consensus about contentious material regarding living persons, the material is removed. It's a "default setting," and this prohibition is even more broad than WP:BLP, since (A) it doesn't require that the material must be negative, and (B) it applies equally well to material about large groups of living persons. WP:NOCONSENSUS is policy, not a guideline or essay. Our course of action is clear if there is no consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still arguing that this is a BLP issue despite being told by others that it isn't. That section refers to our BLP policy, not to 'large groups of living persons'. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No Doug, you're mistaken. The WP:NOCONSENSUS section, which is part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy does not mention WP:BLP at all. It does contain a link to WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content, but that's all. It stands on its own two feet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. WP:NOCONSENSUS is part of the policy WP:CONSENSUS, but the sentence P&W is quoting says "often", rather than "should", "shall", "will", or some definite word. Although I tend to think it should apply, it's not part of existing policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. I agree with P&W that this relates to living people. Whether or not "commonly" is more definitive than "often", neither represents a mandate. Other policies and guidelines need to be applied to determine what should be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I noticed that you left out the Wikilink to WP:BLP from that exemption you just copied here. The BLP exemption is not applicable to an amorphous movement of nameless thousands. That was made clear at WP:BLPN. That was made clear at WP:ANI. That was made clear on the Talk page of the editor repeatedly misapplying that exemption. The WP:NOCONSENSUS exception due to the BLP exemption does not apply here. (Look at why that sentence was added to the WP:Consensus policy in the first place.) There is no "commonly" or "often" or "mandate" question here, as that BLP exception doesn't apply. So could you clarify, Arthur, what it is you are agreeing with in your comment there, because I'm going to be quoting you. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is mentioned in that section, but not in that paragraph. It's not at all obvious that the "living people" there are the same as specific "living people" in WP:BLP. I'd have to check the history to see if that was the intent. I agree that WP:BLP does not apply to that section, although it may apply elsewhere in the article where specific people are mentioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

After checking, I agree that WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't apply at all; either to suggest that the status quo ante should be retained, nor that contraversial material should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-immigration and racism

Can we deal with this issue? Phoenix and Winslow claims that to say something is ant-immigration is to accuse said thing of being racist. A similar claim was made on the BLP notice board. I can find no evidence that these words are synonyms. Are there any third party references that say the meaning of the words has recently shifted in the US? If so I can have some sympathy, if not then that argument can be dismissed ----Snowded ^TALK 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-immigration is opposition "to movement of people from one nation-state to another, where they are not citizens." That includes opposition to the legal, quasi-legal and illegal forms of immigration, or any combination thereof, and in varying degrees. Anti-immigration does not equal racism, nor are the meanings of the two phrases in any way similar. The confusion probably stems from the charge that people with racist views have sometimes manifested that racism in the form of anti-immigration sentiment (directed against immigration of people of a particular race). In reality, particularily in the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is more the result of national-identity or cultural-identity (including religious identity), and not race. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the common meaning of "Anti-illegal immigration" in the US is to be OK with the limited immigration the that is currently legal, against illegal immigration, and often against anything that would legalize currently-illegal immigration. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec, not considering North's comment) There are few interpretations of "anti-immigration" from which one could even infer racism. However, being against illegal immigration, or being in favor of reducing legal immigration, does not mean one is "anti-immigration" as a whole. And there is a significant difference between being "anti-immigrant" (which could be, but is not always, racism) and being "anti-immigration". One of the sources said the TPm was (generally) "anti-immigrant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean that if tomorrow NAFTA opened its internal borders the same way the EU has, that the Tea Party would support unlimited Mexican immigration, because now it would be legal? Does it mean that liberals want unlimited immmigration from Mexico, so long as it remains illegal? Surely the dispute is not about whether immigration laws should be followed, but what the laws should be. And the Tea Party supports the current laws not because they are laws but because they place severe restrictions on immigration.

Some writers believe that the Tea Party's opposition to immigration is based on racism. They also believe that their opposition to same sex marriage is based on homophobia. That does not mean that if someone says the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage that they are calling them homophobic.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't edit based on what might happen in the future. In any case, if something like that were to happen, it wouldn't be the tea partiers by themselves complaining. Also, please note that young tea partiers support gay marriage. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it means that if that happened tomorrow, the Tea Party would oppose immigration as it is then implemented. Opposing immigration as it is implemented is not the same thing as opposing immigration. That's like saying that if you think that the government shouldn't be allowed to wiretap everyone you "oppose the government". Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken makes a good point. What the real problem seems to be is the way congress is managing illegal immigration. Americans have been down this road before, notably in 1986 when Reagan gave blanket amnesty without providing for fixing the problems that lead to the illegal immigration, which is really corporate greed. Reagan was serving the needs of the chicken sellers in Arkansas and the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. He didn't care about the average guy who gets his taxes bumped year after year because these same corporate types are handing out directions to the welfare office so these workers can get signed up for Medi-Care and foodstamps. Because the employer pays substandard wages and doesn't provide benefits. They also illegally do not provide workmen's compensation which all the politicians ignore. And he certainly didn't care about the workers getting shamelessly ripped off by these 'employers' for decades. They pay them low wages, house them in substandard housing, charge exhorbitant prices at the company store, where the workers are forced to go because they don't have cars to go to the local Vons where a gallon of milk is $3 and not $12. Americans are fed up, but they're not fed up with the workers. They're fed up with a system that serves only the politicians and harms everybody else. Same rip off, different day. Welcome to America. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform is the real tea party issue

The Tea Party was the force behind getting the senators and congressmen elected who now embrace immigration reform which includes amnesty.[9] [10] Not even Obama is onboard with amnesty.[11] You know there's been a sea change in conservative politics when Sean Hannity is getting on board [12]. Ted Cruz is the only hold-out but likely not for long. [13]. Raul Labrador, the Idaho congressman and a former immigration attorney who helped undocumented immigrants in the courts, and is clearly an expert on the issue, has said this: [14]. There are no reliable sources that show the tea party groups endorse any anti-immigration which is often called nativism. Nor does it seem nativism is on the rise in America among the general population. [15]. Rand Paul’s plan does include amnesty. [16]. National tea party leaders including Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, have said they don't have immigration as part of their agenda, but they support Rand Paul's call for immigration reform so long as it includes securing the borders. The Tea Party Express and Freedomworks supports this. These are reliable sources that are current. Whereas the CBS News poll is only a poll, and one that is 3 years old. It does not appear to be a more reliable source than the ones I've listed here. [17].

Anti-immigration is a European problem, not an American problem. Anti-immigration was not a 2012 campaign issue which it would have been had that been an issue for Americans, especially the tea party since they worked to get out the vote for their candidates. Illegal immigration was the issue.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Boiling Mad" by Kate Zernike, page 60: "And younger tea partiers, indeed, were less like to see illegal immigration as a serious threat and more likely to support the rights of gays to marry." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No political movement is in favor or against illegal immigration. Everyone making a sensible political opposes everything illegal by definition. The question is whether more immigration should be legalized or less. It is a question of restricting or laxing immigration legislation, not of being for or against illegal or legal immigration. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely related to the American situation. Illegal immigration has actually been institutionalized by both Democrats and Republicans because the corporations that own the farms and processing plants feed money to both parties. Not providing border security, allowing illegal immigrants to receive public benefits, these are all 'stand down' policies that allow employers to continue to abuse workers by paying them substandard wages, forcing them into emergency rooms without workmen's compensation when they are injured which means the hospital complains to the state and says, "Hey, we want to get paid. We're not a charity!" So the state enables Medi-Cal to pay the bill. What is really happening is both political parties are allowing the abuse of the most vulnerable people here. Amnesty is the only way to go right now, but then secure the borders, hold employers responsible for fair wages, health care benefits. If the employers don't like it, they can pluck their own chickens and pick their own lettuce. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to show me one American politician who will say he or she is in favor of illegal immigration. Or anything else that is illegal. Being in favor of documenting undocumented immigrants is not being in favor of illegal immigration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did. Look at their actions or rather their in-action. They allow illegal immigration by their in-action. It's tantamount to modern day slavery and the government subsidizes it by giving out public benefits to undocumented workers instead of enforcing the labor laws that require all workers, legal or otherwise, to be treated the same. That means providing workmen's compensation and paying the legal minimum wage. Show me a politician who has come out in favor of that and I'll show you a politician who's never been inside a corporate jet and can't raise a dime to get reelected. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

That is a tendentious argument if I ever saw one. By the same token I could call the republican party anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-children...by their actions. That is not how we argue in wikipedia. We use reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'd agree with you about the Republican Party. I call them all those things, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But that is not how wikipedia works, nor how it should work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly helpful: "Illegal"

Probably not as helpful: "Illegal" Myths

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps more helpful still[18]. Which shows that this is not a useful way of describing policy anymore, if it ever was.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reagan set up an unofficial policy of illegal immigration, with social expenses paid for by the taxpayer, in contrast to Canada that set up a guestworker program with costs paid by employers. U.S. businesses now find that the Reagan policy is more expensive. Both the Tea Party and labor unions oppose both these approaches, but for different reasons. The TPM does not want these people in the country, while unions want foreign workers to have residency status. TFD (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we all get that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to rewrite the Agenda section

The issue of anti-immigration versus anti-illegal immigration has highlighted the need to rewrite the 'Agenda' section. As it is now, it doesn't really reflect the tea party. It has old comments from Ned Ryan and Albert Brooks that do not speak to any agenda and only confuse the reader. The agenda section should list the top tea party goals which seem to be:

1) Fiscal --which needs to include defeating Obamacare
2) Immigration reform --that includes amnesty and secure borders to prevent this problem happening in the future.
3) Get out the vote--which should mention the rift between the tea party and 'mainstream Republicans' like Karl Rove.
4) U.N.'s Agenda 21 - the Tea Party Patriots have spoken out against this. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No article is static, or engraved in stone -- and articles should be kept up-to-date, of course. That being said, I can't comment further until I see actual proposed wording, and the sources to which they are cited. I would be interested in seeing if we're discussing a change in goals, positions and values, or simply a re-prioritizing of their focus and energies. At the start, the stimulus and bailouts were the top concern. Then as time passed and the Democrats moved on to health care reform, that became the top concern. Today, immigration is the top concern. Perhaps we can simplify the 'Agenda' section to read: "...whatever the Democrats and Obama are working on at the moment."? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a constructive suggestion to offer, please post it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I think that that is more of a sarcastic note regarding the TPM rather than an effort to cover "it's" agenda. (the quote marks are to note that "it" is not an entity as implied by "it"). We really need to really sort this out here. I think that some folks keep going off on a tangent regarding this. A close look at wp:ver indicates that what has been used here for arguments here is a divergence from what it actually says. The two general areas regarding this are:

wp:ver/wp:nor says that ability to be sourced per a source which meets wp:rs criteria is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. Folks here have been indicating otherwise on the latter.
wp:rs criteria specifies a "floor" for the purposes of #1. It does not say that sources meeting that "floor" are actually reliable. Other factors indicating actual reliability (e.g. objectiveness and expertise with respect to the item which cited it) are important, and generally utilized at the wp:rs noticeboard.

Sources meeting the "floor" of wp:rs are often un-objective and often lack expertise regarding the topic at hand, so you can generally find some that state things of a cherry-picker's choice on either side of an issue. Contrary to what folks have been implying, meeting that "floor" is requirement for inclusion, not a force/reason for inclusion, and doubly so not a force for inclusion of their assertions as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. So, again, we really need to discuss and sort this out here, without making or relying on that above-described unsound arguments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

North, the last sentence of that comment was indeed sarcasm, but only the very last sentence. re: Editing policy, I've never operated under an assumption that just because particular content can be reliably sourced it must be included, nor have I ever operated under the assumption that just because particular content appears in a source meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements that it must therefore be unquestionably reliable. You are welcome to discuss those concerns with the "some folks" that have been. Sources that don't merely convey content, but also examine, analyze and explain that content, tend to be superior in many cases. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts. But IMHO your argument here has essentially been that the fact that if a source or sources meeting the "floor" of wp:rs criteria said it, that such is a sufficient force to have a controversial statement go into the article, and in the voice of Wikipedia, over the objections of others. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Where have I made that argument? I have certainly argued over the quality of these "objections of others" (It's a BLP violation! If it doesn't come from a border-state source, it's invalid! The source didn't say that! If you can't quote it from a TPer, it ain't true! ... you get the idea), but never have I argued that if a source meets Wikipedia's RS requirements that it then becomes unquestionable. Please point out where I have done so. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The TPm is not a political party that announces an official platform at regular periodic intervals, so the course of change in relevant stances that can be attributed in some meaningful manner to the TPm has to be described in the article.

The "agenda" described in the article cannot simply reflect the line adopted in an opportunistic manner by TPm associated politicos in response to current events. That would probably fall under the rubric of "recentism", for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The tea party doesn't need to be a political party to support and help elect state and federal representatives. And according to these national tea party leaders they don't have immigration in their agendas but they support Ron Paul's decision and they support immigration reform and they support amnesty with secure borders. This article confirms that they have fiscal goals and not social goals, but they are willing to support this important national issue. [19] The article says in part:

Sal Russo, founder of the Tea Party Express, called Paul a "favorite of the group," and despite the movement's focus on the national debt, spending and economic issues he praised Paul's "willingness to stand up and take a principled stand" on immigration. [20] The Tea Party has largely opposed legalizing undocumented aliens or granting them citizenship, but Russo applauds Paul's immigration proposal. "People are in this country a long time and they are not legal. We have to get them legal in some way in a process that gets people legal that are here…We should do it because it's the right thing. We need to reform immigration because we need a system that works," Russo said. [21]

Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of Tea Party ally FreedomWorks, said he does not think Paul's immigration announcement hurt his potential 2016 presidential aspirations...Kibbe said immigration is not an issue FreedomWorks champions and said proposing citizenship for undocumented aliens is a "calculated risk," and would be "risky water for anyone," but said Paul's proposal is in the "framework of our principals."

"We believe in the rule of law," Kibbe said. "Treat everyone just like everybody else, but we believe if you want to come to this country and work the government has a responsibility to make the process as efficient as possible."

Jenny Beth Martin, the head of the Tea Party Patriots, also noted that immigration is outside of their wheelhouse, but said they were "aligned" with Paul on the issue of border security, which is the first step in his own proposal he laid out Tuesday. "The way we've approached immigration is the borders need to be secure," Martin said. "Real action needs to be taken to secure the border and then once that happens we will talk about other immigration policies." Martin added that Paul has "championed our values and principals, for constitutionally limited government and for that he has gained the Tea Party's respect."

It doesn't appear to me to be a problem with WP:RECENT. Any movement is dynamic. Change is inevitable. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As for change, the TP is definitely getting more involved in immigration than it has in the past, but that could be just a reaction to what ever is presently on the political front-burner. Today, it's immigration. Some TP-backed politicians are indeed forging new (and unexpected) paths through the debate, but other TPers oppose them: TPers split. The dividing line seems to be what's more important; appealing to a large voting block (Hispanics, in particular), or strengthing the country's anti-immigration laws. The former strong stance on laws may take a backseat to political expediency, after political observers have blamed recent election losses on absence of Hispanic voter support. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. We need to go with what the tea party leaders have actually said and done as reported by reliable sources. Not, "Xenophrenic says this could just be "whatever is presently on the political front-burner. . .etc." Also, Xen, the United States does not have 'anti-immigration laws.' Malke 2010 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What, exactly, is my interpretation? The "whatever is presently on the front-burner" assessment is from reliable sources, not me. And the link I provided is a reliable source of what tea party leaders have said and done. Reflexive disagreement for the sake of disagreement? And of course, Mal, the U.S. doesn't have "anti-immigration laws" (*wink* *wink*)... it makes no laws regulating immigration, or restricting immigration, or prohibiting immigration ... nothing but open borders. I must have been thinking about some other country. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What source is that quote from? That might be useful in the explication of what seems to be a strain of recentism that threatens to co-opt the article to present only the 'recent' utterances from TPm affiliated politicos as some reflection of age-old principles from the TP golden age, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another disingenuous and sarcastic comment. Every nation has laws that regulate immigration, and restrict legal immigration to a certain number of people per year. Such laws are not "anti-immigration," any more than the Democratic Party's proposals to regulate capitalism are "anti-capitalist." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for another disingenuous and sarcastic comment. All immigration is legal, until it defies an anti-immigration law (one that restricts, prohibits or otherwise regulates immigration); only then does the immigration become illegal. Laws aren't passed against "illegal immigration". Thanks for your opinion, P&W. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[Big sigh ... rolls eyes.] WP:WEIGHT is policy, part of WP:NPOV. It requires us to give the greatest weight to majority opinion, as it's represented by the majority of reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources state that the Tea Party movement is opposed to illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants; recent developments, such as Rand Paul's speech, suggest that even this may go too far. Claiming that the Tea Party is "anti-immigration" is clearly a minority opinion, and deserves much less weight than the first section of the article. It should be added to the section that addresses claims of racism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do indicate the TP is opposed to "illegal immigration" and "amnesty". I don't think anyone (except Malke, briefly) is disagreeing with that. But it sounds like you are presenting that as proof that somehow TPers are not, as the majority of reliable sources indicate, anti-immigration. As for your desire to add stuff to the racism section, that's another discussion entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

... the majority of reliable sources indicate [TPm is] anti-immigration. This isn't just deceptive language. This is a false statement. Please stop. The majority of the reliable sources indicate that the Tea Party movement is opposed to illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, P&W. The majority of reliable sources describe the movement as anti-immigration. The reliable sources describing the movement's position specifically about the "illegal" kind are part of that majority. Let me know if you are still confused on the terminology. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, can you back that up? List reliable sources that make the distinction - and remember that does not include tea party sources ----Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As a sidebar, a group furthers their agenda by specifying it. So this is one area where self-description tends to be accurate.....not out of being high minded, but out of pursuit of the agenda. Not so for a writer who doesn't like the TPM. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you apply that general statement to the specific matter at hand, and cite specific examples? The comments I'm reading above appear to assert that since reliable sources say that the movement is "anti-illegal-immigration", that therefore disproves reliable sources describing the movement as "anti-immigration", when it actually proves it. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of terminology here. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Snowded, try reading WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, ... so long as:

"the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
"it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
"it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
"there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
"the article is not based primarily on such sources." (WP:SELFSOURCE, emphasis added.)

Snowded, WP:SELFSOURCE is a section of WP:RS, one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy. It goes on to state that even social networking posts by the subject of a Wikipedia article, on such sites as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, are considered reliable sources for this limited purpose. All five of the numbered conditions are satisfied. Please acknowledge that for this article, authentic statements of agenda or principle by Tea Party sources are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind supplying the specific material under discussion, and the specific source citation it references, so we can review it? Or are you just speaking in general, with no specific content being considered? Snowded, above, requested specific citations to support a specific claim of yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, would you mind acknowledging that for this article, authentic statements of agenda or principle by Tea Party sources are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see all these sources that show anti-immigration that Snowed and Xenophrenic keep referring to, but don't post. I've posted reliable sources to show that the issue is immigration reform. And as for using the mission statements by the Tea Party groups, there shouldn't be a problem with that. It's a simple edit. "Tea Party Patriots states on it's website that it's mission is: xyz," with a cite to the mission statement. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues ?

I would humbly suggest starting with a major decision - what is the "tea party". Is it a homogeneous thing where we can readily find general truths about it as a whole? Is it, by its very nature, an intrinsically ill-defined bunch of disparate elements which make it intrinsically undefinable by any source or group of sources? In such a case, would the "generalisations" be problematic in any case? (just presenting this as a possible starting point, of course) Collect (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. I would venture to say that it is indeed a bunch of disparate elements. That makes it hard to define. I am not sure it is therefore impossible to define. Might there not be some common core elements? Of course the increasing problem is that as time passes since the start of this movement the disparate groups are spinning into different directions. Some are focusing on local issues, some trying to elect candidates, some are taking over state parties. As time goes by it will likely be harder and harder to define. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting and useful point and a good idea. My answer is that it is a vague combination of many things. And the best and most useful noun to characterize it would be a "phenomena" which would force a lot of clarity into confusing discussions.North8000 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution

The lead contained a weasely description of the TPm stance on the constitution, and when I decided to check the source cited in relation to that phrasing, of course that was not what it said. As per the source, I modified it with a reference to originalism

So, here are some pertinent ovverlooked passages from the text of that source, as well as a good additional valuable study pdf referred to in the NYT article.

“The Tea Party movement is interesting in that there is a combination of localism, nativism and populism that we've seen at various points in America,” said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia and an editor of “Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy.”

A new study from Professor Persily and two colleagues, Jamal Greene and Stephen Ansolabehere, explored the political and cultural values of those who identified themselves as originalists. Such people “appear more likely than non-originalists to be white, male, older, less educated, Southern and religious,” the study found. “They are less likely to favor abortion rights, affirmative action and marriage rights for same-sex couples, and more likely to favor torture and military detention of terrorism suspects and the death penalty. They are more likely to express morally traditionalist, hierarchical and libertarian cultural values.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Strict adherence to the Constitution" says it neutrally and thoroughly. Negative spin words are not needed and certainly not better. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course that is not neutral or informative. Just like saying "strict adherence to the Bible" is not neutral or informative. They advocate strict adherence to a particular and quite literalist interpretation of the constitution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an unsubstantiable opinion, as the phrasing you quote can be meaningfully interpreted (and appropriated) in a manner to support at least one other school of thought (i.e., literalism) other than the "version of originalism" (direct quote from the source, and I left out the negative modifying phrase "ill-informed" that precedes it) advocated by the TPm.

What "negative spin words"? Surely you are not referring to "originalism", which has a substantial Wikipedia article. If not, then what?

And what "huge mediation project" are you talking about?--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This article was in a large mediation project, and the first sentences of the lead were one of the few things that were settled. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When? How about a link to that discussion?--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is an even more recent study in a legal journal on the TPm and the constitution Popular Originalism?. It seems to be a notable topic receiving a fair amount of attention.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Malke The only portion of that edit that could marginally be construed as wp:or would be the paragraph on Graham, otherwise the quotes all directly relate to TPm actiists and their philosophy and positions on the constitution.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what specifically is wp:or?

As has been discussed above, primary sources from TPM activists are only citable in certain contexts. The use of secondary sources that discuss the primary sources is the norm--and policy(wp:rs)--on Wikipedia.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, I'm going to ask you again for the policy-based rationale for your seemingly arbitrary blanket reverts of my edits. What is WP:OR, and what redundant, and how do you claim WP:DUE applies? If you disagree with portions of the edit, then I would appreciate it if you would address only those portions in your reverting/revising. I do intent to call attention to your reverts with Arbcom.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@Arzel What specifically do you maintain amounts to "unbelievable POV pushing" in the edit?

I would imagine that you'd agree that the Elizabeth Price paragraph is completely bereft of anything controversial. Do you find my presentation of the explication in the Zietlow material to be somehow other than neutral? Wikipedia readers come here for information, and the analysis by Zietlow is thought provoking with respect to the stances proclaimed by TP activists on the constitution, but I fail to see what you are accusing me of with respect to POV pushing. Are you accusing her of POV pushing? She is, of course, allowed to have a POV, but I don't see anything in her analysis that could even be deemed political or ideological. It is an exegesis in relation to the prevailing discourse in legal scholarship.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There are the folks who want to strictly follow the constitution, as it is in 2013. The POV word used by their opponents is "originalist" to try to give the impression that these folks are following some old way of thinking rather than strictly following the document as it is in 2013. So we have the usual here.....huge efforts to try to use every wiki-maneuver possible get negative rather than neutral words into the article when describing the TPM or "its" agenda. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That would seem to be an ill-informed opinion, as the term originalism refers to a school of thought on interpreting the constitution that, I repeat, has a substantial Wikipedia article and was not developed recently in response to the TPm by 'their opponents'.

Your attempt to dismiss the source by asserting your WP:OR version of the TPm stance on the constitution in its current form circa 2013 in relation to your misunderstanding of the term 'originalism' demonstrates that you have read neither the Wikpedia article or the Zietlow paper.

Moreover, your assertion, "the folks who want to strictly follow the constitution, as it is in 2013" is patently proven false by the TPm leaders and activists advocating the repealing of current constitutional amendments and the addition of a new amendment.

I would ask you read the sources before making such comments.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement "there are folks who X" is not disproven by the statement "there are other folks who Y". It is however clearly not the case that most of the Tea Party considers the current constitution, nor currently predominant interpretations of it to be desirable. This can be showed with sources references prominent supporters claims to the contrary. Their views however do not however need to be described as the views of the Tea Party, simply attribute it to the specific prominent voices in the movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it is disproven, because "the folks who X" described by North are the TPm activists, whom he opposes to "their opponents", which are equated with the authors of the sources. Read the following passage, please.

Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment). Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011

Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, each time you write you explicitly or impliciity say several incorrect negative things about other editors. Maybe you are depending on the fact that nobody has the time to to correct or argue all of those. I'm starting to get weary of those insults. Why don't you just quit that and write in a straightforward manner about the issue being debated? Sincerely, 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the one leveling undue accusations. What exactly are you complaining about? If you've grown weary and don't have time, remember, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I put my post in the wrong place. To start with I'll move it and your response. (done) If moving yours is not OK with you let me know although I don't have a better idea. I'll wait and see if that changes anything. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break for readability

That last sentence has such an obvious oxymoron blunder (morally traditionalist, hierarchical libertarian) that IMO it has no credibility. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Strict adherence to the constitution" is defining the TPM in their own words. Natural rights proponents also support strict adherence to the constitution, just disagree on whether the rights protected were those supported by legislation written before the Bill of Rights was enacted or whether they refer to universal values. And yes libertarianism can support hierarchy since its principles lead to some people having more money and influence than other people. TFD (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian morally traditionalist (in a governmental context) is an obvious blunder / oxymoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 April 2013

Belief systems do not need to be internally consistent. TFD (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence in the second paragraph can be read to express separate types of beliefs that are commonly found among TPm participants and sympathizers. The subject od the sentence is "They" and the object is "values". Each of the type of values mentioned does not necessarily have to be taken to represent an all-encompassing belief system, and the sentence meaning that TPm individuals embrace all three comprehensively and simultaneously. I believe that North has misread the sentence, and taken it out of context, particularly when using one noun from the list as an adjective to modify another noun on from the list.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, unless the beliefs are commonly held by "tea party meners" as part of their "tea party beliefs" the group of detritus should depart this article. If a survey showed TPM members to be 50 pounds overweight on average, we still could not say that the TPM believes in overeating <g>. Collect (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with a problem that exists in may places in this article. A movement is defined by it's agenda. It's completely faulty to say or imply that the preferences or agendas of the movement's supporters are the agenda of the movement. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense. Of course there is a correspondence between the views of the supporters and the views of the movement. It is not a direct correspondence, and not every statement of opinion made by a member or supporter represent all the other members. But that is no different from any other movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The movement (e.g. a phenomena) has and is defined by an agenda or agendas, it does not have a "view" outside of that. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I argue doesnt make sense, because there is a relation between the agenda and the views of the supporters who contribute to making the agenda. There is internal plurality in any movement and agendas are nto set in stone, and do not always reflect the current majority views of the movement. Agendas are also generally formulated as the "least radical common denominator", leaving out the more radical views that may be shared by most members of the movement but to which they are not willing to commit publicly on paper. We also cant describe the policies of the Republican or democratic parties solely by referring to official documents that are frequently interpreted in very different ways by different members of the respective parties. A movement or a party must be described by its actions and the concrete policies endorsed by prominent members or subgroups of its membership.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than some possibilities covered by the broad statement "because there is a relation between the agenda and the views of the supporters who contribute to making the agenda" I agree with you and also say that those are good observations. But one possibility covered by the above general statement has been very problematic in this article. That is that views of supporters which have nothing to do with the agenda are not the agenda and not views of the movement. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

This article has been fully-protected due to an ongoing content dispute which is resulting in a slow moving edit war. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators - and only by consensus. The protection has taken over the existing semi-protection which is scheduled to end in August this year, but the full protection will only be in place until issues surrounding the dispute are sorted. Modifications can be proposed on this talk page for discussion. In addition, a moderated discussion page has been set up here, to discuss the broader issues. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

content dispute / slow moving edit war

I would like to propose a collective evaluation of the constitution related text that has been the subject of contention over the past few days, with blanket revisions even after I modify, expand and incorporate new material, the last edit including new material from a source first introduced by Malke. As can be seen above under the sub-setion "Consitution", I have requested input and clarification from Malke and Arzel in relation to the policy claims made in the editing summaries of their blanket reverts, and received no response. The version of the page in question is here, and the first section I would like to request input on is the following paragraph from the Schmidt source [22], quoted in the opening of the Agenda section. Note that it was actually Malke, I believe, that first introduced this valuable source into the discussion when reverting other text related to the constitution that I'd posted. As can be seen, however, from the current version of the opening of the agenda section, she relegates the content of this source to a single sentence paraphrase. Please look at the paragraph in context and comment on its relevance, whether it is well-integrated into the flow of the opening of that section, etc. If a consensus is reached to include this passage in the above-linked version of the opening of the Agenda section, then the proposed section on the Constitution can be scrutinized. There is substantially more material available than what I've posted there, incidentally. We can take it one paragraph at a time or so, as appropriate.

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.

Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion that we should concentrate on one issue at a time and deal with what is agreed first before moving to a new topic. Discussing several issues at once, and in different venues, takes away impetus and reduces the likelihood of success. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Grassroots

Editors are now editwaring to include a definition of the Party as a grassroots movement based on a tendentious reading based on a handful of news-paper sources, that do not in fact support that view but contradict it. This is of course a problem. There can be a discusion of whether it is a grassroots movement in the article, but based on such flimsy sources it can never be part of the definition. I urge Arzel to selfrevert, because the recent edit is both disruptive and tendentious and in violation of the basic policy (and indeed commensense principle) according to which material based on contested sources stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Failing to respect WP:BRD and tag teaming. Hopefully Arbcom will deal with this sort of nonsense. The references just say it has a grass roots, not that it originated or grew in that way. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There were two sources provided, not just one. Please don't pretend that the other one wasn't provided, or that it didn't say very clearly that TPm is a grass-roots organization. Also, all TPm sources state that they are a grass-roots organization and they can be used in this article, for this limited purpose, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Is it really necessary to cite them all? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources, they just say that the tea party has grass roots, so do all political parties. You need a source which proves that as formation, and you need to wait for agreement before you start up one of your slow edit wars ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Certain parts of the tea party movement are grassroots. Tea Party Patriots was grassroots. But Freedomworks was not. But it was the grassroots groups that had the largest impact and made it a movement at the beginning. They used social media to connect with others all over the country. There are reliable sources that note the difference. They will still be in the article's history. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That is incorrect for two reasons.

You have conveniently ignored all RS that demonstrate the TPm is funded by multinational corporations and their major shareholders.
This is included in wp:selfsource: 1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim

It is clearly a self-serving claim aimed at deceiving the public with respect to the nature of the movement insofar as the movement is AstroTurf; therefore, the modifier "unduly" applies, and the "sourced" material is doubly inadmissible.Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at it objectively, Ubikwit. Yes, it does receive money from deep pockets, but so does Organizing for America, and it's still being allowed to define itself on Wikipedia as a grass-roots organization. The grass-roots origins of TPm — Keli Carender, Rick Santelli, and the spontaneous movement that grew up around their feet — are well documented in reliable, neutral sources such as the New York Times[23] and CBS News.[24] Yes, there are a few sources claiming that it's Astroturf but those are a distinct minority per WP:WEIGHT. Choose your battles more carefully Ubikwit. You're going to lose this one, just like you've lost the one about "anti-immigration," and for the same good reason: it's a tiny minority opinion, advanced by political opponents, and the opposite majority opinion is represented by an enormous number of reliable, neutral sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not battling, just calling attention to what I perceive to be examples of faulty reasoning.

No one has opposed describing the TPm's grassroots dimension, but that is not an exclusive characterization bought by the exclusion of other reliable sources that point to the various funding issues. Here, it is the contradictions perceived in policies advanced by the TPm--which seem to serve corporate interests as much or more than individual citizens--and the attempt to portray the movement as a ground-swell populist movement aimed at combating abuses by the powers that be.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur and P&W as you should know by now the anti-immigration issues is unresolved and your use of references there was as faulty in both source and interpretation as you are now. All parties have a grass roots, its the origination and support that count for the lede and you need something more substantive there. If anyone is showing a battle ground mentality its you with slow edit wars and forum shopping ----Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For interested editors, take note there was a mediation on the "grass roots" issue back in 2010. You'll find it here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Would you please share with us the result of that mediation as you understand it? As far as I can tell, it was unproductive. Looking forward to a productive discussion with SilkTork. If you'll pardon the expression, similar to a Gun Free Zone I want this to become a Bullshit Free Zone. My use of the sources and interpretation of those sources has been quite sound. NPR even though the article was about big money flowing into TPm was quite explicit about it being a grass-roots organization. Objective review of the NYT and CBS sources I linked above confirm its grass-roots origins. There are plenty of other sources if you want them.

I've also posted a list of six reliable sources at the end of the "Survey" section above regarding the "anti-immigration" claim. I haven't seen anyone trying to discredit those sources or my interpretation. Again, there are plenty of other sources if you want them. For all practical purposes the "anti-immigration" discussion is over, and you lost. The majority opinions in both cases are that TPm is a grass-roots organization and that it is opposed to illegal immigration. Per WP:WEIGHT, these majority opinions should be presented near the beginning of the article and get more weight. The minority opinions that advance "anti-immigration" and Astroturf claims belong at the end of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For all practical purposes the "anti-immigration" discussion is over, and you lost.

You are welcome to rejoin the discussion at any time, of course. Saying "you lost" (and likewise in another comment, "Choose your battles more carefully") in regard to content discussions indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. The only winners and losers in such discussions are the readers of Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason we were asking for mediation is because we were dealing with Dylan Flaherty who was a sock, although at the time we didn't know he was a sock. [25]. He also socked as an IP.[26] As to what happened with the mediation, I think it ended because the mediator was a student and had to abandon it. Arthur Rubin might have a better recall of events. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, it seems to me that your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is skewed. The relevance of weight does not necessarily correspond to placement in the article; rather, it can correspond to the manner of description anywhere in the article.Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to sources, TPM is about as grass roots as is realistically possible for a movement of that size. Yes, I'm sure that a few of the hundreds of TPM organizations got money or jump starts from others but that does not change that. It's about as spontaneous and decentralized as anything can get. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to characterize the movement as any particular kind of movement, particularly not a characterization that is contested. It is the same with the immigration stuff, instead of adding labels that always carry positive or negative connotations, we should focus on describing the concrete and sourceable facts. Who characterize it as a grassroots movement? Who argue that it is not? We can find reliable sources applying all kinds of labels - but each such characterization is a view not a fact. We should include all notable views but not privilege some as definitions unless they are in the vast majority both inside and outside of the movement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the correct approach rhetorically: limit the use of adjectives and attribute contested characterizations in context.

Any ideas about the organization of the article?Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 07:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since a powerful majority of the reliable sources describe it as a grass-roots movement, or provide a wealth of details about its origins which support the "grass-roots" descriptor, I think we have a duty to describe the movement that way. The small minority of sources that make the Astroturf claim can be set forth later in the article. The best description appears to be from the NPR article I've cited: that it really is a genuine grass-roots movement, but certain elements and organizations that form parts of the movement have received money from "deep pocket" donors, much like such progressive organizations as Organizing for America and Organizing for Action, which Wikipedia doesn't hesitate to describe as "grass-roots organizations." Of course it's a complex description. Most organizations with millions of supporters have fairly complex descriptions and sources of funding. Complex descriptions don't belong in the lede, so we should boil that description down to the term "grass-roots" for purposes of the lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets not. It is a really bad idea because there are lots of other adjectives that could be attributed to a "powerful majority", for example with the same reasoning we might just as well describe it as a "far right movement" or similar. Complex descriptions don't belong in the lead and neither do those that are currently contested in the literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but obviously "grassroots" is reserved for the left. I love how Organizing for America (Obama's old PAC) is called a community orginization (ie grassroots) even though it is clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing how that article should be written here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If we leave out descriptive terms, aren't we abdicating our responsibility as editors of an encyclopedia? We have a duty to provide a summary style version of all the descriptive terms out there, obeying WP:WEIGHT. The vast majority of sources describe the TPm as either conservative, or partly conservative and partly libertarian. "Far right" has negative connotations, since the term is often associated with neo-Nazis and militia groups. The term has been used on occasion to describe TPm, but those using it are generally publications or entities that can reasonably be construed to be politically opposed to TPm. After all, if we allow politicians and political organizations to be defined by their opponents, there would be a certain biography starting with the words, "Barack Obama is a socialist born in Kenya ..." that's not a place where we want this encyclopedia to go. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that we shouldn't put "grass roots" into the lede of the TPm article speaking in Wikipedia's voice as the definitive description; it's a contested issue between it's advocates and it's detractors, which is discussed in the body of the article. As a side note, the Wikipedia articles on Organizing for America and Organizing for Action do not say they are "grass roots" either. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a false statement. Organizing for Action is described by Wikipedia as follows: "OFA executive director Jon Carson and Messina both said OFA is a non-partisan, grassroots issue advocacy group." [27] Despite the group's practice of offering direct access to the president for a $500,000 fee, the word "Astroturf" does not appear in the article, even though there's some very notable criticism that uses the term.[28] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote and put it in the proper context; I'm talking about the ledes, as well as the use of Wikipedia's voice. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that in addition to people within the organization, neutral and reliable third party sources are also describing TPm as a grass-roots movement. The New York Times[29] is the gold standard of reliable sources at Wikipedia. And why is "Astroturf" criticism mentioned at great length in one article but not mentioned at all in the other, when the word "Astroturf" is being used by reliable sources to criticize both organizations? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that the TPm funding is related to promoting the advocacy of policies aimed at protecting the interests of the corporations that are funding the movement, whereas with the other organizations you mention, that is not the case. Therefore, it is not even controversial that President Obama will meet with a donor that offers to donate $500,000 to the group, because they are not advocating for policies that are designed by corporations and go against the public interest.Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is getting pretty deep in here. Arzel (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Remember when I said that I want this to be a Bullshit Free Zone? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Do you honestly believe that? "Against the public interest" is completely subjective, Ubikwit. But as for the rest of it, do you really believe that? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, take second-hand smoke, for example. That is a public health (i.e., public interest) issue that has now been addressed such that there are laws that protect people from second-hand smoke. This is probably the most important point of the tobacco control article. That article is addressing public health issues connected to the tobacco industry and uncovered the fact that they had started funding "smokers rights'" groups to combat actual grassroots movements working to have a smoke-free environment in restaurants, etc. There is nothing like that in the groups connected to the Obama campaign, as they are up front about the issues for which they advocate in the name of the public.Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The connection between "smokers rights" groups and TPm is a real stretch, Ubikwit. There's a good reason why this story hasn't gained traction in any mainstream news sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are people saying that the TPm is grass-roots, and there are people who say the opposite; both sides of the issue are covered in reliable third party sources. When it comes to the lede, we probably shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia's voice (asserting as factual) that it's grass-roots any more than we should be saying it's astroturf. As an aside in response to your question P&W, if you want to explore adding "astroturf" criticism to the OFA article, you can certainly do so. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, no. I categorically ignore the "go and edit some other article" defense. I find it much more productive to use other articles, especially Good Articles and Featured Articles, as guideposts when editing this article. Take a look at Barack Obama, for example. It's a Featured Article. Show me where the criticism starts, or the "commentary" by a conservative equivalent of the Huffington Post. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats alright, I categorically deny the "other shit exists" argument. So where does that leave us? Last time I checked the Tea pArty wasn't President of the United States of America, so I think your analogy fails (a better analogy would be to the article on the Green party). Plus we are arguing about whether to let the movement define itself as grassroots or not, not about whether there should be a criticism section. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You were implying that because the OFA article doesn't currently contain any criticism about allegations of astroturf, similar reliably sourced material doesn't belong here on the TPm article. I think most editors here will find that argument unpersuasive (anyone else care to comment?), but feel free to pursue it. In so far as looking at the Barack Obama BLP, I'd say we were in the same category of guideposts and GA/FA examples to work with if this were, say, the George Bush BLP. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Using scholarly sources: [30] In the US this awakened a grassroots movement that became known as the Tea Party movement. [31] Newsweek (the notorious right wing source) In that regard, Palin reflects the abiding unease that many conservatives, especially the grassroots activists associated with the Tea Party movement, still feel about Romney. [32] But if the tea-party protests produced their share of histrionics from the right, they also brought out the worst in progressive elites. As the grassroots movement was gaining traction across America, liberal columnists and commentators ridiculed the new political movement as a collection of racists, reactionaries, and uneducated buffoons. Instead of recognizing these nationwide protests for what they were--a potent sign of public discontent--too many liberals became more contemptuous as the tea-party movement grew. What actually counts of course is how its supporters view it - and it is quite clear that its supporters do indeed call it "grassroots" and it is fitting that we, as a minimum, say "Its supporters call it a grassroots movement." Collect (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should definitely state that there is a grassroots element in the movement and its emergence, and that it still considers itself to be that. But that is not the same as adopting that as the definition (which none of the sources you here produce do either).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is also a false statement. I have already cited this reliable source in support of the word "grass-roots" in the article mainspace: [33] There is also this one: [34] In both articles, NPR admits that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, but they're concerned about the deep pockets money that some organizations under the TPm umbrella are receiving. Here's Harvard Magazine: [35]

Then there's the New York Times article I've already linked, regarding Keli Carender and the origins of the TPm. While the NYT doesn't actually use the word "grass-roots," the circumstances that are very, very reliably described are loudly screaming "grass-roots." In addition to the three sources Collect has posted above, all of which either describe TPm, or Tea Party activists, as "grass-roots." One of the three sources is Newsweek, which in recent years has moved farther to the left than The Nation. If anybody had a motive to deny that the TPm is a genuine grass-roots movement, it would be Newsweek.

Now, maybe you should try looking up the definition of Astroturfing. A genuine Astroturfing operation conceals the source of the money. One political operative pretends to be several people at once — and the people he's pretending to be have no connection to the source of the money. Is there any evidence of anything like that going on here? TPm is a grass-roots movement that's getting money from deep pockets. The deep pockets aren't a secret. Nobody's pretending to be several people. This is very different from an actual Astroturfing operation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is a non-argument, we could produce any number of reliable sources using different characterizations, there is no reason whatsoever that the "grassroots" adjective should be considered more definitional than any of those - Right wing organization, radical wing, funamentalist movement etc. They are characterizations that can be made, one does not define the topic more than the others. The definition sentence in the lead defines something, it doesn't elevate one particular view among many to the status of fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Right wing organization, radical wing, funamentalist movement etc. Those terms are not being used by reliable, NEUTRAL sources. Those terms are being used by persons and publications that are aligned on the left. I imagine that you could find whatever loaded terms you want to find at left-leaning publications that are perfectly reliable, such as Rolling Stone, Slate or Salon. I repeat, if we allow political figures and organizations to be defined by their opponents, there would be a certain biography starting with the words, "Barack Obama is a socialist born in Kenya ..." Here at Wikipedia we start with the reliable, NEUTRAL sources. All the reliable, neutral sources that weigh in on the subject say "grass-roots." Or they provide a strong set of facts supporting the word "grass-roots." None of the reliable, neutral sources say "Astroturf." Then we go to whatever the subject of the article is saying about itself per WP:SELFSOURCE. And wonder of wonders, they're saying exactly what the reliable, neutral sources say: "grass-roots." Yeah, yeah, it's self-serving. But it's not unduly self-serving because it's confirmed by the reliable, neutral sources. That is why Wikipedia policy supports using the term "grass-roots" in the lede. WP:SELFSOURCE is a section of WP:RS, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia policy. WP:WEIGHT is a section of WP:NPOV, another of Wikipedia's three pillars. WP:WEIGHT says that we go with what the majority of the reliable sources say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-sequitur arguments generally dont advance the discussion. No-one is suggesting that the movement should be defined by its opponents, but that it should be defined neither by its proponents nor its opponents. You are rejecting sources that disagree with your favored definition because they are non-neutral, and the evidence you offer is that they disagree. The evidence you offer for a source's neutrality is that it agrees with you. That is tough to argue meaningfully against. And harder still to find a compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

... but that it should be defined neither by its proponents nor its opponents. Now that part you've got correct. Neutral sources such as the New York Times and Harvard Magazine. For this moment, you made me think you're moving in the right direction.
You are rejecting sources that disagree with your favored definition because they are non-neutral, and the evidence you offer is that they disagree. No, the evidence that I offer is that they are politically opposed to TPm. As you said, "No-one is suggesting that the movement should be defined by its opponents[.]"
The evidence you offer for a source's neutrality is that it agrees with you. No, the evidence that I offer is that they are genuinely neutral. The New York Times is the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Other major dailies such as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, and major networks such as CBS News, ABC News and National Public Radio, also carefully preserve their reputation for unbiased, accurate reporting.
And harder still to find a compromise. Well, Wikipedia policy is uncompromising on this point. We don't allow the minority opinion to be presented as the majority opinion, nor do we allow it to obscure the majority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Astroturfing

The term 'astroturfing' contradicts the concept of grassroots organization. The above argument has gone this way and that on the matter, but there are more sources to consider. The first three listed below are already used in the article. The others are fine new sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Krugman, Paul (April 12, 2009). "Tea Parties Forever". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
Hannity, Sean (March 2, 2010). "Pelosi Backpedals on Tea Partiers". Hannity's America. FOX News Network.
Powers, Ryan (April 15, 2009). "Pelosi: Tea parties are part of an 'astroturf' campaign by 'some of the wealthiest people in America.'". ThinkProgress. Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Monbiot, George (October 25, 2010). "The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires: By funding numerous rightwing organisations, the mega-rich Koch brothers have duped millions into supporting big business". The Guardian. London.
Good, Chris (April 13, 2009). "The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?". The Atlantic.
"Pelosi Claims Tea Party Hijacked by GOP". Fox News. February 28, 2010.
Ducat, Stephen (October 15, 2010). "Tea Party Rage, Part Two: Grass Roots Movement or AstroTurf Tool of Corporate Power?". Huffington Post.
Formisano, Ronald P. (2012). The Tea Party: A Brief History. JHU Press. pp. 5–14, 34, 70–71, 86–87, 94, 97, 100, 110, 117. ISBN 1421405962. Ronald P. Formisano, PhD, is an American History professor at the University of Kentucky. On page 71 he names the Institute for Liberty as one element of the Tea Party that is engaging in "blatant astroturfing".

This is a false statement. Please stop misrepresenting the sources immediately. Formisano very clearly identifies Institute for Liberty (IFL) as a group that is trying to co-opt the Tea Party from outside: "... business lobbyists, claiming to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, appropriate the label and engage in blatant astroturfing on behalf of corporate clients." Let's try to end the practice of misrepresenting what the sources say. Formisano never described IFL as "one element of the Tea Party." I checked the book out from the library this morning. Don't try this bullshit again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party, even though they are engaging in blatant astroturfing. Formisano says there is not really just one Tea Party, there is instead a plurality: "Tea Parties" (page 7). Formisano says "the main debate about the Tea Party, however, has to do with authenticity. To what extent has it emanated from the grassroots, from ordinary people, especially from those not previously involved in politics, or to what extent has it been created by corporations, billionaires, and right-wing media seeking to further their own agendas?" The field is so large that it includes all of the above. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party ... Not according to my reading, and I've been reading this book all freakin day. My impression so far is that Formisano agrees the ORIGINS of the movement in 2009 were genuine grass-roots, and that it is still a principally grass-roots organization; but both the Republican Party, and certain Super PACs created for the purpose, have been trying to co-opt it. Please identify the chapter and page where "Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party" and I'll check this claim. Thank you.
"... to what extent has it been created by corporations, billionaires, and right-wing media seeking to further their own agendas?" I notice that Formisano doesn't actually claim, in response to his own question, that the TPm was CREATED to any extent at all by such entities. Instead, he reports that such entities are trying to co-opt the movement "to further their own agendas." If your understanding is different from mine, please cite the chapter[s] and page number[s] where you're getting this. Formisano, in my opinion, defines such entities as outsiders trying to get in and take over, like carpetbaggers. From the WP article, "Carpetbagger": "It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano says in "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism", p. 8, "The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few--the corporate lobbyists from above--but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." That seems to be the consensus in serious writing about them. TFD (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's your opinion that The New York Times and NPR isn't "serious writing"? Paul Krugman is a left-wing opinion columnist who's defending Obama. And George Monbiot is a left-wing opinion columnist writing in a left-wing newspaper, The Guardian. Most of the rest are quoting Nancy Pelosi, and Pelosi and the TPm clearly hate each other's guts. Please read my earlier exchange about not allowing political figures and movements to be defined by their opponents. Have we allowed Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Andrew McCarthy to define the Occupy movement? Have we allowed John Boehner, as quoted by any reliable source, to define the Occupy movement? No, of course not. Nor should we allow Monbiot, Krugman or Pelosi to define TPm — or obscure the honest, unbiased, NPOV definition of TPm that is found in the majority of reliable sources.

Formisano, and the book due to be released next month by Parker and Barreto, present the risk of editors cherry-picking small bits of it to support their version of what the article should be, and declining to tell us about all the other bits of the same writing that undercut their position. We've already experienced that sort of editing on this page, and it's still here, not in the archives yet. Please don't do that. If you're going to use books like Formisano's, there needs to be an overview of what the entire book says on the matter. This morning I went to the library and checked out Formisano's book. I'll be reading it as we go along. My impression so far is that he agrees the ORIGINS of the movement in 2009 were genuine grass-roots, and that it is still a principally grass-roots organization. but both the Republican Party, and certain Super PACs created for the purpose, have been trying to co-opt it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano is correctly quoted by TFD from page 8. Formisano is not trying to say right there that the Tea Party early beginnings were from right-wing groups; he is just saying that the current "Tea Parties" (ca. 2010–2012) are made up of both the astroturfing think tanks and the grassroots activists, not just one or the other, and that the 2010 election successes could be traced to the big spending campaigns from above. This despite the dogged independence voiced by those at the grassroots level. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano ... is just saying that the current "Tea Parties" (ca. 2010–2012) are made up of both the astroturfing think tanks and the grassroots activists, not just one or the other ... Really? Where does Formisano describe any part of the TPm as "Astroturfing"? You throw around the word "Astroturf" like a Frisbee at a family reunion. But the only point I've been able to find where Formisano describes facts that would support use of that word, is the one point on page 71 where he identifies the Institute for Liberty (IFL) as "business lobbyists, claiming to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, appropriate the label and engage in blatant astroturfing on behalf of corporate clients." Formisano is clearly describing IFL as an outside organization trying to exploit the TPm. That's not part of the TPm. And the language used by Formisano clearly means what I've said. Nothing about what Formisano has said indicates that any part of the TPm is Astroturf. Yeah, yeah, it gets money from deep pockets. Yeah, yeah, there are Astroturfing organizations outside the TPm that are trying to exploit the TPm. But it's just not the same thing as saying that the TPm, or any organization that is actually part of it, is Astroturfing. We can indicate in the lede that some TPm organizations get money from deep pocket donors. But we should also indicate that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. Nothing Formisano has written compromises that definition. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few—the corporate lobbyists from above—but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." This Formisano tidbit from page 11 is in contradiction to your viewpoint that the Tea Party is only a grass roots movement. Formisano says that it is both, that the moneyed interests are part of it, not outside of it. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Put that out-of-context remark back into its context and Formisano's real meaning becomes clear. Believe it or not, deep-pocket money or "moneyed interests" by themselves do not invalidate a movement's grass-roots nature unless they're actually using that money to conduct actual Astroturfing activities. If the money is just being used to provide websites, buses, hotel rooms, and even training for activists and events that are otherwise 100% grass-roots, how does that invalidate their grass-roots nature?

This isn't the slam dunk reliable source in your favor that you had originally described, Binksternet. IFL wasn't described as an "element" of TPM. No person or organization that's actually part of TPm was described as "Astroturfing." Formisano's statement is that non-grassroots creation of TPm is only "in part" the work of corporate lobbyists, and he doesn't cite any evidence to support even that claim. The evidence cited here is that of IFL, which Formisano clearly described as an outside influence trying to exploit TPm for its own gain. But even if we assume that his "in part" conclusion is valid based on this evidence, he does acknowledge "the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism."

I've read Formisano's book cover to cover today. It's just not helping you. And I suspect that Parker and Barreto's book, when it's released next month, will turn out to be more of the same: one or two remarks, easily taken out of context and even distorted but, when placed back into their context and when the whole book is carefully and dispassionately read, the claims certain Wikipedia editors are trying to make just don't get the support they need from the cited source. The abundant reliable, neutral sources that unambiguously define TPm as a grass-roots movement are still the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Have a good evening. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What does "both type of populism" mean in that sentence? Top-down is not the same as grass-roots, so there seems to be something of a contradiction there. If astroturf is characterized as a form of populism, it still needs to be distinguished from a grassroots movement. As s/he seems to be saying simply that "Tea Parties", by which I gather s/he means rallies, have been organized by both, then the movement still needs to be described in terms of both, though individual rallies could be described for illustrating the respective "types of populism".Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Both types of populism" means both the populism of corporate lobbyists and grassroots populism. TFD (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice that neither type of populism involves concealing the source of the money, or one political operative pretending to be several people — two essential elements of Astroturfing. Also, which came first: the "populism of corporate lobbyists," or the grass-roots populism? The latter, obviously. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Here's a definition from the article populism

an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".

The distinction relating to grassroots movements is important, and the tobacco study is a good reference for this. The grassroots anti-smoke movement challenged the tobacco industry by petitioning the government, and won new controls against second-hand smoke, etc. In conjunction with some of the other references above relating to corporate power, etc. the combination is effective for illustrating the distinction between astroturf and grassroots, without necessarily addressing populism. Or should the anti-smoke movement be considered populist instead of simply citizen based, or something like that?

I guess I'm not sure that the discussion of populism fits with the distinction between astroturf and grassroots. On the other hand, because the focus of most grassroots movements is more cause specific (anti-war, occupy Wall St., etc.) than the TPm with its "contract for america" quasi-political party ethos, since both the corporate backed parties and grassroots parties are both manifestations of "populism", there is definitely a need to discuss populism, perhaps in relation to grassroots.Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The "tobacco study" is way, way out in left field, Ubikwit. I've told you before that there's a very good reason why it hasn't gained any traction in the mainstream press. This is the sort of thing that investigative reporters at The New York Times and The Washington Post would be eager to write about — if there were any real substance to it. Unfortunately, there isn't. It's a lot of guilt by association, innuendo, and smoke and mirrors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that any editor who wants the highest level article will somehow get hold of a copy of Formisano's book. The scholarly viewpoint he offers will settle more than a few arguments here. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seem like an excellent source to me, but I for one will have to rely on those of you who have it for relevant passages. I'd like to make it through more of the legal scholarship pdf sources related to the constitution.

It certainly seem that there is material in the Formisano book applicable with regard to astroturf and populism, but pulling out quotes and fleshing out the context seems to be in order. I think that there may be material in some of the "corporate power" related sources listed above that could be correlated in an illustrative and supporting manner.

There seems to be a fair amount of anachronistic information in the article, which I've been editing to reflect current status as I make my way through it. It would be desirable to integrate high-level analysis from academic sources with the corresponding events related passages.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think it should be characterized as grassroots or astroturfing or some combination of the two. Rather, we should just detail what sources say about the movement's or origins and then note the dispute over its exact nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have been saying for awhile now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For highly contested vague terms perhaps you are right. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agenda

"The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments." While this may make sense in the present, years from now this may not be understood. we should clarify and cite exactly what bailouts and stimulus packages are being being referred to.--Asher196 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes, good point. The level of detail related to important topical matter is so poor it's ludiculous, basically. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments? What are those?Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Very easy solution — transform each term that may be unclear in the future into a Wikilink to the corresponding article. "The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts and stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments." I wish all the problems with this article were solved so easily ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a solution at all.

Obviously there should be wikilinks to TARP and the 16th and 17th Amendments. There should also, however, be a level of analysis vis-a-vis the TPm agenda, particularly with respect to the constitution and Amendments that is in accordance with what is found in RS, particularly high-level academic RS such as the sources by legal scholars, the content of which has been repeatedly reverted in a blanket manner without justification.

It is probably the case that the opposition to TARP is related to taxation/government spending, for example, and to which Amendment would taxation relate? I believe that there is also a constitutional rationale for attacking universal health care. A great deal--if not the entirety--of the agenda of the TPm can be explicated with respect to the corresponding positions on the constitution, and that is why there are a number of high-level studies of that issue in particular.

Why is it that you and other editors are intent on keeping detailed analysis of the TPm agenda off the article page?--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that you want inaccurate reports of the TPm agenda on the article page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On the word "Generally"

The word Generally is defined as 1.In most cases; usually. 2.In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions. Regardless of the "anti-immigration" belief, it can in no way be considered "generally" from the available sources. Furthermore it is clearly a WP:WEASEL word when it is used in this manner. Arzel (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Generally" and also "tend to" are used by the reliable sources, and they very accurately convey what the sources convey. Those words are used in exactly the same manner as in the sources. So what is the objection? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that state that the TPM is "Generally anti-immigration". Arzel (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does that not surprise me one bit? Yet you delete the word, claiming it is unsourced. Word-search "generally", perhaps? It's discussed all over this Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was un-sourced and it is a weasel word. I am not sure I understand where you are going with your third and fourth sentences. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How did you determine that it was "un-sourced"? And how is it a weasel word when that is the word that reliable sources use? (one example: ...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector...)? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sources that have made that statement. As for your other statement, the "generally" is simply not needed and seems to be put into place to support your POV. The Tea Party was started because of tax issues and government intervention in the private sector. It is like saying "Water is generally wet". It is a pointless and not necessary. With regards to immigration, the statement does not hold true. The TPM is against illegal immigration and we have an overwhelming number of sources which make this quite clear. We also have many Tea Party politicians that are clearly not anti-immigration. Why do you feel it necessary to belabor the point? Arzel (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked; it's still there. In the very first sentence. As mentioned above several times. Sorry you having trouble reading it. Saying it isn't there won't make it disappear. I'm not arguing whether it is "needed" or not; in fact, my preferred edit was more succinct and simply conveyed the "anti-immigration" fact, but the "generally" was added from the source as well, as a concession to editors who wanted to emphasize that it didn't mean 100% of the TP was universally anti-immigration. I don't doubt that there are TPers who are not anti-immigration, but that observation can be made of any position the movement takes, including taxes, spending, government involvement, etc. "The TPM is against illegal immigration and we have an overwhelming number of sources which make this quite clear." -- exactly; that can be said for large percentages of non-TPers, too. Anti-immigration is not "fringe" by any stretch. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to what you are talking about. If you are referring to the lede, I removed the weasel from there and simply WP:SAID the statement. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I already have. The links are already cited at the end of the sentence we are discussing, in the article. I've also already re-linked one of those several sources on this Talk page (see my edit of 02:08, 3 April 2013 above). And no, I'm not referring to the lede; we're still discussing the content in the first 2 paragraphs in the 'Agenda' section, correct? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Post an link to it HERE. I am not going to go searching through sources to find that comment. It is not that difficult for you to post a link to the source that supports your argument. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not difficult at all. But I'm not going to post "a link to the source that supports my argument" for a 3rd or 4th time. Rather tired of repeatedly jumping through that hoop (which isn't entirely your fault, as it was other editors that keep requesting the same damn link over and over again), so I'm sure you can click on the link provided above if you are interested in actually reading the reliable source. Or click the same link following the content you edited. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I am going to disregard what you have to say on this issue completely. I searched for your link in the talk pages, and don't know what source you are referring. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are going to disregard what I have to say on the issue? And I suppose you think this is news? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is definitely a minority opinion per WP:FRINGE which does not deal solely with fringe opinions. WP:FRINGE instructs us how to present minority opinions. WP:WEIGHT a section of WP:NPOV, gives us even better guidance. Please stop pretending that "TPm is anti-immigration" is the majority opinion. The majority opinion, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, is that TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. Presenting this minority opinion so early in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, gives it far too much WP:WEIGHT. It should be restricted to the much later section dealing with allegations of racism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that the description of the TP movement as generally anti-immigration is "fringe" is inaccurate. The view is broadly supported by scholarship in its field. You apparently misunderstand the WP:FRINGE guideline, "anti-immigration" or both. Your assertion that the "generally anti-immigration" description is given too much weight is likewise inaccurate. "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." Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't "broadly supported." It's very narrowly supported. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources indicates that the Tea Party opposes illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants. And recent events, such as the Rand Paul speech, suggest that even this may go too far. Claims that the Tea Party is "anti-immigration" are a tiny minority opinion. WP:WEIGHT says that we should give such opinions space in proportion to the size of the minority. This tiny minority opinion does not belong in the first section of the article. That gives it too much weight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do indicate the TP is opposed to "illegal immigration" and "amnesty". I don't think anyone (except Malke, briefly) is disagreeing with that. But it sounds like you are presenting that as proof that somehow TPers are not, as the majority of reliable sources indicate, anti-immigration. You do realize that opposition to immigration of any kind, including just "the illegal kind" is still a subset of anti-immigration, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting statistical sources: [36][37] 82% see illegal immigration as a serious problem which is more than average Americans and other Republicans.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the poll: For the purposes of the poll, those who have attended a rally or donated to a group have been deemed Tea Party "activists." Four percent of Americans fall into this category. Makes a big difference when they ask actual tea party members. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If there were actually a definition of "member", that would make it easy. But since there is no membership, the poll separates the self-identified Tea Party Supporter respondents (18% of Americans) from the rest, and 1/5 of those TPers are further categorized as TP Activists (4% of Americans) if they attend rallies and donate money to the movement. Tea Party "activists," defined as those who have attended a rally or donated money to the movement, make up a small portion of the group, but they are even more pessimistic about the direction of the country, and more negative about President Obama, than Tea Partiers overall. What "big difference" do you see, besides the fact that the views diverge even more? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The poll is problematic because the composition of the TPm is problematic.

The poll states that the people identifying as "supporters" were

...better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than $50,000 per year.

but that doesn't seem to jibe with the slogans on the placards or the people shown in the photos of the rallies (not only those in the reference piece). The religion angle seems to jibe with the TPm overall, but the number identifying a Republicans seems low. At any rate, these relate to the problem of accurately polling a "movement" comprising various groups and backed by various organizations, including multinational conglomerates.

The people actually participating in the TPm seem to be composed more of disenfranchised low-income, low-education people with a time on their hands because they are out of work. The fact that they blame Obama for the economy is immediately suspect. Obama has pushed for programs supporting the middle class against the wealthy, lowering the post Bush-Cheney-financial crisis unemployment rate substantially, so the reasons for opposition to Obama by people in a bracket his programs would seem to be helping can only be ideological. So that turns my focus back to corporate sponsored AstroTurf pseudo grassroots activism, and how the participants were organized to attend the TPm rallies in the first place.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything in that last paragraph, other than possibly the first sentence, and conceivably the last sentence, is unfalsafiable opinion.

Referring to many of the comments; it would be interesting if a single poll distinguished between those who have attended rallies (who would be expected to be unemployed, and, if the rally is away from home, either recently employed or paid to attend the rally) and those who have donated, and compared those who have attended TPm rallies with those who have attended Occupy movement rallies/events. It could tend to disconfirm the "astroturf" allegations, as no-one (that I have ever met or read) thinks that the occupy movement is "astroturf", although some think that they are just vandals.

There is some confusion, at least in the statements above, whether the poll reported at CBS defined activists as those who have attended rallies and donated, or those who have attended rallies or donated.

Referring to ...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector...; the scope of both "generally" and "excessive" is sufficiently ambiguous that, except in a direct quote, it only supports "generally opposing excessive taxation", which also is pretty much a nullity. Is there anyone supporting excessive taxation? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The POV I'e expressed is indeed partly based on personal observation and partly in relation to contradictions relating to the poll.

First of all, I think that the very premise of conducting a telephone poll in relation to a decentralized, poorly defined movement is itself dubious. If they want to conduct a poll, they have to poll the attendees of the rallies.

Many of the respondents to the questions in the poll were responding off-the-cuff based on some perceived emotional proclivity and being largely misinformed about the TPm. They certainly weren't registered members of a political party...

Secondly, you should not that the Occupy movement you point to was international in scope, and arose in response to the economic conditions brought about by the Bush-Cheney financial crisis (more precisely, started by Reagan deregulation and continued under Clinton by Summers and Rubin, all connected to Wall St.).

So one might question why the TPm didn't arise during the Bush-Cheney administration, when the national debt sky-rocketed because of the military/defense industry expenditures they caused the USA to incur? One might ask why the TPm didn't become an international movement?--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is really not very interesting to field our personal critiques of the poll technique. Find a better poll that shows a different result or a source that critiques this poll then we have an argument. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, opinion polls have the potential to be controversial even when the targeted sample group is more clearly delimited, as in the case of registered members of a political party. Here are some general points Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy.

In the case of the poll in question, the pollsters face some of the same obstacles that we as editors have been dealing with in relation to this WP article on the TPm. Because the poll is purely an opinion poll relating to a "hard to define" movement (statement from the lead) with no delimitation of the targeted sample group whatsoever, the methodology is questionable, to say the least. It is published by RS, but I would imagine that the content of the article relating to the poll would probably become the subject of a post at RS/N, depending on how someone wanted to use it. Since it is an "opinion" poll, maybe it would only be citable as an "opinion".--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect, they did not target the poll as you suggest, and the poll clearly uses the best way to target a loosely organized movement. They polled random voters asking if they identified as Tea Party supporters or activists, they then over sampled those who did identify as such. This is clearly the best way to identify the viewpoints of the base of a loosely defined movement. And yes, it is opinion, but it is the opinion of 850 voters who identify as Teaparty supporters - not just a bunch of random voters.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to using the source, provided that the scope is put in focus. There is some good information in it. You may be right that the methodology used was the best that could be devised, under the circumstances, but the paucity of such polls is a testimony to the inherent difficulty of such polling. A book published by an academic press is due out in May, and that may have some more survey data gathered at the so-called Tea Parties from people actually attending them.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Poll data can be informative, but interpretation of polling information can produce a lot of variance. Wider and more frequent polling would produce more reliable information, of course, but some academics and experts have delved further into the matter by going back to those polled and examining the actual reasoning behind their questionnaire responses. One such source was mentioned above, "...she went beyond national polling data when researching for the book and spoke to members of the Tea Party, which provided her unusual insight into the group’s political motivations and interests." Perhaps the academic book you mentioned does the same? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Amazon blurb

Providing a range of original evidence and rich portraits of party sympathizers as well as activists, Christopher Parker and Matt Barreto show that what actually pushes Tea Party supporters is not simple ideology or racism, but fear that the country is being stolen from "real Americans"

--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the pollsters did define 'member.' They said people who contributed money and attended meetings were labelled as 'activists' and not 'supporters,' which is merely the general public. So yes, 4 percent means exactly what they said it does. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion

I made a comment on the ArbCom case that I would be happy to moderate a discussion. I would be looking to draw people together on the broader issues that concern contributors. One of the concerns I have noted is regarding the amount of material in the article, and I think that might be a useful starting point. However, the first stage would be to ensure that nobody has an objection to a moderated discussion, or to me being the person to hold it. I'd like to wait a day or two for responses or queries to my offer of doing this before getting fully stuck into a content discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

support and thanks Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
support We need it. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support even though I do not qualify as active here really. Collect (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
~~Oppose for now~~. per comment on ArbCom talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support I reviewed a few ArbCom pages and can see why, in comparison to other cases, the TPM is not on the front burner, so I see no reason to delay until this case is settled. Also, I read again Silk Tork's comments on ArbCom and feel he is very insightful and likely to help sort the situation here to everyone's satisfaction. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Moderation by a previously uninvolved person with some authority is badly needed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support ----Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Of course, after the Arbcom case is closed. Mediation could be integrated into the remedial measures forthcoming there.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No objection. I understand Malke's point of view, but I think SilkTork could do something to ameliorate her (Malke's) concerns. As she is a major contributor to the talk page, I think that her concerns need to be dealt with to the extent possible. (Redacted comment about specific edits by Xenophrenic, as not appropriate in this thread, although no one in their right mind would consider it a personal attack.) I would like to support, as it may provide a way out of this mess, but Malke's concerns need to be met so that she can freely participate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I asked you to substantiate the personal attack, or if you could not, redact it. Thank you for redacting it. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would the editor who made the redactions kindly so identify themselves? Referring to edits is generally not cnsidered a "personal attack" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  - That's a reasonable request, Collect. Accusations on behavior without providing specific evidence is against WP:NPA. I've left a note for Arthur to provide the specifics. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

<Collect please undo your post, so I can revert Xenophrenic's redaction of Arthur Rubin's comment. Your edit is in the way. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I reverted it manually. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has redacted Arthur's comment three times now and that seems WP:Disrupt to me. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic reverts/redactions [38] and again [39] and again [40]. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's too late to formally add Xenophrenic to the RfAr, as it's already past the workshop stage. And, if someone would point me to an appropriate forum to comment on WP:TE by editors not already named in the RfAr, I would do it there instead of here, for the most part. However, it's also a potential reason why I might object to this proposal, so it's not completely out of line to mention it here, even if Xenophrenic thinks it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of WP:TE behavior without accompanying evidence in any forum are clearly defined as personal attacks that are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Redaction was wrong but so was your one sided accusation. P&G would also be a candidate and you're not an innocent. I suggest you try and reduce the temperature rather than provoking others ----Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur didn't make a one-sided accusation. He's simply pointing out Xenophrenic's behavior in an accurate, measured, well-written comment that is not at all a personal attack. Xenophrenic has also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. It's disruptive to keep redacting another editor's comments without bringing it up on the talk page. Why not post an explanation here for other editors to see and comment, too? That gives the editor the chance to redact his own comments. It's also disruptive for Xenophrenic to imply that sources he's using are sanctioned by "ArbCom" because Silk Tork suggested them on the Workshop talk page. And his incivility and refusal to strike through his comments are worrisome. Xenophrenic is quick to demand that other editor's redact their comments about him, but he won't extend the same courtesy when they object to what he's said about them. In fact, he argues more vigorously that's he right and the editor is wrong. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, you should refrain from making false accusations, too. The redaction was indeed brought up on his Talk page, contrary to what you say. He has had plenty of opportunity to redact his comments, or substantiate them — and he has declined. Why not conduct that personal discussion here? Because article Talk pages are for discussion of article improvement, not for discussion of unsupported personal attacks and related matters concerning editors. I've not been uncivil to you, nor have I been disruptive, and while I do "demand" that editors address their unsubstantiated attacks or gross incivilities, never once have I refused to do the same, contrary to what you say. (Example: "...if you aren't just yanking my chain here, and you seriously didn't catch the sarcasm and instead took offense at the humor for some reason, then of course I'll refactor or reword what I wrote, as offense was certainly not what I intended.") As for your false accusation that I implied "that sources [I'm] using are sanctioned by 'ArbCom' because Silk Tork suggested them", I did not. Ever. If you'd like to discuss any of these matters in more detail, just say so on your Talk page (I'll see it) or mine. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke's concerns are that editors "must be extra careful in what they say", and that an editor has used something from one of the sources I noted. The sources I mentioned were The Guardian, Britannica, The Independent, and infoplease.

I'd rather people were extra careful. I'd always rather people were extra careful - all the time, on every page, not just ones that are being watched. Having said that, I understand frustration when editing contentious subjects, and expect tempers to fray now and again. However, when moderating content discussions I encourage focus on content not contributor, and let people know I will hat discussions that are off-topic and distracting. As regards concerns about any sanctions coming from the ArbCom case. I cannot speak for the other Committee members, but I don't see sufficient poor behaviour in those editing this article to justify sanctions. This is a highly contentious and polarising topic, and - if anything - I have been impressed by how you folks have held it together for so long. What I am interested in is not sanctioning anyone, but in helping you folks improve the article and reach a compromise that satisfies the main contributors, and so results in a fair, honest and balanced article that will be helpful to the general reader. I don't think it will be easy, nor will it be quick, but if everyone is willing to have a positive attitude toward this attempt, then I think it will work.

I'm not clear on the problem as regards the sources. I suspect, Malke, what you saying is not that you have an issue with the sources, but that suggestions I make may be used to justify actions that may not be helpful. My aim as a moderator, is to assist you folks reach the decisions and actions yourself, rather than me make the decisions for you folks to follow. But, yes, at times I may be pushing for a decision, and if things are deadlocked I will offer suggestions.

As Malke is the main contributor to the article, I think working with an objection would be difficult, so will wait for further comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I have been in some correspondence with Malke off-Wiki, I would like to ask here on-Wiki, whether Malke's objection is that edits based on sources mentioned by SilkTork might be perceived to have a "stamp of approval", and not be as subject to critical review. If so, if SilkTork could give what asssurances that he honestly can, it might be adequate for Malke. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not given my approval for any edits. And that is not the role I would envisage taking. I am not here as a member of ArbCom, but as a fellow editor. My role would be to moderate discussions, assist with keeping them on task, and look for agreement and consensus on how to move the article toward a balanced and acceptable position. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Britannica is a problematic source at best - it is tertiary by definition, and solicits proposed edits from readers (one step from a Wiki). In short, we would best be advised not to use it as a source here. IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica now solicits input from the Internet community, just as it has solicited through trade journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. Welcome to the 21st century, Collect. We commission work from people who know their subjects--scholars, world leaders, expert writers—even Nobel laureates. Then we edit their articles thoroughly and verify the facts before you see them. The result: information you can trust. Yes, Britannica is a reliable, non-problematic source used in a broad summary paragraph as suggested by WP:Tertiary: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As Malke still appears to have an objection I will withdraw my offer of assistance. I do urge folks here to get someone in to moderate a discussion to look at the bigger issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Malke, I'm waiting to hear your response to ST's withdrawal of his offer to moderate based on a perception that you have some objection to that.

Since your objection seems irrational to me, and as I do not particularly share your opinion regarding EdJohnson's qualifications, I would be categorically opposed to him being the moderator.

If you are intent on cherry-picking a moderator, perhaps mandatory mediation with Arbcom appointed mediators would be the proper way to proceed.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While my opinion was opposite to Malke's, I think that they expressed sincere considerations, and a sincere attempt at making a good suggestion. I think it is not warranted and not very nice to call that "cherry-picking" a moderator, which implies several other things. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke has been in touch - User_talk:SilkTork#Moderator. We can start. I suggest we create a subpage in which to hold the discussions. It can be linked and/or transcluded on this page. I know there has been friction and frustration, but in order to move the discussions forward there should be no personal comments. Allow me to hat any personal comments that creep in. It would be better if I, or another uninvolved person, did that; and if, while waiting for the comment to be hatted, people did not respond, even if the comment sits there for a while. Something I have found useful, is when annoyed, type out what you want to say - but don't post it; edit it down to something polite, then discard it. It gets it out of your system, but doesn't upset anyone.

If there's no objections I will start a subpage sometime tomorrow, and on that we can briefly discuss and lay out the main issues, and consider if the article needs trimming, and if so, the best way of doing that. There was a suggestion recently of creating split-off articles. We could also consider that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the underlying cause here is conflicting goals, not personal chemistry. (Although good chemistry would make a lot of other things go better). I think that it must also be acknowledged that if an article has been pulled to one "side" that the objectives on that one "side" are to maintain the status quo, while the immediate objectives of the other "side" are to pull it towards neutral. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like a clarification about the "personal comments" restriction. In some cases, a particular edit may strike me as absurd (in some cases, to the point where I do not see how any competent person could see it as appropriate), regardless of the identity of the editor. Since we will be talking about the future of the article, rather than the past edits, this shouldn't come up, but, I'd like clarification. I would avoid commenting that a particular editor is taking inappropriate actions, but it may be necessary to indicate a particular edit is absurd. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything judgemental not factual is probably a mistake here. I would say why you thought it was absurd, avoiding sarcasm and irony. Ive had irony taken as consent for absurdity before now. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay. I had hoped to start this yesterday. I am creating a subpage: /Moderated discussion so it's easier to keep the discussion and threads in one place, and to keep track of it. I will copy and paste the above comments to that page for background. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)