Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Soxwon

User Soxwon has repeatedly removed my maintenance tags without addressing my concerns with the article. [1][2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice the second maintenance tag there before yours that directly contradicts yours. Soxwon (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because Tycoon24 thought (thinks?) that the section was (is?) too large and I think that it has been cut down too much. When we reach consensus on the talk page, we can take the tags off. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with him and I'm sorry but two trumps one. You can't expand contract the section so I chose one of two options. Your charges are therefore baseless and I'd appreciate if you'd stop leaving me warnings. Soxwon (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Besides, I'm not the only editor who has argued that the section is too small or sufficiently small. What gives you the right to say that my charges are baseless? JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try again: I come to the page and see two conflicting tags. I see the section needs work, choose which tag I agree with, and remove the other. When I said "2 to 1" I was referencing me agreeing with one. Your charges are baseless b/c how was I supposed to react, decrease and then expand it? Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon is correct. I added a tag for the "teabagging" section to be cleaned up because it was giving undue weight to a section that in truth has little to do with the actual Tea Party Protests. Sure, the media created a story about "teabagging" to mock the protesters; however, since there is such a small amount of information provided about the actual Tea Parties, it was clear the "teabagging" section needed to be cleaned up. Especially since it was the largest or second largest section, second to Allegations of "astroturfing." Which I might add, is mostly theorized by conspiracy-theorists such as Nancy Pelosi. Here's a link to an article covering an real "Astroturf" protest. After reading how that protest was organized and covered, compare that to the Tea Party protests - then decide which one of the two are "astroturfing." It's very clear there's a difference, and even more clear the theory by Pelosi and Co. is a defunct notion only held by those against the Tea Party protests. So why was there a tag added to the "teabagging" section suggesting it needed to be expanded, only after I added a tag suggesting it needed to be cleaned up? Tycoon24 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"...since there is such a small amount of information provided about the actual Tea Parties, it was clear the "teabagging" section needed to be cleaned up. Especially since it was the largest or second largest section..."

That's some interesting logic right there. There isn't much information about the protests, so therefore we should remove all the other relevant, sourced information from the article? If your "weight" scales aren't balancing out, I have a suggestion: try adding content about the protests, instead of trying to make all the other sections just as uninformative as the present "protest" section. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

why was there a tag added to the "teabagging" section suggesting it needed to be expanded It was an act of trolling. The Squicks (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tycoon24, I disagree with your opinion that the section is given undue weight and has little to do with the protests. It was the focus of the coverage of the protests by the liberal side of the media and resulted in an extensive backlash by the conservative side. If you feel that how the media covers events is not encyclopedic, then you need to propose a policy to that effect. As I've written repeatedly, if you can establish consensus on Nancy Pelosi that she is a conspiracy theorist, then you can make an argument for her being non-notable and removing quotes by her from every article. As I've also written repeatedly, if you feel that there is not enough coverage from the perspective of the protesters, then add it. Feel free to contribute constructively to the article instead of destructively. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, please read WP:OWN. You don't have the authority to declare that my tags are baseless. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone else adds a tag, and then you delete the tag or add an opposing tag without comment on the talk page or any reasons to support yourself- that violates Wikipedia guidelines.

You don't own this page either. Controversies must be discussed as a group, not usurped unilaterially. The Squicks (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been arguing on the talk page for days that the "Allegations of Astroturfing" and "Allegations of Teabagging" sections should stay at their current size or be expanded. Soxwon is exhibiting ownership by removing my tag without first addressing my concerns. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It seemed odd that someone would add a tag that directly counters a tag already in the article section. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You added your tag because you felt the section was too long. I added mine because I felt the section was too short. My opinion is just as valid as yours. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Drive-by tagging' is something that may or may not cross into 'trolling', in my view. This is obviously and self-evidently not a personal attack. It's a matter of policy that is applied fairly and neutrally to all editors; I don't view this as personal and noone else should either. If I ever did it, than for God's sake point it out to me and hold me to the same standard as well. The Squicks (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of "drive-by tagging" is ludicrious. I've been contributing to the talk page for days now. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Would "stop-and-park tagging" be more appropriate? On a serious note, the issue pointed out isn't the method but the reason. Why add a tag that directly contradicts another tag already in the same section? Tycoon24 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought (and still think) that the section is too short, so I tagged it appropriately. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Protest of Barack Obama

The second sentence in the article states, "The events are in protest of President Obama, wasteful government spending, the size increase of the federal government, higher taxes, and Obama's stimulus package and budget." 4; however, as per the reason for disallowing Pajamas TV as a "reliable source," so too does Google News warn readers, "AFP shall not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP content."

I added when editing into the article that the protests were against "Barack Obama's policies," because common sense tells me it's very difficult to get hundreds of thousands of protesters together to rally against a person, and without a reason. A reason is Barack Obama's policies, not the person. Suggesting the protest was simply against Barack Obama is using the same rhetoric that some media used after Rush Limbaugh said he hopes President Obama's policies fail. Suggesting a person should simply fail without reason is not only false merit, but just plain wrong. It'd be like me claiming that I hope all of your edits (every one of you!) get undone. Just because. But that doesn't make sense, does it? It doesn't. I'd need a reason, and so does the Protest against Barack Obama. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting your first paragraph above, where you incorrectly quoted the second sentence. I hope you don't mind, but it is helpful to refer to the correct sentence when discussing it. As you can see, the second sentence notes that attendees protested Obama and his policies, as noted in the full sentence. They weren't just out there because of the stimulus package, or just because of the bailouts, or just because of the taxes. Everyone had their own pet-peeve, sure, and for some of them, it was Obama. Calling him a fascist, a commie, liar, thief, a 'Chicago criminal', (there are sources for all of the above) -- is not protesting his policies. You want to talk sources then? It's fine to quote Susan Roesgen up and down during her interview with a protester. But did we forget the very first reported words from that news report? "Well, you know, Kyra, this is a party for Obama bashers. I have to say that this is not entirely representative of everybody in America." There you go - CNN, reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh! From CNN: "IN ADDITION TO THE TERMS SET FORTH ABOVE NEITHER, CNN, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, INFORMATION PROVIDERS OR CONTENT PARTNERS SHALL BE LIABLE REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OR DURATION, FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS, OR OTHER DEFECTS IN, OR UNTIMELINESS OR UNAUTHENTICITY OF, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN CNN..."

It seems CNN and AFP have the same attorney! I smell a liberal media conspiracy... Xenophrenic (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, all news sources have that same warning so they protect their ass against libel. Just look at FNC, "You acknowledge that FOX and third party content providers, their parents and affiliates together with their respective employees, agents, directors, officers and shareholders, ARE NOT LIABLE for any delays, inaccuracies, failures, errors, omissions, interruptions, deletions, defects, viruses, communication line failures or for the theft, destruction, damage or unauthorized access to your computer system or network." Basically its a cover your butt for all possible things, and is very common with any company. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The AFP article says that the protesters opposed "Barack Obama". Therefore, this is the phrasing/wording that this Wikipedia page uses. There you go. The Squicks (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Playing with words can be fun, I suppose. One can place blame solely on Barack Obama, or one can look at who wrote the bill(s), or legislation, or whatever it is that caused the collective protests-in anger called Tea Parties; ultimately, for every "source" someone can find to suggest protesters are solely against Obama, I can find a source to clarify why the protests are against Obama. It's the government as a whole. Then again, Obama did sign the bill (without reading it), so I guess this validates reason to protest against the person Barack Obama. I'll leave the current sentence in the article as is. Tycoon24 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are jumping to the assumption that the protestors have a coherent issue, message, or meaning. Most likely it is a collection of racist and republicans (and some racist republicans). Republicans who are upset that they lost the last election, and racists who are upset that now there is a black man in the white house. See how fun playing with words is? 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)

You forgot to mention Obama signed the bill without even using a pen (from the same news source). There is an interesting article here that mentions the wide diversity of reasons (and lack of a single cohesive message) for attending the protests. It's a little more sympathetic than TharsHammar's theory. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, thank you for the sourced article. I'll check it out. Likewise, I'm a little shocked that TharsHammar made such an outrageous claim, suggesting "Most likely it is a collection of racist and republicans (and some racist republicans)." I'll respond with a simple question, reliable source please? You-know-who doesn't count, she's out of her mind to call it a racist protest without any relevant reason for doing so. These sort of insulting comments should not be tolerated unless they are reliably backed up. Tycoon24 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Parties are still a current event

I've updated the article to reflect its current event status. Sourced information can be found [1] here, [2] here, [3] here, or [4] here. Tycoon24 (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, thanks for the help. The content move seems more appropriate than how I originally had it. Tycoon24 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It didn't take long to figure out what you tried to do. You were working with 2 different events, and several different sources, and you just matched the wrong cite to the wrong event — sleepy? ;) As for the "Turnout" section, I left only the April 15 cumulative estimates there for now. We could put pre & post April 15th events in there, too, eventually... but it's going to be messy trying to keep a running total without doing OR. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is late for me here. Thanks for fixing the error. You're right, eventually it seems like a pre & post April 15 event total may be necessary. But it'll definitely take careful, collective efforts to keep it from doing OR. Luckily, there is no immediate rush since the meta:Eventualism perspective seems to work well in the long-run. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Event related arrest

I know that this will be a controversial issue, and if added without prior discussion might be quickly revereted. The AP is reporting, along with Huffington Post [3], that "An Oklahoma man was arrested by FBI agents earlier this month for posting a series of messages on his Twitter account threatening to use a tax day Tea Party protest to commit politically-motivated mass murder. " Please read the article, add more if you have any other sources, and lets discuss how best to incorporate this information in the article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 18:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are wacko's in every orifice on Earth. While the arrested man seems to have politically motivated anger, and seems indirectly associated with the Tea Parties - is it really relevant and meaningful enough to add into this article? I suppose if more protesters were suggesting the same hatred and desire to break the law, then it would be more relevant. Otherwise, this seems more like a story of a potential killer caught before he could cause harm to Tea Party protesters or politicians. His words and actions do not seem to represent a majority (or even minority) of the Tea Party protesters. He's just a sick man who threatened to kill, and now he will pay for it. Interesting article though. Tycoon24 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no implication that this is an opinion held by any other teabaggers, but the arrest is directly related to the event. Wired is also reporting about the arrest of the teabagger [4]. We need to make sure that we don't give undue weight to this, but there should be some inclusion in the article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An Associated Press source is available from local NBC affiliate KTEN (North Texas, Southeastern Oklahoma Online threats lead to arrest) but only mentions the Tea Party protest as a "tax protest" that was taking place in the same place that the wack-job threatened to dump the decapitated heads of police. A better source, which gives more mention to the Tea Party connection, is available from The Oklahoman: Threatening Twitter posts lead to Oklahoma City man's arrest -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The arrested person seems to have been objecting to the Tea Party, more than being a member. htom (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so. He threatened violence against the police, not against his fellow teabaggers. According to this story, he vowed to start a "war" against the government. The story describes his MySpace page as "a breathtaking gallery of right wing memes about the 'New World Order,' gun control as Nazi fascism, and Barack Obama’s covert use of television hypnosis, among many others." (Damn, who leaked about the television hypnosis? That was supposed to stay secret at least until we got the re-education camps up and running, with Beck and his ilk safely sequestered there.) JamesMLane t c 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening edit

Made a few alterations to the opening for style if anyone objects plz let me know. Soxwon (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article moved?

I have reverted the article move. I feel that the name change was unneeded and the new name was misleading. This is a well trafficked article, there should have been a discussion started prior to moving. Please discuss here prior to moving the article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Woah--I leave for half a day and... I'm still trying to figure out how the move affects the Tea Party Protests page. At first I thought the timeline was just gone. My first reaction tells me it harmed the overall article quality. There isn't much on the actual Tea Party protests apart from the opening section and what used to be the timeline. Nothing against a lot of the other sections, I do think they are necessary, but a lot of it is composed of side-stories created by the media. Nothing against it; it's entertainment and, depending on the source, it is likely to appeal toward one audience or another. But are those sections really more important than the timeline? And if so, are they so much more important that the timeline goes rather than using other methods to clean up the article?

Likewise, if linked properly and in a easy-to-find-for-a-reader location in the article, then it could work. But such a move without thinking it through first... makes me wonder. Tycoon24 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Section removed to new article

I've removed the excessively lengthy "Timeline" and placed it in Timeline of Tea Party protests. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, except you now have to go there and fix all the broken references as punishment! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I'd have thought AnomieBOT would've tackled it automatically-- guess not. So, thanks Tycoon24. Thanks also, Scjessey, for putting in the references template-- my duh there. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

*Ahem* [5] any suggestions would be appreciated. Soxwon (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would caution against keeping that article. It will become a POV-fork with constant wheel-waring about astroturfing, and who REALLY started what when. If that doesn't happen it will wind up as Funcruft, where every teabagger decides they want to add their non-notable tea party to the list. The content can easily be summarized in a few paragraphs on this article, as is currently being done. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even think about that until I read your post, how is it even possible to keep a timeline of the Tea Party protests without it becoming a POV-fork? In either case, on the assumption that it might be awhile before any consensus is reached on the reloction of the timeline I've added the text Soxwon provided (thanks!). Tycoon24 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Provided that events covered only by solid reliable sources are included, I don't see why there would be a problem with the sub article. It's intro looks fine, but it lacks a brief summary of this article. A couple of sentences of summary, together with a "main article" template link back to this one will be needed. I'm seeing a few poor references in there, so some stuff could reasonably be struck. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

When I have some time I'll see if I can clean up the timeline article, provide a summary in reference to this article and see how you guys feel about it. The stub article likely won't be a problem, as I can see how its continued expansion would/could clutter this article. I'm going to move some of the sections around in this article as well. I think it might flow better this way. Let me know what you think of the section shifts. Tycoon24 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I tagged this section for NPOV violations. It has turned into a criticism section of FNC and not a report on the actual media coverage. Most of the MM section does not apply to this article. Rather than cut now, I figured it would be best to discuss what should be included. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When the section first came about, it had pretty much a half and half distribution= Half criticism of the MSM for dumping on/ignoring the protest and Half criticism of the FNC for puff promotionism. Now, the section is around 80% to 20% slanted the anti-FNC way. The Squicks (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is not giving equal distribution to each side, but rather giving each side a distribution that is weighted by reality. Balance does not mean 50:50, it means providing an accurate representation of the facts. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 17:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also agree w/TharsHammar--Happysomeone (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So, 80% of the media trashes the tea parties and you believe that since those 80% continually attacked FNC as well that we should report that criticism of FNC? I think you are missing the point. This article is about the Tea Party Protests, not about how MSNBC and CNN attacked FNC's coverage of the protests. Furthermore, MMfA has far too much weight in this section. They are a partisan group which attacks FNC on a regular basis. Arzel (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The protests were extensively promoted by FNC, and criticism of that promotion in this article is entirely justified. Since the bulk of the nationally-televised coverage came from FNC, it is perfectly reasonable to expect this to make up a significant portion of this section. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it really reasonable that we should load an article with criticism of a group by its corporate competitions?

Would it be okay for me to go to the X-Box 360 article and load it full of quotes from Sony Corporation and Nintendo Corporation people? The Squicks (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So are you proposing moving media coverage of the Tea Party protests to its own article? It wouldn't be NPOV to take out a liberal media watchdog group without also removing the conservative media watchdog group. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Jm131284 is scrolling through the article and sticking "liberal" before the names of Olbermann, Maddow, Media Matters, etc., but is forgetting to add conservative tags before their counterparts in the same section. Did we decide if we were going to eliminate all such descriptors, or apply them equally to every source in the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

accurate representation of the facts?! Are you freaking kidding me? Merging together a bunch of opinions from liberal commentators and activists gives you one giant blob of opinions. Calling this "facts".... man, Orwell would be proud. The Squicks (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the red herring, but that is not the way the entry is currently written. Maybe you should calm down, or the giant liberulll media conspiracy will come and get you! Right now MMFA is cited, along with MRC. We also have Michael Grahman, a Fox N Channel spokesperson, and the Augusta Chronicle on the right, and Rachel, Keith, Bob Cesca and Matthew Yglesias on the left. We have Kurtz right down the middle. If anything we should incorporate much more talk about Fox N Channel's role in the events, the self labeled "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." and the relationship between Glenn Beck and the event organizers. We should have maybe 1 or at most 2 sentences on the Kyra incident, and about 10 on the Fox N Channel role in hosting, promoting, and staffing the events. Lets stick to sources like Howard Kurtz and the like. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right so we don't have a left wing conspiracy, we just have equal coverage from both partisan sides (MMFA on the left, FNC on the right, etc.) :). Soxwon (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar and Soxwon, I almost cannot believe that we are reading the same article. Right now, we have a 2 to 1 ratio in terms of wording with the liberal side being the majority and the conservative side being the minority.

There's three freaking paragraphs worth of anti-party material, and one of pro-party material. How you guys claim with a straight face that this is not anti-party enough?! The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In that section we are trying to accurately represent the facts of the media coverage of the Tea Party protests. If you feel that hasn't been done, please share your concerns. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, so rather than do more partisan run around, I split the section into two. The liberal side is fine. The conservative side I will expand until we have a 1 to 1 ratio in terms of weight. The Squicks (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would support expanding the conservative section over shrinking the liberal section, because I think it is fine as it is. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Balance does not mean 1:1 ratio in terms of weight. Also the titles of "critical" and "supportive" are misleading and introduce unneeded POV. Grouping into liberal and conservative does not help exclude POV from the article, instead it only makes it easier to add POV. We should split up the section to focus on the main subtopics within the "media" relm, then write a paragraph on each subtopic based on available relevant information. I would propose the following list. Fox N Channel coverage of events, MSM coverage of the events, non-traditional media coverage (ie Stewart/Colbert/Bloggers). Any suggestions for subtopics? Does this sound like a better idea than splitting it into Critical and Supportive? TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd spring for an overhaul of the entire layout, I would propose something similar to TharsHammer:

1)History

2)Events

A) Something like the timeline, but merge in Tax day and positions and goals

B) Controversies

II) Incidents

III) Astroturfing

3) Media Coverage

A) Media coverage leading up to the event

B) Media Coverage of the event:

I) Fox

II) Everyone else mainstream

III) Daily Show et al

Incidents and Astroturfing can have their own subsections or this could just be just be the way we organize it w/o necessarily giving them their own seperate subsections

I'd also take out responses and split it between 2a and 2b Soxwon (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. We shouldn't remove the Allegations of "teabagging" section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TharsHammar.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar's suggestion seems to work better. A subsection on Fox is probably appropriate since it was their baby and much of the coverage was either by them or about them. I'm not sure about splitting out "mainstream" media from other media. Coverage is either notable or it isn't. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't take the Media Matters ideological framework and use as our own. The question of whether or not Fox News presented the parties fairly is disputed. We cannot assume that what one side's position is constitutes objective fact and thereby give Fox its own section that separates it from every other news agency. The question of whether or not their coverage was unfairly different from others is hotly, vehemently disputed. Putting Fox in its own section takes a side in this dispute. The Squicks (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that FNC's coverage of the Tea Parties differed considerably from that by any other network or cable channel. FNC, and FNC personalities actively promoted the events on their channel and their website. During the events, they offered near continuous live coverage that featured on-air personalities misreporting attendance (sometimes doubling or tripling reasonable estimates) and other commentary. No other television channel of any kind had coverage or support in this manner, so it is perfectly reasonable for the FNC coverage to be given a section all of its own, together with opinion of it that represents a preponderance of reliable sources (most of which acknowledge FNC's shameless partisanship and lack of fair reporting). These are facts that are not in dispute. Without FNC's active support, these Tea Parties would've had much less of an impact, so the significance of their support must receive reasonable coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FNC's shameless partisanship and lack of fair reporting. These are facts that are not in dispute. Without FNC's active support, these Tea Parties would've had much less of an impact

Once again, this is all a matter of opinion. These are your opinions and that of liberal political activists such as Media Matters and the like. This is not fact. I don't know what to say because this is clear as crystal obvious. The idea that Fox News is an unfair propaganda outlet is opinion, not fact. The idea that the parties would not have succeeded without Fox support is an opinion, not fact. I don't know what to say. These are not facts. The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed opinion, yet it is opinion shared by the preponderance of reliable sources. Anyone with a shred of independent thought will note the massive discrepancy between FNC coverage of the events, and the coverage provided by everyone else. You cannot possibly dispute this. This view is not confined to "liberal political activists" as you describe them, but to almost everyone not of the right-wing/conservative minority. Your distaste for Media Matters isn't really relevant, since plenty of other sourcing exists to support this opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

it is opinion shared by the preponderance of reliable sources Yes, because the article here is biased towards that side and cites those sources more. Kafka would be proud of this! Arguing that the section must become more biased since it is already biased... And I can cite reliable sources that say that CNN was biased to the anti-party extent. Does that mean that they should have their own section loaded down with anti-CNN material?

This view is not confined to "liberal political activists" as you describe them, but to almost everyone not of the right-wing/conservative minority.

Do we really want to play this shell game? One can claim that Fox News is moderate and that most of the media has a liberal slant. One can claim that Fox News is an evil right-wring propaganda outlet and every else is a sensible moderate. These are opinions. Neither of these are facts. The Squicks (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Only the aforementioned right-wing/conservative minority would claim that FNC is "moderate". I agree that there is plenty of liberal bias on other channels, but that isn't really the issue because they did not have a significant involvement in the Tea Parties. CNN may well have been unreasonably critical, as you suggest; however, they did not have continuous, multi-location live coverage of the events like FNC. Their promotion and coverage of the events was hugely significant, overwhelmingly biased, and responsible for much of the over-reporting of attendance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And only a left-wing/liberal minority would claim that CNN and MSNBC are "moderate". They both downplayed/gave hostile coverage to the parties which is highly significant, overwhelmingly biased, and responsible for questions about subverting attendance numbers.

It goes equally both ways. We can't pick a side here. The Squicks (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about claiming CNN and MSNBC coverage was "moderate"? I certainly didn't. The issue here is that FNC had massive coverage, and that coverage was overwhelmingly biased in favor of the events. Other channels had minimal coverage that was either "neutral" or "negatively-biased". This is not about picking sides, but rather about making sure the article gives a fair (neutral) reflection of the events. FNC coverage was part of the deal. Other channels covered the events, but FNC promoted and championed the events (in effect, creating their own "tea party" event). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Other channels had minimal coverage that was either "neutral" or "negatively-biased". Which was and is as big a deal as FNC's alleged unfair treatment of the parties.

Other channels covered the events, but FNC 'promoted and championed the events (in effect, creating their own "tea party" event). Which is an opinion. Again, this is not fact. This is an opinion. How on earth can we objectively say that= No, the parties were silly. They deserved to be totally ignored. Fox News was wrong to actually care.

Why isn't it possible that= Yes, the parties were not silly. They deserved to have every station cover them like Fox did. Ignoring them was bad.

There's the pro- and anti- side. We can't pick sides. The Squicks (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't need to be 1:1, tell that to the editors claiming that the conservative section is too short and the liberal section too long. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that this doesn't solve anything as far as NPOV is concerned.

We will still have a gigantic anti-Party block of text with a few pro-party statement sparingly littering that, like pepper on mashed potatoes. The Squicks (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is still an attack section on FNC. The focus should be on how the media covered the event, not how most of the media attacked FNC. Arzel (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this. Instead of being anti-Party of pro-Party we come out as pro-WP:RS and anti-WP:POV. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 11:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's "anti-WP:POV" to stack the deck and give gigantic preferential weight to one side? Wow... The Squicks (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Balance: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."--Happysomeone (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And this idea of an 80% to 20% prominence... where did you get it? Where do these exact numbers come from? It seems like you pulled it out of thin air.

That guideline about fairly representing weight was clearly, clearly meant to represent circumstances where a consensus of sources go one way. Not when there is a close divide. It's not like I can go to the article about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and make sure that it is mostly pro-Palestinian. The Squicks (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is upseting and not close to factual. Does that not matter?

As someone that attended a Tea Party, I can assure you that they were not 'anti-Obama'; the main theme was that government (period, as in both sides) is not looking out for any of us. Of course there were some at each Tea Party that didn't like Obama, but that's probably only natural. I'm also frustrated about the 'total in attendance'. The most accurate number would be around 500,000, and all it would take would be to look outside of CNN for that number. Please fix these errors, they're way too biased and upsetting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidityiscatching (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. Here we use reliable sources and neutral viewpoints to try and create an encyclopedia. If you believe something is inaccurate, why not be bold and make the changes yourself? Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had extensive comment on this previously and what we have right now can be verified by reliable sources. It always helps when you can show how you know something - so everyone can presumably judge if that meets Wikipedia criteria, the so-called Five pillars. For example, how do you know that there were "around 500,000"? Show us. I'd also point out that the single recognized MSM source is using your approximation and it is the first estimate cited. Finally, you'll note that CNN is not referenced in this article.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that your fellow protesters were protesting against both parties, try to find some reliable sources that state that they were doing so and then add them to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add that I cannot argue against the Stupidityiscatching. There are still large 'holes' in this article that, in my view, violate w:POV. For instance, take a look at the section "Media coverage" and its sub-section "Supportive." Where's the factual discussion that supported the Tea Party protests? Instead, the first sentence carries into the lone paragraph that is more of a continuation of bashing on the events, "Media Research Center, a media watchdog organization, argued that television networks CNN and MSNBC provided biased coverage of the tea parties." This sentence in no way belongs under "Supportive." The entire section is a continuation of attack-Fox-News and put them on the defensive. Why does it seem no matter what section Fox News is mentioned in, they're always having to defend themselves against teabagging jokes and MSNBC bashing? In any neutral view this section should be solely dedicated to discussing the positive Support Fox News provided coverage to the protests. Especially since they are one of the only media sources to support them. I have class coming up in the next hour or so, but when I get back later I'll make some suggested changes here (in discussion) and see if others approve. It makes no sense that the "Critical" section is four paragraphs, and the "Supportive" is one paragraph -- yet still appears to be more bashing. That, in my opinion, is likely the cause of Stupidityiscatching being upset (or the similar likes). Tycoon24 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And here we go with reliable sources. Here's ^[1] an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter deconstructing what he calls "The myth of 15,000" in regards to the over-estimate of Tea Party protesters in Atlanta - supposedly the largest of the Tea Party Protests on April 15. He claims a conservative estimate of the crowd there is "6,500 and 7,500," not 15,000 to 20,000 Fox News (which promoted the event) and PJTV (which helped organize the event) reported. He demonstrates how he comes up with the number - which is surely subject for debate, such as whether or not a person typically occupies 4 square feet in a crowd - and the reader can judge for themselves if it's accurate or not. Transparent and reliable? Probably.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Briliant, a perfect example of a blog within a WP:RS not being a reliable source. Self-published research. However, if people wish to press the issue I have no problem in taking out the entire Nate Silver section (Silver used the 15,000 as a reliable estimate). Arzel (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AH! Now we're getting somewhere interesting. Arzel raises an excellent point. So the newspaper organization is supporting this blog (providing the architecture on their Website, probably done on company time and it's probably part of his regular work responsibilities) - but Galloway (the reporter) is "blogging" what appears to be a rough estimate based on his own estimate. So does this necessarily mean Galloway on his own is not a reliable source, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is? Hmmmmmm.--Happysomeone (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And to make things even more interesting, we have a conservative columnist from the self-identified centrist Seattle Times editorial board laying into commentators who made allegations that the protests were largely "AstroTurfing".^[2] So is there a difference between a columnist (who is also a member of the paper's editorial board), who is paid for his opinion - and a reporter who is paid for his objectivity, but has a blog? Interesting, indeed.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that the article still has large "holes", please fill them in rather than making more "holes". It works both ways. MSNBC also has to defend itself from those attacking the "teabagging" jokes. Restricting the media coverage section to Fox News Channel coverage would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of conservative and liberal

I have removed the labeling of any and all commentators as conservative or liberal unless it is a quote or paraphrase of an article. Plz don't restore them as they are POV and unnecessary. Soxwon (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's information, this topic was covered in an above discussion, Political Labels. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then who keeps putting them back in? Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is an editor who hasn't taken the time to read all 41,231 words and 60 threads on this talk page. :-). I was posting the link to the section to help people out, and because I like that the discussion was going towards no 2. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot just arbitrarily remove all such labels, because in some cases it completely changes the meaning of a sentence and creates a misrepresentation - as in this (now reverted) case, for example. We should certainly avoid labeling individuals, but it will often be necessary to label groups to avoid ambiguity. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But you seem to leave off such labels for liberal groups like MMFA. Soxwon (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No one contested your removal of the label "conservative" for various commentators and such, consistently with general consensus in the earlier talk thread(s) TharsHammar refers to above. The sentence at issue here reads: "While the term porkulus is not a new term, typically in reference to pork barrel[16] spending or earmarks,[17] it proved popular with conservative politicians and commentators, who began to unify in opposition against "stimulus spending" after the 2008 General Election." This sentence is outright misleading without the qualification "conservative" or other appropriate adjective. After Soxwon removed it yet again, I put it back in. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed w/ Kenosis.Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that comes up quite frequently on wikipedia. The long-standing consensus is that you never apply labels like "conservative" or "liberal" to groups or individuals unless they explicitly identify themselves as such (for instance, the Cato Institute is referred to as "Libertarian" because that's how they refer to themselves, but the Hoover Foundation is not referred to as "conservative.") Unilaterally labeling a group is just a needless way to inject POV into the article. The reader does not need to be spoon-fed opinion as to the political slant of a quote, they can make up their own mind. The grey area is when you're talking about broader movements without referring to specific entities (such as "liberal protestors" or "conservative critics") but this has always seemed particularly weasely to me. I'm in favor of keeping the language neutral and letting the reader decide for themselves how they feel. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Where it gets a bit funky is with "stealth PAC"s and the like which use misleading names to imply that their position is held by a broader constituency, i.e. has broader popularity than is actually the case. Here, IMO, there's no need to deviate from the general consensus across WP or to revisit the prior consensus on this page. But there's no grey area here either--nationally, as a group, conservatives readily self-identify as such. The statement "it proved popular with conservative politicians and commentators, who began to unify in opposition against "stimulus spending" after the 2008 General Election." is only accurate when "politicians and commentators" is qualified by the word "conservative" or other relevant qualifier. ... Kenosis (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref tag

Added not because of anything inherently being wrong with the content of the article, but because the references are typically lacking necessary information (dates, names, etc) and there is no consistent style. I'll try to improve the citations wherever possible soon.

Hopefully, this will not be controversial. It's a technical thing. The Squicks (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And please don't continue with edits of this nature that we've seen previously (see "Peacocking" above). We'll be watching.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful peice of nonsense! Yes, I will be afraid. I will be VERY AFRAID. OOOOOOOOOOO...

Do you actually care about improving the references in the article? Or about improving the article at all? I guess not. The Squicks (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you have to fear? I only cited previous inappropriate edits that have since been changed and reminded you to sign your post. Maudlin outbursts are unproductive. ~~I'd advise you to check your attitude~~.Happysomeone (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You made a snarky, obnoxious, angry remark. I made one back. There you go. I would prefer to end it here. The Squicks (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So your talk page, then....--Happysomeone (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please just let this go? I don't care about your threat, okay? The Squicks (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage section needs to be remerged.

Resolved

– Sections are now merged. -[ The Squicks (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC) ]-

Splitting it into "supportive" and "critical" sections (as was recently done) is sloppy writing and runs completely counter to Wikipedia editing style. Frankly, the way it is now reads like a "point/counter point" in a high-school newspaper. Both critical and supportive coverage should be woven together, based on their notability (not any misguided notion of "balancing" a good quote with a bad one or vice-versa). I would boldly merge them back, but given the nature of this article, it's probably better to tag it and get a consensus here before anything is done. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Weaving a few sprinkles of pro-party material into a gigantic block of anti-party material directly creates an anti-party slant overall, which is not acceptable.

I've really had enough of the idea that this article must have an anti-party POV bias because public opinion is against the parties. After all, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't mean we have to clog its article with stuff from National Review and the like. The Squicks (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia articles are written. It's not a debate page. Breaking coverage into different sections based on what they're saying is not only amateurish, it's POV. Balancing every negative word with a contrary positive word is not WP:NPOV. Quite the opposite; it's just pushing two POVs simultaneously. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And pushing one POV only is better... how? I would prefer to have one section with no divisions that evenhandedly gives both sides equal weight and fairly represents them both. But that means either: (1)Adding more RS that support the parties or (2)Removing a lot of the text currently there that is anti-party. The Squicks (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This article should describe what a preponderance of reliable sources say about the tea parties, which has nothing to do with giving one "side" equality with another. If most RS are negative about the tea parties, this article must reflect that. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Firmly agreed with Scjessey. The "Media Coverage," such as it was, should be accurately characterized in scope, scale and content. Giving something "equal weight and fairly represents them both," as The Squicks said, does not necessarily mean that a "supportive media" segment must have 200 words and "negative media" must have 200 words. See WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. From WP:NPOV section on Balance: "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." --Happysomeone (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that everyone in the word is anti-party? RS are negative about the tea parties... What evidence is there for this? The section is unfairly weighted now because it is deliberately designed that way. The argument is entirely circular. The Squicks (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are talking about evolution, than we should by all means keep the 1% minority of creationist scientists with little weight. But the idea that Well, my person opinion is that 60% of the media were negative, so then 60% of the article must be negative does not make sense. If it was 45%, would we still want to stack the deck against the parties? What about 49%?

If we don't have an overwhelmingly consensus either way, but we instead have a divide with maybe, maybe, a very narrow majority against a large minority- why should that mean that the article must be an attack page on its subject? The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are alluding to with your evolution analogy, but "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. If a preponderance of reliable sources describe the tea party events negatively, then this article must reflect that. "Preponderance" means, in this context, a significant majority, not a "narrow majority". For example, a significant majority of sources noted that many protesters were complaining about higher taxes, yet in most cases their taxes are reduced under the Obama plans. Many of the arguments made by the protesters were similarly illogical, and this was reflected by a significant number of reliable sources. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the article would seem (from a pro-Tea Party perspective) a bit negative. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will go back to my proposal from yesterday, and suggest that Soxone's proposal is a very good start on how to reformat the entire article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion has gotten a little bit sidetracked. Squicks, you seem to be arguing that this article does not say enough positive things about its subject and needs more. That position is highly debatable, but has very little to do with my point on the structure of the section. Regardless of whether there is "enough" or "too much" criticism/praise, we should not be categorizing the media response into separate sections based on opinion. I suggest we merge the two back again then address the other concerns (and really, Squicks, you were bold in making the change but nobody has supported it in discussion so it should be changed back.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

really, Squicks, you were bold in making the change but nobody has supported it in discussion so it should be changed back Being bold is being bold. I honestly thought that this division could be used as a point for future compromise. If it doesn't work, than it doesn't work. The Squicks (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things...

For the media coverage section, can we plz organize it a little better? I'm thinking maybe chronological order and sticking the top paragraph down further or better yet deleting it? Also does the incident section really merit mentioning, and if it does, can we stick it in with another section (maybe tax day turnout). Finally, why is the "astroturfing" section so long? Can we cut that down a bit? Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The "astroturfing" section is not long at all. It's an extremely significant aspect of the protests, which would have received far less coverage or attendance without lobbyist support. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is opinion and quite controversial. Considering the allegations got virtually no coverage in the mainstream media, is it really more important than the history section and the actual goals of the movement? Especially considering it's cobbled together by a patchwork of blogs and other "progressive" sites and a NYT op-ed piece? Soxwon (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether he thinks the section is long enough or not is indeed personal opinion. But don't mistake as "virtually no coverage" the fact that talking heads from CNN, MSNBC, Leno & Stewart & Colbert, and at least some local ABC and CBS affiliates all addressed the charges of astroturfing. That is a big chunk of what passes for "mainstream media" these days, and to say that is no coverage -- THAT is opinion, and incorrect as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the astroturfing claim. Support by lobbyists and FNC, well-covered by the mainstream media, seriously undermines that notion that this was somehow predominantly a grassroots "movement". Maybe that was the case at one time, but not by the time April 15 rolled around. It's a shame, really, because I believe these organizations co-opted the protests and pushed some of the valid criticisms of the protesters into the background in favor of their own anti-Obama/Republican/conservative messages. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the section nothing but blogs and an op-ed piece? And MSM or not, Stewart, Colbert, Playboy magazine and Leno are about entertainment first, where is the mainstream news media coverage? A quick search on google and it comes up as a blurb in a single article for CNN: [6]. This looks like over-represented fringe with what sources are cited. Soxwon (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the section. The source included an op-ed by a Nobel prize winning economist, a quote by the Speaker of the House, and a quote by a mainstream political commentator on a major network (MSNBC). These aren't fringe theorists. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The allegations of astroturfing got a lot of coverage in the mainstream media, outside of Fox News Channel at least. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the citation with me, but if you watch Fox News Sunday, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was asked about whether or not the protests were grassroots or astroturf and she said that they were grassroots. I mean, its pretty notable enough that serious media and seriously notable people are talking about it.

As for Scjessey's comment, I am truly speechless as to how something can be "nothing controversial" if there's such a vehement, almost blood-feud between the protesters and liberal blogs/commentators/politicans/etc over this issue. For goodness sakes, how would people feel if I went to the pages about the anti-Iraq war protest pages and told them that they were nothing but stooges for left-wing PACs? The Squicks (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem we are having lies with you not understanding the concept of astroturfing. Astroturfing does not mean that the protestors are not real people with real concerns. What astroturfing means is that events were organized and coordinated by a outside group with outside $$. Astroturfing does not mean "nothing but stooges for left-wing PACs". I am truly speechless that you don't understand this simple concept. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fine, then get rid of the blogs and provide reliable sourcing. The need for good sourcing trumps reality. Soxwon (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What astroturfing means is that events were organized and coordinated by a outside group with outside $$. Which did not happen here, since what happened was a bunch of people purely of their own accord gathered together and applied to outside groups for help- the groups co-ordinated nothing. This is self-evident from any interview of any person who participated. I am truly speechless that you don't understand this distinction. The Squicks (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it until you get to the next sentence. "As the idea for a tea party themed protest materialized, FreedomWorks was well-positioned to coordinate the national tour through its campaign website .... FreedomWorks has already coordinated 9 tour events in Washington, D.C., Sarasota, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, St. Louis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia in just the last week" [7]. And that was way back on March 9th! TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that one group speak for all of the 500k (+) protestors? Obviously not. I could easily come up with similar ciations about left-wing activist groups before the Iraq war. Does that make the anti-war protests one big astroturf project? The Squicks (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NO, that group certainly does not speak for the 500k (+/-300K) who showed up, but that isn't what astroturfing is about! You are missing the fucking point of what astroturfing is and what it is not. Its about the organization being fake grassroots, not about the people who show up to the event being fake. Stop tossing about words like obviously, self-evident, and nothing when you put not weight or meaning behind the words. Lets try to stick to the facts of the situation here, not that self-evident analysis obviously tells you that outside groups had nothing to do with the events. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How the hell is this not real grassroots? The Squicks (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the movement was coordinated by a PAC (Freedomworks), please see the above direct quotation from a FreeWorks Press release in March. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You should look at the sources that the article cites. Such as Atlantic Monthly=

Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real.

They will tell you that citizens-turned-activists, upset with President Obama's economic agenda and the financial bailout, have been calling them, asking for help and how they can organize protests on Wednesday. The movement, they say, is entirely organic: they are mostly providing help and resources to this new class of outraged conservative free-market populists, some of whom are their own members and some of whom are outsiders to politics with whom they've never communicated before--not even on an e-mail list.

Is MoveOn.org an 'astroturf' project? No. People spontaneously come up with things, and then MoveOn.org gives them support when asked. Ditto for the right-wing clones of MoveOn.org The Squicks (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto head, please read the quotes you provide again, you will notice a few key words, indicating who is actually saying what. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To Soxwon I think it depends on the circumstances here. It makes me abit sick, but Playboy has been citied as a reliable source before on Wikipedia. Think Progress is iffy here, as a generic far left blog. Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist that is notable in and of himself. The Squicks (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Think Progress is using a clip of Varney. Watch the clip, it ends with "It's now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!" Fox billed the events on teevee as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." They ran seventy-three promotions on the Tea Parties in the eight days leading up to them. Their hosts were plugged in to the public address system, encouraging the protesters. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And Varney is a person who is a commentator offering his opinion. If Rachael Maddow were to make a statement like "MSNBC is all liberally biased", would we take her word as fact? No, I would not.

And, for Gods sake, "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties" is a graphic used only to describe those parties that had Fox people present. If Barack Obama's office was taking a trip to europe and released a picture with locations in Europe highlighed as "Obama cities", would I have an excuse to go "ZOMG! OBAMA NOW OWNS EUROPE!" or something like that?

Their hosts were plugged in to the public address system, encouraging the protesters. They attended the parties, and interviewed people there. Well, gee fucking whiz, doesn't that sound like real.... actual... journalism? You know? The kind of journalism that people who either (a)ignored them or (b)made pithy remarks and never left their seats did not do? The Squicks (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee fucking whiz, check out Cody Willard at the protest [8], does that look like real... actual... journalism? Or Sean Hannity at the Atlanta event, that is journalism? Oh, and Fair and Balanced, it was 107 Tea Party Protest Ads Over 10 Days. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because Cody Williard is a political talking head who is not a journalist. He can say whatever he wants, it means nothing. The same way Keith Olberman making the Nazi salute around Republicans does not mean anything about MSNBC's coverage. It's whether or not actual, real, straight journalists say something. The Squicks (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So who is a journalist on Faux Noise. Neil "Make Shit Up" Cravuto? Would you please list who the talking heads are on Fox N and who the "real straight journalists" are, because that is a BS counterpoint by you, since you know well and good that Fox N Channel is largely made up of talking heads, so therefore what their highly paid talking heads say and do on air is what Fox N Channel says and does on air. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for KO making Nazi salutes? Please remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The ADL says

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

We are deeply dismayed by your ongoing use of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" salute

We believe that the use of gestures and imagery associated with the Nazis – even in jest – only serves to trivialize the Holocaust and denigrate the memory of the six million Jews and others who died as a result of Hitler's Final Solution.

The Squicks (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, again, you are mischaracterizing the section. There are plenty of non-blog sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, please provide a source for your allegation that there was no national organizing and that the protests were entirely grassroots. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See the article that Thars quoted from FW. That article explicitly labels the thing "grassroots". The Squicks (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, If you have a reliable source for Senator McCaskill's assertion that the protests are grassroots rather than astroturfing, please add it to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find it. The Squicks (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The transcript of the show is here. Apparently, I misremembered it. The term "AstroTurf" was not mentioned. Instead, a more general question was asked and then she said, "I respect the protests that occurred. I think they were grassroots. I think it was a remarkable turnout in many places in our country." The Squicks (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough guys, this isn't helping. TharsHammer, plz cite a reliable third party source that covered the events and supported allegations of astroturfing. Soxwon (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the CNN source previously cited represents a high standard of sourcing. Not only does it address the allegations of "astroturfing", but it also gives examples of it ("promoted in part by FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity"). It corroborates the lesser-quality sourcing you have been complaining about. This Associated Press story specifically states: "The tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington and led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who is now a lobbyist." That's cast-iron sourcing right there. The very next paragraph mentions Fox News: "Organizers said the movement developed organically through online social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter and through exposure on Fox News." (my emphasis) Independent and highly respected magazine The Atlantic provides the astroturfing and FNC slam dunks, removing any doubt. There's a fistfull of reliable sources for you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all thank you for providing sources. However, I believe that saying the first article corroborates the story is WP:OR. It simply restates their accusations and not as CNN's opinion. As for the Atlantic, again WP:OR and WP:SYN since they are listing it as "some on the left." You need someone other than blogs saying it is definitively. If you want to say there were accusations fine, but considering how much of the articles are devoted to astroturfing (one sentence for CNN and one paragraph for Atlanta the majority of which was spent explaining why its grass roots) I'm not sure that citing them would be proper. Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for reliable sources, and I provided them (after spending just 2 minutes with Google, I might add). There are direct quotes that specifically state that the events were promoted by lobbyists. There is plenty of material in there to justify the allegations of astroturfing. I'm not suggesting that these sources should be used to backup the existing version of the text, but they can certainly be used to demonstrate the clear view that astroturfing took place on a wide scale. There is no danger of WP:OR or WP:SYN (neither of which you seem to properly understand). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is b/c you are taking what they said and synthesizing it for that purpose. You need them to state it as their opinion. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your really stretching there with those claims Sox. We have provided the sources from FreedomWorks press release saying they were coordinating the events, from blogs showing clips of a Fox N Channel anchor saying "It's now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!", from MMFA documenting the Fox N Channel promoting the events, but most importantly from WP:RS like CNN and AP. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that's your synthesis of context quotes, skimpy mentioning in two articles, and MMFA a biased source. You need MSM articles that cover the subject at least for more than a paragraph and also actually take the side that they are astroturfing otherwise you are reduced to saying that the left's claims of astroturfing were mentioned (quite briefly as well) in CNN and Atlanta. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Srsly? Are you saying that a reliable source should be excluded if it contains only a paragraph or less of the relevant material? You're saying that "brief" mentions in sources aren't acceptable? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but they hardly "verify" anything except that the left made the claim, not that it is warranted, or that it's true. Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a red herring, and doesn't conform to the reality of the WP:RS shown above. Also did the "left" make FreedomWorks issue that press release? Considering you created this essay loaded with biased language, and heavy on the blog entries and opinion pieces why are you against the use of blog entries and opinion pieces now? TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been the victim of ppl taking my edits out of context before so plz don't do that again. If you'd looked through all the edits you'll notice I simply used material already there and transferred it from the timeline form to prose and cut out events that weren't in major cities for the most part. And it does conform the WP:RS, as you can't claim the newspaper implied something, you can only report what they say, and all they said was that the left claimed. Whether or not FreedomWorks issued that press release is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that a neutral third party says it's relevant and that it constitutes astro-turfing. You currently have two sources that briefly mention left claims of astroturfing and then don't mention it again. You can say they mentioned the claims but anything else is stretching it. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The AP quote specifically states that the tea parties were promoted by FreedomWorks, run by a right-wing lobbyist. Is the AP now being called "the left" too? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CNN, AP, and Atlantic Monthly are ironclad sources in my view for the allegations. Now, and I think that this should be obvious, these articles do not claim that these allegation are fact- they merely say that left-wingers have argued some things. So, I have to take a moderate position here= (1)The AstroTurf statements should be mentioned and (2)These statements should be represented as just that and not as objective fact. The Squicks (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The AP says FreedomWorks promoted the event. They did not say that FreedomWorks were alleged to have promoted the event. Objective fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But for that to constitute astroturfing is your WP:OR and WP:SYN.Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And we should include statements from the PAC FreedomWorks March 9 press release titled "FreedomWorks Launches Nationwide "Tea Party" Tour. [9]

" As the idea for a tea party themed protest materialized, FreedomWorks was well-positioned to coordinate the national tour through its campaign website, IamWithRick.com. True to its name, the site features the video of Rick on the floor of the Chicago Exchange and seeks to enlist concerned taxpayers to attend tour events.

Working with other groups and individuals within the free-market, limited government community, FreedomWorks has already coordinated 9 tour events in Washington, D.C., Sarasota, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, St. Louis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia in just the last week. "

We should include information from that press-release in the portion of the article dealing with allegations of astroturfing, and involvement of national PACs and registered lobbyists. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is not objective fact. The fact is clear that they promoted and supported the events. That does not mean the same thing as that they controlled the events. Please stop playing these silly word games. The Squicks (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, you are telling me to stop playing silly words games as you resort to false semantics? Priceless! By the by, what does controlled the events mean if not promoting, supporting, organizing, coordinating, and in the case of Fox N Channel hooking up to the PA system. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You quoted FreedomWorks. And you quoted them explicitly calling the whole thing "grassroots". The Squicks (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman's quote is enough to satisfy the term "astroturfing". The other sources I have provided merely add additional weight to the argument. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact textbook case of original reserach. For Gods sake, you can't take one claim from one person and then another claim for someone else and pretend that they are the same. If A says A and B says B, you simply can't write on Wikipedia "A + B = C". Read WP:OR. You are doing exactly what it forbids.

Anonymous, no it isn't. We are claiming that A says D and B says D and C says D, where, A, B, and C are Krugman, Pelosi, and Maddow and D is that the protests are astroturf rather than grassroots. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

TharsHammar, I wish you would actually read all of what you are quote mining. The authors of that explicitly label the thing "grassroots". The Squicks (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, you can't just say it's supporting evidence, you have to have someone say it is otherwise it's your own synthesis. Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is factual that there were national organizers for the protests. It is (strongly sourced) opinion that this national organization constitutes astroturfing. The article should reflect that. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you disagree with Thars and Scjess? You think that the Astroturfing thing is just opinion and not "Objective Fact"? The Squicks (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The section already includes plenty of WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Mediation as this is not going anywhere. I hesitate to bring this up before anyone, so does anyone object to me asking a neutral editor (I suggest Lady of Shallot or Wikidemon)? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation is not necessary, IMO. But fifth, sixth, and seventh opinions would be a good thing from here on. The Squicks (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think mediation would be a great idea, because basically we have a situation where two right-wing POV pushers are creating false claims of WP:OR by misrepresenting the comments of others and failing to understand WP:OR themselves. At no time have I suggested that we use more than one source to synthesize a reference for "astroturfing". We have an award-winning economist writing for the New York Times saying that there was astroturfing going on at these events. We have other sources that document lobbyist and Fox News promotion and support of these events. All I am saying is that there are more than enough references to support a section on the astroturfing. Claims of SYN and OR are ludicrous, and somewhat hypocritical. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An economist is about as qualified to comment on political issues as an engineer. You have sources that document Fox's promotion. Ok, consider, just for a second, the idea that since none of the MSM news sources are quoted as alleging astroturfing, they can't be used as evidence of it. Doing so would be using their information to support another contention, which is WP:SYN. I'll even break it down for you: did any MSM news source allege or even claim that the Movement was astroturfed? No, they reported that other groups did. Therefore, since they never alleged that it was, nor did they support the left in this argument, or even give it more than a couple of lines of coverage, does that mean they can be used to support the claim? Not unless you are using them as "evidence" which is WP:SYN. Sure they mention some things, but unless the news sources explicitly say that "such and such event may have been astroturfing" you can't use it. All of your other sources are left-wing blogs and sites which aren't WP:RS.Soxwon (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Krugman has also written several books on politics (or the union of economics and politics). MSNBC is a MSM news source that is quoted as alleging astroturfing. How is Nancy Pelosi not WP:RS? JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~We have two self-described left-wing editors and two self-described right-wing editors here.~~ It's inherently a tough situation.

We have an award-winning economist writing for the New York Times saying that there was astroturfing going on at these events. We have other sources that document lobbyist and Fox News promotion and support of these events. And these things are seperate'. Linking them together violates WP:SYN. Once again, the allegations of astroturfing are opinions, not facts. The Squicks (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Scjessey, your opinions expressed on your website here show that you're hardly a neutral, objective, unbiased person when it comes to POV.~~ The Squicks (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~How low class of you.~~ No need to go to my website, BTW. I have one of those "political compass" userboxes on my user page. And I did not suggest that these sources should be combined to form an opinion, so any suggestion of WP:SYN falls flat on its face. I'm not saying we put A and B together to make C. I am saying we write about A and B. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~How low class of you to pretend that you are unbiased when you aren't in the first place.~~

Anyways, the whole problem here is that you and Thars claim that the Astroturfing allegations are fact, when they are not. They are just allegations made by some notable people. If you take articles that do not mention "AstroTurf" and lump them into something about AstroTurf, that violates WP:SYN. A section that is about A should have only things about A. It should not be about A and then include both A and C. The Squicks (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your previous untrue statement about "pretending" immediately. Also, please stop tendentiously restating the same logical fallacy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'm going to ignore your personal attacks against me and strike out my attacks made against you that I did in response to what you did. The Squicks (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect you to strike out your personal attacks against me above as well. The Squicks (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've struck out my response to your personal attack, but I have not made any attacks of my own. I have continued to debate the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your initial personal attack about "two right-wing POV pushers", to which I responded in kind (I have struck that out as well). The Squicks (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on his or her editing history, Wikidemon is not neutral WRT this article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and condense this down, but I won't implement any changes until Scjessey comes back. Soxwon (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

'Media coverage' verses 'Responses'

Comments by Obama and Axelrod don't fall under media and thusly ought to be categorized a different way. But a lot of this information seems either non-notable or could be possibly merged into the 'Media coverage' section. The Squicks (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of the "Responses" section is full of irrelevant information (secession of Texas, Obama's April 15th speech), the entire paragraph starting with "Talk Show Host Leslie Marshall" should either go to media or be deleted, and really it's just full of unecessary quotes that could be compressed. Soxwon (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rick Perry's secession comments are not "irrelevant". His response to a question on secession by a secessionist at a Tea Party protest invoked a strong response by Democratic lawmakers and conservative and liberal political commentators. This controversy started at a Tea Party protest and is definitely notable, so I think it should be mentioned in this article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Perry's comments are notable, but my original point is that the categorization method is flawed. Perry's comments don't seem to me to belong in a section called Responses. Wouldn't you agree? The Squicks (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee

To the editors that have blanked Mike Huckabee's response, please share your concerns here so that we may reach consensus. By adding his response I'm not saying I agree with him, but asserting that, being a former governor and a current political commentator, he is sufficiently notable for conclusion. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Get his comments in a form other than Twitter. It is known there are many fake twitter accounts, and even those who do have Twitter accounts have an intern write them. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 12:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He also posted it on his Facebook account. His official website links to both the Twitter and Facebook accounts, so I think they're legit. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the comment is all that notable. Nor do I see how Twitter can be used as an RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether anyone agrees with the quote or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The problem with the quote is twofold; verifiability and notability. The notability to this article has not been established, and a Twitter feed is not in any way a reliable source. Even if you could establish that the quote is genuine, it is still a self-published source. You would need a third-party reliable source (a news story mentioning that he said this, for instance). But that gets to notability which is the bigger issue. There isn't anything that makes this quote more notable than any other comment made that week on blogs, television, editorials, etc. Don't confuse Huckabee's notability with the notability of the quote. Yes, Huckabee himself is notable. But that doesn't mean that his notability is automatically conferred upon anything he says for the purposes of any article anywhere on Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Shockingly, I agree with most of the editors here. Twitter is severely problematic here and if the statement itself is worth mentioning- it would have been covered by more reliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Current"

While this is indeed a 'current event' in the abstract sense. The tag Current is directly intended for articles edited by many, many people on the same day. That's not the case here. So, the tag should not be here. The Squicks (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag is being placed improperly, as is obvious by reading the criteria for the tag. If this article qualified for that tag, so would every other article about politics, politicians, celebrities, etc. (which would make the tag meaningless). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of celebrities are basically permanent current events (See the obessive coverage of Lindsey Lohan Watch as an example. The Squicks (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I added hidden text to this effect. The Squicks (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing

Now that Scjessey is back from his block, I propose this version. All the changes can be viewed here. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what my completely unrelated block has to do with anything. Generally speaking, it seems to be okay; however, I have two problems with this proposed version (one of which is a legacy of the existing version). First of all, it removes significant parts from some of the quotes (Krugman talking about Armey, Maddow specifically stating "astroturfing", for example). Secondly, I have no idea what the last paragraph has to do with this section. It seems completely unrelated and added as an afterthought. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned your block b/c I wanted to make it clear I wasn't doing anything behind your back or while you were out of it. As for your objections, the second is fine and the material can be added back in. As for the first, I don't really think's necessary. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So we basically agree except on the amount of quoting we do, right? My contention is that cutting down those two quotes so drastically misses of crucial information. In the case of Krugman, we are missing his justification for calling it "astroturfing", and in the case of Maddow we are excluding her use of the actual word, which seems rather important. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I left in the quotes that were necessary to summarize the different contentions. I still contend it's fringe, but it bears mentioning. For the Krugman quote:

"The tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

It seems we are in agreement that the first part can go, I say that the in particular is too much detail and can be summarized if it goes in rather than directly quoted. Soxwon (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph was from another part of the article, and it was lumped into the 'astroturfing' section for some reason.

That information seems fine to me, but it belongs somewhere else. The Squicks (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As for Rachel:

On the same day, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow commented, saying that

"One of the controversies about the teabaggers is the fact that insider D.C. corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups have done a lot of the organizing and promotion for these events. That‘s controversial because it‘s astroturfing. It‘s disguising a formal top-down organized paid for things as if it‘s some spontaneous grassroots event."

Those statements are basically restating what's already been said, that it's astroturfing paid for by corporate money. The only thing notable is whom and that is what is in the proposal. (That's my reasoning, feel free to make suggestions on either, I really do try to be fair). Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think both quotes should remain in full. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is that they give nothing new, and what they give is all that I've quoted. What is your reason for keeping them whole? Soxwon (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the quotes give an important explanation of what was happening, and they reinforce (rather than repeat) the other material. I'm not 100% sold on that though, so I'd be interested to hear what a few other people think. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the quotations on both sides are properly included to inform readers of what the opinions are. The Steve Leser quotation, however, gives specific factual information, about the 2008 registration of the chicagoteaparty.com domain name. That's more valuable than most of the other stuff, which amounts largely to unsubstantiated expressions of opinion.

In the Krugman quotation, his reference to the role of FreedomWorks could be dropped, because that organization's involvement is noted in the previous sentence. His reference to Armey could be dropped because Armey is named at the linked FreedomWorks article. His assessment of Fox's role, however, is more important in this context, and should stay. In the Pelosi quotation, her reference to the tax equity issue adds something new, so I'd leave that in and shorten elsewhere, e.g.:

Soxwon proposed edit: On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated: "This initiative is funded by the high end...it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America... ~~to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.~~"
My proposed edit: On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed with the "astroturfing" charge, calling the tea parties "an initiative...by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." JamesMLane t c 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That edit of Pelosi changes the meaning of her sentences. htom (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to comments of JamesMLane (which edit are you referring to Otter?): [10]. Soxwon (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is "by some of the wealthiest people in America" not included in the Pelosi quote? I like the longer Maddow quote as well because it nicely wraps up the "astroturfing" allegations. But if it needs to go for brevity, I'm not opposed. Nice edits, all.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the Pelosi quote in it's entirety b/c it's really a lot of repitition of what has already been said in my opinion. Personally, I think that those whom she accuses is all that's really needed. The same with Maddow, what's there is what she adds to it and nothing more. Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The most recent. where "This initiative is funded ..." is changed to "an initiative ... by some..." and references to tax cuts are dropped. It's bad enough that they speak in sound-bites, we don't need to "fix" them. (That would be OR in any case.) htom (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have used the original quote and only use what the speaker gives that is new. The newest version strikes out the part about the "wealthiest" since that was already covered. Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That it was already covered is not relevant; it goes to show the bias of the Speaker in making her condemnation. Her complaint was specific, you make it general. Your edits "fixes" her speech, and that's POV.htom (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about Ms. Pelosi's opinion on the Tea Party, this is about the charge of Astroturfing. We want to summarize the information and present it in a clear and concise manner. Including entire quotes is unecessary so long as the context is not lost. Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelosi's opinion of the Tea Partys is suscinctly stated, by her: "This initiative is funded by the high end... it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." Your version changes her allegation (that of a grassroots movement now being funded by the wealthy) to a different allegation (that the movement does not exist except for the funding.) htom (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what Otter meant to say is, "Your version changes her allegation (that of a non-grassroots movement being funded by the wealthy) to a different allegation (that the movement does not exist except for the funding.)" Which, when you study both versions, still convey the pertinent points. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So do we have concensus about the new version of Astroturf? Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't agree with Xenophrenic's change. In Pelosi's long comment, she seems to admit that there was a grassroots movement, and then alleges that that movement has now (or as of the 15th of April 2009) been taken over by wealthy funders and it is no longer a grassroots movement.

That's your interpretation and quite frankly I don't agree. However, if editors are with you then we can work on the changes, I'd still like to see if there are any other changes that need to be made, or if everyone is willing to go with this version. Soxwon (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you updated your sandbox copy to reflect the version you are seeking approval on? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The one showing changes yes, the one that would be inserted no, but I'll fix that. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the final edit Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I still have some issues with that version:

The Krugman quote should be restored, except the last sentence about Fox News (not really needed, covered in another section), and without the unnecessary addition of "opinion" (it says "op-ed" in the source). Bizarrely, I don't see the actual source cited (although it is used in another section).
I'd cut out all the Steven Leser stuff. It offers "evidence" of astroturfing, but only if synthesis and independent assumptions are applied.
I'm uncomfortable with the Pelosi edits. Either have the quote in full, or cut her out completely.
The Maddow quote should be extended to the end ("as if it's some spontaneous grassroots event.").
Entire last para belongs elsewhere, and has nothing to do with the astroturfing.

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Pelosi quote has been commented on by others, I worked on it a bit, laast para rmved, Maddow quote put in partway, Leser re-removed. As for Krugman, the opinion is to make sure that it isn't assumed that he writes for the Times and represents them, and I'll put back the Krugman quote for now. Soxwon (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Use the traditional and more neutral term "op-ed" instead of "opinion". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, anything else? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. My living room needs vacuuming. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll send you a catalgue for one of those robot maids. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

On a serious note, I am still uncomfortable with the treatment of Pelosi's quote, the Steven Leser stuff is still there, the crucial bit of Krugman's quote about Armey is missing, and I don't know what should be done about the Indypendent mention - it sort of just sits there in the corner like a guilty schoolboy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, but isn't this what compromise is? I've put quite a bit back in from what I took out originally. I'll put back Armey (you were a little less than specific, I thought you meant the whole thing), and I think I Indy's fine. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I still doesn't seem quite right. Would you mind if I produced my own edit, in a separate section, directly beneath your version? It would make it easier for us to compare and discuss. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, though it would be preferable if you made the edit before that. Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean I should do my tinkering elsewhere and then stick it on your page in one edit, that's no problem. At the moment, I'm leaning toward removing the mention of The Indypendent completely - it seems to be more about Fox News than astroturfing, so it is probably a better source for something in the media coverage section. Apart from that, I expect my version to be very close to yours. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you could limit it to one edit that would be nice :). Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Here is my alternative version for the middle paragraph. Some things are longer, some are cut out completely, and there are several formatting/grammar/structure tweaks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, and it seems to satisfy all the previous complaints, so I'll go ahead and stick it in. Soxwon (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I did forget one thing - the Krugman quote has no reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Objection to wording. The article reads "Allegations of "astroturfing" first surfaced in a Playboy article in March 2009." Is there any WP:RS to back up the claim that the allegations first surfaced in playboy? I would change the wording but I know all have been working hard on building a neutral version, so I will raise my objection here first. I also object to the use of the term "first" in a previous section of the article about the protest timeline. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How about saying the allegations "appeared in a Playboy article..." instead? I assume the other thing you are referring to is this: "This was the first known protest against the stimulus bill in the country." I say just cut that line out - it's pure speculation -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed these few issues (including the missing Krugman reference). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating Leser's information, to make more room for more opinions, is a bad choice. I don't understand Scjessey's argument that "the Steven Leser stuff ... offers 'evidence' of astroturfing, but only if synthesis and independent assumptions are applied." To the contrary, synthesis would be if we pulled the information about domain name registration from some other source and concluded ourselves that it was informative on the astroturfing issue. Someone would object, quite rightly, that we shouldn't discuss the domain name unless some outside source had drawn the connection between the domain name registration and the alleged spontaneity of the tea parties. Leser did draw that connection, so we can and should report the facts about the argument he made. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Teabaggers redirect and "sexual practice"

The Teabaggers redirect page was created by PasswordUsername(talk) on May 7th. PasswordUsername added "Teabaggers" redirects here. For the sexual practice, see Teabagging. to the top of the article. I believe this is unwarranted pure WP:OR as there is no source or consensus that the name/noun "teabaggers" refer to "Tea Party protests", and that there is no confusion between the two to begin with. Nuβiατεch ^Talk 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it violates WP:OR. That said it still is put in there to cause disruption and has no place at the top of the article. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys nuts? The people involved in these protests called themselves Teabaggers before the events even happened. The term wasn't made to insult them, they choose it. Acknowledging that term, adding a redirect, putting disambiguation notice.... those are all standard encyclopedic procedures. It's not by any stretch of the imagination "disruption". Frankly it seems like POV pushing to want to try to distance the topic from the term now that you know that it's a sexual practice. Too many people are treating this article as a place to try to advance their own politics and remove info they find embarrassing instead of writing an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is whether sticking the ambiguation notice in is really necessary. Considering there is a wikilink to Teabagging already I don't see why the disambiguation is really necessary. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate, not necessarily because it's offensive but simply because it's an incorrect use of a redirect. The purpose of a redirect message is to aid readers who may have stumbled upon this article while looking for the other article. I don't think anyone would ever type in the words "Tea Party protests" when they were looking for information about the sexual practice of teabagging. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Er... that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people might be looking for teabagging when they type "teabaggers" - the opposite problem. We need to make sure that people looking for the prank can find the right article. The redirect notice is necessary, since "teabaggers" is now overwhelmingly associated with the Tea Party protesters. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case I'm fine with it. Could I get your final word on the section above Scjessey? Soxwon (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuβiατεch is right. Just because a small minority of the protesters and some portion of the media decided to dub the protesters 'teabaggers' does not mean that Wikipedia must make this an objective fact to apply to all protesters.

After all, the term 'pro-abortion' does not re-direct to 'pro-choice'. 'Anti-life' doesn't either. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the issue then is whether Tea-baggers should re-direct here. It doesn't really matter to me. Soxwon (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should redirect here. If people are looking for teabaggers (the sexual practice), it seems like the redirect should be to the sexual practice. The "association" that teabaggers are somehow related to the Tea Party protests is an over-statement. I suppose if the actual tea party protesters consider themselves teabaggers, then it makes sense. But so far I haven't found any reliable information that suggests tea party protesters call themselves "teabaggers." It's only been used to insult the tea party protesters. In another example, there is a overwhelming number of people who consider Bush a war criminal; however, when I do a Wikipedia search for war criminal, the appropriate search result is brought up - the article on War Crime - it doesn't redirect to Bush. The same should be done for Tea Party protests... a search for teabaggers should not redirect to this page. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't "Of the protesters, how many call themselves 'teabaggers'?" Rather, the issue is, "Of people who use the term 'teabaggers', how many mean the protesters and how many mean practitioners of teabagging in the sexual sense?" I don't think "teabaggers" is very common in the latter sense, so it's reasonable for Teabaggers to redirect here, with the customary hatnote to cover the other meaning. As DreamGuy said, this is standard encyclopedic practice. That's why there's a template for it. {{Redirect|REDIRECT|USE|PAGE}} displays as:

"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE, see PAGE.

See Template:Otheruses#Redirect. JamesMLane t c 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I disambugated the page, I hope that works as a compromise, the wording may not be 100% there on it yet, but I think the idea of a disambuigious page is much better than a simple redirect when the term "teabagger" could have multiple meanings. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm inclined to trim the description of the sexual practice, but can't think of an appropriate way to change it that doesn't just tempt people to look. htom (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When a term could have multiple meanings, it should be a redirect if one term predominates (for example, GE), but should be a dab page if no single term predominates (for example, Mercury). That's why I pointed out that "teabaggers" is used overwhelmingly to refer to the protesters, not to people who engage in the sexual act. JamesMLane t c 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambig works best, IMHO. The Squicks (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable source

There seems to be information in the article currently being supported by the following reference:

Bruce Bexley, The Tea Party Movement: Why It Started, What It's About, and How You Can Get Involved

This is an Amazon "CreateSpace" book - a self-published work by some guy I've never heard of who apparently contributes to some blog I've never heard of. Does anyone else agree that the source is unreliable, and cannot be used as a reference? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only unreliable and unnotable, but the way in which it was added to the article [11] suggests to me it is linkspam promoting the book. Further fishyness is suggested by the users contribution history,[12], and the reviewers of the Amazon.com book's history. See [13] then 2 of the 3 users, [14] and [15] both have limited review history (3 and 4 reviews) and review the same Bo Obama and Bobby Jindal books, which happen to be published by the same self-pub outfit that the Bexley book comes from, "CreateSpace". You know, just saying ;) TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a pretty clear case that this is unreliable LOL. I shall get out my red pen... -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Already taken care of! TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to work on my draw. Maybe I'll throw some teabags in the air and shoot at them. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure a stray bullet doesn't hit someone who's teabagging. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the article

Just a heads up, but later on (next 12-24 hours) I plan on going through this article and removing questionable sources such as blogs or press releases, on both sides. At first I will remove the source and place a citation needed tag, because if I deleted all the content in the article sourced to blogs and press releases we would be left with a stub! Then we can work on finding good, quality, WP:RS for the material and claims. Cheers, and let me know if you have any objection to me doing this. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there a lot of material that is notable but simply was not covered by the mainstream media?

For example, I believe that the the liberal/leftist blog meme about the 'FNC Tea Parties' sign is notable, but there's no way of sourcing this to anything mainstream. The Squicks (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Or take the liberal/leftist blog meme about white nationalists attending the parties. The Squicks (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, now I wait for the complaints :). I tried to remove all questionable sources and replace with citation needed tags. I was concerned with both Verifiability, ie if claims made are true, and Notability, ie to see if the tit-for-tat or opinions mentioned are really all that notable. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both TV Newser and The Huffington Post fall into the category of news blogs rather than blogs per se, and I consider both of them to be reliable sources. (I believe that there was a Wikipedia guidelines request about THP that confirmed this in the past, but I don't know where it would be here.) The Squicks (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure about TV Newser, I'm more familiar with HuffPo obviously. I know that on HuffPo the vast majority of what is up there is traditional blogging. There are very few actual reporters for them, and the material deleted was from Bob Cesca, not someone like Sam Stein. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... While THP itself is notable, the Cesca column is certainly arguable. I don't have much objection to striking that.

Newser, though, I really think crosses the line into a 'news blog' and thus has some reasonable notability. The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that Xeno disagrees with you, and Xeno considers Nate Silver to be an RS. The Squicks (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody is free to add sources back in. Here is the last version before my changes [16]. It includes all the "references" that I removed. It consisted of about 30% PR releases, 40% tit-for-tat, and 20% Nate Silverish bloggers. I think Nate's website is a reliable source for his opinions, but that misses the large point: is Nate's opinions a fringe viewpoint? To answer that question we need outside reliable sources. I want to see this article as a Good Article, not a slap-stick collection of tit-for-tat, and blogger comments with no WP:good sources. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't following this part of the discussion page too closely. When I saw a fact tag added to the Nate Silver total number, and I knew I had seen that actual number in a source, I dug it up and replaced it. It appears the csmonitor source uses Nate's preliminary estimates, before his final estimate. Do I consider him a RS? I wouldn't use him to substantiate contraversial content in a WP:BLP, but as a source for numbers and percentages in a non-BLP article, I have no problem with him. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

February 27 American Tea Party

It seems like the current Tax Day Tea Party article is violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to hide the events that occurred on February 27. The American Tea Party, or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" happened on February 27, and those events led to the Tax Day Tea Party. Why are people trying to hide this from the public? Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that the American Tea Party occurred on February 27. This article is deceiving because its name is "Tea Party protests," but in reality the article is the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The article covers one event, which occurred on a single day. However, the article appears to be violating the policy against hiding factual material about events that happened in the past. More on that, the American Tea Party article falls under Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and/or Related articles. It should be added to this article because "summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to WP:NPOV," which it does. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The creator to the article "New American Tea Party" just reverted it back to a much older version, which also made the article have little to nothing in common with the February 27 American Tea Party. I tried all I could to improve it, so I guess I'll just wait to see where it goes from here. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Outline

I'd like to hear others opinions on the outline and flow of this article. We have a mighty 1 paragraph on the actual events, and tons of reaction, responses, and media coverage. I would propose the following outline:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Formation
         o 1.2 Positions and goals
         o 1.3 Allegations of Astroturfing
   * 2 Tax-day events
         o 2.1 Major Locations 
         o 2.2 Notable Incidents
         o 2.2.1 White House Bomb Scare (Maybe Lafayette Park?)
         o 2.3 Attendance Estimates
   * 3 Media coverage
         o 3.1 Pre-Event coverage
         o 3.1.1 Alleged Fox News Promotion
         o 3.1.2 "Teabagging"
         o 3.2 Event-day coverage
         o 3.3 Poste-Event coverage 
         o 3.4 Critiques of Media Coverage
   * 4 Responses
         o 4.2 Response from President Obama
         o 4.3 Other Responses
         o 4.4 Planned Follow-ups
   * 5 References

Thoughts, opinions, ideas. Let's hear em. I'd really like to hear more about expanding the event coverage. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the bomb scare really that blasted notable to merit so much weight? In the big scheme of things, I don't think so. The Squicks (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that originally under a heading called, "Incident"? And it stood out like a sore thumb under that heading, too. There were several other "incidents" that could have joined it there... like the Minutemen contingent that crashed a California tea party and got into physical altercations, or the crackpot that twittered threats to kill people at a tea party, etc. They don't quite fit under the new White House response header now. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We had that long debate before about whether or not to segregate Fox in the 'Media coverage' section. But after thinking it over, it should be okay so long (a)The article says alleged and asserted, terms that are neutral and do not take an anti-Fox bias as well as (b)The section 'Critiques of Media Coverage' is of equal weight to the 'Fox' section- to ensure NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not support this (as is) because we must create articles that follow WP:MTAA. Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. For instance, the Allegations of Astroturfing section must not be at the top of the article, and it cannot be in the same section discussing the earlier grassroots Nationwide Chicago Tea party. Such allegations do not exist for the February 27 Chicago Tea Parties; the first allegation arose in March, and the organizations that are allegedly astroturfing are not of the three original grassroots organizations that sprung up on February 20 (a day after Santelli's spontaneous "tea party" rant): Smart Girl Politics, DontGo, and Top Conservatives on Twitter. The astroturfing allegations should be moved to the Media Coverage section or Responses to the Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor clarification re. Mary Rakovich

Regarding this edit of mine, I want to clarify the edit summary to make clear that later denials of Rakovich's association with FreedomWorks prior to and at the time of the February 10 demonstration appear to have been made by one or more other people, and not AFAICT by Rakovich herself. In any event, it's clear from the FreedomWorks website (currently footnotes 17 and 19) that Rakovich was already closely associated with FreedomWorks at the time, rather than as a result of a separately organized demonstration which subsequently attracted FreedomWorks' backing, as was later asserted or at least very strongly implied, e.g., by Tycoon24's edit here. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not very smart, are you? LOL! One of your "references" to somehow prove that I am wrong is also pointing to March. You stupid liberals. I don't even care anymore. I hope this article continues to be a piece of shit. You know what's funny, too? The old nationwide chicago tea party article was averaging about 500 more page views a day than this awful article. How pathetic. Do you guys really believe your own words? Oh, and Kenosis, those "footnotes" you are pointing to are in violation of primary source. Tycoon24 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I noted the disagreement earlier and also noted the templates you'd placed in the article asking "when?" and "why?" in conjunction with the phrase "FreedomWorks activist Mary Rakovich", so I did the research in an attempt to get the facts straight. Ms. Rakovich's phone number is the contact number on the Feb. 9 posting on www.freedomworks.com here. If there's any question about whose phone number it is, it's also here with the name Mary Rakovich attached to it. These "primary sources" verifying her affiliation with FreedomWorks (the FreedomWorks website) are used within the parameters prescribed by WP:PSTS. The source verifies a statement in the article that can be readily double-checked by, to quote the policy, any "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I would think that FreedomWorks itself is, lacking evidence or strong indications to the contrary, a reliable source for basic information such as Ms. Rakovich's association with the organization, a statement that occupies only a very brief phrase in one sentence of the article, but which had been contested with the assertion that her association with FreedomWorks only came after the Fort Myers demonstration. as if they weren't already associated. The phrase "FreedomWorks activist" thus appeared to merit providing reliable sources in support, and bringing the text into reasonable alignment with the sources. It's an interesting story, the events leading up to when the demonstrations took on the "tea party" theme, and I think it's reasonable to concisely present how they developed, but in doing so we should be doing our best to present it accurately. Alternately, I think we can quite reasonably eliminate the Rakovich/Ft.Myers demonstration and start the "history" section with the point at which they became known as "tea parties", which started after the February 19 comments by CNBC's Rick Santelli. Either basic approach is OK by me. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver Redux

Nate Silver DID NOT make any estimates regarding attendance estimates. He reported the estimates from various sources which he deemed credible and unbiased. With regards to Atlanta, he initially used the ACJ as a source of 7,000. They pulled back their estimate. He then used an updated figure of 15,000 in his cumulative total from a different source. It is not correct to report the 7,000 as a credible estimate, especially if you are to link Silver. Furthermore, Silver did not make the estimate of 15,000. If one wishes to report that figure I suggest the original source be used. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the sourced material. If the article is going to use Silver, it rightly needs to present both higher and lower estimates, both of which are presented in the Silver article used as a citation for the estimates here. Silver quotes the 15k estimate, and also notes the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's 7k estimate. Are we to presume that Silver was incorrect about the Journal-Constitution? If so, then he's not a reliable source and the whole shebang of estimates needs to be taken out per WP:V#Reliable_sources and WP:RS. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Silver is not a WP:RS for this information. Silver did not do any of the actual crowd estimation, he just compiled others work. Even if he did do the crowd estimations he still in not a relevant expert in the field of crowd estimation and should not be used. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor numbers that this WP article quoted are based substantially upon Silver's compilation, so if Silver is unreliable, the fruit is poison. I've removed the speculation about attendance based on these sources, leaving intact the material cited to the NY Times. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If you are going to use either you need to use the primary source, not Silver. I am already on record that Silver should not be used for various reasons, but if he is to be used then he can only be used for his stated cumulative total. If the AJC estimate is to be used, then AJC needs to be the source. From what Silver has stated, AJC retracted their estimate of 7,000. Some initial searching of the AJC has turned up no articles that mention the total of 7,000. here is a google source with the 7,000 listed in the summary. here is that article when you click on the link. No mention of 7,000. The AJC updated their page and removed the estimate. Silver then used this as the source for 15,000. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Based on this, I'll self-revert to the last reasonable estimate based on the AJC and Silver, probably your (Arzel's) last version. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Having self-reverted to Loonymonkey's last version, I want to weigh in as agreeing with Arzel insofar as I think we shouldn't be leaning on speculative tallies quite so heavily. I would not oppose removing Silver's estimates and relying instead on mainstream media summaries such as the NY Times and AJC. Currently, at least the WP article properly notes the CSM article's observation about the difficulties involved in such tallies, thus helping put the estimates into perspective for the reader of the WP article. .. Kenosis (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust this edit is reasonable in light of the sourcing Arzel just presented. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Thanks. Arzel (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old 15,000 in Atlanta thing. You see, that's not completely the end of the story. So one of the AJC's journalists took issue with "15,000" and figures reality is closer to 7,000. So which is it?--Happysomeone (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to say something like "between 7,000 and 15,000", cited to both the Journal-Constitution article and also their writer Jim Galloway's calculations ? ... Kenosis (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If Galloway gets published regarding his research then it could be used. As such it is purely his opinion. Additionally, his estimate is based upon the assumption that a person requires 4 sq ft of space. This is a pretty faulty assumption. I have tiles in my house which are 18in square (2.25 sq ft) and it is quite easy to fit inside that space without touching anyone in an adjacent square. Do the math and you will see it is quite easy for over 15,000 to fit within that area based upon 2.25 sq ft. In any case I think the main article overrides the blog source. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And finally we get to the discussion I was requesting that's now in the archive. Jim Galloway is a Staff Writer at the AJC, a generic term used for journalists that fill multiple positions at a given newspaper. As a journalist, his work product for the AJC, in addition to the stories he produces and blog posts written under the "Political Insider" heading, is by definition research. True, in his blog post he does not cite any official estimate or authority on crowd estimation. However his 30 years in journalism at the AJC does give him some credibility in regards to his observations (on, for example, crowd sizes). I find it entertaining that Arzel now has introduced himself into this estimation of crowds with your 10+ years of experience in statistical and related fields, and further challenge you to surround yourself with average-sized Atlantan tea party protesters on 18 in. square tiles, instead of the 24 inch-square that Galloway suggests ;-) --Happysomeone (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think a range as suggested by Kenosis would be better, as Arzel suggested in a similar context elsewhere.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My analysis is no more reliable than Galloway's, I simply was pointing out that his was based on a faulty assumption. I don't see how his years in journalism equate to him being an expert in population estimation. The ranges I was referring to was reliable estimatates, like those that Silver used, not biased estimates like those that Galloway suggests. Arzel (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point my dear friend. Galloway is part of an apparatus that you yourself have upheld as WP:RS. The blog may be placing Galloway more visibly out in the spotlight, but the newspaper is nonetheless standing behind its staff writer (e.g. providing for and supporting his writings). This is where I was trying to spark discussion on what the difference is between a story, a blog and a column, but we didn't seem to get very far last time around. I would allege he is committing "journalism" here. It is precisely the point that his opinion may carry more weight than yours, sir.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the information back in. I'd really like to understand why it shouldn't be there, Arzel. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved Aervanath (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that the name of this article be moved to "Tax Day Tea Party," so as to negate any confusion between previous protests to what this article is covering: the Tax Day Tea Party protests. Edit to add: You can find the discussion about it Here, under 16 May 2009. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The article you created, Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is clearly a content fork of this article and will soon be deleted or merged as such. You can not save it with a backdoor maneuver attempting to remove the duplicate content from this article. You're going about it backwards. Summary Style says that we should discuss creating a daughter article here if a section of this article becomes far too long. This article is not nearly there yet (and is unlikely to be anytime soon, given the dearth of recent developments). Summary Style is not a loophole for you to try to save an article you created. In particular, you should read WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Please don't disrupt other articles in order to make a point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a loophole, it's Wikipedia policy. If you have any constructive comments on the issue, please feel free to mention them here. Otherwise, please do not disrupt other articles in order to make a point. Cheers. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments were pretty constructive and actually quoted Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure if I could say the same for that response. You should really read WP:AVOIDSPLIT, although even that doesn't entirely apply as you're trying to retroactively split an article that doesn't need splitting in order to justify keeping a content fork that you created. Not terribly constructive. I look forward to the day very soon when we can drop the circular discussion and get back to actually editing these articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a related AfD[17] that looks like it's headed towards a merge. Tax Day Tea Party will only be an appropriate name if the merge does not take place, otherwise the article will be covering multiple tea party events. Mishlai (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This has much more to do with preserving the article you created (that is currently being considered for deletion) than with any adherence to summary style. You can't solve the problem of creating a content fork by gutting the original article. Further, this article is not nearly large enough to necessitate budding off daughter articles. This request seems more disruptive than helpful. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The current article covers the subject of the teabagger movement in general. There seems little need to cover specific regional gatherings or parties, and no notability to justify it. Leave the article title and the content as-is. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The present title is good in that it covers the whole general "movement" (or whatever), as the article does. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As mentioned above, this move is meant more to protect the other article up for AFD then for any other real reason. The current title is fine and covers the entire so-called "grass roots" movement. Brothejr (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In accordance to the "Levels of desired WP:DETAIL," under WP:SUMMARY, here are many of the reasons I have suggested that some content from Tea Party protests be split into a separate article entitled Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, at the same time move the Tea Party protests article for a name change to Tax Day Tea Party:

Reason for Agree (full discussion at link):

A group called the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was formed February 20, 2009 by three grassroots organizations: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). These organization led the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties.

In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.

The "future rallies," the April 15 Tax Day tea parties were guided by Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Institute For Liberty, the alleged Fox News promoters, and others. Different organizers equal different events.
There are future rallies already scheduled. July 4, 2009 is the next date for tea party protests. The addition of these events, with addition of more and more sponsors and organizers, the currently titled article Tea Party protests will assuredly become too large to easily depict information on all of these events. This calls for sub-articles, which is an acceptable and desired method for resolving such events and articles about them.
The first instance of this is when the article Timeline of Tea Party protests was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is essentially created to provide a background to the various protests and events that occurred and ultimately caused increase support from various organizations to jump-on-board to promote future events. Without this sub-article, those researching the February 27 "Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading Tea Party protests and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
There is a vital "bridge" of information to the Tea Party protests that must be made clear on how they were formed and what led to the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Nationwide Chicago Tea party puts a needed gap in this bridge to make the connection as to what events led to the more widely known Tax Day Tea Party. The Tax Day tea party article (or Tea Party protests) does not place this gap in the necessary bridge to provide full information on the historical events which led to more current events.

...I'm definitely not making the case that the Tea Party protests article discussion on the February 27 events should be expanded. If anything, the proposed article Tax Day Tea Party should be cleaned up and stick to only the most relevant information from the February 27 Tea Party that relates to the Tax Day April 15 Tea Party. Otherwise, let the main article for the Chicago Tea Party further detail the events on its sub-article.

Here's the issues at hand: The two events had similar motivations (an argument for merging the two articles), but they were organized by different people (an argument that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article). If I'm not mistaken, it's the first argument that I am running into issues with for reasons against keeping the articles separated. The second argument, which is the issue that I'm trying point out, if the two articles are merged it must be made clear that the February 27 events were different in that they were organized by three grassroots organizations, and not the alleged "astroturfing" organizations. Unless any of such allegations against the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests have been written or are found, if from a reliable source, then allegations against the April 15 event organizers should not be merged or blended in with non-existent allegations against the February 27 protest organizers. If there were allegations, then it can be edited into a merged "main" article. So, from here, I argue that if the two articles are merged and the proposal is denied, it'll cause the currently titled article Tea Party protests to become very cluttered, with some information covering some organizations who protested in the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; all the while, at the same time, other sections will be cross-discussing other organizations that guided and promoted the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party. This is the problem that I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged.

From this great reference, here's a quote:

"Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians."

And this doesn't even have information on the February 16 protest. But it still clarifies the point of differences in events (hopefully) a little better than I have.

The Talk on when/who/why first "astroturf" allegations occurred -- most notable are "when" the first allegations occurred and against whom.

On the allegations against "astroturfing" -- a quote:

"People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous 'rant' on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."

end note: Sometimes, the simplest most obvious answer really is the truth, or at least what is widely perceived and accepted as truth. This isn't just me. Anyone or source who has reported on the February 27 protests (or the protests before it; i.e. the "root" of the "grass" not-yet dubbed "tea party" protests), all coverage and reliable references (which I pointed out in the linked main discussion page above) say the same thing. A few days prior to Rick Santelli's rant, at least two or three local "anti-spending" protests had already taken place (with no alleged astroturfing organizations involved). Even the Wikipedia article on "grassroots" clearly defines what the Wikipedia article on the Chicago Tea Parties reads as a grassroots formed protest. The Chicago Tea party is a different event sponsored and promoted by different organizations to the April 15 "Tax Day Tea Party." Both articles entitled Tax Day Tea Party and Nationwide Chicago Tea Party should be accessible from a disambiguation page. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, a teal deer sighting. Anyways, skimming through this shows little is new. Tea Party protests covers the entire phenomenon well enough. Forking off content for perceived variations in events or organizations simply isn't going to happen until guidelines of notability are satisfied. Tarc (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WP is not news. People want to get the general information, not every detail about every event. BTW I have some friends who took part and I can tell you that it was a genuine grassroots event, at least for them. I had to work that day, ironically for H&R Block. It's our busiest day of the year. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Tycoons suggestion to the IP, would "2009 Tea Party protests" be better? TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. For convenience, I'll repeat essentially verbatim my last comment made at the AfD for "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party".
.....[Regarding the assertion that a quickly organized set of demonstrations with some 30,000 attendees nationwide on February 27 merit a separate article from, e.g. "tax day" tea-party protests] it might be worth noting that about sixty-five-thousand-plus people, on average, go in person to a regular-season NFL football game (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance). So, half a pro football game gets thirty thousand people. Great Smoky Mountains National Park gets an average of 30,000 visits a day (http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=785) . Songwriter/performer Leonard Cohen recently announced without a whole lot of advertising that he was going to do a tour, and the first performance sold out over 16,000 seats in just a few days-- two performances, there's thirty-thousand people.^{[citation needed]} About thirty-thousand people also die of influenza in an average month worldwide.^{[citation needed]} These kinds of numbers of people don't, of themselves, merit WP articles. Nor is there anything particularly unique about the way it was organized, which was via web networking.
.....Note also that the website http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com presents February 27 as "Round 1" of the Tea Party protests, with the April 15 protests labeled as "Round 2". Both involve the same ad-hoc coalition, same type of events, hyped similarly via standard web networking methods, also including the use of an array of self-referential web domain names, with various public demonstrations in various places on various dates along a timeline beginning in February, as indicated in the Tea Party protests article and the timeline article. They all have the same theme and all trace their heritage back to the Boston Tea Party. The timeline of Tea Party protests also cites many other "Tea Party" demonstrations on dates other than February 27 and April 15. In other words, the February 27 protests properly merit a brief mention such as is presently given in Tea Party protests, and the April 15 protests merit a somewhat more detailed presentation in the same article, not separate articles with advocacy position papers woven into them, presenting these sets of date-coordinated demonstrations as somehow separate "things" from one another. The history, stated issues, and goals of the "Chicago nationwide" and "tax day" tea-party protests are the same as those of the "Tea Party protests" in general. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see any reason to split this article, as I just don't see enough going on with regard to the Tea Parties to warrant such a split. AyaK (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose suggested move. There should be one main article about the tea party protests. If it grows to the point of being ungainly, then instead of splitting it into parallel articles about different protests, we should spin off daughter articles, leaving behind a summary in the main article, per Wikipedia:Summary style. JamesMLane t c 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tycoon24 redux

So the most recent wave of vandalism has been reverted. Sigh.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section doesn't summarize rest of article

According to WP:BETTER, "Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article." It should include key points from the body of the article and should exclude things that are not evidenced in the body. The lede of this article does not match well with the body.

Imagine that there is no lede and your job is to write the lede. You'd read through the body, extract major points, and summarize them. Take the section, Positions and goals. A concise summary might be, "Protesters want Congress to cut government spending, end bailouts, and reduce debt." Opposing taxes isn't even mentioned in that section (though probably should be).

The lede says, "The events are in protest of President Obama, his budget and, more specifically, his stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. The protesters also objected to potential future tax increases, including those on capital gains and dividends, energy, and those earning more than $250,000 a year"

The body does not mention any protests of President Obama as a person; rather the body shows opposition to spending by Obama or by Bush. The stimulus package is mentioned only in the History section. The body has no mention at all of capital gains taxes, nor dividends, energy, or those earning more than $250,000. The lede simply is NOT a summary of what is in the body.

In the third paragraph, the lede says, "The protesters demanded action, requesting reductions in the business tax rate, investment in energy and transportation infrastructure, a new power grid and air-traffic control system, abolishment of taxes on capital gains, replacement of Sarbanes-Oxley, drilling for more oil and building nuclear power plants, abolishing the estate tax, and moving to a balanced budget." None of this is mentioned at all in the body. Again the lede does not - but should - summarize the body.

I could rewrite the lede myself but I thought it would be useful to explain the rationale here beforehand. I suspect that this is one of those articles that is naturally contentious and so significant changes should be discussed here first. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:WikiProject Politics and WP:WikiProject Economics both presently have this article rated as "C class"-- i.e., clearly others agree there is plenty of room for improvement. I'd be interested to see how one would summarize the range of complaints that tea party protesters have brought to bear without specifying them in the lead. Certainly among the many complaints tea party protesters have is an objection to the fact that Obama is currently president. In addition to the citation presently given for the fact that tea party protesters (is it some?, many?, most?, perhaps virtually all?) object to Obama being the current president (hence, as the source says, "anti-Obama"), see e.g., [18], [19], [20] and [21]. All of these sources indicate that protesters are objecting to Obama himself, or, at least implicitly, to the fact that Obama is currently president of the US. Rather than remove the already cited mention of Obama from the lead, perhaps it might be more of an improvement to expand a bit on this, along with the various other complaints that tea party protesters have made. Or, perhaps it might be quite appropriate in this case to simply mention in the lead that, first and foremost, protesters are protesting Obama--period--because of the widely varied grounds on which many individual tea party protesters are protesting. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ... Also, maybe it would be better to include that tea party protesters are protesting Democrats as a whole, not just Obama. I imagine there are reliable sources for this central aspect of the protests as well. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

From the little I have read about the protests - and judging from the signs I have seen pictured in those stories - the primary focus was spending, bailouts, debt, and taxes. E.g. I have seen pictures of signs like "I'm only 10 years old and I am already in debt." Lots of signs against big spending, against bailouts, against raising taxes (local as much as national). One sign had pictures of both Bush and Obama with the label "Dumb and Dumber". Some reports indicate that some attendees were Independent or even Democrat and had never before attended a protest. So from what I've seen the protests were only incidentally targeted on Obama or Democrats.

But again, my primary point is that the lede should match the body. It may be that there are sources showing anti-Obama focus. If so, those should be in the body with proper weight compared to spending, bailouts, etc. Until or unless that happens the lede should summarize what is in the body - which means that a couple sentences of the lede should be deleted/changed. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary that the lede match the body in the way recommended in WP:BETTER (it'd be nice, but not essential). WP:Writing better articles is a style guideline along with WP:STYLE and its various offshoots. (See the WP definition of "guideline".) More important is that it follow the core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and the core procedural policy WP:Consensus. Though I hooked into this article well into its development after most of the present content was already there, I note that so far the participants are, might I say, "hangin' in there" pretty well considering the polarities of POV and frequent difficulties of reliable sourcing that are involved in this topic. But summarizing it isn't easy--my impression is that the lead is reasonable as presently written, and of course has a great deal of room for improvement, as does the whole article.
..... Offhand I'd be inclined to start off in the "positions and goals" section and expand a bit further on the range of complaints by tea party protesters. Please remember, though, this isn't organized by an official committee delegated with the responsibility of articulating the position of tea party protesters, but rather the positions are quite varied, having primary themes of "anti-tax", "anti-stimulus-spending-package", "anti-Obama", and "anti-Democrat" with smatterings of other complaints thrown in which are pretty much "all over the map", AFAICT. It's already proven to be a bit tough to present in WP:Summary style while also remaining within the core content policies and reflecting consensus of participants. So, at present WP:LEDE is yet another complication, though merely a stylistic one. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead: balanced or POV?

The article lead (as of 2009-05-25) seems to be a bit one-sided. More importantly, it presents several controversial positions, positions which are shown in the main article to have conflicting sources, as the summary position for the article. One example: "The events are in protest of President Obama ..." Various sources in the main article would seem to indicate that while some participants came to protest Obama, a large number were also protesting the policies of large or overweeing government generally, and not a small number were opposing both Obama and Bush, both Republican and Democratic party positions. I did not add a POV tag at this time, but it does seem that much of the controversial material should be covered in a more nuanced Controversy section below and not stated as a POV fact in the lead. What do others think? N2e (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two users have put forward this basic idea twice in rapid succession, essentially that mentioning "President Obama" in the lead as among the various "things" the demonstrations are protesting, cited to one of several reliable sources, is a POV statement. Why would this be considered POV rather than merely factual? Or is there evidence in reliable sources that we should be considering w.r.t. to WP:WEIGHT? ... Kenosis (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapid succession noted. I would agree that the evidence I've seen so far supports the idea that protesting Obama directly was a part of it.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't turn this section of the talk page into yet another section on whether Obama was protested. I guess I should not have used phrase as my example. Clearly he was, at some protests by some folks, as attested by sources. My point is that since there are a variety of verifiable sources that indicate the protests were much broader, and that the primary focus of the protests was not merely the current administration, this sort of contentious stuff more properly belongs in a controversy section. Leaving them in the lead, without equal weight for the other side of the controversy, is what makes several of the statements in the lead POV. That was all my comment was about and we would make more progress if we used this talk section to focus on the POVness or non-POVness of the lead. N2e (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to lede.

I have reverted these changes for several reasons. First, the language misrepresents what the cite actually says. The Christian Science Monitor did not "estimate the crowd size at 500,000" they reported on the range of estimates. Including only the high estimate is disingenuous and unduly POV. The Pajama Media blog estimate is not worthy of inclusion as it is neither reliable nor verifiable. Second, this is contrary to how a lede section should be written (se WP:LEDE). The lede is supposed a summary of what is elsewhere in the article, (and this edit contradicted the discussion of crowd estimates further down the page). Finally, this language goes against the consensus on estimates that was worked out some time ago. If anyone believes consensus deserves to change, feel free to bring it up here, but please don't start a unilateral edit-war. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The 240,000 number, cited by a vocal Obama supporter, is qualified with the phrase: "But that count included only about half the locations." That would be like someone counting only 10 percent of the locations and saying that there were 50,000 attendees. And the language used was revised by me to reflect "reported," not estimated. Of course, the people behind the event are those who probably proved most knowing of the actual turnout. That too should be reported, with the qualification that I referenced. I am reverting and please discuss further revisions here since there is no "consensus" to use an estimate that is qualified with the statement that it knowingly only included a calculation based on half of the events. TeaParty1 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the valid points made by both Loonymonkey and TeaParty1, the lede has been edited. It now simply states that the estimates varied widely, and that variation is politically slanted. Organizers and promoters of the events are not good sources, as they will inflate the estimates (The Atlantic notes, "...I purposely did not include estimates that were explicitly attributed to protesters or organizers"). Likewise, critics of the events are likely to minimize the attendance figures. An exact number is impossible to obtain (The CSM says it is "more art than science"), so a range from reliable sources could be included in the body of the article, with the lede simply summarizing the fact that a wide variation exists and why. Teaparty1 has a valid concern that the 240,000 from Nate Silver is misleading, since he later increased that number. But there are several reliable sources that only say "tens of thousands" attended (Slate)(ABC News)(CNN)(Boston Globe), and the article I cited from The Atlantic says, "A bare minimum of 25,650 people turned out for tea party protests across the country today," but admits, "Presumably, more than that turned out." Xenophrenic (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of the 25,000 figure from The Atlantic is very misleading. For one, it was a live in-day estimate before the conclusion of the daily events. Furthermore it only included about a dozen or so cities. I am removing it for weight concerns, the current reliable minimun count of estimates was over 300,000 per NS. Which is arguably not very reliable either. Arzel (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just the point: none of the numbers are exact, which is why the word 'estimate' is used. The 25,000 is an extreme low, obviously, and it was given by The Atlantic to make a point (that if you strip away all the exaggerated accounts by involved parties, and use just the absolute facts, you get a very low number), not to make an exact tally. It is as misleading as the "over 1 million" figure some are trying to toss around. I added the more popular "tens of thousands" account used by the AP after the events concluded. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That language works well. My original objection was that the entire point o the CSM article was about how difficult it is to accurately estimate attendance, especially from partisan sources, and they gave examples of this. Somehow this was twisted into a statement that they "reported" one of the estimates as being accurate (which was absolutely not true). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Difficult or not, the language of "Tens of thousands" is OR. Furthermore, there are verifiable estimates that put the total well past 200,000 people. Even if you were to take the 25,000 at face value, it is an absurd number to say the least as it would imply an average of less than 20 people per event once a couple of the larger events are removed from the totals. Just because you have a problem with CSM doesn't mean that we should delve into the realm of impossibility. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to. I've never said I have a problem with CSM. Quite the opposite, it's a well-respected journalistic organization. My objection was that the language of the edit was completely contrary to what the cite was saying. As for OR, you seem to be engaging in a bit of it yourself. We are discussing the the range of estimates that have been cited, not whether we personally believe one or the other of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about attributing the phrase "tens of thousands" to the CSM article, when it actually did not use that term. It seems to me that we are possibly stepping on the toes of WP:SYN.

As well, our use of the word "noting" to refer to the CSM report violates WP:WTA, Wikipedia rules about words to avoid. The Squicks (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have language from CSM reporting that the organizers gave high numbers. Then, we have language from CNN and BG giving low numbers. Then, we can refer to CSM about how vague the process is. All of these points would be made separately without being shoved into one big sentence. The Squicks (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which gets back to one of the original points that we're straying from the purpose of the lead section. It should be a summary of information that is contained elsewhere in the article, and not contain unique information. Maybe this discussion is more applicable to the section below where we discuss estimates in more detail? --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

@Arzel: The language "tens of thousands" isn't OR. It's a direct quote from many reliable sources, including the Associated Press. Yes, there are estimates of over 200,000, and that is covered by the lede: "...vary widely between sources, ranging from tens of thousands to more than 500,000 at over 800 locations..." If you want to cite specifically which sources claimed what numbers, do it in the main body where the rest of the sources (Nate Silver, et al.;) are noted.

@The Squicks: You are correct about the estimate "tens of thousands" not coming from the CSM article. It now has a reference cited. No WP:SYNTH was involved, just a missing reference. Also, you misunderstood WP:WTA - it recommends against using the phrase "It should be noted..." to editorialize; ~~it says nothing about a source "noting" a fact.~~ (Edit: actually, I missed where it does also say the word "noted" can add extra weight, but I still don't think that is applicable in this case.) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If these statitician's estimates of 311,000 are going to be included, shouldn't Pajamas TV (which seems to have done its own assessment)[22] estimate of over a million also be included? I also think "tens of thousands" by CNN is a throw-away line. Does that mean 20,000 or ten million (since ten million is comprised of "tens of thousands"). I just think it was a very safe way of not providing a real estimate. Also, reading the CNN article, it seems presumptious that the 500,000 number came from organizers. It doesn't really cite where the 500,000 came from, except to say "according to some estimates." Anyway, those are my final thoughts on it; the paragraph seems to lowball the range of estimates. TeaParty1 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving a poll result to the article lede that says 1 in 4 people know someone that went to a Tea Party? The edit comment reads: (citing rasmussen poll in lead, since i believe that it is a fair representation of the turnout) Really? It's a poll. Easily 1 in 4 people know Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, but does that make it lede material? It certainly doesn't indicate turnout. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The poll addition is a good one. Your point would be valid if it was a poll on whether the respondents knew of the Tea Parties. But this poll is on whether they knew someone who attended a Tea Party and therefore does offer (in the apparent absence of a more concrete attendance estimate) some sense as to the extent of attendance. I found it a good addition. Why is the Pajamas TV article not worthy of reference, given that it reflects one effort to quantify attendance and can be qualified (as I did with the initial addition) that is is a media outlet sympathetic with the Tea Party movement? I'd advocate including that, since I continue to see references all of over the place that the attendance exceeded a million. Right or wrong, there's one source for that, in my view. TeaParty1 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was (Sean Hannity went to the Tea Parties) + (1 in 4 people know Sean Hannity) = 1 in 4 people know someone that attended the Tea Parties. Since it has arguably been proven that everyone "personally knows" everyone else with fewer than 6 degrees of separation, saying 1 in 4 people know a protest attendee doesn't even offer a "sense" of overall attendance. Is it a good addition? It's trivia, but it might qualify for a spot in the body of the article -- not the lede. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As to your question about PJTV's article, here are some points to consider:

(1) It doesn't say attendance exceeded a million; it calculates it at about 935,000 and speculates it could exceed a million.

(2) The calculations were admittedly compiled by accumulating all estimates from the press and also from attendees and organizers, and using the largest of multiple estimates. That is why it uses skewed numbers like 20,000 for events at Atlanta and Sacramento, despite public safety officials and reporters citing much smaller numbers. Even when PJTV's volunteer auditors report in that 5000 attended Sacramento [23], it somehow gets tallied as 20,000 [24]. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

(3) The source noted is above is from a Reuters Press Release service, which simply quotes whatever PJ TV puts out -- that doesn't mean it has actually been reviewed or vetted by journalistic standards.

What do other editors think? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the poll question, from what I read, was asked that way. It asked whether the respondent personally knew someone who attended a Tea Party, so watching (but not knowing) Sean Hannity would not qualify a yes response.

As for the PJTV release, it reports 935,000 with 77 percent of locations included and then estimates the remaining 23 percent, which they say elevates the total to "1,014,000 to 1,071,000." I think that assessment is more thorough than some still unknown source with CNN, the statitician, or "tens of thousands" (whatever that means). I do not know much about PJTV but they seem to have been more sympathetic to the Tea Party movement than other media, so a sentence link this would certainly be accurate and add value:

Another media source, PJTV, which has reported supportively of the Tea Party movement, estimated that the total April 15 attendance at all Tea Parties was 935,000 with 77 percent of all locations counted. With all locations included, they estimate that total national Tea Party attendance was "1,014,000 to 1,071,000."

And then maybe add that Christian Science Monitor quote that puts all of these estimates in perspective, since I believe they are estimates, not actual counts like you might see at a professional baseball game or something. Just my two cents. TeaParty1 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

saying 1 in 4 people know a protest attendee doesn't even offer a "sense" of overall attendance. I strongly disagree. I'd also like to point out the hypocrisy of Wikipedia here. It's publicly been said that around 1 in 5 or something Americans know someone who is LGBT according to recent polls. Is this notable? Yes, and this is not disputed by editors of LGBT articles. It's very notable.

Let's apply the logic used to that other situation. (1 in 4 people have seen Ellen) = (1 in 4 Americans know someone who is LGBT). Thus, the polls about American's knowing LGBT people are an irrelevant piece of trivia. The Squicks (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Pajamas Media, I would think that the fact that it is biased and may be wrong does not have anything do with its notability, which is a 90' tangent from that other issue. Noone believes the President of Iran when his state media claims that the economy of Iran is booming with little to no problems, but his opinion certainly considered by editors to be notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So let's put the PJTV estimates in there. They appear to have conducted as thorough a survey of attendees as anyone else. It is notable as possibly the most thorough survey of attendees. At least they explain their methodology. The 500,000 or the statistician's numbers (which exclude a large number of events) and "tens of thousands" are arguably even less scientific.

I think the point on the survey about knowing Tea Party participants was to establish both the broad notability of the events and less so (but also) the large number of participants. It's the only poll I have seen on the Tea Parties, and it's done by a credible polling firm. Why not include its findings--and make your LGBT and other points in those forums? But when one in four Americans says that they know someone who is gay, I don't think they are including Ellen, just as the Tea Party respondents were not including Hannity. TeaParty1 (talk)

Since you both have focused (incorrectly) on my "1 in 4 people know Sean Hannity, and he attended" analogy as my reason for objecting to putting vague poll results in the lede, allow me to reiterate my objection here: A poll result saying 250 of the 1000 people questioned for this poll people know an attendee says nothing about the number of attendees, and further, none of the many poll results from the article should be in the lede, even this one. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The PJTV estimate is demonstrably unreliable, as has been noted previously on numerous occasions, including above. It should not be included at any point. --Happysomeone (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lede

I previously noted that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. It should not introduce new material that is not elsewhere; it should merely summarize what is later in the article. I've now taken another look and some of the lede is not supported by the references - so it does not belong in the article anywhere, much less in the lede.

E.g., the second sentence "The events are in protest of President Obama, his federal budget and, more specifically, his stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth." The reference says that participants protested "taxes, government bailouts and Obama's big-spending budget proposals." It does not say that they protested Obama, only his budget proposal. The reference nowhere has the words "waste" or "growth". The protesters may very well have protested wasteful spending or unnecessary growth but the reference does not say so.

I am rewriting that sentence to say what is in the reference: "The events are in protest of government bailouts, President Obama's big-spending budget proposals and, more specifically, his stimulus package." - all of which are supported by the reference and which are consistent with WP:Summary Style.

The next sentence, "The protesters also objected to future tax increases, including those on capital gains, dividends, energy, and those earning more than $250,000 a year, resulting in ...", is similarly not supported by the references and does not properly summarize what is later in the article. The reference says that "these rallies are being held to protest, among other things, 'higher taxes.'" The author does not say that anyone actually protested taxes on "capital gains, dividends, energy, and those earning more than $250,000 a year". Rather, he analyzed the kinds of future taxes that would be increasing and hypothetically the protesters might oppose. But that is the author's hypothetical, not a report of what actually happened.

I am rewriting that sentence as "The protesters also objected to large budget deficits and tax hikes on small-business owners and other entrepreneurs, resulting in ...", which is supported by the references.

Finally, I removed a line that has been marked as "citation needed" for some time. "The protesters demanded action, requesting reductions in the business tax rate, investment in energy and transportation infrastructure, a new power grid and air-traffic control system, abolishment of taxes on capital gains, replacement of Sarbanes-Oxley, drilling for more oil and building nuclear power plants, abolishing the estate tax, and moving to a balanced budget" is not supported by any references and violates Summary Style. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a partial revert of the above mentioned edits for the following reason:

The source titled "Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day" does say "Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day...", and also notes "Many demonstrators carried American flags and signs with anti-Obama and anti-tax slogans. One placard even suggested a change of job for the US president: 'Obama for president of Cuba,'" supporting the fact that the rallies were against not just taxes, but Obama himself.

(Addendum: Not your fault - the original source was changed earlier today, and the new one didn't mention the anti-Obama aspects. I have replaced the original reference.)

The section marked with a fact-tag was initially sourced to the talking points from American Solutions, but it is now a dead-link here. I left your removal of material until another source can be found. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, with your "new" reference (reference to old source) it is now legitimate to say "in protest of President Obama". I note that in the referenced source, the mention of anti-Obama is the 18th paragraph, which is an indication that the author thought it was of relatively low weight compared to anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-bailouts. I recommend rearranging the sentence to mention the higher weight items before mentioning the protests against Obama. Something like "The events are in protest of government bailouts, President Obama's big-spending budget proposals, his stimulus package, and Obama himself." (In one of your edits you eliminated mention of bailouts. I assume that was an accidental deletion.) Sbowers3 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The author thought the anti-Obama theme was so strong that he named the article after it, rather than name the article Anti-tax 'Tea Party' Protests, etc. The author also opened the article, the very first words of the very first sentence, no less, by labeling the protesters as "Critics of President Barack Obama...", not critics of taxes, spending and bailouts. In addition, as you pointed out, he went on to reiterate the anti-Obama aspect near the end of the article as well. I guess it is a matter of perspective. (I did accidently omit "bailouts" when I was reinserting some of your edits - my bad. But now it appears even those edits have been re-reverted...) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of those references, one from Google and the other from France 24 are there now. The Squicks (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of those references, the complete one from France 24 through Google News and a shorter version of the same news article from France 24 directly are there now. After 5 attempts to scrub the original, more informative citation from the article here, here, here, here, and here, it appears the censorship attempts have ceased for now. Let's hope so. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey has edited out the changes that Xenophrenic and I both inserted, saying that "you can't editorialize in this way, especially in the lede." But the "editorializing" was by the protesters, and then by the reporters who accurately reported what the protesters were saying. The editorializing was not by me or Xenophrenic. And now the article has the problems I mentioned at the start - the lede simply is not supported by the references. Rather than revert and get into an edit war, I am inserting a {{failed verification}} message. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The original reference that mentioned "Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day" was from a temporary non-reliable source website, so I replaced it almost the exact same story (with the same title even) from a reliable source. I restored it.

Your replacement is not the "exact same story." Your replacement omits the following directly relevant information:

Many demonstrators carried American flags and signs with anti-Obama and anti-tax slogans. One placard even suggested a change of job for the US president: "Obama for president of Cuba," it read.

Please leave the original source intact, as it more strongly conveys the fact that there was an anti-Obama theme as well as an anti-tax theme. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sbowers3 is right that the statement "on capital gains, dividends, energy, and those earning more than $250,000 a year" cannot be cited to the article from The Atlantic (which is called "What Are Tax Day Tea Parties Protesting?") since it says no such thing.

Maybe this article from The American Spectator that lists federal capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and cigarette taxes as concerns for the protesters would work. The Squicks (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article, also from The American Spectator, cites various spending acts by Barack Obama as why people are protesting. It could be used as a source for The events are in protest of President Obama, his federal budget and, more specifically, his stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. The Squicks (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The article currently states "The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases". This is false and must be reverted. President Obama will legally raise taxes on some people. This is fact. ABC News' Jake Tapper has reported that Obama's "budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals." Fact. The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my impression is that protesters actually WERE opposing future tax increases. They didn't have specific taxes in mind, but they "know" that big spending, big deficits, and big debt would have to be paid eventually. The federal budget already has a large component for paying national debt and that will only increase. The debt will eventually be repaid either through some sort of taxes or by inflation, which is equivalent to a tax. That's my impression from various reports but it's my own analysis and I don't recall seeing a RS to that effect so I'm not going to insert it. Conversely, I haven't seen any RS that said protesters were opposing specific tax increases that are in current law or the proposed budget. In other words, protesters oppose the amount of taxes, not specific kinds of taxes. IMO. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a valid point, and the two points are not mutually exclusive anyway. One can oppose future tax changes regardless of whatever one thinks of today's taxes. In that context, "The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases" is fine.

Since The Atlantic is not a good ref, I replaced it with the two article I pointed out earlier. The Squicks (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again a sentence in the lede is not supported by its reference and I am inserting a "not in citation given" tag. There is nothing in the reference for "... with taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes" that says the protesters opposed those taxes. The reference is an analysis of the current tax burden, not a report about Tea Party protesters. It's not enough for a reference to include some words; the reference has to say that the protesters used those words. The given reference does nothing to say that the protesters objected to those specific taxes. What I recommend is changing these two sentences "They oppose the increase in the national debt as well. The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases, with taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes." to something like "They oppose the increase in the national debt and possible future tax increases to pay off that debt." Sbowers3 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I attended one of the Tea Parties, and watched some relatively thorough (yes, Fox News) coverage of a few of the largest events. I submit that the tone of the Tea Party I attended, and at least those in San Antonio and Atlanta, were much more against big, out-of-control government, and certain actions of both the President and Congress. President Obama, the man, is not the target of most of the protest, but rather his (and Congress') actions. I submit that a better line would be as follows: "The events are in protest of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth, including the recent actions of President Obama and Congress, such as the size of the federal budget and the stimulus package." This should satisfy those who insist that President Obama be mentioned by name, while clarifying that the protests were not, in fact, about him personally. -- K1darkknight (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It seemed to me that some of it was focused directly at him. Calling him "The New Face of Hitler"? --Happysomeone (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of weight. In the photos I've seen most of the signs are about spending, debt, taxes - and relatively few about Obama. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most" vs. "relatively few"? If you were to select a single, specific focus of the protests I wonder what the top five would be. There is ample evidence those named in the lede presently track with that standard.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on future events.

Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." We know nothing (and can't know until it happens) about whether these events will take place, will be notable, and what the size and significance of them will be. Speculation about such is just that, speculation, as no reliable verifiable source has indicated anything (and how could they? They don't have time machines either). If something notable does occur, we can certainly address it then, but until then, it is completely inappropriate to quote claims such as there will be "500 more events than the Tax Day protests." --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This policy applies to speculating about events or developments--and the examples provided in it are nothing like this. This is like reporting a movie opening date or a sporting schedule, as long as it attributed correctly (as it is). It would be a notable oversight not to mention that the organizers say an even larger number of protests are scheduled for a week from now. In fact, that is one of the most important parts of this article, it seems to me. These events also are being widely reported in mainstream media, who also are not in the business of speculating about things. TeaParty1 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one example of many: An entire article dedicated to scheduled events. No one said: "If something notable does occur, we can certainly address it then...." In fact, these events will not be occuring; their very scheduling is notable: This Is It (Michael Jackson concerts). It is very appropriate to include the scheduled July 4 events, and inappropriate to exclude something so newsworthy and apparently imminent. TeaParty1 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That would fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't know anything about that article and don't really see what it has to do with this discussion. No, this is not like reporting a movie opening or a sporting event as we don't know that anything specific will occur at any time or place. To continue your analogy, this would be more like saying that a movie is expected to generate $30 million on opening weekend or that one team is expected to beat another team. We don't do that. Quoting the organizer's hopeful speculation on the matter is still speculation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you see my point about including the reference to the events. But there is no "speculation" about attendance or the number of events. There is simply a sentence mentioning how many events THE ORGANIZERS say are scheduled. So it is not like saying a movie is going to generate $30 million in an opening weekend; it is like saying the studio says they anticipate it generating $30 million--or, an even more accurate example--the studio says it will open in 2,000 theaters. The studio's representation, like those of the organizers, is worth including. If it is 1,999 theaters or fewer events can then be clarified later--and in the context of them not meeting the organizers' anticipation. It needs to be included and is highly notable, as other media have noted. TeaParty1 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another related question: how do we know if the person who is running that site is making things up or is hyper-inflating the numbers to make it look bigger? Is there a couple of verified reliable sources currently written backing up the information in that web site? We cannot base this just on that web site due to it being the primary source. Brothejr (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be dozens of sources. The national ones appear to be affiliated with the events. And there are many media mentions of events. There is no speculation in quoting these national sites. It is what it is: their statement, not ours. TeaParty1 (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you link one of the more informative of these "many media mentions", please? And just for my own edification, what constitutes one of these events -- 1 person with a sign, and a teabag hanging from the brim of their hat? I know that many of the estimated 750+ gatherings on April 15th consisted of fewer than a dozen people waving signs on the side of a road. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just curious - how do you "know" that? Is it something you personally observed, heard or read somewhere, or was it something from a RS? I don't know whether it is accurate or not. But I've seen photos from lots of events and at least those sites had large numbers. There may have been sites with small numbers but I think that someone would have posted photos just to prove the small numbers.

How do I "know?" Oh, purely OR, of course. A combination of sources, really: reading the reports from PJTV's "citizen reporters", citing 6 or 8 attendees (and then watching those numbers get transcribed on the official tally as 25 or 50), and reading that many of those events "not reporting in" (23%) to PJTV would barely make the bottom of the tally (which includes events with as few as 10 attendees). Hearing from a family member that drove to a planned event where only 5 other folks showed up, so they called it off -- yet it still showed up on some "organizer" websites as one of the "many protests." Then there was an event local to me, I didn't 'attend', but I drove by -- fewer than a dozen people, but it still got mentioned in the local paper. I never said there weren't some events with larger numbers. I was just curious as to what qualifies as an "event?" Anything pre-scheduled, regardless of turnout? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) But back to the issue at hand, I think it is entirely appropriate to write that "Some organizers are planning ...". Leave it to the reader to decide how much weight to give to that statement. My larger concern is actually with the word "organizers". It gives the impression that one single organization is responsible for parties everywhere. What I see is clearing houses that are merely collecting information from local organizers. There are many sites that are collecting such information. None of them is what should be called an "organizer". There are many national organizations lending support to the idea of tea parties, but they aren't "organizing" the parties. I'd even say that some of them are hopping on the bandwagon to get publicity for themselves. In any event a quick Google shows many RS reporting local tea parties planned for July 4, and many sites displaying lists of parties across the nation, and many organizations saying that they are (co)sponsoring parties, and inviting people to contact local organizers. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sbowers3 that mentioning July 4th events is appropriate. If "organizers" carries confusing connotations, then how about something like "Similar Tea Party events are scheduled to coincide with Independence Day on July 4th...", and then maybe add in the fact that Santelli, during his rant, actually called for a July 4th tea party (not April 15th )? I also agree with Sbowers3 that giving the impression of a single responsible organizer is misleading. However, downplaying the fact that there are a few dominant organizing forces is equally misleading, and they aren't just "collecting information" — they are also disseminating and facilitating and promoting and coordinating. In a word, organizing. If the impetus for events hasn't changed since April 15th, then we should expect at least double the April turnout on July 4th. April 15th was a workday for most Americans; not so for July 4th. April 15th also saw a lot of nasty weather, while forecasts for July 4th are excellent. I also see many organizers of these events are combining their protests with picnics, barbeques, live music and other traditional 4th of July activities. In fact, if locations are chosen carefully, the crowds will already be there -- just add some signs & teabags, and the turnout for the Tea Parties should be record-breaking. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, while you guys are considering adding this to the article, you must take into account the WP:CRYSTAL policy. Wikipedia is not here to speculate on future event, nor to advertise future events. Also, you must not speculate on the size or amount of protesters who may come to the events. Any such speculations would again fail the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While there may be speculation on this talk page about future events, nobody here is proposing to insert anything other than verifiable facts into the article. It is a verifiable fact that many organizers are planning protests at many sites and some organizers have made predictions about turnout. As long as WP authors use reliable sources as to what organizers are doing, planning, saying and as long as the article is written in the form of "Organizers are predicting such and such" with a ref that verifies that organizers in fact made those predictions, then WP authors are not doing OR or crystal balling. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I got an even better idea: July 4th is only a week away. Wait until it happens, then write about it. That way you will have lots more RS's and can even go deeper into it. Why the rush to include a sentence on it now when it hasn't even happened yet and could see problems trying to get the sentence in, when you can wait and have less to very little problems including more info on it? Brothejr (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing protests

This article gives the impression that protests culminated on April 15, that nothing has happened since then, and that nothing more is expected to happen. That is a misleading characterization. The parallel article Timeline of Tea Party protests lists several other protests since April 15. I've read of several others. Just today I read about one in Sarasota on June 28, one in Nashville scheduled for June 29, and one in Olympia, WA on June 27. I wasn't even searching for Tea Party stories. I just happened to run across them. Then I googled and found RS in local papers. I suspect that if I/we searched we'd find lots more since April 15 and would find lots of RS reporting planned events on July 4. There should be another section after "Tax day events" perhaps "Events since April 15" and, yes, that section should include mention of events reported in RS as planned for July 4. This article should give the correct impression that protests have been and are ongoing since April 15. As it's written right now it gives the incorrect impression that nothing has happened or will happen post April 15. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Wikipedia is not here to report every single event, not here to promote the event, and is not here to advertise that there will be more Tea Party Events per WP:NOT. Plus did those protests call them selves tea parties and should we cover every single protest that is against taxes, the president, the democrats, etc? Added on that, should every single one of those protests be included in this article? Finally, you must take a look at those RS's. Are they editorials, blogs, or POV slanted organizations? As far as the reliable sources (I.E. CNN, Washington Times, New York Times, etc) the last tea party was on April 15. My answer is no, we should not be including every little protest that a small group of people are protesting after April 15 or before July 4. Nor should we give the impression that Wikipedia is in favor or against the event, and no we should not be promoting political protests. Brothejr (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some searching and frankly am surprised at the number of tea party events since April 15. They're not reported in the big national media but they are reported in local newspapers, local TV, and occasionally the Associated Press. Those, too, are reliable sources - not just the major media. The reporters labeled them as "Tea Party" events. ~~Numbers ranged as high as 2500 for a Tea Party in Idaho and another in Ohio~~. The one in Sarasota last Saturday had 1000. Other events had 500, 600, 200, or "hundreds" of protesters. I found over 20 events with reliable sources (and many more events with just blogs or YouTube sources). Locations include NY, ID, OH, NV, NC, CA, MT, RI, TX, MO, MI, WA, and FL - clearly both "red" states and "blue" states. This article is woefully incomplete without mention of events after April 15. I'm going to add these events to Timeline of Tea Party protests and then add a summary in this article. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you share some of the reliable sources for the information here so we can discuss them before adding first? It would save some back and forth on the edit page. The recent edit you made didn't contain any sources whatsoever. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I added section header with one sentence for convenience of editing. Then I went in and added events and refs. First I put them in Timeline of Tea Party protests. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The new section you added seems far too large at the moment, especially given the lack of any national attention to these events. It's worth mentioning, but it should be consolidating down into a single paragraph. For instance, each rally doesn't need its own sentence. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. The new section (Events after April 15) is tiny. It mentions 20 events and could be larger. But because Timeline of Tea Party protests lists all events, I just summarized that info in this article. And I don't know at all what you mean by "each rally doesn't need its own sentence" because each rally has much less than a sentence - in most cases, just a single word for its location. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, we don't need to cover every little protest party that calls themselves a Tea Party. Brothejr (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it has become a non-event since the initial mass events, garnering scant mention in the non-Fox News media, if it is mentioned at all. This thing has devolved from a national event to regional, and non-notable, protests. Let's all just take breather here over the weekend and see how the latest ones pan out. If it continues along these lines, I don't see much justification for a separate "Independence Day and other Post-April 15 Tea Parties". The preceding section can be renamed simply "Tax-day events", with a small blurb at the end about subsequent smaller gatherings. This shouldn't be allowed to meander on and on and on with every mom-and-pop placard-waving event being gathered under the "Tea Party" banner. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did a little copy editing & there were a few broken links and sources that didn't directly attribute the event as a "Tea Party Protest", which is the substance of this article (notably the Pelosi protest in Houston). Also, I have some concerns with lumping all of these together as "Tea Party protest" events. It's a broad mixture here, political organizing that really stretches the definition of "protest". Otherwise, I think a mention is merited - albeit in a reduced form. Gatherings of "hundreds" of people to protest an issue is notable, but I question if all your sources there even pass that bar. Otherwise, well done.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe this "second installment" of protests are notable, but it is helpful to consider the context and scale of our subject. In my view, I give them similar weight as other recent political issue protests, such as those concerning immigration or health care reform (which have also drawn hundreds or even thousands of protesters). But that notability is quite limited when reflecting on popular protest from the recent past. For example, the Tea Party protests are unlike the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (which drew hundreds of thousands in multiple US cities and drew the largest international protest known in history). --Happysomeone (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

SBowers, looks like I hit the revert too soon - you did provide cached infor for two of the cited places - but the Tennessee cite is inappropriate (I hesitate at using Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) as a "Reliable Source" but "PJTV" a source that has been completely unreliable and information from there, IMHO, should never be cited as fact) and the Texas cite makes no mention of "Tea Party Protests. Then again, my eyes are tired so if you see it, please point it out. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited before I saw your notes here or on my talk page. Sorry if it seemed I wasn't responding to your comments. I'll reinsert the two cached cites. For the TN event I do rate Instapundit as a RS but I won't fight over it. Most of PJTV is opinion pieces, but the one that Instapundit referenced was an interview by Instapundit's wife. For the Houston event, I've found a better ref, which I'll insert momentarily. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, the claim of 1,300 planned events for Independence day needs a reliable source. It's really not clear who or what "history news network" is. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight reorg

I'm slightly rearranging a few paragraphs. The "White House protest" properly belongs in the April 15 section, not in the "Positions and goals" section. The Responses, Reaction, and Astroturfing sections do not belong under Positions and goals. I'm rearranging Responses as a level 2 section, with subsections for Reaction and Astroturfing. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Polls

The current poll, possibly reflecting the impact and momentum of the Tea Party movement, is more relevant than a poll that was taken before anything related to this article really began. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly. The real current poll shows Obama's approval rating has gone up since "your" current poll. You do realize those polls are taken daily, right? According to the actual source, Obama's poll numbers went up right after the Tea Parties. Why didn't you rush to insert that? Fox News jumps on any downward blip in the numbers, of course, even if the blip only lasts for a single 24-hour news cycle. As for the poll data you are trying to remove, those directly concern issues of taxes and spending, which are relevant issues to the tea partiers. This overall approval poll is unrelated; if you want to include it, head over to the Obama article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Xenophrenic.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, none of those polls should be in this article. They don't say anything about Tea Parties. We should be answering Who participated, What they said, When and Where they rallied, and Why they protested. Beyond that we can show Who, What, When, Where, Why of specific reactions to the TPs. It's not enough that the polls are about issues relevant to tea partiers unless you can show that the polls specifically ask about TPs or unless the poll results were specifically quoted in reactions to the TPs. As they stand now, the polls are WP:OR and are forbidden. I'm removing them. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Sbowers3's opinion above, if not for the fact that the sources themselves referenced these polls in regards to the tea parties. You have removed two directly relevant polls, at least according to the reliable sources cited. From the two source articles specifically about tea parties, the polls are actually mentioned thusly:

Nationwide 'tea party' protests blast spending: Not everyone disapproves of Obama's tax policies. In March, 62 percent of people taking a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said they approved how Obama is handling taxes.

And...

Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day: Protestors were also weakened by broad support among Americans for Obama's far-reaching economic policies, including a 787-billion-dollar anti-recession stimulus package. A USA Today/Gallup poll published Wednesday found that a majority of Americans favor Obama's expansion of the government's role in the economy, at least for now.

If these poll results were taken directly from the primary sources, without reference to the Tea Parties, then I would agree with Sbowers3 removal of them. These two polls were reported on in the context of the protests. The only OR done here was conducted by the sources cited, not by the Wikipedia editors that introduced the facts to this article. I'm going to re-insert them, but I'd like to hear opinions from other editors on this. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that polls are WP:OR for reasons explained by Xenophrenic. Keep.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

TeaParty1 has removed some content, under the Edit Summary: (polls should be restricted to the precise topic: Tea Party protests.)

The content removed was from Reliably Sourced articles specifically about the Tea Party protests. The poll result content was discussed in these sources as they pertained to the protests. The content you removed was about taxes, spending and the government role in the economy -- the primary issues behind the protests in the first place. Your opinion that such content must be specifically about the Tea Party Protests, and not about the reasons for the protests, is not shared by everyone. If we followed that logic, we would also need to remove the sections on the "porkulous protests"; Limbaugh's criticisms of the Recovery Act; Mary Rakovich's original protests, etc. — none of which directly address the Tea Party Protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with Xenophrenic that the OR/editorializing was done by an RS in a report about a Tea Party so is legitimate to include but it should be in another section, not in the April 15 section. One of those two polls was taken in March and clearly had nothing to do with the April 15 Tea Parties. The other one was published the day of the TPs and could not have any connection to the TPs. The Media coverage section might be the best place for them. In any event we really should edit the wording to make it clear that those sentences were commentary by the reporters, and were not OR by a WP editor. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 4 poll results presently in the article. One suggests half of Americans viewed the tea parties favorably; the second suggests 1 in 4 Americans know someone that attended; the third suggests nearly two-thirds of Americans agree with Obama's tax policies; the fourth suggests a majority of Americans favor an expanded government role in the economy. All four are gauges of American sentiment or opinion, and not media coverage, so I disagree that any of them belong under "media coverage" — but I do agree the April 15th section is not the best place for the latter two. I do not understand your reasoning when you say two of the polls had nothing to do with the tea parties because they were taken in March and April. Does that mean the stimulus bill and the bailouts have nothing to do with the tea parties because they also happened before April 15th? Both sources cited those polls in the context of, "protesters gathered at the tea parties despite majority public agreement with present tax policies and expanding government involvement in the economy". It would be WP:OR for us to conclude that the polls showed the protesters to be in the minority on those issues, but the implication is clearly there. Maybe they would fit better in the "Positions and goals" section, illustrating the counter-position to the protesters? Something worth discussing, I think. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

These Tea Parties are not about any individual politician or any specific political party. It really doesn't matter if Obama's policies are popular or unpopular (and they are increasingly unpopular--contrary to the very dated poll cited). The relevance of the Rasmussen poll is that it addresses the perception of the American people toward the Tea Party movement itself. If the section is going to be turned into a poll summary on Obama's policies, then it needs to be updated to show the steady decline since the April 15 Tea Parties--and, even then, I'm not sure of its immediate relevance to this article. It needs to be removed. Also and finally, it's really not appropriate for you to be adding things and removing others and defending any subsequent edits by saying nothing can be done until there is consensus on the talk page for any edit with which you disagree. The Obama polls need to be removed or updated to show the steady drop in the popularity of his policies. Not referencing Obama polls at all seems best, since they are really not directly related to this article. TeaParty1 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

These Tea Parties are not about any individual politician or any specific political party. It really doesn't matter if Obama's policies are popular or unpopular (and they are increasingly unpopular--contrary to the very dated poll cited).

Correct; which is why we aren't using the Obama popularity poll you edited in 2 days ago. The two poll results we are discussing have nothing to do with Obama's popularity, or the popularity of his policies, so let's knock that strawman down right now. This is about 2 polls that show a majority agree with how taxes and the economy were being handled at the time of the polls. As for "the very dated poll cited", it is more recent than the very dated February protests cited.

The relevance of the Rasmussen poll is that it addresses the perception of the American people toward the Tea Party movement itself. If the section is going to be turned into a poll summary on Obama's policies, then it needs to be updated to show the steady decline since the April 15 Tea Parties--and, even then, I'm not sure of its immediate relevance to this article. It needs to be removed.

Correct; the Rasmussen poll showing half the public viewed the tea parties at least somewhat favorably is relevant. Also relevant are the polls showing more than half the public agreed with the handling of the core issues being protested at those tea parties. Just because one poll is relevant, that doesn't make other polls irrelevant — and you haven't made a case showing irrelevancy of the polls you wish to scrub.

Also and finally, it's really not appropriate for you to be adding things and removing others and defending any subsequent edits by saying nothing can be done until there is consensus on the talk page for any edit with which you disagree.

Incorrect. Adding and removing content to and from articles is perfectly appropriate. When there is a content dispute, as indicated by several people repeatedly inserting and removing the same content, it is appropriate to discuss the content dispute on the talk page. Happysomeone, Sbowers3 and myself all made our opinions known on this content issue, while you continued to do blind reverts without discussion. Until now. As for the rest, please don't put words in my mouth — I never said nothing could be done. I asked you to quit deleting content without discussing your edits, and that is perfectly appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, Xenophrenic, but WP:BOLD is policy and many editors I've dealt with prefer to run through the WP:BRD cycle. I've always preferred to discuss changes before they are made, but it seems few follow that (IMHO polite) practice (It's also not exactly WP:BOLD). Just a heads-up. Otherwise good show, all.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, we would do well to all observe what I think Xenophrenic is getting at, with regards to some of these edits. From WP:BOLD, second paragraph: "Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further.(Bolded words mine)"--Happysomeone (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with TeaParty1 removing content for whatever reason he felt was appropriate. The problem arose when he continued to repeatedly remove it (3 more times) without adding a single word to the discussion here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, WP:3RR. A big no-no.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How to address the July 4 and post-tax day protests?

This section needs a reorganization as it's starting to read like a list, but I'm also wondering how to address it in tone. What we have right now is a huge collection of local news sources for small protests in separate locales, which somebody put a lot of work into tracking down refs for, but basically amounts to original research. There has been little to no WP:RS national coverage of these protests (with the few articles that did appear focusing on how the movement has largely faded or that far fewer people attended than organizers were predicting). As this seems to be a central theme to the coverage (even a lot of the local coverage) it should be addressed here. But it's very important to strike a neutral tone with this, while not glossing over key encyclopedic facts. I thought I might discuss it here first, to try to get some consensus and hopefully avoid any edit-warring. Given that at least one single purpose account regularly edits this article, it might be hard, but I wanted to see what other editors think. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As the "somebody" who put a ~~lot of~~ little work into collecting refs for many events, I agree that it is too much like a list and should be much more like prose. (I disagree that it was OR.) Even at the time I wrote it, I thought I should rewrite it, but I couldn't think of just what to say in its place. I do think that section should make it clear that there were quite a few (at least a couple dozen) Tea Party events between 4/15 and 7/4. As for the 7/4 events I haven't really been paying attention. I definitely didn't want to add hundreds of local references. It does appear that there were many (how many?) events with large (how large?) numbers of attendees. Sooner or later, somebody somewhere (a RS), should have numbers we can quote. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a general sense, then yes the "list" format that we have at present seems over the top. A brief, one sentence phrase that captures the highlights of the Tea Party Protest's most recent iteration should suffice. My 2 cents.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, a passing note on the most recent edition there from the Dallas Morning News. I appreciate that the attendance numbers were properly attributed, as the article noted, to the organizers - who tend to overstate (sometimes vastly) the attention their cause garners. See here where an 2007 ANSWER-led anti-war protest in San Francisco claimed 40,000 marchers, but the police estimated a number 8 to 10 times lower than that.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dallas Tea Party: I moved the Southfork Ranch event info to the July 4th section, as it is only speculation by an organizer as repeated in a local paper. And while the paper says the organizers billed the event as potentially the largest Tea Party to date at 50,000, they do not verify that it was indeed the largest. The pro-party people are trying to spread around a 37,000 attendance number, but I checked with the Collin County Constable office in charge of policing the event, and they said there were "crowds of several hundred during the day and probably several thousand after sundown for the fireworks show." That's unusable original research on my part, so I'm waiting on official numbers to be printed somewhere — but it does make me highly suspicious of organizers claims. All photos, YouTube and streaming videos that I can find show a much smaller crowd during both day and evening hours.

This NPR news clip puts the Southfork Ranch attendance at just "hundreds". This series of photos by an attendee shows good size crowds, considering the heat, but they don't come close to the numbers estimated by organizers. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of national media coverage, even from the usual cheerleaders, is interesting. Is there a secret conspiracy to have a media blackout, or were the weekend evends just not front-page news? There were several "Tea Party" events that drew thousands, and some local coverage can be cited, but I'm not sure how it should be presented. Do we mention the growing counter-protests and backlash? Do we mention the protests that specifically target issues like health care reform or the clean energy legislation or who will be voted on to the local city council? They are all getting tagged with the 'Tea Party' label, which could make for a very long and diluted Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, that was my point earlier with the Texas cite, but then SBowers3 replaced it with a link that clearly ID's the group as "Tea Party protesters", I believe. There was another cite there, too, about a Michigan group debating a party platform. My feeling is that some of this is starting to stretch the relevance of an article about the "Tea Party Protests".--Happysomeone (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We can't use the organizers' estimates for the Southfork Ranch event. We need a reliable, third-party source. Use the estimate of the organizer is specifically not allowed as it is self-serving. The few RS stories I've seen on this subject call out that event specifically as being a underwhelming (generally starting with a line like "Organizers expected 50,000, but a tiny fraction of that showed up") Most reports said it was in the "hundreds" and a cursory glance at photos of the the event indicates that the "tens of thousands" estimate is just ludicrous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Tea Party protests - redux

The lede to the article says the Tea Party protests began in 2009; and the "History" section of the article affirms that start date, citing FreedomWorks events back in February. But FreedomWorks has been organizing Tea Party protests since at least as far back as 2003. Shouldn't the article convey a more accurate history of Tea Party protests? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "genealogical" connection between that Tea Party in 2003 and this year's Tea Parties. I'm not aware of a continuing series of such protests between 2003 and 2009 and I don't see much on google for those years. My take is that the 2003 event, another in 2007, and this year's events all took a name that is famous in American history. The 2009 protests are "descendants" of the original Boston Tea Party, not of the 2003 event. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the history section do not seem relevant to the Tea Party article. The current Tea Party movement appears to have begun with Rick Santelli's CNBC comments. Other U.S. citizens may comment on or protest the stimulus or the budget without their actions being related to nor causative of the tea parties. I recommend that these two paragraphs be deleted unless they can be tied somehow to the tea parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kehrerrl (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 July 2009

More like Redux part Seven. We have been there several times already. The first two paragraphs are clearly relevant to the article as the groups organizing this were clearly focused on initiatives coming out of the new administration (where were the protests against TARP?) and were seizing on those initiatives. Have you even looked at the sources for the material, all relevant and verifiable?--Happysomeone (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were lots of people who objected to TARP, Bush's stimulus, and Bush's auto bailout and also objected to Obama's stimulus and bailouts - and at least some of the Tea Party protesters objected to both Bush and Obama. (I saw a picture of a sign with Bush and Obama labeled Dumb and Dumber.) Yes, there were others who objected to Obama's plans but were quiet about Bush's similar plans. And there were others who objected to Bush's deficits but say nothing about Obama's deficits. And finally, there were members of Congress who voted for both Bush's bailouts and Obama's bailouts. But all of this is a bit off topic. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On topic, then: The background to the thing called the "Tea Party Protests". The "Wasteful Spending" meme began to gain traction coincidentally (or not) around the same time the control of the Senate and the Presidency changed hands. There's no question people were angry about the TARP concept, but there was no political organization to it - mostly it was a heavily negative reaction by constituents tying up their representative's phone lines. Then days after the inauguration, you have a popular conservative radio talk-show host using a seldom used anachronism and suddenly mini "porkulus" protests are popping up all over the country? Hmmmmm... --Happysomeone (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Control of the Senate changed in 2006 (technically January 2007), while the Presidency changed two years later. I remember reading op-eds against big spending back in 2005 and I personally complained about Republican big spending to my (Republican) Senator in 2005 (or 2004). If the meme gained traction in early 2009, one might infer either that it was due to the change of Presidency, or (more likely) that it was due to an increase in (proposed) spending. From this article, I read that the early days of Tea Party protests were right around the time of the signing of the stimulus bill, which seems to me not to be a coincidence.

I don't know what you mean by "seldom used anachronism". Do you mean "porkulus"? It's not an anachronism; I assumed that the word had been invented by Rush Limbaugh. It might be a portmanteau (a word I learned from Wikipedia) or a neologism (another word I learned from Wikipedia). As for Limbaugh and protests popping up everywhere, one might either infer that his listeners automatically react to what he says or infer that he is in tune with what his listeners think. But any inference would be OR. I've not seen any RS that connects Limbaugh to the TPs. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose technically you're correct about the Senate, though there were only 48 democrats in that body during the 110th Congress. The word "porculus" (or, in our modern corruption, "porkulus") is Latin for "piglet", though I suspect it may have been intended as a portmanteau. I was under the impression that "pork-barrel" spending and "porculus" were once used interchangeably some time ago, but I can't find the reference.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This and this support the notion that Limbaugh succeeded in branding the term "porculus" for describing the stimulus bill. Numerous conservative voices, elected and not, then began using the term in the same way. A few weeks later, several organized protests were held under the same "branding". I'm not certain this is WP:OR.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you meant by porculus being an anachronism (as Latin). I always took it to be a Limbaugh-invented portmanteau of pork-barrel and stimulus, and hence properly "porkulus" rather than "porculus". As to control of the Senate I was going by the fact that Harry Reid (D) was majority leader and, hence, all committee chairmen were Democrats. The possible OR I meant was any connection between Limbaugh and the protests. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4 and afterward

The article currently gives no idea at all as to the events of July 4 - the number of protests and the number of attendees. The problem is that there don't seem to be any RS with summary info. There are lots and lots of local RS about individual events, but no nationwide summaries that I have seen. That's why I inserted an editorial with rough estimates of the nationwide totals. Xenophrenic later edited that summary but TeaParty1 completely deleted it. So we are left with no summary at all for July 4.

CBS News reported that "In scores of communities, many spent their 4th of July not celebrating, but protesting. Taking a cue from the Boston tea party, they railed against high taxes and other peeves." Clearly, enough happened that day to catch their eye but they didn't try to count events or attendees. We know that there were lots of events that day because there are lots of RS reporting individual events. We could report each of those but it would be absurd to add hundreds of refs. If we leave the article as it stands now it is incomplete and unencyclopedic. Lacking a better RS I would like to reinsert the summary that TeaParty1 removed.

And it happens that Tea Party events are still occurring. Here's one on July 11: http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/4627037, here's another: http://www.scnow.com/scp/news/politics/local_govtpolitics/article/tea_party_set_for_saturday_at_market_commons/63421/ and a mini-protest: http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Vice-President-Visits-Northside-Factory-Site/IO6uJ3oL6ECRdwxE0Tx8Xg.cspx. It would not be encyclopedic to list every single event but we should have a sentence to say that Tea Party protests are continuing. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We may need to start by clarifying the terms used here. When you say "Tea Party events are still occurring," what, exactly, are you saying? What is a Tea Party? Following one of your links above, it is not a protest, but an organization... with a President and everything. There will always be protests, and groups that protest, but have we defined what we are trying to describe in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A short answer is that if a RS labels it as a Tea Party protest, we probably have to accept that label. Beyond that there is the "quacks like a duck" test. If a protest is against spending, debt, taxes, socialism, the energy bill, the health care bill, then it probably falls into the category of Tea Party. The first two refs above clearly are Tea Parties. The third one apparently involved a small number of people who protested a Biden visit. The fact that they officially organized as the Cincinatti(?) Tea Party "with a President and everything" is a strong indication that their Tea Party protests are an ongoing activity, not a one-time event. IOW, at least for that local group, all of their protests fall into the class of "Tea Party protests" that we are documenting. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There was another set of Tea Party protests July 17 against Obama's health care proposal and the cap and trade energy bill. Most were outside Representatives' and Senators' offices. There are abundant RS to individual events in dozens of localities and there are non-reliable sources saying that there were hundreds of these nationwide. It's apparent from some of the organizers' web sites that these were coordinated in time for this particular date (why now?) and in subject matter but were organized locally. With dozens of local RS, there is no doubt that these occurred and were labeled by the RS as TP protests. But in the absence of RS providing a national summary I don't know a good way to add them to the article. Even if I had the energy to add dozens of references to local protests, a list of individual events is not a good way to write an article. It's too bad though, because this article is incomplete without mention of ongoing activities. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the nature of these events have evolved beyond the scope of this article. I would suggest starting a new article that best captures this and link to it from the "Tea Party Protest" page.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"The nature of these events have evolved..." - how so? All along they have protested spending, taxes, big deficits, and socialism and that's what they are still doing. Look at pictures of signs; sometimes you'll see the same signs at different events weeks or months apart. The most recent events focused on health care and to a lesser tax on cap and trade but it's partly due to anti-spending and mostly due to anti-socialism. Some of the same organizers and same individuals are involved. They and the media label them as "Tea Party protests" so to me they look like a continuing series of protests. What do you see that is different? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's my view that much of what's happening in this movement, if you will, is increasingly occurring within the realm of a political framework (i.e. a gathering you cited in the run-up to the July 4 as a "Tea Party Protest" was to vote on a party platform, much as a conventional political party does). In some ways this mirrors how the anti-war protests since 2003 have dissipated. It's more of a "movement" rather than a singular protest. The "Tea Party Protest" appeared to be more focused on Keynesian economics, where as the more recent "Tea Party" organizations seem focused on the current Health Care debate. That's how it appears to me. --Happysomeone (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The common thread is "limited government and fiscal conservatism". Whether it is huge spending and borrowing that is part of Keynesian economics, or whether it is huge spending and borrowing for socialized medicine many of the same individuals and same organizers are involved in all of these protests. So yes it probably is more of a movement than a single protest, but all of the events are Tea Party protests. (My comments are based on reports I've read and pictures of signs I've seen, not on any personal activities. Which is to say I think it is a fair reading of widespread evidence, not anecdotal evidence.) Sbowers3 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(I changed indentation of following because we have two separate discussions going on. I hope nobody objects to my change. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

I re-worded an entry on July 17th anti-health care reform protests in the article to use terminology used in the source. Small tweaks, such as indicating the 254 protests were staged by "TPP"; and referring to the proposed bill (one of several rough drafts under consideration, incidently) as a proposed bill, not actual legislation. I commented out a line that indicated these protests were mostly held in front of representatives offices; while possibly true, I didn't see that specified in this source.

I did note the article says only a dozen protesters showed up, and that half again that many also showed up to counter-protest in favor of health care reform. I wonder if that is an anomaly, or indicative of a growing trend. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the tweaking. In my original edit, I altered the wording from the original so as to use my own wording rather than copy someone else's wording. Perhaps I altered it too much. The "mostly held at reps' offices" is consistent with this one article saying that it was at a rep's office but is based on dozens of other reports I have seen that were based at local offices. E.g. in my own state there were four protests outside reps' offices. The problem is that unless I add 128 refs to that effect I can't prove that "most" were like that even though I can produce refs that show 20 out of 20 were held at reps' or sens' offices. Oh, some of the other refs I saw had as many as 250 people but most were in the dozens. I'll add some local refs to give more flavor. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 17 events

A google search for "Tea Party Health" in the past week showed these RS in the first page:

So you might understand why I said most were outside Rep's offices and most had dozens of protesters. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More:

And that's only from Results 101 - 200 of about 967,000. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and more:

Sbowers3 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

July 24

400-500 protested ObamaCare

When I have time, I'll try to write something about these post-July 4 parties but I wanted to get the refs here in case anyone else wants to write something. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] ttp://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/04/27/the-myth-of-the-15000/

[2] ttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009139525_opina29ramsey.html

[1]

[2]