This is an archive of past discussions about Tea Party protests. 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.
It‘s also controversial because some of the insider D.C. corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups, astroturfing these protests, these protests against profligate government spending against the bailouts, the folks organizing the anti-bailout protests are also lobbyists for the bailout companies. Freedom Works, for example, a key protest organizer, is headed up by Dick Armey, who‘s lobbying firm in the past year has represented AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, as well as other recipients of TARP funds. Organizing the protest against the bailout after lobbying for the firms that got the bailout, it‘s almost like Dick Armey is talking here out of both sides of the teabag.
If true (by which I mean verifiable per the weight of good sources), the fact that the protests were in large part organized by PR firms, companies, advocacy organizations, etc., would be more important than what particular stripe some of those groups happen to be. Trying to show hypocrisy by pointing at a couple examples is usually not very encyclopedic. Further, whether she is liberal or not, it is just one person's comment / analysis. The bigger astroturfing issue is not whether one particular organization sponsored one particular protest, but to what extent the protests overall are more planned than grassroots. All if sourced, of course. Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
More pictures
I found some more pictures on Flickr that (I think) are okay for use on Wikipedia. Does anyone think any of these would be good for the article?
Yikes. I think we would need some solid sourcing that those signs are representative. If we can find good sourcing that racism, fringe conspiracy theories, etc., were a significant issue with the protests then it would make sense to have a section on that, and one of those pictures might reasonably accompany that section. Wikidemon (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw a lot more signs like that on Flickr, but most were "all rights reserved" so I don't think they can be used here. JCDenton2052 (talk)
I saw a good one on Flickr and uploaded it here (under CC 2.0), but it was just removed [7] by someone called "The Red Peacock" as "my god, enough with cherrypicking protest signs." TharsHammarBits andPieces14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We currently have 6 images in the article. We should determine some way to figure out which images to include, or we should remove them all. TharsHammarBits andPieces16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Simply limit pictures to wide shots where specific signs or POV if you like, are not easily readable. If the picture is vague enough to not promote a specific sign, yet still provide a visual context then you shouldn't have to worry about NPOV or OR ramifications. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Selecting which wide shots to show will also have POV implications. If you select a wide shot of an event with 20,000 people that will imply something very different than if you select a wide shot from an event with a few hundred or a few dozen people, and therein lies the OR/POV. TharsHammarBits andPieces18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
How does that result in POV? If there is a wide shot picture at an event that was attended by x number of people and it there is a reference to the size of the attendance there is no POV. Silver has links to many of the actual reports of attendance estimates. If there are pictures associated with these event then there should be no problem. Certainly less of a problem than some of the POV pictures found on flikr focusing on specific signs. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
OR does not apply to the content images, for reasons long explained over at NFCC, WP:V, etc. Nevertheless, there are issues of POV, COATRACK, etc. Some of these images reveal bigotry, extremism, promotion of fringe theories, lapses of logic and spelling, and ever worse things like bad graphic design. It's fair to ask that the images chosen are good exemplars and reasonably representative of those at the protest. Cherry-picking embarrassing or alarming signs like the Hitler one is unfair, although it is something that even neutral journalists like to do on slow news days order to have an interesting story to tell - unlike encyclopedias, newspapers go for the sensational and "photograph of the day" kind of things are one of the places where they get to let their hair down a bit. As I mentioned above, if there are news stories about how the protests admit extremist protest messages then we might want to write a special section on it and use an image there, but not suggest that this is how they all are unless that's sourceable. Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are we adding more pictures to begin with? If anything, we should take one off of the main page and then leave it be. Pictures are meant to illustrate given points in the article, not to make it look pretty or to ensure some kind of moral balance. The Squicks (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
True - the pictures should illustrate given points rather than display single portrait pics of individuals holding a sign. After thinking it over, how do others feel about removing individual portrait pictures and instead only displaying images of the masses? It seems like the pictures that show thousands of protesters in front of a particular state capitol building have a much bigger impact and relevance than single individuals holding a sign. The point is to show the protests happened and with many people having similar frustration, rather than what a few people wrote on a sign. What do others feel about this? Tycoon24 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that some protests were huge and others were small, I don't know if would be balanced to only show pictures of the huge ones. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
True. There could always be a source to one large protest example and another source to a smaller protest, each with its own distinguishable picture to provide the article section with visual illustration to the events. Of course, this creates a need to define "large protest" and "small protest," to refine what is an acceptable picture and what is not. Ultimately this scenario would allow for the naysayers of certain images to benefit by having those pictures removed. Win-win situation? Tycoon24 (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, how many pictures of protesters holding up signs do we need to show that it was a protest? I counted at least four pictures of individual protest signs, when only one would be sufficient to illustrate the point. Brothejr (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Do one from, say, Atlanta - and another from, say - Bellevue or Redmond, WA. Shouldn't be too hard to find good pics of the smaller ones.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do the pictures need to be from the smaller Tea Parties? It would seem more appropriate to have one from, say, the Capitol of Georgia - and another from Washington State's Capitol. If pictures are taken from the smaller events, the article will likely run into the same issue of getting more individual images of protesters, rather than a large picture of the protesters at a specified state capitol. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this picture debate is sort of silly, as this article seems not to be much more picture-heavy than many articles of its size. Some of the photos are a bit redundant, and the picture of news vans seems pointless an irrelevant, but those are separate issues. In any case, the retarded template should be removed, as it just looks stupid to have a huge announcement at the top of an article saying it has a bunch of pictures in it. Why do people feel the need to announce every minor flaw they imagine an article has right at the top? We can have a discussion about images on the talk page without mentioning it in the article itself. -R. fiend (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sadly though it is not up to you to remove the tag in the first place and the issue is being worked out. When it is resolved the tag will come off. Brothejr (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion, to the extent that there even is one, isn't even about the number of pictures, but about their content. Why does a single person's opinion that there are too many pictures became a fact stated right at the top of the article, so it's one of the first thing a person reads? Do we announce all ongoing insignificant talkpage squabbles at the top of every article? Of course not, so why do so with this one? Whatever this is that urge people feel, compelling them to add as many templates as possible to the top of every single article, really needs to be suppressed. NPOV templates are significant. "I don't like some of the pictures being here" is not. I'm sure that there will always be people who think that there are too many pictures, and some people who think there should be more, so this matter will never likely be "settled". I guess we should expect intrusive templates liek this to be a permanent part of the article then? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? -R. fiend (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
By some estimates, over half a million Americans took to the streets last Wednesday to protest taxes and Washington spending – the largest single-day turnout of protesters in the US since 750,000 people marched in Los Angeles to protest foreign immigration on March 25, 2006.
Pitched as a non-partisan protest, but dominated by conservatives and libertarians, the national Tea Party protests took place in over 800 locales – from mega-city Atlanta to little Craig, Colo. – with people waving mostly homemade signs, chanting "USA! USA!" and recalling the spirit of the country's revolutionary roots to demand smaller, more responsible and more constitutional government.
Critics doubt the higher estimates of the turnout, and say the numbers represent the extreme right rather than a burgeoning political counterpoint to President Obama and current Washington policies.
Yet the idea of non-traditional protesters using bottom-up organizing to foment a national movement in the span of 60 days may have marked a turning point for the tea partiers – especially since the high attendance estimates rivaled the estimated 500,000 or so protesters who converged on New York City and several other major cities to oppose the Iraq War on Feb. 15, 2003.
"I think it's not dissimilar from what we had in 2003 with the anti-war protests, where a lot of people were uncomfortable with the war, but also uncomfortable with the anti-war position, recognizing there are terrorists out there," says Jeremi Suri, a history professor who specializes in social movements at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "Here we have a similar thing: There are serious economic issues, and it's unclear to many people whether the stimulus is going to deal with these."
Trying to estimate crowds at over 800 rallies nationwide is, to be sure, more art than science. And experts say the counting itself often becomes politicized as authorities, organizers, and attendees often come up with dramatically different counts. Cheerleading by Fox News and the appearance of popular host Sean Hannity at the Atlanta event effected the outcome, some critics say.
"Numbers give an indication of support, interest, and passion, but there's now a difference, with Fox News, between what's motivating to people and how people are mobilized," says Blaine Stevenson, a sociologist at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant.
The conservative Pajamas TV network said on Saturday that it used 850 citizen reporters, police accounts, and video tape to estimate the size of the crowd at each event. The network said in a release that total attendance reached 618,000.
Statistics blogger Nate Silver, who trumped many organizations with his polling data during last year's election, pegged the turnout at 240,000. But that count included only about half the locations. The largest events drew close to 20,000 people, but some drew only dozens. A protest in Washington included about 1,500 people in a heavy rain.
In effect, the Christian Science Monitor is doing what the Wikipedia article did before it. In fact, I'll bet the writer took a look at it and reported the same sources, using Wikipedia as an unannounced refernce point. Fair play to whoever found it, although a careful reading will simply indicate they don't know if the turnout number is 300K or 600K. It's a guess.--Happysomeone (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Pajamas media estimate
I've removed the Pajamas Media estimate because, even with caveats, it is not a reliable source. --TS15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Pajamas Media is a reliable source. I would like to hear more from TS on why he believes it is not a reliable source, but simply deleting the source because of a personal opinion against PJTV does not prove that it is a unreliable source. It just proves that someone doesn't like the source. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read [11] for a fuller discussion of Pajamas Media vis-a-vi WP:RS. Not only is the reliability of PJTV in question but the article that you are trying to include specifically states the numbers were "sent in by citizen journalists who signed up to the site to enter attendance data from the event they participated in."[12] Typically "citizen journalists" do not rise to the standards of WP:RS. TharsHammarBits andPieces23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have read the history, but I don't really see much of a difference between fivethirtyeight.com and pajamasmedia.com. They are both essentially blogs. Silver is known to be an Obama supporter. PM is known to have promoted the events. With caveats, I don't see much of a problem including the PM estimate if the 5e8 estimate is to be included. Neither is scientific, neither is completely reliable, both have been reported elsewhere, both have potential bias. I say either drop both, or report both. Additionally, I think that some of the actual reported estimates be included. Perhaps a range. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The normal convention on all of Wikipedia is to have an ideological double standard: Liberal blogs or liberal opinion articles or liberal advocacy magazines are reliable sources whereas their conservative counterparts are not. I'm not that interested in fighting that convention.
I agree with Arzel - either drop both or use both. pajamasmedia.com is no-more-or-less "reliable" than fivethiryeight.com. It is an ideological double standard to consider one of the two sources more reliable than the other. IMHO... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.78 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Arzel, I don't understand how the PJTV estimate=the Silver estimate, given my concerns posted in the history. It doesn't matter on this particular point that they are "blogs". It doesn't matter what their bias is on this particular point. For me there are two concerns: 1)Information presented and if we 2) can verify it. I like the fact that Silver links to every single news story he could find at that point - not so with PJTV. I really don't like the fact that PJTV doesn't stand behind what is posted there. It seems clear to me, however (and agree wholeheartedly) that there were a number of other municipalities not counted in the Silver tally. You know what? Here's a thought: Why don't we start OUR OWN TALLY, based on reliable sources? And until then, no one posts a turnout number. Or, heck, why not use the 350+ links that Silver STARTED and ADD to it?--Happysomeone (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The PJTV estimate is problematic, but no more so than the Silver estimate. Additionally, he has done nothing more than what you are suggesting. Which then begs the question. Is Silver's ability to add better than mine our yours? The only reason his total even is reported is because of his previous polling work. The problem with what you suggest is that it would then be considered WP:OR which is ironic since it is no different than what Silver did. I suggest Silver be dropped and the section be replaced by a few actual reported totals, say a few of the largest and smallest. Perhaps an expansion of the reports from CSM which includes several various estimates. Arzel (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an update and probably the last one. Those of you who are interested in extending the analysis (there are undoubtedly many events missing, although most of the major ones should now be covered) are encouraged to do so at Wikipedia or elsewhere. --Nate Silver (from here)
We could create an article and insert every reliably sourced estimate we could find, but we just couldn't add them all together. That would be WP:SYNTH. Maybe if the numbers were presented in a spreadsheet-type of table, the reader could arrive at the simple mathmatical conclusion on their own? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact is, we have a reliable source that has reported the same stats with several caveats: The Christian Science Monitor. So why not quot it an length?--Happysomeone (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Good catch Black Kite & thanks for the edit. I think we finally have it. I concur that PJTV is an unreliable source due to the numerous points previously made, but readded it after the CSM cited it. I failed to consider, however, why CSM was citing it. The CSM story discusses at length the controversy (and this talk page is living proof) of announcing the actual turnout for the event and the problems of doing so. The phrase "by some estimates" does not directly refer to the PJTV. As they're not naming the source, it appears CSM is standing behind the number. Fair play. And as a reliable source, CSM is therefore cited, and PJTV is not. As for Silver's numbers, I think we've discussed the merits of his list of media reports already. --Happysomeone (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A number of counter-protests were held on the same day to show support for the economic plans and actions of President Obama.[7] .... The reference is to "possible" counter protests.
Unless someone can show a reference to a real counter protest, please remove this from the article.
Kansas City Infozine: A small group staged a counter-protest. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of women's activist group Code Pink, said Americans pay high taxes to cover the cost of important government services. "We believe that civilized nations need taxes and those taxes should go for good things like public schools, and a health care system, and fire departments, and fixing roads, and public transportation and great jobs," Benjamin said. "I think some demagogues have really turned this into trying to get people against the stimulus package or against the budget."
Waco Tribune-Herald: The protest was not without its counterprotest, either. A group of counterprotesters led by former Baylor University student Ryan Young attended both rallies, holding signs designed to make light of the event. One sign read, “Say no to stop signs.” Another stated, “I hate roads.” Young and his cohorts were not unnoticed at the evening rally, as conservative talk radio host Garret Lewis took the microphone and repeatedly noted their presence, asking them to come forward and explain the meaning behind their signs to the crowd. Young refused the offer. Young used Facebook.com to help organize the counterprotest, creating a page titled “Waco Tea Party Counter-protest & Shenanigans.” The page states, “We’re going to have fun with it because nobody is taking these tea parties seriously, anyway.”
The Press-Enterprise: Palm Spring's protest was expected to draw 1,000 people as well but it also sparked a counter-protest by local Democratic Party members. A group of several Democratic clubs from throughout the Coachella Valley gathered at 11:30 a.m. to show their support for Obama. "We are respecting that it is nonpartisan," said Elle Kurpiewski, president of Democrats of the Desert. "We are saying, 'Guess what, we support the president of the United States.'"
The Oxford Press, JournalNews, and MiddleTown Journal: At the Fountain Square event, there was a small counter-protest. About a dozen people protested the protesters, one carrying a sign that read, “Where were you when Bush was spending billions a month ‘liberating’ Iraq?”
WBIR: Meanwhile, counter-protesters staged a much smaller rally in the park. Around 25 people paraded through the park holding signs in support of President Obama. They said the stimulus package has been helpful to Americans, including the University of Tennessee and its students. "Let's just call it, stop the insani-tea, 'cause this group simply doesn't have the facts right," said Commissioner Mark Harmon, who walked in the counter-protest. "If you look at it, President Obama and the Democratic Congress just delivered the largest middle-class tax cut in history, so why are we out here talking taxes except maybe to say thank you to President Obama and the Democratic Congress."
Channel 3000: A small counter-protest was held Wednesday saying that some aren't being taxed enough. "We're here to remind people that we have a very unfair tax system," said Scot Ross, with One Wisconsin Now. "I think this is great that tons of people are coming out here on a beautiful day to talk about taxation. We just happen to think that this corporate-funded rally is not the direction in which the country should go."JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Star Telegram: Meanwhile, the Colleyville-Grapevine-Southlake Democrats are planning a "Support America" counterprotest rally at the same time and location as the Southlake Tea Party rally in Town Square . Should make for some fun people-watching for Town Square shoppers.
Say Thanks for Taxes and Alliance for a Better Minnesota: (web-campaign) Here at ABM, we’re proposing that instead of complaining about taxes, we take the time to think about what our taxes do pay for [...] There's no such thing as a free lunch. But the fact is, teachers, roads, and police officers don't grow on trees. Taxes pay for the things we use and love -- like parks -- and things we need, like police. It's time we say thank you. Join us to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes. Sign our "Thank You" card to taxes, which we will share with state leaders as they address the state budget deficit in the next few weeks.
Bay Area Indy Media: An estimated 150 right wing demonstrators, whipped into a frenzy by national conservative broadcasters, took over four corners of an intersection in the downtown area, jostling and shouting at the handful of counter-protesters who showed up in the early hours of the demonstration. At 5:00pm about 40 student activists marched from San José State to Plaza de César Chavez where they were joined by more anti-war/immigrant rights demonstrators.
Tea Party Backlash: Some believe ACORN, which has been under scrutiny for accusations of voter fraud, is preparing to crash some of the tea parties. But ACORN says it is only helping to organize dozens of rallies on the same day in support of President Obama's first budget.
Code Pink Counter-protest: The Santa Monica Tea Party of 2009 and Tea Parties all across America are being organized by friends of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, all about getting less funding for government. Let's show up with a better message: STOP funding wars and Wall Street, and start funding the needs of the people-- health care, education, and a green economy. Join us as we crash their party.
Knoxville News:About 40 counterprotesters led by Knox County Democratic Party Chairwoman Gloria Johnson met on the lawn and walked to the amphitheater, standing amid tea-party attendees near signs calling for President Obama's impeachment. "I'm not really sure what the downside is to what's going on in government," Johnson said. "I got a great tax cut this year. They're building roads and putting people to work."
Come on? This seems silly. 25 people (the largest group sited) does not constite a counter-protest.
I think this falls under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT....distinct minority, tiny insignificant minority, flat earthers. Not for their views but their so-called counter-protest.
As I stated before there were not counter-protest of "note".
Well, what about saying something like "counter protests were few and very small", using the above stories as references? JCDenton2052 (talk)
The way I look at is if I were to read this 5 years from now what would I think that it meant? Almost all political events have some counter-protest. But to even mention it here is dishonest, in my opinion. The fact that you agree they were "few and small" seems to make my point. If 10 to 20% of the crowd been counter protesters then I would agree with the statement. However, there was no significant counter-protest. UNDERWIEGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoreBullWarming (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the major points of the article, which are then fleshed out in the rest of the article. Since I don't see a whole segment in the article about small counter-protests, the mention of them probably doesn't deserve a spot in the lead paragraph. But before you go yanking out the counter-protest sentence, a few of you should consider that you are completely missing the biggest counter-protest. Arguably a third (or more?) of the nations major media and news outlets counter-protested the event by mostly ignoring it; by making a joke out of it; by critically analyzing it; I even hear some reporters got in the protesters faces and berated them. And guess what — there's a whole segment in the main article devoted to the longest running "teabag" joke in history, yet not a word mentioned about it in the lede. According to the sources listed above, it appears some counter-protesters were making light of the protests, "...because nobody is taking these tea parties seriously, anyway.” Sounds like lock-step with the media outlets to me, and maybe the sentence in the lede should reflect the opposition to the tea parties ranged from the small counter-protests to the major media response. Reliable sources providing, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with JCDenton. It's like arguing that the 100+ folks at the Gathering of Eagles counterprotest at the Jan '07 Wash DC protest was so insignificant that it didn't exist. Saying few and small is fine by me - and accurate. Now there's a thought!--Happysomeone (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I get an addition into the article?
[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
These protests were also against lower taxes, since Obama just passed the largest middle class tax cut in history. Your information would probably be better suited for the Boston Tea Party article. TharsHammarBits andPieces20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
This protest was about the unabated growth of the federal government under both Bush and now accelerated by Obama not about Boston in the 1700s.
[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
MCB, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which basically means in this case that material like this should not be added unless there are reliable sources that explicitly discuss this disconnect between the Boston Tea Party and the 2009 protests. The fact (which to those familiar American history, may seem obvious) that the protests appropriate the Boston Tea Party's historical legacy and apply in ways that aren't necessarily in line with the context of the original tea party...it may be true, but (like many historical and political inferences that might shed light on Wikipedia articles on modern politics) historical legacies can be interpreted and re-interpreted in many ways. All that said, I think that except for the framing of "Ironically", what you suggest is a good addition. As long as the article doesn't explicitly make judgments about the historical legacy in relation to the modern protests (without sources to that effect, that is), historical background is helpful.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
[On second thoght] something along those lines you suggest might be appropriate, but I think your proposed passage is somewhat misleading. The Tea Act was a reduction in taxes, but was also an act that brought the issue of "taxation without representation" to a head; the Tea Party was at root a rejection of the right to tax the colonies at all. As long as the article doesn't explicitly make judgments about the historical legacy in relation to the modern protests (without sources to that effect, that is), historical background is helpful. But it would basically just need to be a short summary of the Boston Tea Party article, rather than something tailored to highlight inconsistencies in the 2009 protests.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]
It seems to me that there are two fundamental common factors:
Distrust of central government authority.
Distrust of goverment support for and entanglement with corporate monopolies and big businesses.
It's a mistake to view the protests as soley and only an anti-tax thing. The participants repeatedly stated that it was an anti-bailout, anti-pork, anti-spending, and anti-corporate-welfare thing. The Squicks (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Squicks, but the history segment right now is frankly awful and needs to be rewritten. Whoever added the Ron Paul references is violating WP:UNDUE in my view.
The actual reference point, the Boston Tea Party, should be there in its place and can be done with an internal link, all within one sentence. This context would be helpful to the reader. Go look at it. It's completely lacking. MCB seems to be suggesting an overbroad description of the Boston Tea Party, which does not belong here. --Happysomeone (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Neal Boortz does not support tea parties
Neil Boortz spoke on his show that he doesn't support tea parties because he feels they're uneffective. He is for the fair tax (national sales tax) and writing your representives, but not tea parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.224.242 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the question is whether the article should mention that, although the tea parties were heavily promoted by some conservative media, not all were on board. My inclination is that the nonunanimity among conservatives isn't all that important and there's no reason to include it. JamesMLanetc06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth keeping this in our back pocket, though, in case someone attempts to introduce a case for unanimity on the issue and the protests; such a piece of info could help maintain NPOV in such a case. 68.146.86.244 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if other prominent conservatives opposed (or at least did not support) the protests, a brief mention would be warranted. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Timeline
Is there any agreement on condensing the timeline? Is there any reason to have 8 events from Feb 27 in the timeline? Maybe we can shorten it down to the 5 or so events which best capture the timeline of the teabagging movement? TharsHammarBits andPieces12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the teabagging movement was started in the middle of April by liberals. htom (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No, those are references to the Tea Party movement. ;) The Teabagging Movement is something else. htom (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha - this is great. Not sure if anyone else notices this, but one can quickly read through this and see who is bias and who is not. For example, anyone who calls the tea parties "teabagging" is clearly here with an agenda (see htom's comment above). Or at the very least they are bias in their opinion. Teabagging is a gross joke that probably hurt MSNBC and CNN's ratings. It's no wonder Fox News ratings are skyrocketing. Sheesh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.78 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "claim" or "claimed" as in Howard Kurtz claimed that he had attended. directly implies that someone is lying, and should be avoided.
The terms "noted", "note", "point out", and so on as in She noted that he had attended or She noted that he was annoyed. should be avoided unless a vertifiable fact is being discussed. It's not okay to discuss someone's matter of opinion.
Both of the above statements are generally true. I would add that while replacing "claimed" with "argued" would be an improvement, as it removes the inference of lying, replacing "noted" or "pointed out" with "argued" does not provide the same improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, to add upon what is noted above: editors should also avoid partisan language as much as possible. (I.E. calling someone or something liberal or conservative that the references do not support.) If it can be said in a neutral tone, then it should be said in a neutral tone. If the references do not explicitly say what you are trying to say, no synthesis of facts should be done. Also, original research is strictly discouraged. This is per the WP:NPOV policy. Brothejr (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I am re adding the tag again because the same NPOV issues have cropped up again with all this Conservative Vs Liberal additions and tagging those who disagree as liberals and those who agree as conservatives. Also, portions of the article read more like a promotion of the proteststhen a neutral look at the protests and while the article tries to show the reactions against/outside responses towards the protests, they are cast in a political/minority/denigrating light when they should have been cast in a neutral light just like the overview. I have also added the unbalanced tag do to this due to the article seeming more like a promotional piece relying on blogs and web sites who had promoted the event, then on reliable third party sources who did not promote the protests, but just reported it. Brothejr (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I also added the too many images tag because if you look at all the images, the majority focuses on the placards the protesters are waving then the protesters then themselves. None of these seem neutral. Plus, how many images are needed to show what the protest looked like? Brothejr (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the images because they enhance the article, however, I do have a problem with the whole conservative versus liberal BS this article seems to have turned into. This isn't supposed to be about an "us versus them" type of ordeal. I don't blame the editors though, mainly because I think the mainstream media played a part in creating a liberal versus conservative scenario. For instance, see "Teabagging" for a clearly distasteful method of reporting the news by some media. Why can't the media just report the news, without having to add some slick, crude remark? Tycoon24 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the "teabagging" jokes are crude, but remember Wikipedia is not censored. Besides that, so many liberal commentators have made "teabagging" jokes and so many conservative commentators have called them on it that it is definitely noteworthy. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
At some point in days past, editors were complaining that the lack of political labels violated WP:NPOV. So I added labels to people who I could easily source as being liberal or conservative (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann). Then editors started complaining that the existence of political labels violated WP:NPOV. So I created a section on the talk page to try to reach consensus on the issue. I've added commentary by both those supportive of and opposed to the protests. I've tried to make it as WP:NPOV as possible by writing "X says "..."" without any commentary. The only part I've added that relies on a web site promoting the event is the scheduled September 12 protest. If you have concerns with any specific edits, please share them so that we can reach consensus. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well first of all, I've always had a problem with labels and have said it as such many times. Especially if the sources don't support the labels. Second of all I wouldn't have a problem with one image of a protester's sign, but do we need four pictures of protesters signs. Finally, why are we putting so many people's quotes into the article and not just sticking to the facts from reliable sources? Brothejr (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem removing labels, as long as they are removed from both conservatives and liberals. I agree that there are probably too many pictures, but I'll leave that for other editors to work on. In the past, on other articles, I've tried paraphrasing instead of using quotes. I learned that no matter how hard I try to paraphrase without violating WP:NPOV, some editor will find some reason that my paraphrasing is POV.
Ninety percent of this subject is opinion. If we removed everything that wasn't factual and completely neutral, we would be left with a stub. I would prefer presenting the opinions of liberal and conservative commentators in as neutral and balanced a manner as possible and then letting readers draw their own conclusions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
That's part of the problem, the majority of the article is opinion. Wikipedia is not here to report opinions, but facts. Brothejr (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:VAND. What makes a verifiable source? If what they report proves to be accurate, if not true. What makes a questionable source? One that often has "a poor reputation for fact-checking" and should ONLY be used in "as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Ironically aside, this policy almost convinced me to support the PJTV turnout numbers, but that durn "no vouch" qualifier just keeps slapping me in the face. Don't forget: "The THRESHOLD for inclusion is verifiablity" - but Wikipedia aspires to TRUTH.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Brothejr writes, "Wikipedia is not here to report opinions, but facts." What Wikipedia policy actually says is: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in original). See the linked policy page for an elaboration of applying this rule to matters in dispute. JamesMLanetc08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
From that policy page, "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." I didn't see anything about never including opinions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
However, we should also never just include opinions just to inflate the page itself. How many opinions are in this page? How much of this page is opinion and how much is fact? If you remove all the opinions what would be left? Brothejr (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The tag is going to stay there until this is rectified. More facts less opinions. Remember the old editing adage which are are all responsible under: Who, What, When, Why, How. Brothejr (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If we were to remove all opinions, this article would be a stub. We wouldn't even be able to say why the protesters are marching (since they are marching based on their opinion that President Obama is taxing and spending too much.) JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, this article has been written with the style of this side said this and that said said that. That type of writing is not neutral. Another point: that table of events can and should be collapsed into a paragraph. The whole article needs reorganization. I can continue to point out various problems and issues of the article anyone would like. Brothejr (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
To JamesMLane: you might want to read the rest of that section you pointed out to me as it does not fully support what you are saying and are asserting. Brothejr (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, Brothejr, but I've actually read that section several times. Would you care to specify what aspect of what I said isn't supported by it? All I said in this context was that your formulation -- "Wikipedia is not here to report opinions, but facts" -- didn't take account of the point addressed by the policy, namely reporting facts about opinions, which is considered appropriate.
In an earlier thread on this page, I quoted another section of the policy, which reads in part: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That's why we have the style that you describe as "this side said this and that [side] said that." You denounce it as nonneutral, but it's often the only way to give a fair and neutral presentation of the conflicting perspectives on a controversial subject.
That doesn't mean that we have to quote every opinion expressed by anyone of prominence. I read mostly liberal sources, and I assure you that I could write an article approximately this long that did nothing but report facts about opinions critical of the tea parties. I haven't done that. If your point is that the policy doesn't support including every opinion, then go argue about that with someone who disagrees with you. The policy does, however, support including a fair presentation of every significant body of opinion. That can be done with characterization, summary, representative quotations, listing prominent adherents of a viewpoint without quoting each and every one, etc. With an event as ideologically charged as the tea parties, giving that kind of information about the opinions of supporters and about the opinions of critics is an important part of the article. JamesMLanetc18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It doesn't say that the article must be devoid of the opinions of noteworthy people from reliable sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Then my question would be, do we need every quotation in there? Would it be better just to historically summarize the situation with various third party journalistic articles instead of blogs/editorials/opinion pieces? One of my major sticking points is not the use of opinions to illustrate points, but the over use of opinions? It seems as all these opinions are being used to increase the size of the article. I understand you and I are on the same side but it seems that the issues are just not being resolved.
Like here's another issue: why are we reporting every name of public people who promoted and discredited the protests when all we really need to say is something like this: Various public commentators have both spoken in favor of and derided the Tea Party Protests. That way we don't have to name each person and we also cover anyone else who we didn't name. It is also very neutral. Next problem would be the table/time line. Do we really need a time line when we could easily summarize the entire thing in one paragraph? Finally, the article is rather disjointed as people pushin in things like Teabagging and Astroturfing throughout the article. We need to collapse those two areas into one area and move them out of the top and down into the body of the article. The are just some of the issues I've seen. Brothejr (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As I've written, when I try to summarize/paraphrase some editor somewhere will come up with an argument that my paraphrasing is not neutral. I've tried not to use blogs. By including opinions I'm trying to abide by WP:NPOV and neutrally represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Leaving out all names of supporters and detractors might be acceptable for the lead, but not the body. The allegations of astroturfing and the allegations of teabagging are two entirely different subjects and as such should each have a section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly how we present the significant opinions so as to be fair to all is open to debate, but collapsing the two sections mentioned by Brothejr is another matter. I strongly agree with JCDenton2052 that astroturfing and teabagging are two completely different subjects and should be kept separate. JamesMLanetc06:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What I've started to do in a compromise that I can live with: is that I've collapsed the majority of the comments into the paragraphs. They are still there, but now less obvious and a little bit easier to follow. I figured on leaving Paul Krugman's comment in block quotes due to the length of it. Yet, it could also be collapsed into the paragraph. I've also collapsed the response section to the astroturfing into the main astroturfing section for easier readability. All the info is still there, but now part of the larger section. Plus, it now seems a little less confusing. The next area to tackle will be the time line table. Brothejr (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Picture Tag
There doesn't seem to be too many pictures, or any current debate about removing pictures. Unless a majority objects, I'm going to remove that particular template. EJNOGARB00:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on here. The consensus seems to be that there are too many pictures. Editors are debating criteria for inclusion of pictures. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is worth noting that the the usual Wikipedia policy is that the person who puts up the tag is also the one who removes it when they feel the issue has been resolved, unless the community has agreed the the issue has been resolved per the person who placed the tag up there. (Oh, by the way, the person who put the tag up there was me and there is still an issue of way too many pictures.) Brothejr (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Racism
Other commentators documented the number of racially offensive signs at the protests and noted their appeal to white nationalists.
Since these two sources are partisan, they cannot be used for factual citation. I believe this information should be removed. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Add my vote in support of the removal of the two aforementioned sources. Partisan sources cannot be used for factual citation. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about this. For sure, that sentence is badly written: it directly implies that what those commentators said was unbiased fact, it directly implies that a large percentage or most of the protesters were white nationalists, and it directly implies that the overall mission of all of the protests included white nationalist doctrine. It also uses the weasel word "Some..." when only two people are cited. It's simply horrible.
How does one go about inflitrating a public gathering? I guess I understand that they're trying to avoid "sneaking into the gathering with the intent to disrupt or embarrass it", but somehow "infiltrate" doesn't seem to be quite the right word if that's what was meant. htom (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Good grief. It's a free country, Tycoon24. The First Amendment? I'm with The Squicks on this one. Though I really wish we would all try to use sources who aspire to a more neutral point of view and focused on REPORTING THE NEWS, instead of citing opinion merchants such as Maddow, Olbermann and Malkin.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a joke. A wiki-joke, per say. I'm not even sure where "infiltrate" was in the article, but I found OtterSmith's quote "sneaking into the gathering with the intent to disrupt or embarrass it" was close or dead-on to the actual definition. So I did a little editing and voula! Use another word other than infiltrate, it's OK with me. But on the topic of reliable sources and what information is acceptable in this article; I've been seeing a lot of double standards to the sources allowable. If HuffingtonPost and a ThinkProgress blog are allowed to present off-topic information to the Tea Party Protests Wikipedia article - why is it "unacceptable" to use Fox News as a reliable source when adding to the Response section? If Fox News reports that Obama responded to the protests against government spending, how is this not allowed while HuffingtonPost can be added to smear the article with crude sexual remarks? Something seems odd about this to me. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Take the example the Wikipedia article for ass (animal). I can come up with thousands of "reliable" sources that reference the Homonym to the name ass. I can write up a large section to the article about donkeys but add quotes and jokes in it that reference its homonym name. Interestingly, instead of a too-large of a section being designated for making crude jokes to the word ass, there's just a minor blurb about it allowing the reader to make their own assumptions. So why in the world of Wikipedia does the article for Tea Party protests have such a large section designated to all the crude sexual jokes of "teabagging?" Teabagging isn't even the name or the article or event. It's just a random sex joke made by MSNBC. No-matter, for some reason the Wiki-Gods who hold power allow it; meanwhile, relevant facts to the Tea Parties get deleted??? We desperately need a well known unbiased administrator(s) to go through and delete some of the trash that's allowed in this article, and have those administrators approve/disapprove of some of the more relevant information that seems to be rejected as "off-topic" by some. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tax protestor sign
If it's true that a protestor came up with the "teabagging" joke [which it apparently is - see photo], then it's fair game for comment, and the right-wingers who complain about the jokes made by other commentators ought to instead take their complaints to their own guy(s) who started it. It probably takes up too much room in this article, though. It should be a sentence or two or three, at most. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Edits by Tycoon24
I removed this paragraph added by Tycoon24 to the Event->Responses section. In my opinion the paragraph and the reference given do not depict a "response" to the "Tea Party protests", hence the paragraph is irrelevant. Before this escalates into an WP:EW, I am soliciting comments and third opinions. Here is the paragraph in question for reference:
On April 20, 2009 President Obama called on his Cabinet to cut $100 million from the federal budget. The President insisted that the small savings will eventually add up to a lot and that it will help address what he called a public "confidence gap" over government spending.[2] It's reportedly going to take President Obama's Cabinet 90 days to slash $100 million from his budget. During a segment on Glenn Beck's show, Glenn Beck responded to the President's $100 million budget cuts by claiming that it is more "like [taking] a dull butter knife" to the budget. "One hundred million dollars is 1/35,000th of the total budget. It would be like blowing $100,000 on a stereo system, but returning a $3 cable," said Glenn Beck.[3]
Can this get a review please? I can't see how this is unrelated to the Tea Party protests. In fact, it's directly related to the protests, but hiding it won't make it go away. It happened. I am going to re-add this if nobody else is in the mood to cover up Obama's "confidence gap" over government spending. Tycoon24 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm re-adding this section right now. The articles specifically state that Obama acknowledged "the public dissatisfaction with government spending that culminated in hundreds of anti-spending and anti-tax 'tea party' protests nationwide last week." The editor who deleted this from the article is wrong. Clearly. Tycoon24 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed it, as you appear to be putting your own synthesis on the matter. In no way is Obama himself making a response to the teabagger movement, nor is he saying that the $100million in cuts was triggered by it. What it is saying is that Obama acknowledged the public dissatisfaction with government spending in a general sense, and the article writer notes that that public dissatisfaction has manifested itself into public demonstrations. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Appearances are deceiving I guess. Nothing I wrote is in my own words. All of it comes from reliable sources. This is not up for debate, unless you want to suggest Fox News is somehow unreliable. Tycoon24 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You either did not read or did not understand what I said. Once again; putting this info in a section about responses to tea party protests, when this wasn't an actual response to a tea party protest, is not permissible here. WP:SYNTH; read it, learn it, love it. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon24 is correct when he says those aren't his words, it's from Fox News. It is Fox that did the synthesis, but it must be accurate because Fox is completely objective when it comes to Tea Parties and such. I listened to Obama's whole speech, and didn't once hear him mention teabags, but I did hear him address the public concern and lack of confidence in deficit spending. Just as he has done many times before the protests. Maybe Fox will attribute every future spending cut and deficit reduction this administration makes to the Tea Party protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Lest my sarcasm be missed: remove the content from the article. The whole 'Glen Beck' part is off-topic and unrelated, and the rest is going to end up bloated with "Fox News alleges Obama ... this and that" with counterpoints explaining what Obama really said and why he said it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a misrepresentation of the truth, I'm afraid. While the source does refer to both Obama's remarks and the tea party protests, it does not actually link them together. Fox cleverly attempts to conflate the two, but deliberately avoids a direct link so they can avoid accusations of bias. There was no mention of the tea party protests in the documented event of any kind. Not from Obama, and not even from the reporters. See the official transcript. Since these two issues are unrelated, it would seem that there is no legitimate reason for these budget cuts to come up in this article at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem people have is the response to the proposed budget cuts. Now, the question should be if that response should go in. I don't see a problem with the initial section of the budget cuts as those do seem to be related. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 20, 2009 President Obama called on his Cabinet to cut $100 million from the federal budget. - no relationship claimed or cited to Tea Parties.
The President insisted that the small savings will eventually add up to a lot - ditto. also, this is not a fair portrayal of the President's position on this. The President has identified what he claims is a total of $2 trillion of budget cuts over 10 years. What that is all about, and whether anyone agrees or not, is a subject far beyond the scope of this page.
It's reportedly going to take President Obama's Cabinet 90 days to slash $100 million from his budget. - again, impertinent. Also, the tone is wrong and does not match the sources. It is not the report, it is the plan to take 90 days.
During a segment on Glenn Beck's show, Glenn Beck responded to the President's $100 million budget cuts - Glenn Beck is not the subject of this article either. Here he is commenting on Obama's budget, not the event. Further, an extended quote is unencyclopedic.
I don't see any of this as remotely includable. Even if we were covering pundits' comments that were directly about the event, there has to be some reason and evaluation per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV why we choose a particular person's words to use. Remember, we are writing about something so we try to capture the facts, details, and context. Covering opinions, and covering the coverage, are both a step removed and ought to be done carefully and in measure. Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The simplicity of this is crystal-clear. This is an article about Tea Party Protests. This section of the article is about responses to the tea party protests. The Fox News cite states that the president is acknowledging the "public dissatisfaction", not the ""tea party" protests" themselves. A may lead to B, B may lead to C, but that does not mean that A leads to C, folks. Obama did not give a response to the tea party movement, so it is quite inappropriate to take this and try to make it into a response. Doing so is the epitome of WP:SYNTH. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second. For those against the addition of Obama's response to the Tea Party, you cannot neglect what the Tea Parties represent (why they happened; ie. dissatisfaction with government spending IS in fact what the Tea Parties were publicly protesting against).
A equals the Tea Parties,
B is government spending,
and C is the response to public dissatisfaction to government spending;
if B leads to A,
then A defines B,
since B leads to C,
therefor A may lead to C.
This isn't rocket science. When Obama responds to "public dissatisfaction" of government spending, what else could he possibly be referencing?
This information directly correlates with the Tea Parties, which is information more directly related to the Tea Parties than "Teabagging" and other conspiracy theories allowed in this article. There is absolutely no reason for removing Obama's response to "government spending," especially when the Tea Party protests are protesting against government spending. It shouldn't be this difficult to add up the variables and see that Obama's response is related to the Tea Parties. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In preparation to a consensus accepting the truth that this is related, I've "modified" the paragraph to remove any tone and unnecessary examples from it that may not have been neutral:
On April 20, 2009 President Obama called on his Cabinet to cut $100 million from the federal budget. The president acknowledged the public dissatisfaction with government spending that culminated in hundreds of anti-spending and anti-tax "tea party" protests nationwide last week.[2] It's reportedly going to take President Obama's Cabinet 90 days to slash $100 million from his budget. Glenn Beck responded to the President's $100 million budget cuts by claiming that, "One hundred million dollars is 1/35,000th of the total budget. It would be like blowing $100,000 on a stereo system, but returning a $3 cable."[3]
I am opposed to this paragraph being included. Perhaps this would be better suited for the article on Obama's budget, or his presidency. Mahalo. --Ali'i21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Tycoon, facts are facts. But when you say, quote, "For those against the addition of Obama's response to the Tea Party...", that isn't a fact. Obama did not give a response to the tea party. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Obama's remarks and the press questions concerning the budget cuts are completely unrelated to the tea party stuff. Difficult to see how there could possibly be any consensus for inclusion, Tycoon24. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What were the Tea Party protests protesting about? Government spending.
Why did Obama tell the "dissatisfied public" he will cut $100 million from the budget? Government spending.
What do Tea Party Protests and budget cuts due to "public dissatisfaction" have in common? Government spending.
It has already been explained to you that this line of argument is based upon an unsupported, unsourced synthesis. There are exactly zero reliable sources I am aware of that describe the budget cuts as a response to the Tea Party protests. We have passed beyond the point of reasonable discourse on this matter, and we have now entered the realm of tendentiousness. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is considered a reliable source. There's one right there for you. Why are you so hesitant to add that Obama allegedly responded to the Tea Parties with budget cuts? Obama cut his budget by $100 million for the exact same reasons the Tea Party protests took place. You are refusing to accept logic as your reason for disallowing factual, relevant information into the article. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No one is questioning whether or not fox News is a reliable source. The issue is, the source does not actually say what you claim that it says. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I will. Put me on record as opposed to using Fox News as a reliable source. It's absurd to assert that they've acted as a neutral, journalistic source in this event. I would support completely removing all Fox references from this article.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep the Fox News article criticizing the "teabagging" jokes. They serve as a reliable source at least for opinions of conservatives. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. JCDenton, so true. It's sad that this is all they can do, but they certainly are a "reliable source at least for opinions of conservatives." As long as they're only used in this context.--Happysomeone (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Does this section need to be at the very top of the article?
Having a messy Allegations of "astroturfing" and a smaller Response-to-it section, following the History of Tea Party's seems highly unnecessary. Shouldn't conspiracy theories and criticism be saved for a lesser important area on the page? This section is one of the reasons the article is beginning to look horribly thrown together. It's sloppy and it offers about as much relevance as the "Teabagging" section, which thankfully has been cleaned up a little but it's still a crude and unnecessary section (it's just a section of insults with little value to readers).
Allegations of "astroturfing" should be moved, deleted, or at the very least cleaned up. It's a thrown together mess right now, and it doesn't even get to the allegation until the third paragraph. The first two paragraphs seem to be building up a story for some big revealing of a conspiracy; difficult to read. Tycoon24 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with Allegations of astroturfing being moved to another place in the article. If you feel that the Responses section is too small, feel free to expand it. Many prominent liberals, including Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and Rachel Maddow have leveled allegations of astroturfing. Are you suggesting that all of them are conspiracy theorists? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like there are a long list of pundits making essentially the same allegations. The section as a whole appears to be given undue weight. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In a topic this controversial, bloggers are not reliable sources. There is no way to verify their statements, and I doubt if such blogs have any oversight. I think the astroturfing allegations are legitimate enough to remain, but any unreliable sources (i.e. bloggers) should be removed. Additionally, opinion pieces should be labeled as such. EJNOGARB16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that some sources (if even bloggers) can remain, only because most of the coverage to the Tea Party events were from citizen reports who are likely bloggers. To suggest "bloggers" are not allowed means that any source that is ".blog" or has "blog" in it is unreliable. However, if that is the only source to the information, and the information is relevant to the article, I won't argue against it. You'd be surprised how many blogs or bloggers have more credibility than, say HuffPo or CNN or MSNBC. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Touche. I'll take a look at the Allegations of astroturfing section, clean it up, then add it in the discussion area for review. When it's acceptable, I'll move it to the section above "Teabagging." It just seems the allegations section--which is a side topic to the events--does not belong in the top of the page where more critical information should be. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Waiting for "consensus" approval before adding it to a more appropriate area in the article:
<----Start of allegations---->
Allegations of "astroturfing"
A crowd of protestors at the Louisville Tea Party on April 15.
Allegations of "astroturfing" first surfaced in a Playboy article in March 2009. The article was removed from the website after possible libel claims, but no legal action materialized and the authors repeated and elaborated the allegations elsewhere, and considered themselves vindicated by the responses of FreedomWorks and of Rick Santelli.[4][5]
These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists.[9]
Firstly the WP:Vand policy only applies if its trying to deliberately misrepresent Wikipedia. Secondly, I find that these "claims" of astroturfing are a partisan / fringe matter. Claims that the Republican party actually organized and built this have gone without proof or evidence. I would state that this actual if included at all should follow under the response section although with it being partisan / fringe matter I do not personally believe that it should be included at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:VAND would apply to blanking a whole section against consensus. Wikipedia has entire articles on birthers and truthers, which are far more fringe than theses allegations of astroturfing (AFAIK, no one as notable as Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman supports the birthers or the truthers). If you're going to remove this section, you should delete those articles. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take out Pelosi and Krugman for those reasons then. Conspiracy theories should have their own page and are irrelevant to the Tea Parties anyway. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman are conspiracy theorists, please categorize the articles on them as such. If you can establish consensus on those pages that they are conspiracy theorists, then you would have a justification for removing their quotes from this article (and I suppose, all others.) JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party protests and all to do with those against the tea party trying to stir up controversy. I prefer the entire astroturfing section be removed, too. However, I suppose one step at a time. The above allegations will replace what is currently in the article right now, which falls under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as of me writing this. Not only is it WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but it's completely irrelevant to the article. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm updating the main page with the above allegations - and moving the section so it doesn't fall under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. For now it'll be above the "Teabagging" section. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous. You're having a conversation with yourself, Tycoon24. I certainly don't support these wholesale, unsupported edits.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman are partisan. They have offered no evidence of astroturfing just made the statement they believe it be done from the Republican party. If their is direct evidence that can be sited it should be listed otherwise it is a partisan / fringe theory. 12:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)
Most of the protesters are partisan, so by that argument, we should just delete this article. Also, the protesters have not proven their opinion that President Obama is taxing and spending too much. And as I've repeatedly suggested to other editors, if you can establish consensus on the articles for Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and Rachel Maddow that they are on the "fringe" or are "conspiracy theorists", then you could make the case that their comments should be removed here. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Nate Silver Again
Please remember to not missuse statistics. What Nate Silver did was search for reports of estimates of protest attendance. He ASSUMED that those reports would be mostly the larger sites and cities. He ASSUMES that he has most of the larger sites and cities. Those ASSUMPTIONS CANNOT be reported as factual information. Let us please not WP:SYNTH the information that he simply reported in an attempt to provide a POV. Let us also remember that what he did is NOT a statistical analysis, and has no statistical validity. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not entirely accurate. Silver collected reports of attendance made by law enforcement, news reporters and other sources he sees as more reliable than event organizers and participants. He OBSERVED that turnout is larger in capital cities; not "ASSUMED," as you would have us believe. It is an easy observation for him to make, as there are a finite number of state capitals. Your red herring that assumptions are being reported as factual information doesn't wash. What is being reported is what Silver said, including his observations, and they are presented as such. Here is what he said:
It's not surprising that Atlanta had the largest turnout (in fact, the largest turnout by far, according to our collection of nonpartisan estimates). Turnout was much higher in state capitals than in other cities, and seems to have been much larger in the South than in other regions of the country. Atlanta, being by far the largest Southern state capital, therefore did very well.
Here are the new and revised listings; followed by a complete list from top to bottom. The new listings bring the cumulative estimate of attendance to 311,460 between 346 cities. The same caveats apply as before: although I've included any estimates I've found that seem even reasonably nonpartisan and credible, there were many protests in which reliable crowd estimates were not readily available or where there wasn't even any press coverage at all. However, essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for.
And this is what should be going back into the Tea Party article, unless you have a legitimate reason why it should not:
Statistican and liberal political activist Nate Silver noted the largest protests were in capitals and large cities, while many others had little or no reliable media coverage and were not included in his estimate. He reported cumulative crowd size from credible sources to be around 311,460 for 346 cities, including essentially all major cities and state capitals.
There is no SYNTH or ASSUMPTION there: it says it is an estimate; it notes many protests were not counted; and if we decide his statement about accounting for major cities and capitals is inaccurate, then it is WE that are doing the synthesis. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It depends upon the use of the source. Are you going to present Opinion or Factual information? Silver admittedly did not do any actual analysis of the protests. When you say Noted it presents the information as factual at which point Silver no longer is a reliable source. He is not an expert on crowd estimation. He also stated the major cities and state capitals Should be accounted for. You leave off the assumption and present the premise as factual. All together a non-expert in crowd estimation is presented as an expert. Additionally this presents the information as a statistical analysis, which it was not. Additionally, what you are presenting is Opinion of a blogger at which point I don't see the main difference between Silver and PJTV. If you feel the need to present opinion, then it needs to be done correctly, and if that opinion is presented then the opinion of PJTV should also be presented for previous reasons stated earlier. If you want to present factual information, then simply report the actual numbers that he was able to count. This is fine so long as the opinion is left out. Also, a small point, but he did not Observe anything, he Surmised that capitals and large cities had the largest turnouts. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm presenting neither opinion nor factual information, at least as far as my research goes (in other words, it doesn't matter to me). I'm entering the results of crowd estimates done by Nate Silver. Of course he didn't analyse the protests; that's better left for the Sunday morning talking heads. He was just counting. When I (or anyone) says "noted,' it presents the information as coming from the person noting it. It does not imply fact, opinion or perspective, and you shouldn't read that into it. If "Nate noted it was a nice day for a protest," that doesn't mean your definition of a nice day would match his. It merely means that is what Nate said. As for Observed/Surmised, you are playing with semantics. He looked at the reported numbers for capitals and saw they were bigger than the reported numbers for non-capital cities. And no, I am not presenting opinions of bloggers, as explained above. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Arzel, this relentless pursuit of discrediting Nate Silver is unsupported. He's not just presenting the state capitals, anyway. What a bizarre argument. Please see WP:VERIFY.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup of "Teabagging" section
In efforts to cleanup this section, I'm opening a new discussion here.
This is what--if anything at all--should be replaced for the current version in the article:
<----Start section---->
"Teabagging"
Background
Some commentators and event organizers have labeled the Tea Party protests the "teabag" or "teabagging" parties or protests. Teabagging has long had another meaning, which refers to a sexual practice in which a man's testicles are placed into someone else's mouth or on their face.[11]
On April 13, MSNBC's David Shuster accused the protesters of "going nuts for it" and "whip[ping] out the festivities"; wanting to "give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." He argued that "the people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right wing financiers and lobbyists." and that "the Fox News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves." He concluded, saying that "If you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you're going to need a Dick Armey."[12][13] On April 13,[14] 14,[15] and 15,[16] MSNBC's Rachel Maddow made similar remarks. On April 14[17] and 15,[18] MSNBC's Keith Olbermann made remarks in the same vein, and on April 15, CNN's Anderson Cooper said "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging."[19]
Responses
Fox News responded by calling the remarks "frat house humor" and accusing MSNBC's David Shuster of weaving "a tapestry of 'Animal House' humor."[11] Fox News further compared MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Air America's Ana Marie Cox to Beavis and Butt-head.[11] Max Pappas, Public Policy Vice President of national organizer FreedomWorks, called the comments a "shame."[11] Jeff Poor, writing for right-wing media watchdog NewsBusters, labeled the teabagging references as "dirty", "juvenile", and "low brow."[20] Conservative Media Research Center President Brent Bozell wrote that CNN and MSNBC had put on an "utterly embarrassing and crude display." He accused them of "vulgar attack-journalism", "lowly crassness", "slimy, smarmy attacks", and "sleaze-riddled condemnation".[21] Conservative political commentator Joe Scarborough said "I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes."[22] Conservative correspondent Paul Chesser wrote in The American Spectator that "Empty-suited Anderson Cooper fulfilled dreams of one-day fitting in with dreamboat Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, as he cracked gay-themed "teabagger" jokes about the events."[23]
<----End teabagging section---->
I want to delete this paragraph (reasons below):
Reports have traced the teabagging story back to a photograph David Weigel of The Washington Independent took at a late February rally.[24] The photograph shows a protester holding up a sign that read "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You".[25] A website which helped organize events on July 4, reteaparty.com, encouraged people to "Tea Bag the Fools in D.C."[26][27]Griff Jenkins, a reporter for Fox News, said demonstrators were going to "teabag the White House," and quoted the website by encouraging viewers to "Teabag the fools in D.C."[24]
Reason: The first source (salon.com) references this quote - "Problem is, the right couldn't have picked an easier symbol for opponents to mock. So as not to spoil Salon's image as a wholesome, family-friendly site, let's just say that when used as a verb, the words "tea bag" and "teabagging" have nothing to do with a hot, soothing drink. And so various liberals and lefties have reveled in poking fun at the protesters. MSNBC personalities, especially, have gotten in on the fun."
There is nothing noteworthy here accept the admitted "mocking" of the Tea Parties by the main stream media.
The article goes on to say, "Truth be told, though, for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left, which seems to have adopted the joke en masse during an earlier round of these protests back in February."
Teabagging is completely irrelevant to the Tea Parties. Out of the 750,000 protesters who attended the events, as quoted in the reference, one or two may have had a sign suggesting "teabagging." This does not constitute relevance to the Tea Parties.
Teabagging is relevant because many notable liberal commentators made jokes about it and then many on the right (including conservative news watchdog organizations) responded to their jokes. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, none of the Fox News "sources" suggest a reporter encouraged viewers to "Teabag the fools in D.C." Maybe I missed it, but feel free to check the false source yourself. This entire paragraph is fabricated out of thin air.
Next, this paragraph also adds little value to the article and is irrelevant to MSNBC's mock-fest of the Tea Parties:
As a warning to participants of the protests, national organizer FreedomWorks issued a flyer stating[28][29]
The term teabagging has strong sexual connotations. Beware of anyone with a camera asking you if you are a "teabagger" or enjoy "teabagging" or similar leading questions — they are trying to make a fool of you.
Who cares if anyone with a camera is asking you if you are a "teabagger?" Did it happen? No. Is it relevant to the Tea Parties? Nope. It's relevant to teabagging though. Maybe it belongs in the Wikipedia article for teabagging?
OK - I've posted my recommended changes to irrelevant information that's been added into sections in the article; the Allegations section and the Teabagging section both represent false claims made by unreliable sources. Discuss away, hopefully a consensus can be reached to cleanup this article sooner than later. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tax protestor sign
It's the right wingers themselves that are making this joke. Don't go blaming the left wing for following up on it. But you could reduce the entire "teabagging" thing to a few sentences rather than the epic that it currently is. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did miss Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins. From the salon.com article "There have been other examples, as well. In a clip picked up by Maddow and "The Daily Show," Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins said demonstrators were going to "teabag the White House," and quoted one Web site that was organizing protests as saying, "Teabag the fools in D.C." They even provide the video showing the Fox News reporter started it before Maddow. If you would like to see the original check out [15], of course the "fair and balanced" network's automatically generated transcript somehow gets it wrong, saying "T Baghdad fools in DC on tax day", but I trust my lying ears and the folks from Salon.com on this one. TharsHammarBits andPieces01:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Show with the slogan, "Reduced-Fact Political News" - The Daily Show hardly represents a reliable source. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a red herring, as The Daily Show is not being used as a WP:RS. The reliable source, Salon, points out that the Daily Show, along with Maddow used the clip of the FNC reporter. I put the Salon piece in as a reference because it captured a lot of the information all in one place, and because WP:NOR would prevent me from directly linking to the FNC video. I even posted the link to the original video for you on this thread. TharsHammarBits andPieces02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see this until after editing. However, if Maddow got the same video from The Daily Show, that show is open to and known for trimming video to make it appear legit. Post the external link in here (the discussion area) to the real Fox News video, if that video shows what Salon quotes, then it can be added. But it need to be narrowed down to a sentence. The Teabagging section got way out of hand. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the "Teabagging" section. It is now narrowed down to the basics to get the point across to readers. If they want to learn more about teabagging, I also inserted an Internal link to the Teabagging article on Wikipedia. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Already covered. 1 protester out of 750,000 does not create relevance. It's over. On to other cleanup issues, such as the Allegations of "astroturfing" and also its location on the main article page. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Not by itself necessarily, but when the news commentary shows make a big thing out of it, then it takes on relevance. Although, truth to tell, this entire article should probably be tagged for deletion, on the grounds that it's an ephemereal news story and wikipedia is "not news". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon24, the "teabagging" section has had consensus on the talk page for several days now. If you want to remove large parts of it, you first need to establish a new consensus on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's what I did. Define "consensus" for me, please? Otherwise you'll keep this up for ever. Go back, read through the discussion you missed and make appropriate changes if you feel it's relevant. But don't delete because you think everything is the same as it was days ago. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines consensus as "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community." For more information, please read WP:Consensus. I haven't "missed" discussion; I have participated in an effort to reach consensus. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon, you are not paying attention to me and you are getting your timeline all screwed up. Here is the timeline of the FNC teabag joke. 3/14/2009 original FNC video with reporter Griff Jenkins and one of the organizers here which I had already posted above [16]. Maddow then uses a clip from that FNC show in her discussion of teabagging on a 4/9/2009 show here. John Stewart and The Daily Show only got around to discussing tea parties on the 4/15/2009 show here and they didn't even touch teabagging! It was only on 4/16/2009 that they used the teabagging joke, see here, and they don't use the clip of Griff! So please, stop with the red herring. Lets try to remain true to the facts of the situation, and the fact is that Fox was the first in cable news to use the teabagging line! TharsHammarBits andPieces03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a completely baseless line of argument, Tycoon24. Please stop relentlessly pursuing POV edits. It's getting absurd.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys are ridiculous. You've allowed this article to become cluttered with irrelevant information, yet anything relevant that goes against your opinion is out. This is silly. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
My recommendations follow - the language is not intended to be exact, just to block it out. Incidentally, a few days of material being in-and-out of the article while debate continues does not establish consensus for anything.
Remove sexual trivia and indirect language, simply link to teabagging. Introduction can say "The word [[teabagging]], which is also a sexual slang term, has become associated with the protests."
Trim coverage of first non-ironic use - maybe include full context inline and quote for very first reliably sourced usage by protest organizers and supporters, but beyond first use merely list others by name group, e.g. "the first known use was when X said Y. A, B, and C also used the term." Ideally A, B, and C are supported by reliable secondary sourcing, beyond just links to the usage itself.
Trim coverage of first mocking use - again, full context for first reliably sourced usage: "In program X, Y mocked the use of the word 'teabagging'". But after that list only the notable, reliably sourced usage, e.g. "A, B, and C also made fun of the word in their programs."
Greatly trim invectives hurled at users of the word. At most, find the most salient and notable secondary sourced criticism, and quote it: "X news criticized the liberal media for bla bla bla, calling it 'childish', 'dumb', etc." And again, list but do not quote or detail a few more examples. "A, B, and C also criticized use of the term."
With that, the whole section can collapse down to 1-2 short paragraphs. If any reader really wants to know what choice insults liberal and conservative operatives have for each other, they can follow the links and read for themselves. Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Finally, a proposed template that makes some sense and not a wholesale edit. Amen, Wikidemon. Full agreement here. Well done and thank you, sir.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll second that - hopefully someone will step up and trim down the section. I've exhausted my attempts at doing so, but to I'll post my recommendation here:
I think the section is in good shape now. I would support restoring the reference to teabagging to just linking it like [[teabagging|sexual practice]] so that curious Wikipedians can click on the link and find out. The section has already been cut down to around 5 KB, so I don't think it needs to be cut any more. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"Teabagging"
Background
The word [[teabagging]], which is also a sexual slang term, has become associated with the protests.
(I'm sure Happysomeone will have issues here because his source pointing blame on Fox News needs to be referenced. So this space is saved for him to spin the jokes round and round).
The first use in the media was on April 13, when MSNBC's David Shuster mocked the protesters by suggesting they were "going nuts for it" and "whip[ping] out the festivities"; wanting to "give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." On the same day, [30] and again on April 14,[31] and 15,[32] MSNBC's Rachel Maddow made similar jokes. Also on April 14[33] and 15,[34] MSNBC's Keith Olbermann made similar remarks in the same vein; and on April 15, CNN's Anderson Cooper said "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging."[35]
Responses
Fox News responded to the accusations first by calling the remarks "frat house humor" and accusing MSNBC's David Shuster of weaving "a tapestry of 'Animal House' humor."[11] In response to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Air America's Ana Marie Cox, Fox News compared them to Beavis and Butt-head.[11] Max Pappas, Public Policy Vice President of national organizer FreedomWorks, called the comments a "shame."[11] Jeff Poor, writing for right-wing media watchdog NewsBusters, also labeled the teabagging references as "dirty", "juvenile", and "low brow."[36] Conservative Media Research Center President Brent Bozell wrote that CNN and MSNBC had put on an "utterly embarrassing and crude display."[37] Conservative political commentator Joe Scarborough said he was also disgusted at the comments.[38]
I see that someone has reverted my attempt to reign in the excesses of the "teabagging" section, and again inserted a the full sexual detail (in a way that seems at once crude and prudish), the list of various uses of the term by some commentators, followed by a long string of disparagement against those commentators. I'm not clear what this has to do with the protests, but in general good Wikipedia articles favor the substance of a thing over the media coverage of the thing, opinions and commentary of the thing, commentary about the media coverage, or the media coverage of the commentary. As it stands, the bulk of the explanatory part of the article (excluding the timeline) is made up of three sections that each are nearly entirely a chronicle of what different media personalities had to say: the "astroturing", "teabagging", and "media coverage" sections. There is relatively little treatment of what the protests are, who is protesting, how they came to be, how they fit into the overall political environment, etc. In due course, some of this bloat will no doubt be trimmed. Maybe in the meanwhile, try to find some hard information? Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I cannot agree with you more. I just added more relevant information about the Tea Party protests and the solutions hoped for by the protesters. As for the "astroturfing" and "teabagging" sections, I've outlined in this discussion page my edits and waiting for others to agree/disagree and make edits of their own so that we can add the more cleaned up sections into the article. If there's one thing the media loves, it's a great story about the media. Which is NOT what this article is about. So hopefully some of the issues and sections I've edited and posted here will start to get some considerations rather than bashing on my suggestions and claiming a "consensus" suggests the article must remain as is. It's messy and unrelated to the Tea Party protests as is. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Finding a cohesive message from these protests seems difficult. The lead paragraph mentions reductions in various (business, capital gains, death, etc.) taxes as issues, but then only cites Newt Gingrich's AmericanSolutions.com website, which doesn't even mention the tea party protests. (Great sourcing there...) Watching and reading interviews of the participants (reported by sources across the whole political spectrum) shows as many motivations for protesting as there were protesters. Tax issues, invoked as the event namesake, almost appears to be a minor issue that was coupled with anti-government, anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-spending, anti-socialism, anti-media, anti-black, anti-Palestine, anti-gun control, anti-abortion, anti-recession, anti-bailout, anti-South America, ... If you take away the "any excuse for a party" people, and the family members they dragged along, and the fringe element folks trying to leech off the publicity, certainly we should be able to distill a meaningful purpose to these protests from the remaining participants? The present article contains just a few sentences about purpose and goals of this event. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, the lead paragraph and line you reference, "The lead paragraph mentions reductions in various (business, capital gains, death, etc.) taxes as issues" is an edit I added because it is clearly defining what the Tea Party protests are all about - unlike 90% of the article. The source you seem to dislike is a PDF file I found HERE. I chose to add the PDF file instead because I know how much some anti-tea party editors have disapproved of taxdayteaparty.com. However, the guide on the external linked page has three different PDF files, all of which detail the reason(s) and demands of tea party protesters. Contrary to your opinion of the events, there were in fact specific causes and hopes that are to come about from the tea party. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon24, I expressed no opinion on the events — sorry if you misunderstood. You added tax issues to the lead, and cited only a .PDF file from Gingrich's website; a file that does not even mention the tea party protests. It does not "clearly define what the protests are about" when it doesn't even mention them. You said you got that .PDF file from a primary source: taxdayteaparty.com? That would be a little better, but not as good as a reliable secondary source that can say those are really the issues that brought people to the protests (and not just people that signed up through that one website). Since you are citing that .PDF file, would you mind if we added other bullet-points from it, like: Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure, build a new power grid and air-traffic control systems and Replace Sarbanes-Oxley and Drill for more oil and build nuclear power plants? I don't doubt there were specific causes and hopes for the protests; my point was there seem to be hundreds of them, and we are lacking reliable secondary sources to paint a clear picture for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's hard to determine the exact motivation behind the protesters because they include so many types of conservatives (libertarians, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives). They disagree on many issues but agree that they don't much like liberalism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's a problem. If the methods and philosophy behind the protests is not cohesive, we can say that the protesters were expressing dissatisfaction (or anger, or whatever) over a variety of government programs they considered wasteful. I'm not proposing that exact language - we would have to find some good sources that sum it all up. Just suggesting that the very fact that they were protesting a lot of different things does not necessarily mean it's hard to describe. Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the media's responses to the protests are notable. Perhaps if enough editors agree, we could move all of the media coverage and responses into a sub-article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I asked you on Sunday to explain some of your edits so that we could reach consensus. [17] When I initially added it, I wrote, "in reference to the sexual practice." That way Wikipedians who are interested could go to the teabagging article. What it has to do with the protests is that it is a response from notable liberal political commentators followed by a counter-response by notable conservative political commentators, conservative media watchdog organizations, and even one of the national organizers. If you feel that more is needed about the background of the protesters, please feel free to add it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I haven't been 100% attentive, so if my comment seemed critical that wasn't deserved. I guess I'm just a little surprised by how much talk of teabagging there is, when that name game is kind of a curiosity and a side issue. I think that distracts the reader from what the protests were all about, which is probably the point of the jokesters who were poking fun of it in that way. Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
From all the sources I've looked at, the "teabagging" jokes were the largest response to the protests by the liberal part of the media. I can't think of many times in US history when conservatives protested against liberals, so this must have been something new for the liberal media. I think the article could definitely use more information about what the protests were about, but I think the "teabagging" jokes were made so many times by so many liberal commentators and drew enough responses from the right that they are sufficiently notable to include. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice not a single other editor besides myself has tried editing the Teabagging section (to-edit draft above). Why is that? I don't understand what the purpose of holding off on cleaning up the allegations and teabagging section for so long are. They will be cleaned up, but simply refusing to help clean it won't make the current main article version any more or less cluttered. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The "teabagging" section has already been sufficiently cut down from its original version. [18] I don't believe that either section is currently in need of further clean up. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a tag on the section that states it needs to be condensed and also a tag that states it needs to be expanded. Personally I think it is fine as it now stands, do we have a consensus on that the version [19] is good as written? TharsHammarBits andPieces04:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Block Quotes
I've noticed that block quotes have been overly used in this article to highlight opinions and direct quotes I've reverted most block quotes and placed the quoted info into the paragraphs (with the exception of one that is long enough that it block quotes could be used.). However, editing wise these block quotes should only be used for much larger quotes that would be better to pull it out of the paragraph for easier readability. If the quote is just a line or two, then it is easier to just insert it into the paragraph using quotation marks. Brothejr (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure it's NPOV to decide how much coverage any event should get from the media. Fox had interest and that's fine. But to say that CNN, MSNBC, and others should have to share this interest isn't good. Also, most of the sources mentioned counter protests briefly and/or were local and didn't cover it nationwide. Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sox, you removed from the lead paragraph the (sourced) brief mention that some of the media provided dismissive and even mocking coverage during this event, despite half of the article presently being (wrongly, imo) devoted to the details of same. Major sections of articles are typically summarized in the lead. (The counterprotests were already discussed above.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Without giving it much research beyond paying attention to the news, I don't see the "counter-protests" as significant(I could be wrong, but I haven't seen much evidence). Linking snarky news coverage to opposition is, imo, unjustified. The snarky coverage itself gets too much play, except that Fox gave (and still gives, as of yesterday) so much coverage to the snarky coverage. Unless we can show significant counter-protests, I'd suggest eliminating or minimizing that aspect, and keeping the media coverage, which was in largest part about Fox and its identification with the protests, at a reasonable size.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clearer explanation of your position, Jimintheatl, but I partly disagree. The word "opposition" was used to generally describe several aspects as a group; not just the counter protests, not just the "snarky coverage", not just the refusal to cover (censorship, one source called it), and not just the critical coverage (See Susan Roesgen for an extreme example). You can wave away any single part of the opposition as insignificant, but not the whole combined, significant reaction. The "teabagging" and "media response" sections make up the majority of the article, and as such, should be summarized in the lead paragraph -- not buried, as if the opposition wasn't significant. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you need a different word than "opposition." Do you really want to label "refusal to cover"(which has many of its own problems) as opposition? That strikes me as beyond a stretch. Again, from what I've seen, actual counter-protests were minimal, and therefore don't really belong in the lead. You're correct that the media coverage/promotion/"smirking" was much more significant, so I would support something about that in the lead(w/o calling it opposition).Jimintheatl (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Earmarks vs "Pork Barrel" spending
So, it appears Tycoon24 disagrees with me on the concept that not all earmarks are pork barrel spending in the second sentence of the "History" section. We have now each edited a section I originally wrote twice and I'm not inclined to participate in an Edit War. I was hoping for some discussion on this at his talk page (which I reproduced below), but now he's gone silent on me. So perhaps someone else would care to weigh in? Thanks!--Happysomeone (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit of yours raises an interesting question. Are they the same thing? You might want to check Wikipedia's current definitions of the two. Let's talk about it and try to come to an agreement here. Let's keep the discussion here on your page. Sound good?--Happysomeone (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! In your view, what are "Earmarks" and how are they different than "Pork Barrel" spending? I found earmarks to be very similar (or near the same thing) as "Pork." For instance, earmarks are taxes used to fund a project that isn't necessarily approved by taxpayers, but are added by politicians. Pork is very similar. How do you see the two? Are they different enough to consider two very different things, or similar enough that they can be compared to each other in a similar manner? Tycoon24 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, so the US Constitution, as an Article One power, enumerates that Congress can "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Section Eight lays out most of their other powers, which also include promoting the arts, raising an army and even specifically punishing pirates. All these things cost money and the Constitution says the Congress can raise money through taxes and spend it on what it sees fit (and the courts usually give Congress a lot of latitude there, with the "common defense and general welfare" clause). So Congress certainly has the right to spend and they do it by passing laws directing the executive or the states to do something and usually provide the money to help pay for it. This is where "earmarking" comes in to play. They sometimes designate money for a specific project or purpose when they fear the broad language used to achieve a particular result nationally may be re-interpreted in a different way. So an earmark can be seen as more specific directions given by Congress in any particular law. Wikipedia's first couple of sentences from the entry on Earmarks captures this quite nicely:
In US politics, an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.
I like the last part of that description because it starts to get at your point that earmarks are exactly the same as pork barrel spending. The appearance of a legislator "going after the money" can appear unseemly. Especially when the earmark has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation being considered.
But I think a prime example that shows the inverse of this - that Congress is a collection of individuals who are supposedly the experts from their respective districts and understand best just exactly how the money being appropriated should be spent to comply with what ever law is being passed - came a few weeks ago when Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized spending money on earmarks such as improving volcano monitoring - proposed by several Western states that occupy part of the so called Ring of Fire. Lo and behold, Alaska's Mt. Redoubt blew it's top a few weeks later - and caught a lot of people there and in the Pacific Northwest off-guard. So perhaps spending that money on Volcano monitoring isn't such a bad idea after all - nor may it be a "Pork" project, either.
So, it's something to think about, Tycoon24.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pork barrel spending relies on earmarks, but not all earmarks are pork. Under normal circumstances, earmarks allocate already-approved congressional spending by directing it to specific projects upon congressional request. Pork usually extends this process by seeking additional, unapproved funding - often because of cost overruns, etc., on projects that are not always for "the public good". For example, the "bridge to nowhere". Earmarks are not necessarily a bad thing, but pork is always a bad thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already covered this and now provided two sources to verify. Here's the appropriate definitions: Webster's dictionary traces the American origins of the expression "pork barrel spending" back to around 1905 or 1910 and defines it as "a government appropriation...that provides funds for local improvements designed to ingratiate legislators with their constituents." Governments have long used the power to tax and spend to favor certain constituencies with special benefits over and above what a system based on a formula or need would provide; traditionally referred to as "pork," this spending often manifests itself as a specific line item, or "earmark." Earmarks appear most commonly, but not exclusively, in appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Pork projects and earmarks emphasize wasteful government spending.
For example: Between 1997 and 2004, appropriations earmarks have increased from under 2,000 to over 10,000, and this year’s failed highway reauthorization contained more than 3,000 pork-barrel earmarks, compared to 1,800 in the previous bill and only 10 in the highway bill passed by Congress in 1982.
Bottom line: public criticism of pork-barrel spending focuses on the outrageous waste earmarks often entail.
Tycoon24, the "debate" never got started. I asked for a discussion and instead the only direction you seem interested in is basically "My Way or the Highway". At least you've finally responded to my historical view of the appropriations process in Congress. I note only one source, from the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation. So is volcano monitoring, for example (as you asked) pork barrel spending? I also note, with some humor, that the same source that you cite, Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., also wrote this under the sub-head "Distinguishing Between Good and Bad Earmarks": "Excluding authorization bills from control and transparency may appear to be a significant deficiency in S. 2265, but this exclusion may recognize that the earmarking process in some federal programs is not only acceptable, but also essential."[39] So now there's good porkandbad pork?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysomeone (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The point of the sources were to show you how the two are intertwined - one comes with the other. Regarding other discussions I may have missed, this discussion page has become very dense, so it's easy to miss information now. Many sections cover the same topic-section to the article but are simply continued disputes. It's becoming frustrating and difficult for me to convey my point of view on any issue because it seems like every time I do offer a suggestion, the same two or three people quickly shoot down my argument without providing contextual facts to help support their claims. I've written several detailed explanations about why certain sections should get cut out; however, it got me nowhere. So instead, I'm going to simply add tags in the main article to the weasel words or peacock words, or claims that take facts out of context.
The Allegations section is too large. It doesn't belong in the top of the article below the History section, and it has too much coverage of the Media rather than the Tea Party events.
The Teabagging section seems cluttered, is very difficult to understand or read, and is likely to cause a reader to draw incorrect conclusions about the main article.
Why does it seem like MSNBC or opinion-forum-related anti-tea party talk must be used in every corner or section in the main article? Deleting said information will free up useless clutter. The Tea Parties are relevant to the article - not Teabagging MSNBC jokes, and especially not opinion-reviews written up by unknown sources claiming origin-unknown-quotes without providing the sources or facts to the quotes. In some cases, the quotes even appear taken out of context. Typical. But definitely not needed in this article. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon24 - please address the issue at hand: Do Earmarks="Pork Barrel" spending? I assert they do not. You cite a single source that supports your position (from a biased POV) and I cite you the exact same source writing elsewhere that there are "Good and Bad Earmarks"! This other complaining about misquotations and what-not is irrelevant to this point. I further note that (after reading the entire talk page, several times) it appears to me that there has been no discussion of this particular point until now. Only your issuing dictates and forcing edits with no consensus. There's bold editing, and then there's 3RR vandalism, which is the path you appear to be following.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that there should be more coverage of the Tea Party events, please feel free to add it. However I think it's a stretch to argue that MSNBC is not a WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, so it appears Tycoon24 has been temporarily blocked. So where does that leave the discussion? Shall we wait? And anyhow, I reverted (technically speaking) his edit twice, so I'm loath to do it again. In my view, straight up equating "pork barrel spending" with "earmarks" is inaccurate, at best.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I would put it that "earmarks can be used as a quiet means of stuffing the pork barrel, but are not the only means of doing so; that is probably their most frequent use." Totally opinion, of course. It is the stealthy manner in which Congress spends the public money, perhaps, that the Tea Party folk find most objectionable. If you want to spend $X on Y, do so without sneaking it into the bill about A, B, and C -- which should be bill A, bill B, and bill C. Too much like "theft by trick" for my taste. htom (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! I'm back. My apologies to everyone I disrupted after violating the 3rr on Tea Party Protests.
As for OtterSmith's comment, I agree with it. If others disagree that Earmarks should be considered the same as Pork-barrel spending, then perhaps the structure or wording to the sentence should be changed to reflect how "earmarks can be used as a means of stuffing the pork barrel," as OtterSmith said it. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with what OtterSmith said. However, that doesn't address the edit you've made that I'm asking about ("While the term porkulus is not a new term, typically in reference to pork barrel spending or earmarks "). Go look at porculus. It doesn't say earmarks, it says pork barrel spending. Simply saying "pork barrel spending" is sufficient, your additional edit is conflating the two IMHO.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
White nationalism.. again
Other commentators documented the number of racially offensive signs at the protests and noted their appeal to white nationalists.
This is really, really bad. Let me count the ways this is bad.
(1)Other commentators No. Only two, two people are cited about this. This sentence violates the weseal wording restriction by implying that many people have argued this.
(2)documented No. This terminology implies that the arguements made on blogs are correct facts, rather than just being opinions. This violates NPOV.
(3)the number of No. This phrasing implies that most or a large amount of the signs were offensive. What is the evidence of this? Violates NPOV.
(4)and noted No. As with (2), this terminology implies that the blog arguements are correct.
(5)appeal to white nationalists No. Is there any evidence for this? The only evidence for this is the blog arguements of two people. As with (4) and (2), this terminology violates NPOV.
They were showing the pictures of the signs held up by the protests. Instead of the bloggers we should cite the photo essay from The Washington Independent [20]. Or:
If one looks at a sampling of the signs displayed at parties across the country (including these shown on the MSNBC and Huffington Post websites: "Don't Tax Me, Bro!," "Obama's Plan — White Slavery," "Obama: What You Talkin Bout, Willis! Spend My Money?"), we see that other sentiments are often a factor in much of the Obama criticism.
While not all of the signs on tax day contained these unfortunate racial undertones, one could easily draw the following conclusion: Many elites do not want to have their tax dollars go to poor people, many of whom are from minority and immigrant backgrounds. As a result, they despise Obama's changes to the Bush tax code." [21]
There were no where close to 500,000 signs, it is debatable if there were even 500,000 people at the events. And you should follow your own guidelines on citing commentators as such. You cite Jeff Yang 4 times [22] with improper identifications. He is not a member of the SF Chron, his column was a special to the website, and his writing focus on American pop-culture news, hardly a WP:RS or WP:N for this article. I would suggest you reverting all of your recent additons that cite Yang's column. TharsHammarBits andPieces01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear God. I can't take this ideological double standard anymore.
You claim that Bob Cesca is 100% notable and 100% acceptable as a reliable source despite being a highly biased far left wing alternitive media figure with little notablitiliy outside of his silly little niche of cartooning, who wrote for a left-wing opinion blog. Because he says something bad about the protests, he is automatically a notable RS.
Yet because Jeff Yang- who actually does write for something that's a news source- says something good about the protests, he is automatically not a notable RS.
Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't claim anything about Cesca other than you were butchering what he wrote and adding in weasel words [23]. And the false logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should never be applied here. Seriously, why did you add Jeff Yang, who writes about Asian Pop Culture? Were you aware of who he was when adding the information in? His opinions on the protests are in no way notable or relevant. TharsHammarBits andPieces05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop lying about what I support. I did NOT support adding Cesca to the article. Not only did i not support using him, but if you read up a few lines [24] you will see that I supported NOT using Cesca or the other blogger. Instead I suggested we should use The Washington Independent source. I did weigh in on is your use of the term "infiltrate" and how that is a weasle word that is no where in the sources provided. I undid that introduction of a weasle word, no more, no less. TharsHammarBits andPieces05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
And how are the terms Other commentators and documented and the number of and noted their appealnot slanted, wesael-y words as well? The Squicks (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how that question is relevant to the discussion at hand, especially considering that language is no longer in the article. TharsHammarBits andPieces06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is silly. Even if there were only 100,000 signs, 1 or 2 out of 100,000 is 0.00001%, hardly a relevant part of the Tea Parties. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the boxes because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Tycoon, is that meant as a threat to get people to go along with your view of how the article should be constructed? Because it is implying that if they do not go along with your view then the tag will remain? What extra detail do you think is in there that doesn't belong. Be specific. TharsHammarBits andPieces04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Read from Cleanup of Teabagging section and all the way to the end of weight, tone, and scope. I laid out the reasons. Nothing I wrote is a threat, a definition of and reason for WP:FAN is "because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." With the exclusion of the sentences I discussed above, it would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole. Nor would it confuse or lead a reader to draw the wrong conclusion about the Tea Parties; and just as beneficially, the article will be much less cluttered. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this edited by User:Tycoon24 as they were inappropriate uses of the template. One of the templated words was within a quote, and another bizarrely complained about the word "noted" (as in, "a person noted"). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time to write a full response but I think most of the tags are inapt. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from improving the language and making it conform more closely to the sources - just do it if it makes the article better and it's in the sources, no need to tag anything. I don't agree with the "quotes needed" comments, though - if anything there is already too much detail on some things, and overall we're supposed to summarize points rather than quote participants. Just as a friendly reminder, 3RR refers to all contentious reverts (as opposed to fixing typos, vandalism, etc) on a day on a page, not just reverts of a single issue. And anyway, technical stuff like this isn't worth raising anyone's blood pressure over. The article will get better and better in due time. So please do be careful everyone. Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason I added the "quotes needed" tags are because I cannot find the actual quote from the accused source (Fox News). All of the sources that suggest Fox News came up with this teabagging joke first seem to lead me to the same single article which claims Fox News said these things, but there actual quote is nowhere to be found. I cannot verify that Fox News actually used the quote that it is being accused of suggesting. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem was not with those other tags you added during the reversion of my edit (although those do not seem appropriate either), but with the reversion itself. Edit warring is not an appropriate editing strategy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Then why are you edit warring the addition of tags to disputes? You should consider discussing issues here or fixing the tagged problems before starting an edit war against my edits. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not edit warring. Twice today I have seen you add inappropriate tags (different examples), and twice I have reverted them. My first reversion restored a link that you deleted, and repaired it (it was anchored to the comments section) - this was adequately explained in my edit summary "restore link, remove anchor that jumped to comments". The second reversion, again adequately explained in the comments, removed your inappropriate tagging. It was immediately followed-up by an explanation on this talk page. All perfectly normal and reasonable. In contrast, you have edit-warred (5 reversions in the last 24 hours) and left a BS warning on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Tycoon, I have informed you multiple times of where you can find the exact quote for yourself. I notified you on this discussion page here and here. In both those additions I linked directly to the video for your viewing pleasure [25]. I also explained why you won't find the word "teabag" on the FNC website transcript of the show because the automated transcript reads "T Baghdad fools in DC on tax day", because the software must not have recognized Teabag as a word. All that is just gravy, because we have the WP:RS used in the article to cite the quote [26]. Instead of relying on the primary source we used a reliable secondary source, which it is suggested be done to not violate WP:NOR. TharsHammarBits andPieces22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to clarify guideline
I consider Tycoon24's tags to be inappropriate, but tagging "peacockery" for a term in a verbatim quotation is by far the worst of the lot. The people working on the Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms guideline seem never even to have considered such a misuse. To avert future misuse of this guideline to challenge quotations that some editor happens to disagree with, I've urged that the guideline be clarified. Anyone interested can see this thread for my specific proposal. JamesMLanetc23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to Tycoon24, that may have been a case of mistaken tagging. I suspect he was looking for stuff that sounded... er... "peacocky" and ran across the word without noticing the quotation marks around it. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You're really bending over backward to be fair, Scjessey. It was you yourself who pointed out to him that one of his tagged terms was in a quotation -- and he thereafterrestored almost a dozen tags, including that one. Instead of thanking you for calling attention to his oversight, he simply reverted you, and added a thoroughly inappropriate warning on your talk page. Even if we excuse his initial mass-tagging as mere overzealousness, his persistence in it, and edit warring over it, takes it out of the realm of WP:AGF in my book. That's even before we consider that "Nancy Pelosi leveled accusations of astroturfing" is perfectly proper, and that tagging the word "accusations" with the weasel-wording template is absurd. JamesMLanetc02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
JamesMLane, relax. You are over-embellishing my intentions to take my actions out of the realm of WP:AGF. Your "book" needs to understand that, in fact, Scjessey is correct; I was looking for words that sounded "peacocky" and had not realized one of the tagged words were within quotes. That was my fault. A simple mistake, which you decided to blow out of proportion. Also - something I find somewhat humorous, my taggging the word "accusations" with the weasel-wording template isn't as absurd as you seem to think. Did you bother to look into some of the examples of "weasel words" on the Wikipedia link that you referenced? Funny thing - one of the examples of a weasel word is, I quote, "accusations." Feel free to thank me for pointing out your oversight any time. Or don't thank me. Double standards are nothing new to me, especially for someone such as yourself who has a self-proclaimed "Biased against the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset." That right there tells me a lot about you. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Did I blow your mistake out of proportion? I noted that you had made the mistake and that you had persisted in restoring the tag even after the mistake was pointed out to you. I wasn't the one who took the matter to the level of placing a warning on another editor's talk page. If you want to believe that my giving an accurate report of your conduct was inappropriate, fine, believe it; I doubt anything I could say would change your mind.
As for the weasel wording, your view is apparently that any word on the list at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is automatically a weasel word, however used, regardless of the context. That's obviously not so. Here's how that page begins (all emphases in original):
Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable.
So the issue here is whether the statement "Nancy Pelosi leveled accusations of astroturfing" meets that description. It doesn't. To the contrary, it meets that guideline page's subsequent description of the correct way to go:
The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion (attribution) or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts (substantiate it).[40]
(The footnote links to a section of the NPOV policy, which further explains the point.) It would be weasel wording to say "There have been accusations of astroturfing," with no citation. It's not weasel wording to say "Nancy Pelosi leveled accusations of astroturfing," with a citation that fully supports the statement. JamesMLanetc19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Background and Teabagging
I shortened the Background of the teabagging section and will do the same to the Response if there are no objections to the changes. Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a few more Shuster quotes. I think it's a good compromise given how many quotes were previously in the section. [27] I don't see where the response section needs to be further shortened. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that quotes from everyone who criticized the use of the term "teabagging" (except for Fox News) have been removed, the section is too short. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Putting in a few quotes is a neutral ground between putting in none and putting in all of them (as it was previously). If there are no quotes, then readers might assume that they were not using "teabagging" and "teabaggers" in reference to the sexual practice. If we put in a few quotes with their double entendres, it becomes clear that they were referring to the sexual practice. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the quotes are obvious from the disclaimer and the fact that they were mentioning agreement. IMO, putting the quotes back in is in bad taste and unecessary. Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, they aren't. Without the quotes, readers could assume that the liberal commentators were not referencing the sexual meaning of "teabagging" and then wrongly conclude that the conservative commentators were reading too much into what they were saying. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Couple of comments. There is way too much blue density in the existing paragraph. Do we really need to link to that many articles like frat house or Animal house? Also I split up the 1st paragraph into 2 paragraphs. TharsHammarBits andPieces04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tharshammer about the unneeded wikilinking. But I have to go against consensus and say that I would rather keep the entire section as it was before, with all its bloated silliness, than go through a long sentence by sentence editorial debate about which quote is okay and which is not.
As a general note, I think people should just relax about the sexual nature of the whole thing. Yes, the practice is about gay people... having sex. That's it. There's nothing gross or weird or stupid or (...) about that. It's not in bad taste. Look, gay people exist. And they have sex. Okay? Does that matter? There's no need for this gay-quesy Puritanism. The Squicks (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Teabagging isn't limited to a gay thing. All it takes is one male. A females mouth can be used, or a male's mouth can be used. Nothing inherently gay about it. TharsHammarBits andPieces06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a subsection on who invented it, and another on whether liberal or conervative commentators are more likely to engage in the act? Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well as I added to the article a few days ago, Conservative correspondent Paul Chesser wrote in The American Spectator that "Empty-suited Anderson Cooper fulfilled dreams of one-day fitting in with dreamboat Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, as he cracked gay-themed "teabagger" jokes about the events."[41]JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about who invented calling the tea party protesters "tea baggers" I was talking about who invented the method of dipping one's ballsack into another person's mouth. It has only had a gay connotation to those male commentators who think that the if their nutsack were to go into a mouth the natural place would be a man's mouth. TharsHammarBits andPieces00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a gay practice that straight people stole. This is clear public knoweldge. I could find RS to support that, but this fact is in now way, shape, or form relevant to anything. This line of debate should be dropped.
My original post and my original point was in response to the sexual Puritanism (and, to be honest, homophobia) expressed on this talk page. Wikipedia is not censored. This is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of policy. The Squicks (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
