The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
I am amazed that no-one has started a discussion on this. It seems to be rather dubious. I don't see the phrase "far right" in the Tea Party movement article. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially started a thread in Talk:Tea Party movement. Anyway, this is a distinction that might have been more controversial a few years ago when the Tea Party was new. But over the past year, and especially after the 2013 U.S. government shutdown, even the mainstream media has generally mentioned the Tea Party as being on the far right of the mainstream Republican Party. It's not that complicated. I mean, isn't that why we have WP:SPADE?
Anyway, some time I ago, I did try to add a mention on the Tea Party article that it is classified as a far-right political party, even providing references from news sites like BBC News who mention it as that. It was quickly reverted (references and all), and I didn't really feel like pushing the issue further then, as I suspected there may be a lot of impassioned Tea Party editors. But now that most of the mainstream news services no longer hesitate to call it a far-right movement, it seemed perfectly germane to categorize it as such. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my position is we cannot countenance the category without reliable source provided somewhere. The obvious place is the article. You could have another go at trying to introduce it there, but things get pretty heated in that section of the encyclopedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I've noticed. And it can also be difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith when other editors involved in editing a topic are often so impassioned and apparently uninterested in the normal civil Wikipedia consensus process. I'm not all that great at navigating such a minefield. I mainly know some rules of thumb, like adhering to NPOV, providing reliable sources, calling a spade a spade, and reverting vandalism (which I thought also covered profringe). - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is the argument that categories are navigation templates and are not there to define the subject of the articles in that category but to help readers find relevant articles. Who doubts that the TPM is relevant to this category? Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt it, (a) because no-one has actually cited a source; and (b) because any given reference calling them right-wing may just be that author's opinion, and thus unsuitable for a category. We would need a source saying it is "widely regarded as right wing", or something like that. StAnselm (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google books seems to have quite a few, and see the section on thea rticle at Right-wing populism. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
