This is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
Tea Party movement received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 15 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
There is a moderated discussion taking place on this sub-page which is aiming to get consensus on a broadly stable and balanced version of the article. The discussion is open to all, and more participants are welcome. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
History, written by the winners, fails to mention that Washington was a rebel leader, and the war tax of 2% on tea was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". This was the federation of 1st independent states, which continued to annex land from the indigenous population, as well as invading Canada on 3 separate occasions and [see "Canada" box set] as well as conducting a civil war. Studying the history of Mexico & Canada gives one an insight into how much "American History" is fabricated. This Talk page should note that, like the original tea party, the main page on this subject appears to be politically biased towards it. Tea party politicians use incendiary language to incite hate and have extreme Views on immigration, Barack Obama, gay marriage etc, none of which is addressed on the main page.
Influence of Koch Brothers/Section explaining the different factions of the Tea Party
Hello, I think that it is inappropriate for the Koch section to be entirely new. Instead, I think that it should be simply included into the fundraising section. Otherwise, the inappropriate placement of the Koch involvement could certainly be argued that it paints a slight bias against their fundraising contributions to a group.
Additionally, I think that it is important to make a new section discussing the different "factions" of the Tea Party movement, in the sense of the so-called "liberty movement" group of tea partiers like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc. who demographically appeal to younger voters while the religious right faction of the Tea Party appeals to older voters. There are stark policy differences, as noted by Massie/Paul's stances on industrial hemp, drug convictions, etc. There is some mention of the "Paulites" vs. the "Palinites" earlier in the article, but I do believe that it is deserving of an entire new section due to the distinct policy differences and which demographic groups support each respective faction.
Not at all. This is an encyclopedia, and the founders of wikipedia would not accept bribes to promote "fundraising" for what many call the american taliban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryvenn (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be an improvement. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As the youth has become increasingly secular and tolerant to the many social issues, so too have the new Tea Party so-called "rising stars" like Paul, Massie, and Amash. I think that much of this article paints somewhat of a caricature of the Tea Party as being an extreme faction of the Religious Right, and there needs to be more attention/information about its more libertarian groups that are beginning to take over the movement's core philosophies. I shall move the Koch section as a subsection of the Fundraising section as well. Also, I may be mistaken, but the "Background" section reads as if the Tea Party was entirely a corporate puppet with nearly no mention of the populist aspects within the right wing voting groups in the United States. In the fundraising section, the commentaries made by Krugman and Pelosi seemt o represent a partisan opinion, and I think that it could use some cleaning up in order to maintain NPOV and present both perspectives. →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
WLRoss, I just was wondering as to why you made the reversion of the edit I made on the Tea Party movement article, and I was curious if I could get an explanation. The comments made in that section were from Paul Krugman's editorial piece in the NYT, called "The Conscience of a Liberal", and he is very notably anti-Tea Party and generally anti-conservative in his writings. The other quote, made by Nancy Pelosi, who is in the leadership for the Tea Party's opposing faction in the House, seems to represent an opinion as well. I think presenting highly opinionated quotes from Krugman and Pelosi without any rebuttal from the other side of the aisle violates NPOV policy, and is far from encyclopedic. Could you provide evidence of the "consensus" you made reference to in the reversion as well? I have heard very little consensus regarding this myself, and I believe that we should at least present equally both views instead of one side's opinions.→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
agree, the passage would need an opposing comment to balance it. imagine a quote from a tea party movement leader about Pelosi on her article, or Krugmans, or the DNC article. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the commentary. I think that there needs to be fair information presented from both sides of the spectrum to include those comments, so until then, I will be removing them for the sake of NPOV. Perhaps we can research some refutations to their claims and include both Pelosi/Krugman's comments as well as a conservative rebuttal at that point.
Additionally, as I see this page being stained with many biased edits, I think that the "teabagger" section is inappropriate to be its own section along with its irrelevance towards being informational, encyclopedic entries. Some opinions regarding this would be appreciated.→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014 -- Tea Party, Dave Brat
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Dave Brat neither identifies as tea party nor received tea party support. While Brat's victory earned him cheers, he is best described as anti-establishment.
Not done: Please detail the change you would like to make as though you were going to type it in yourself. While this mention is unsourced, there is a newspaper source for the same information on David Brat which describes him as a tea party challenger. Do you have a source which clearly shows that he does not identify with the tea party? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As a political movement, shouldn't the article show the movements political stance as for other political parties - i.e. right wing, far right, conservative, etc.?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)