Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 15

No Soap Boxing

I removed [1] this from the section "Obama Administration Responses." This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political parties to get their message across to the voters.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If not outright soapboxing, it's certainly undue weight without other references. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly undue weight. May not be outright soap but it looks like sources were cobbled together to make an essay (boarders on SYNTH and SOAP). It also doesn't belong in a section "Obama administration responses" since it is commentary related to Obama but not an actual response from the administration.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I read the policy on soapboxing, and this isn't soapboxing. It may be unbalanced, in which case we should balance it instead of kill it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
And instead of reverting you should have followed WP:BRD. Write up a new draft with the concerns mentioned here in mind.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE indicates that removal is sometimes the proper way to balance viewpoints of a "tiny minority." Without other sources, this looks like a tiny minority viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it reflects a very widespread view on the Left regarding Obama's weak campaigning skills in 2010--as compared to his very strong skills in 2008. Lots of websites echo this-- Daily KOS for example. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We'll need specific references. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If any of it is included in the article, it can't be in the Obama section. It's just a commentary.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
[outdent} It is an analysis of the Obama Adm. responses to the Tea Party, and it fits this section perfectly. here are today's stories taht show it reflects current thinking: (as selected by the neutral editors of RealClearPolitics.COM) #1 "The embattled President has had difficulty grasping the disappointment among his left-leaning voter base, aides told the Daily News" #2. "Obama Has Soft Pedaled Achievements" by Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune. Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It would need to be drastically reduced, reliably sourced, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect Rjensen. It is Tomasky's response not the administrations. I actually screwed up earlier though sine I thought it was two separate authors. Regardless, too much weight and the wrong section.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The NPOV rules require that if we have a political statement by the Obama Admin we have to have opposing statements as well; Tomasky made a sharp critique from the left -- he says the Obama Admin did a poor job in responding and explains why. This view is widespread, and even the White House partly agrees: "In a remarkably candid Oct. 17 New York Times Magazine interview, Obama concedes that he let himself look too much like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. We can't leave the Obama section without counter arguments, otherwise it looks like the section is a campaign billboard for the President.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomasky

Given the need to keep the overall article comprehensive and readable, do we really want to devote about 275 words to a single article written by a single person? Tea Party movement#Tomasky's response. Can't we do a better job of summarizing this view more compactly than this? Is Tomasky worth more than a line or two?   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We could include any of the viewpoints on the Tea Party movement, or on the Obama Admin's specific responses to the Tea Party movement -- but what the last version gave us was a critique of the Democratic Party in general, going back to the Reagan era. Not exactly relevant here. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In its cover story on "Why Obama is Losing the Political War", Time magazine reported a widespread sense among analysts that the White House has not effectively responded to its critics:"With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters."[1] [2]

What's missing in that narrative are the key words: "Tea Party". There's nothing in that text that's obviously related to this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very obvious who is being talked about here. Who exactly do you think is doing all the criticizing? And when President Obama speaks of his critics he frequently refers to the Tea Party.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that Obama is being talked about, but this isn't Wikipedia's Obama article. Nothing is said of the TP movement in the cited article, and Tea Partiers are only mentioned once, and that is only to say that the source of criticism is beyond McCain and Tea Party supporters. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this article is about the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit is a good one now. It provides balance to the Obama quotes which actually should not be set apart with the blue quote marks. They seem to be giving WP:UNDUE to his comments. There aren't any comments like that from actual Tea Party movement participants.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Top o' the mornin to you, Malke. I somewhat agree with your opinion of the block-quoting. I don't mind them if they are used through the whole article, but right now they could be viewed as giving deference to Obama's quotes over all the many other quotes in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, the edit clearly speaks to the Tea Party. Please restore the edit. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain to me how that content addressed the Tea Party. It certainly wasn't self-explanatory in that short excerpt, and the source article from which it came make it very clear that their criticism is not Tea Party-specific. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Top O' the morn to you, too, Xenophrenic. It reads to me like it's very tea party specific: [3].Malke 2010 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, Malke; I thought we were discussing the content from the Time article mentioned above. Regarding the content you linked, the source does indeed reference the Tea Party, but the segment introduced to our Wikipedia article was about faults with the Democratic party going back to the Reagan years, and not TP-related circumstances. You'll note my edit summary: (re-removed mischaracterized criticism of Democrats going "back to the Reagan years"; not Obama Admin specifically). There may be usable content in that article, but not presented and mischaracterized as it was. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] The Time story was specific about the Tea partiers, listing them first along with McCain voters, so I revised the text to make that point as per the suggestions here. Note that in the story Time asserts there is a national consensus among "most politically engaged elites":
In its Oct. 11, 2010, cover story on "Why Obama is Losing the Political War", Time magazine reported a widespread sense among analysts that the White House has not effectively responded to the critics. Noting that many voters "appear deeply skeptical of Obama's capacity to turn things around, especially ...Tea Partyers and John McCain voters, but also tens of millions of middle-class Americans" it asserted: "Most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters." Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Time was specific in its one single mention of the Tea Partiers, listing them first in their explanation that the criticism was not sourced to just them (or McCain supporters, etc.) -- and then they never mentioned TP again. This article, and the criticisms it makes, are not about the TP. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
the article is about Obama's failure to respond to his critics--and Time specifies "especially" the TP -- mentioning them first because they are the main critics. Fact is this encyclopedia gives a lot of space top Obama's responses (which hardly mention the TP), so NPOV rules require that we mention the other side. Indeed TIME clearly says it is stating the consensus views of a majority of political experts, so it is not a flaky fringe viewpoint, but the dominant one.Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Your personal interpretation of the Time article and Wikipedia policies are interesting, but do not appear to me to be accurate. The Time article does not "mention them first because they are the main critics"; quite to the contrary, the Time article passes right by the Tea Partiers and waves them off as being already obvious critics, and goes on to stress the critical sentiment is also coming from tens of millions of Americans, including Obama voters. The article you are citing is not about a Tea Party-specific subject:
And that sentiment is spreading. Many members of the general public appear deeply skeptical of Obama's capacity to turn things around, especially, but not exclusively, those inclined to dislike him — Tea Partyers and John McCain voters, but also tens of millions of middle-class Americans, including quite a few who turned out for Obama in 2008. The misery afflicting the country has no political affiliation.
What information about the Tea Party is your proposed paragraph supposed to convey? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
a) TIME singles out "especially" the TP; b) it says that Obama's responses to the TP have been poorly received. The TP is in a dynamic hostile relation with the establishment and a tepid response to their enthusiasm is a major factor that RS are talking about. TIME says that most of the experts agree that Obama has not handled his critics well, and explicitly mentions the TP. Since it comprises about 35% of the voters this year, that failure is a big deal in national politics, say the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
a) Yes, TIME singles out TP and McCain supporters, in order to clarify that TIME isn't making a point exclusively about them (they are obvious critics) when it discusses criticism; it is far beyond them. b) It does not say anything about "Obama's responses to the TP" - nice synthesis there. It only speaks of Obama's response to critics, of which the TPers is but a small subset. You are welcome to contribute that content to the Obama article under criticism, but it tells the reader absolutely nothing here that is TP-specific (unless you apply your synthesis). That is why I asked you to clarify what you intended that paragraph to convey to the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would have to agree with that. And the Tea Party movement is all about the financial moves made in his administration, and all his comments in the Obama section are about the TP protesters, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
All his comments are about the TP protesters? I see the comment where he tells the TPers to quit blaming the recovery act, and that he is willing to discuss reasonable solutions but those won't include cutting programs for average Americans while cutting taxes for the rich. I also see his comment where he says he doesn't understand the TPer's complaints about taxes, since he has passed more than 25 tax reductions and reduced taxes for 95% of Americans. And I see his comments where he specifically challenges the TPers to come up with actual, workable solutions, instead of just complaints. I don't see his comments about protesters, just comments about fiscal matters. Which comments of Obama's were you referring to? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

weasal words

I object to this entry: "Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist,[143] nativist, paranoid,[143] or secretive movements and third parties such as the Know Nothing party, the John Birch Society,[144][143] and the movements led by Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, Barry Goldwater,[144] George Wallace,[145] and Ross Perot.[146]"

This is a blending of op-eds and is over the top. You can't make accusations like that. This is pure WP:OR and is highly offensive. The Tea Party movement hasn't shown any such signs, especially that offensive "paranoid" bit. The rest of the edit, with the salon.com bit is all right, but the opening is nothing but POV pushing.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Why can't we just write an accurate informative article instead of continuously trying to torture offbeat stuff into it? North8000 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like bad news for my planned insertion of a five-page unsourced essay on types of tea and how they relate to political views... Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no, and I was so looking forward to that. I agree with North8000, these edits are not relevant here. I think that lead bit should be deleted.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ORN then. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of Association fallacy. The Tea Party has been called populist, therefore they share the perceived negative characteristics of earlier populist movements. TFD (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not in the text. We don't make any comment about populist movements.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This new standard being hatched in this article will change the face of Wikipedia. Anything that one or two editorialists say about about someone or something is now to be included in articles. Throw all other WP standards (e.g. primary sources for the opinions, wp:undue) out the window. By this new standard, the article on President Obama could now have hundreds of negative allegations, negative comparisons, negative associations and negative characterizations added. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPOV vs WP:NOTCENSORED can be difficult to resolve, but that's what noticeboards are for. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Ronz, we don't need those. The edit needs to come out. The policy is clear. This is a synthetic edit. The salon bit can stay, but the para leading to it is over the top.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"The policy is clear" Not even slightly. Editors can't even make up their mind if it a RS or OR problem, and repeated requests for clarification have been ignored.
So please, clarify. If it's not clear what needs clarification, ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
observers have compared to others, is that really elegant refreshing prose? i suggest we remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talkcontribs) 17:48, 21 October 2010
The text is "Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history". It could say "to other movements" but it seems pretty clear without it, and "movements" is repeated again later in the sentence so it would get repetitive.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's compounding the problem. Please feel free to remove. Also, I did ask Balloonman to come take a look. He'll be by later.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The material is sourced and accurate. The first sentence is directly from the Salon article, plus additional sources. I can find at least several high quality sources for each comparison. The sources each mention the Tea Party directly, so there's no original research.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Your conclusion about how the Tea Party is viewed by observers is based on finding sources that describe it that way, which is original research. You need a source that says this is how it is viewed and explain whether it is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view. TFD (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"You need a source that says this is how it is viewed and explain whether it is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view." It would be nice to have one, but there's absolutely no requirement to do so, at least none that anyone has been able to communicate despite all the requests. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making any conclusions. I simply reported some common comparisons to earlier American political movements. I don't understand what it is TFD is asking for. If a writer compares TPM to George Wallace's following, do we also need a source that's commented on that comparison? If we follow that standard for all of the commentary then we'll have to get rid of most of the material.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD is correct. This is original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR covers a lot of ground. Could you please quote the text that you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I posted it at the opening of this section. The Salon.com bit is fine, but not what comes before.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean the text of the OR policy - which aspect of that policy are you saying is being violated?   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think several, but one of them is the primary / secondary source section. This is reporting on people making those allegations, yet the allegations themselves are given as the source. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
We use a Dick Morris column to report what Dick Morris says. Is that what you mean by a primary source? Primary sources are not forbidden. They just have to be used with care.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and we can start here, too: [4]. You are taking op-eds that hold various views and creating a synthesis. These op-ed editors are left leaning liberals. This is their tiny viewpoint. It doesn't belong in the article. I've already pointed out to RJensen where his edit went over the top and he fixed it. It would be really cool if you'd do the same.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. We include the POVs of Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, and the heads of the AEI and American Majority. But you're saying that including the views of (supposedly) left-leaning writers violates NPOV? Should we only use right-leaning commentators in this article?   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm being specific about this edit and how it's been put together.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Then please help me understand your objection. We use right-leaning commentators, so I don't see why using left-leaning commentators is a problem. (I'm not sure which of these sources are the left-leaning ones -could you list those?)   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You are taking comments out of context and crafting them into this edit. I've just examined all of the citations and they do not make the claims you are claiming they do. And one citation, from the Financial Times, dated 10/20/2010, I can't find anything. But I did find an article on the tea party but it's not the one being cited.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0205/Tea-party-movement-lessons-from-earlier-uprisings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304746.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/03/tea_party_populism_history
http://www.thehour.com/register/?storyid=475199
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-heilbrunn21-2010feb21
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-07-column07_ST1_N.htm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e83c3c00-d579-11df-8e86-00144feabdc0.html
This last one is the one for which I cannot locate any such article in the FT.
^ Lind, Michael (October 20, 2010). "A Tea Party cannot change a nation". Financial Times (London (UK)): p. 13.
None of these articles/op-ed pieces, even put together, support your edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
So the issue isn't with left-leaning writers or the use of editorials. Thanks, that helps. Taking the first link, to the New York Times column written by Frank Rich, is used as a citation for comparisons of TPM to the John Birch Society and Barry Goldwater's campaign. Rich writes:
  • You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president. [..] The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.
So he's an observer comparing the TPM to Goldwater and the JBS. Would you like more sources that make the same comparisons? There are plenty.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Lind is used as a source for this sentence:
  • Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order.
He wrote:
  • America's two-party structure flows from an electoral system, inherited from Britain, with a bias against third parties. Such parties, when they do occur, are short-lived vehicles that introduce a new issue or ideology, fading away once one of the major parties has co-opted its concerns. In the words of the historian Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees; once they have stung, they die." Insurgent ideological movements, such as the Tea Party, can play the same role. But movements that only mobilise the base of a party do not have that effect. Instead, they increase turn-out, and thus may shift control of the government.
That seems like an accurate summary, though it could be longer.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally synthetic. Frank Rich doesn't say that, none of these op-eds are drawing these conclusions, the professors on Salon don't say these things as you do, you've simply strung them all together. It's WP:OR.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't think Rich is comparing TPM to the JBS and Goldwater?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) The connection between the Tea Party and earlier populist movements seems obvious, their name is a reference to the Boston Tea Party. But you need to establish that this connection has been established by historians and report what they say. Jimmy Carter recently compared the Tea Party to his supporters, they included evangelicals and wanted honesty in government, yet you consistently compare the Tea Party with the more sinister elements of populism. TFD (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we follow a policy where the only sources who can comment on American history are history professors. But the Salon piece was written by historians, and the Anchorage Daily News piece cited above was also written by a history professor.   Will Beback  talk 
The way the edit reads, Willbeback is making the connection using the sources. It's entirely synthetic. In addition, these are the views of a tiny minority, not widespread, and as pointed out earlier, this policy also applies: [5].Malke 2010 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV is satisfied, as I explained to you before, and it requires that we include this material. As for synthesis, I don't think it applies here. If we have a source that says a TPM candidate won in Ohio, another that says one won Texas, and the third that says one won in Iowa, then it is not synthesis to write "Candidates have won in Iowa, Ohio, and Texas." We could separate those into three separate sentences that would have the same meaning. "A candidate won in Iowa. A candidate won in Ohio. A candidate won in Texas." Same thing, but no one wants to read that.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The major advantage of using academic sources is that they usually explain the degree of acceptance that various theories have. If Wilentz had written his paper for an historical journal for example he would have to address whether other scholars had made the same connections and we could see how later writers responded to his writing. Another advantage is that he would be required to emphasize the most obvious comparisons rather than the most alarming ones. TFD (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, academic sources are great. In fifty years I bet there will be many academic sources discussing this movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The 700+ academic papers already published should be sufficient. There is no reason to believe that these scholars have ignored observations which need to be in the article. TFD (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any of those papers being used as sources. If editors here agree that we should limit ourselves to academic sources in this article that's fine with me. Is there a list or search engine that points to the 700 papers?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Note also, that most reliable sources call the tea party movement a grassroots movement and that it's rooted in the financial crisis. And as for the sources I posted above, none of them make any claims that the Tea Party movement is paranoid, or nativist, or John Birch, etc. These sources are mostly talking about movements in general, how they arise, and how they recede back into the political landscape. None of them are using all these labels at once and claiming they are identical to the TPM, and none of them call the movement 'paranoid,' etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"The most reliable sources"? Which ones are those, in this context? It's quite possible for a movement to be grassroots, and populist. Even if sources describe the movement in contradictory terms it's not for us to decide which is correct. NPOV says to report all significant points of view using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I just now noticed that Malke deleted the entire paragraph, even though he hadn't been complaining about the rest of it. I've restored it while we're discussing it. If WP:SYNTH is the main complaint concerning the lead sentence, due to the fact that it is a list and no one source contains all of the items on the list, then that can be addressed by "unpacking" the list and dealing with each item individually. That'll take a paragraph rather than a sentence. Something like, "The TPM has been compared to earlier populists movements by X, Y, and Z. Others, including R, S, and T, have compared it to nativist movements." and so on. While i don't think the WP:SYNTH complaint is valid, I'm flexible and would be willing to re-write the material in that more verbose manner. Simply deleting relevant, well-sourced material is not an option though.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You should not have restored it. The rule is Bold-revert-discuss. I've reverted it. We're discussing it. Also, Will you are making very bold edits in this article that has been stable for sometime and you're not using the talk page to discuss these changes. I've restored the Contract from America content as it clearly belongs on this page.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's discuss the "Contract" separately. I've addressed your issues with the "Commentary" material, so I'm not sure why you deleted it all anyway. Last you said that Rich was not comparing the TPM to the JBS and i said I think he was. Can you respond to that point?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Viral video of Rick Santelli

Wrt this new edit:

"Traders Revolt: CNBC Host Calls For New 'Tea Party'; Chicago Floor Mocks Obama Plan". DrudgeReport.com. February 19, 2009. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/02/19/20090219_164153.htm. Retrieved April 23, 2010. [dubious – discuss]

There's no dubiousness about this report or cite. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

"After CNBC's Rick Santelli made his famous "tea party" remarks on the air in February 2009, spurring the protest movement, Russo said he decided to rebrand the PAC." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-tea-party-ads-20100919,0,5669482.story

Please revert the [dubious – discuss]. (For the record, Matt Drudge doesn't write his own stuff, but links to other sources, often reliable. His headlines and choice of content do tend toward the sensationalist side, but more often than not, the report is factual. Not saying I'd necessarily call it a RS, but I wouldn't automatically label a link to it "dubious." The point in this article is that Drudge propelled the story to prominence.) --Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the actual source we're using - a headline on Drudgereport? If the source is the Chicago Tribune or CNBC then let's cite that instead.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You really should be bringing questions to the talk page before you continue with these edits. The Drudgereport is just a news aggregation website. It was the siren notice on the Drudgereport announcing Santelli's rant that made the video go viral. It is not dubious. Please revert.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of tags is to mark items for discussion or repair. The assertion in the article is this:
  • The video of Santelli's speech went viral after it received a "red siren" headline on the news aggregation website, Drudge Report.
So we need a source that says the video went viral following its posting on Drudge. A link to the Drudge site doesn't support that assertion. It could be used as a primary source for the fact that Drudge linked to the video. Do we have any source that the video went viral due to Drudge?   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
For now it will be enough to put 'citation needed' there. Please revert the 'dubious' bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've found some proper sources and will use those instead of Drudge.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No you will not. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The Drudgereport mention will stay. This citation is fine: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/02/19/20090219_164153.htm.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not a citation that the video went viral, the assertion that it is being used to source.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, please remove the WP:OR edit you made in the commentaries. It is entirely your construction and none of the citations support your theories.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The Drudgereport citation needs to be there because of the mention of the red siren. Please put it back.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT (and disclaimer)... First, Malke asked me to take a look here as I helped resolve an issue on these pages about a month ago or so and he said things were getting heated up again. So, I come here per request. Second, in this specific example, I have to side with Will Beback. If the claim is that the video went viral due to the Drudge report, then the Drudge Report becomes a primary source. Thus, any claim it makes about its own contribution to the video going viral has to be treated as a primary source (thus dubious) and not a secondary source. The same would be true if it were NBC/CBS/Fox/BBC/etc... you need a third party to support that claim. Third, again, this is the first section I've looked at, I'm working my way from the bottom up... Malke, your tone here is a little strong. Namely, "No you will not."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, got it. But we can still keep the link to the Drudgereport page, as it shows the siren and it links to the video.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether it stays or go, I don't really care... but honestly, I don't see the need for it. We can link directly to the video and a news report saying that it sparked the viralness of the video is enough.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I've added a link that goes directly to the video.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Will; I didn't intend to stir up a hornet's nest. The flaw in my post was asking that the [dubious--discuss] tag be removed. I should have suggested dropping the Drudge reference. Here's an excellent reference that I hesitate to insert since there's been so much unexpected ado. I'm bolding the pertinent part.
Santelli's full-throttle call for a Chicago Tea Party "dumping in some derivative securities" into Lake Michigan, boosted by good play on the Drudge Report site, made him a near-instant viral video star, a voice of opposition to the administration's stimulus package and, if he plays it right, secured his very own personal economic stimulus. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-sun-phil-rosenthal-22feb22,0,7002362.column --Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a fine source too. I'll swap it in in place of the Atlanta Journal - Constitution ref.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Since that page has the video embedded I dropped the separate video link.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

Per WP:SUMMARY, I shortened the material in the "Contract from America" section because we have an entire article that's almost a duplicate, Contract from America. The alternative is to keep the material here and redirect that article. Having the same content in two places is not an option. Do editors prefer to have it here or in a separate article?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That section is appropriate for this page. What is not appropriate for the page is the bloated section on the Commentaries. That could be eliminated entirely.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
So I assume that means you endorse redirecting the Contract from America.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No, there's no need to do that.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's one or the other. We can't just have multiple copies of the same material. See WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: (see disclaimer below workin way up through talk page bottom to top) Again, I have to side with Will Beback. The article is already on the long side, 109 KB. When articles start getting long, it does become appropriate to break them into multiple articles and to have links to "the main article". This is a standard best practice. The Contract from America section should be 1 maybe 2 paragraphs at the most summarizing the Contract with a highlighted link to the main article. See the article on George W. Bush as an example of how almost every section is a summary.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else I'll restore the summary.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Balloonman, you have to consider the edit in terms of Tea Party movement content. The article is long because 2/3 is controveries, allegations, claims of media bias, etc. None of these things speak directly to what the Tea Party movement is. The Contract from America is the core beliefs and goals. Therefore, it must remain. Otherwise, the article risks becoming nothing more than a criticism of the Tea Party movement without offering any context as to what the Tea Party movement is. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman chimes in again

Ok, once again my input was requested on this article. I was asked for input a few weeks ago and I provided it. Once my initial comments were responded to I took this page off my watch list. This is not an article that *I* particularly care about one way or another and prior to my being asked for input a few weeks ago, my only real involvement was to remove a BLP statement until a reliable source was provided. Too many POV pushers and drahma that I didn't want to get involved with (election cycles are particularly bad.) I mention that so that you can assess my statements/input.

This took a lot longer than I expected and I wasn't able to really review this subject bottom up like I started... there is too much history and discussion here. I've been reading this for close to two hours now.guess it took me 2 more of reading this to finish! I've spent a while reviewing this issue and reading just about all of the articles (that don't require registration) that have been brought up on this subject. I was going to respond under each section, but this became longer and longer, so here are my thoughts.

  • Opinion pieces have to be used with extreme caution. Is the opinion piece at all reliable or is it a political screed? I mean, how many people would trust Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck to draw a "straight line" between a liberal movement and a past event? And if you did, would wikipedia allow Limbaugh or Beck's statement to be construed as a reliable source? The answer is no. Especially if they were presenting their comments in a partisan manner intended on invoking a certain response. The Rich opinion piece is nothing more than a political screed ripe with sarcasm and exaggeration. Of all the pieces mentioned, it is by far the most biased. This is a political screed that should not by any stretch of the imagination be used even to explore positions that "observers" have noted---I would not trust the Rich opinion piece for reliable facts any more than I would rely on Beck/Limbaugh.
  • Many movements can be compared to populist movements/paranoid movements/JBS/etc; this is nothing new. Virtually every political movement can be compared to other political movements---both favorably and unfavorably. I personally have no problem with drawing the comparisons, the question becomes how and to what extent?
  • To address Malke's comment above "I've never heard a tea party participant make a reference to the Know Nothings." That doesn't matter. If historical parrallels exist, they do not have to be self acknowledged. Just because a precursor movement occured before WWII, does not mean that there aren't associations that can be made. Malke, I was trained as a historian (BA in history and completed the course work for a Master's level degree in history), this is what historians do---they find parallels with the past. As one of my profs used to say, "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
  • Listing every organization that the Tea Party has been compared to is unnecessary... I mean, to carry on Will's example above when he talks about various sources reporting on winning states, would we list every state that Obama/McCain won in the 2008 election? No. It is unnecessary, especially when the parallels are not explained. In a list as presented, it adds very little value, in fact is detrimental. In some of the sources, the Tea Party is being comapred to a predicessor for a specific reason or comparison. In the list, those specific aspects are lost and the sentence becomes cumbersome. Personally, I like Will's wording in his edit at 08:40, 20 October 2010 (sorry too late for me to go through the history to look up the link---if somebody else wants to feel free to do so.)
  • The Lind Opinion is an interesting piece. A number of people don't expect the Tea Party to emerge as a third party or to endure long term---I don't. But I'm not sure if that is their long term goal.
  • While not part of the scope that I was originally looking at, I have to comment on Rjensen's conclusion above when he wrote, "The NY Times reported that the Tea Party is pushing 138 candidates for Congress, all in the GOP. ... That makes it a faction of the GOP--it's very hard to call it 'independent' with 138/138 for one party." No that is an example of synthesis. Just because the Tea Party supports the Republicans, does not mean that it is a Republican faction. To reach the conclusion you did would be like arguing: "Every square is a rectangle, therefore every rectangle is a square." It may be true or it may just be a fluke or it may be something else. But the conclusion is not one *we* can make. That would be OR and SYN.
  • Also, Malke, you keep throwing around the words Original Research and Synthesis... but I'm not really sure if you understand those concepts as defined by Wikipedia. Original Research and Synthesis apply to Wikipedian authors writing something new... it does not apply to what third party sources write. If Will was "comparing/contrasting the Know Nothing Party" then it would be Original Research; but if somebody else does it, it is not Wikipeida:Original research. The fact that Salon.com et al make the argument is NOT original research---ok, it might be in the wider scheme of things, but not as we define Original Research.
  • RE North's comments how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings")---false logic for the exclusion of material.
  • RE the issue of "Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including." I have no problem with the word "benefited" here. I think there are plenty of articles that talk about how this year the Tea Party movement is en vogue and helping many candidates (especially during the primaries.) I also have no problem with including the White House/Democrat quote Will provided.
  • RE Tomasky's quote/edit here---I love the quote. Personally, I think it is very insightful... in a year where patriotism/nationalism seem to be on the rise, the Democrats have not tried to claim that motiv and have seemed to concede it to the Republicans. That being said, what's it doing here? My views on this seem to mirror Xeno's.
  • There is one phrase that I do have some problem with, but I'm not sure if there is a better wording. "Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order." I know what it is trying to say, but in the sentence as written, it reads that the Tea Party is here just long enough to "upset" the established "political order". It's kind of negative. I'm too tired to think of how I would reword it, but something like "after making a mark on/influencing a political party/election cycle?"

Wow, that's a lot... and took me almost 4 hours to read it all and it is now late (3 am). I'll probably watch this page for a few days to respond to immediate questions/comments, but in all honesty, I'm not interested in the subject enough to keep in on my watch list that long. Too much drahma, hopefully my input is deemed valuable, if not c'est la vie. Oh one more comment, I don't know how the emotions have been going on when read in real time, but reading the discussions after the fact, I wanted to commend you all... for the most part the discussions have been conducted in a mature sensible manner.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I'm new to this article too. I won't respond to every one, but here are a few thoughts.
The article makes extensive use of op-ed pieces. I stopped counting at a couple of dozen. I'd support a effort to get rid of all of them, so long as it is applied consistently. That would mean a lot of work, but I'm willing to spend a week or two finding replacement sources and re-writing the article.
I agree that we should keep the list of comparisons short, and I suggest we use those which appear most frequently in the available sources.
Regarding the wording of "after upsetting the political order", several commentators make the same point:
  • A popular, and correct, aphorism about grass-roots movements is that they act like bees -- they sting, then die. Third parties fold into major parties, like the 19th century Populists did with the Democrats.
  • "Third parties are like bees," [Jonah] Goldberg said. "They have their influence by stinging, and then they die. If the tea party successfully stings the Republican Party into girding its loins and returning to its roots and providing a choice and all of these sorts of things, it will already have served its purpose." He predicted the tea party would fail if turned into "a fighting wedge for pro-life causes" or strayed from a "constitutional argument" focusing on "government living within its means."
  • No doubt third parties such as the Know-Nothings have historically enjoyed a short life span in America. Historian Richard Hofstadter famously observed, "Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die." But the tea party may wield a very potent stinger.
  • [Third parties], when they do occur, are short-lived vehicles that introduce a new issue or ideology, fading away once one of the major parties has co-opted its concerns. In the words of the historian Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees; once they have stung, they die."
Others talk more about the co-opting aspect. Perhaps "after altering the political order"? I'll make that change while we keep looking for better language.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You should try to get consensus from now on.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Balloonman, the original research I was referring to is this listing of all the organizations in the first para there. As you noted here:
*Listing every organization that the Tea Party has been compared to is unnecessary... I mean, to carry on Will's example above when he talks about various sources reporting on winning states, would we list every state that Obama/McCain won in the 2008 election? No. It is unnecessary, especially when the parallels are not explained. In a list as presented, it adds very little value, in fact is detrimental. In some of the sources, the Tea Party is being comapred to a predicessor for a specific reason or comparison. In the list, those specific aspects are lost and the sentence becomes cumbersome. Personally, I like Will's wording in his edit at 08:40, 20 October 2010 (sorry too late for me to go through the history to look up the link---if somebody else wants to feel free to do so.)
The specific problem is that the parallels are not explained in the articles/op-eds. It is Willbeback linking them together, not any of the sources, which is why I said it was WP:OR. Also, I wasn't able to locate that edit you said you liked.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Most of the op-ed stuff should be used VERY sparingly/carefully especially when citing historical facts, but if you are trying to justify the Rich piece, then that would be OTHERSTUFF. The Rich article is over the top. As for the numerous quotes about bees... I'm not sure what your point is, that Hofstadter's quote is oft cited? The conclusions the 4 quotes above after referencing Hof diverge at that point. The first merely observes the quote, the second state that all the TPM needs to do is sting to accomplish their goals, the third says they gave a potential stinger, the final uses it dismissingly. The problem I have with using it is that the TPM is not a third party---to my knowledge it doesn't have any candidates running in the November election on any level (naional/state/local.) TPMs are supporting a number of candidates and many are considered the "Tea Party candidate", but (as mentioned above) they are all Republicans. The group is not trying to establish viability as an independent party, but rather to shift the national focus to a few specific issues. If the Republicans co-opt the tpm's issues, then hasn't that the TPM fulfilled its objective? Therein I guess lies my problem with the sentence about "upsetting the political order." The sentence reads as if the TPM will be a failure if it disappeared in a few years, but I think most TPM'ers will consider it a success if it forces a change in the political landscape.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to delete the "Commentaries" section. Comments should be from Tea Party movement members as this article is about them. The section now is so POV pushing, it's all WP:UNDUE weight. It keeps getting bloated with racist comments like the Christian Science Monitor bit at the beginning, etc. These comments are inflammatory and don't provide a balanced, NPOV article.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments should be from Tea Party movement members as this article is about them.
That is not how Wikipedia operates. Please re-read WP:NPOV. "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." All significant points of view must be included, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, and presented in a neutral manner.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks so much for the analysis. Please give us a suggestion, as you did with the Koch brothers edit, on how this edit should read and what citations to use per Wiki policy. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks for all of the excellent work. One clarification: on your one comment on my comment:
"*RE North's comments how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings")---false logic for the exclusion of material.
The context of my comment was plea to focus on a good informative article, not an argument for exclusion of material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We still need to get him to tell us how to fix that edit. Obviously it can't stay as it, but it would be best all around to have him do the same thing he did with the Koch/astroturf edit by suggesting what it could say and stay within Wikipedia policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."[1]

— Ron Paul, December 24, 2002

  1. ^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
  2. ^ "Statement on Ron Paul and “Tax Day Tea Parties”". Business Wire. April 15, 2009. Retrieved April 23, 2010. 
  3. ^ Levenson, Michael (December 16, 2007). "Ron Paul raises millions in today's Boston Tea Party event". Boston.com. Retrieved April 9, 2010. 
  4. ^ "Paul supporters hold Tea Party re-enactment in Boston". Boston Herald. Associated Press. December 17, 2007. Retrieved April 23, 2010. 
  5. ^ Levenson, Michael (December 16, 2007). "Ron Paul's tea party for dollars". Boston Globe. Retrieved April 23, 2010. 

What does the long quote, added here[6], have to do with the Tea Party movement? Which source says that Paul's libertarian themes laid the groundwork for the TPM?   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

given the vast amount of space devoted accusations of racism and other critique of the tpm, the quote denouncing racism by one of the more influential voices in the movement is appropriate here. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
But they aren't accusing Paul of racism, and the quote is from seven years before the TPM was formed. If we allow that in then what's to keep us from adding random quotations from other influential voices in the movement, made at any point in their lives? That doesn't seem like a good way of writing an article. Do we even have a source that says Paul is an influential voice within the movement?   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the quote, it is non notable, and non TPM specific. This article needs improvement and this doesn't help in the least. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing no other input, I'll remove the long quote and rewrite the Ron Paul sentence.   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the "tea party" movement(s) is not a political party per se, why is the title "Tea Party" movement, not "Tea party movement"?

Since the "tea party" movement(s) is not a political party per se, why is the title "Tea Party" movement, not "Tea party movement"? From this article: In 2010 it is not a political party, does not officially run candidates, .... 99.102.176.33 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not a party movement about tea, it's a political movement named after the Boston Tea Party. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Major new study

In Monday's editions, the Washington Post newspaper reports on its months-long effort to identify and analyze every TP group in the United States. The Post identified 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. for all the details see the article online at the Post website.Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good find. That's probably worth a paragraph in the "Composition of the movement" section.   Will Beback  talk  11:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconcile with Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Tea_Party ?

Reconcile with Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Tea_Party ? 99.35.8.247 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede Right-Wing Populist

The recent edits to the lede using the "Mad As Hell" book cannot be used to define the movement. For one this this is a self-published book of opinion. For a second thing the selected quote inserted into the ref is not the statement the authors are using to define the movement. The authors are saying that sometimes there are anti-systemic populist movements from the left and the right. The authors do claim that the movement is overwhelmingly from the right, but does not call it a right wing movement. Editors should no used self-published original thought and then synthesize what the original thought says and use it to make factual statements. By the authors arguement all populist movements are either left-wing or right-wing, but that is clearly an opinion. Indeed the individual movements themselves have clearly not labeled themselves as right-wing. It is fine to use some of this opinion to describe the movement, but it is not ok to use it to define the movement. WP is not a publisher of novel thought, and by using opinion to define any movement that is exactly what we are doing. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the analysis of the leading experts-- that is our job. Rasmussen and Schoen are leading pollsters for many years; they are widely quoted every day in the major media. The credentials are beyond cavil, and the book is published by Harper, one of the most prestigious and oldest New York publishers. There are over 100 references to populism in the book, (and over 100 to "right wing") and they explicitly call the TP right-wing populism. For example p 22 (online at Amazon.com) "These right-wing populist principles influence much of the political dialogue, as the Tea Party movement has become the most vibrant and powerful political force. This is the principle focus of this book." Rjensen (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We can also find several reliable sources, including Newsweek and the New York Times that call the Tea Party movement a "grassroots" movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I'll find some sources and add it to the short list of descriptions in the "Other commentaries on the movement" section.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about adding it to the lede.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Almost everything that's in the lede should also be in the body of the article, so that's a good place to start. We can add the grassroots and astroturf characterizations to the lede too.   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The terms grassroots/populist are frequently added/deleted from the lede, so adding in grassroots might actually solve that problem. Rewriting the lede and adding more content is something that is best done with discussion here first, as the other editors here all have varied opinions about the lede's content. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Benefited from support"

  • Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including:

It's not neutral to include only those who've benefited. "Affected by support" would be more even-handed, and the list should include those who did not succeed, whether because of or in spite of TPM support.   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But we do put in mention of all the candidates. It needs to be succinct, no editorializing of course, but there is mention of who wins, who loses, etc. And there are candidates who don't win and they had tea party backing, or at least some tea party support, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@will replace "benefited" with "affected"? do you think the tea-party support actually hurt some candidates? if so which? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm googling that now.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Candidate in New Hampshire won against tea party candidate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_primary_rdp
Here's a chart on some others: http://washingtonindependent.com/86523/chart-how-have-the-2010-tea-party-candidates-fared Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any of us know whether the TPM benefited every candidate on the list, and I presume we've excluded from the list candidates who lost.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
most of the tpm backed candidates on your list won their race? the ones who didn't split the vote with other tpm candidates. the NH rnc backed, heavily favored, candidate narrowly won against the tpm candidate. my original question, do you think the tpm support actually hurt any candidates, if so who? there is overwhelming evidence the tpm helped candidates in the primaries, and none to suggest they hurt candidates. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If we say "these candidate benefited from TPM support" then we need to have a source for each one that says they benefited from TPM support. It's much easier to find sources for the assertion that they received support (or endorsement).   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it's very hard to source "benefited", while "endorsed" is easy. We don't really have to list each and every candidate, so long as the choices are representative and we fill in the gap with accurate generalizations. For example, if all of the supported candidates are Republican, this should be mentioned. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
i think the reality tpm has helped candidates is undeniable and above the need for a rs, however if you want to make it an issue, so be it. it strikes me a another attempt to minimize the impact the tpm is having, which actually seems to drive more people to the party who are annoyed with the same tactics by the rnc, msm, and now wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In good encyclopedia writing, it's better to show than to claim. The example I remember is that we don't claim "George Washington was a great man". Instead, we show that he was great by listing his achievements. This article should neither diminish nor enhance the subject, which is why it's best to stick to neutral language.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
i doubt you would be able to show a rs or otherwise that considered the tpm support a negative to any candidate. since you are making the change, perhaps you should simply use the inline tag for now so others may supply sources until consensus can be reached here, or until you are able to show evidence the tpm is actually harmed candidates in the primaries. (Angle, O'Donnell, Paul and many others. nothing on the other side of this debate for you yet) Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not necessary to show harm to avoid using non-neutral language. The burden of proof is on the editor making the assertion and not on the editor removing it. If this list comprises politicians who've "benefited" from TPM support, not just received it, then each entry has to have a source saying so.
More generally, "benefited" is a wishy-washy, boosterish term. Kansas benefits from having flat farmland and Colorado benefits from having mountains. But we don't say so in either article. Instead we show those benefits.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The conservative tea party movement's rise within the Republican Party gives President Barack Obama's Democrats an opportunity to limit their losses in the Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections the tea party clearly benefited the candidates they backed in the primary. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read what that sentence says? Here it is in full:
  • The conservative tea party movement's rise within the Republican Party gives President Barack Obama's Democrats an opportunity to limit their losses in the Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections, the Democratic Party chief said Sunday.
In other words, the TPM involvement in the GOP is being described as benefiting the opposing party.   Will Beback  talk 
all of which may be true(personally i doubt it) but either way, the tea party obviously benefited the candidates it supported in the primary or there wouldn't be a discussion about how it affected the republican party as a whole. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If you insist, we can add the Democratic Party chair's view that TPM involvement hurts the GOP.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The critical case is Delaware, where the upset victory of Tea Party activist Christine O'Donnell will probably cost the GOP a Senate seat, according to observers left and right. Indeed, although she is running far behind in the polls and is given little chance of winning, Democrats from OTHER states are attacking her, perhaps to suggest that she is stupid & representative of the tea party ethos-- or maybe they're afraid the Senate will get a real witch.Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@will. the orignal point was did the tpm benefit candidates in the primary, the answer is yes. did the tpm hurt the gop? remains to be seen. please put the text back, and the dnc chairs opinion if you must. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The edits recently made are POV pushing. The section is going to list every single candidate who has benefitted from Tea Party endorsement. That's the point of the section, to show the effects of the Tea Party on the 2010 election cycle. Candidates they've backed who lose will also be encluded, but we're not going to parse out the list. ALL the candidates will be included.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here thinks asserting, on our own authority, that TPM support always benefits its candidates is a problem? If so, I doubt folks here really understand the "no original research" policy.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@will, the facts are several candidates have benefited, and none to the contrary, should you know any, cite your evidence. this debate is not whether the tpm benefits the gop, rather candidates they supported in the primary. instead of suggesting others do not understand wp rules, maybe it is time to accept you are wrong here, and reverse your edit as consensus is clear. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Find a source that says "many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including" and we can add it to the article.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
will i did, see above, you thought i had somehow misread it. i actually i chose an article from the left to show you both sides agree, the tpm had an impact on the election, whether that impact is good or bad for republicans remains to be seen, however, the fact the dnc chair thinks the tpm candidates actually weaken the republicans chance by electing less qualified candidates in the primary, is proof the tpm did benefit the candidates supported. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've summarized Kaine's comments in the article.[7]   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the word "benefited" has been restored.

That sentence is followed by a long list of candidates who have presumably benefited from TPM support. But I don't see that assertion in the two sources cited in that sentence. What text from those sources are we summarizing? How do they support our assertion that this list of candidates benefited from (rather than simply received) TPM support? 19:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman said he didn't see any problem using the word benefited. I don't think it's necessary to slap a citation on every candidate. But the articles about them do show they have tea party support/endorsement, so I'd say that given they are going up against the Republican Party machine, they definitely benefited. Also, it's difficult to keep up with your edit demands. Some of us has RL responsibilities to attend to and can't edit wikipedia 24/7. It might be best to allow editors a few days to come up with citations, etc.  :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Balloonman has said a lot of things, but I don't see us implementing every suggestion he's made. Unless you're willing to do so, invoking his name doesn't seem helpful. Yes, it is necessary for us to have sources to support our assertions. I raised this issue on 10/21, I don't know how many more days are required. All I'm asking for is a simple change from "benefited" to the more neutral and easily sourced "received". I don't understand why there's so much insistence on using an unsourced peacock term. Again I ask, what is the point of the two citations added? What text in them are we referring to?   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Tea party endorsed candidates in the 2010 election cycle who have won their primary races include

This text is fine. Thanks for making that edit.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

The Tea Party movement article is 1/3 information about the tea party movement and 2/3 commentaries, media bias, astroturfing, allegations of racism and other comments. Abbreviating the tea party's agenda "Contract from America" based on one editor's claim that Wikipedia can't have both the article on the Contract from America and as well as have those details here in the article doesn't make sense. There are dozens and dozens of articles on Wikipedia that are either outright redundancies or derivatives of other articles. But more importantly, to strip this article of the factual information regarding the Tea Party movement means the page is gradually becoming nothing more than a screed against the Tea Party movement. This article has been stable for a long time now, and this kind of change is POV pushing.

There is absolutely no consensus to remove this, as the edit summary would suggest. I'm going to restore it.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


We have a separate article about the Contract. There's no need to duplicate the information in both places. If it's here then there's no need for the separate article. Since this article is quite long, it makes more sense to split it off, but if editors prefer to have the content here we can redirect the article instead. Accusing other editors of POV pushing is not assuming good faith, and I'll ask you to kindly refrain from making comments like that again.   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point that this is the central agenda of the Tea Party movement. The article is only 1/3 with actual information about what the Tea Party movement believes and is striving for. The rest of the content is comments, allegations, etc., that at best are blown out of proportion. Removing this content, especially as there is no consensus, reduces the article even further. The other article, as I mentioned above, is not doing any harm on Wikipedia, and in fact, I noted on the talk page there that an editor said he came to Wikipedia just for that article. So that can stay, and the content here can stay as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you read Balloonman's comment, which I believe you solicited? It's in the other thread on #Contract from America. You didn't respond to him. Do you think he's wrong on this?   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I left a reply above for Balloonman. He's thinking only in terms of article length. The length is not because of the actual content about what the Tea Party movement is, the article length is due to the tabloid type material, the controveries, the allegations, etc. All of these things can easily be split off into their own articles with brief summaries remaining here. That will leave plenty of space to expand content on what the Tea Party movement actually is, since this is the Tea Party movement article. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about labeling it the "Tea Party agenda". The person who published it is not notably active in the TPM, and only a handful of TPM candidates have adopted it. Do we have a source that actually calls it the TP agenda?   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit and then duplicate the material from the main article? The agenda for this article has been edited with additions for this article. Please revert that change.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't a revert. I apologize that it resulted in loss of material. Thanks for catching that. I'll fix it.   Will Beback  talk  10:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Malke. The core items of a topic need to be covered in it's article. This article has drifted off into doing the opposite. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, he actually removed the content from here and replaced it with a duplicate of the main article, yet he's the one arguing against duplication. I'm confused. The content for this page has been edited by the editors here for our purposes. And yes, that was a revert. Please restore my edit. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with it here instead, and I've merged the two articles and redirected the other one. I've redone the merge to favor the slightly different version at this page.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't see a consensus for that. In fact, I see discussion against it here and I see a comment on the main article talk page. The best procedure is to add a merge tag to the main article and allow comment from editors there first. Also, as the content here has been edited by the editors here, we need to discuss changes to that section. I do not agree with this merge. Please revert your changes/merge and add the appropriate tags and open a section of discussion. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There was really nothing to merge. The articles were almost identical. Aside from some wikilinks and minor wording changes there only difference between them was two short sentences. Having it all in this article makes it (slightly) longer, which is what you said you wanted it to be.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at the talk page there, and the consensus was 2 in favor of keeping the article, one against. There is no other discussion. The articles were not identical as that section has been heavily edited by editors here. Any merge discussion, given the talk page consensus over there, should have been initiated over there with a merge tag. Please revert your merge.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. It's not run by votes.
The duplicated content was a violation of the guidelines Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). Wikipedia doesn't have slightly different versions of the same material in two places.
I made it quite clear that there were two choices: have a separate article with a summary on this page, or having it all in this article. I edited a fairly long summary which included every item on the agenda verbatim and you reverted that twice. So, the alternative is to have it all in this article. As I said, I'm fine with that too and so I completed the details.
Apologies again for messing up part of it. That's fixed now and let's get back to improving the article. Maybe there's more we can add about the Contract.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about consensus. Please revert the merge and open a discussion on the Contract from America talk page. The discussions here is against this, as well as on the Contract from America talk page. Please restore my edit. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is a method, not an end in itself. I don't understand what it is you want - identical material in two places? Two entire copies of the full Contract on Wikipedia? I'm not aware of any other political manifesto being duplicated like that, and if I was I would address it the same way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to publish political manifestoes. Once is more than enough.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please revert the merge and follow the appropriate steps to gain consensus for this move, and in the meantime, please restore my edit which contains the material edited by the editors here for the content here. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, what is it you want? The same political manifesto copied in two locations, this article and a standalone article? Can you even provide a source for this material that you want duplicated? I'm searching on the web and having a little trouble finding it on a reliable source.[8]   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Malke. Making such huge changes not only without a consensus, but unilaterally is out of line, doubly so for a contentious article. And what is clearly called for is to undo those and then evolve from that place. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you the same question, North8000. Do you think that Wikipedia should include two identical full, long versions of a political manifesto, which is currently unsourced? If so, can you point to any other political manifesto treated the same way?   Will Beback  talk  12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
(added later) You are asking a question about a later step of the process, i.e. which way to go after the massive unconsensused unilateral changes are undone. I'll give my opinion at that time. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is well sourced. Presenting the material is what an encyclopedia does. And the main article can easily be added to. Here's another source for the Contract from America. [9]. It seems the consensus currently is to revert the changes.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The two-article issue is separate from the sourcing issue. I've started a thread below to deal with the sources. Again, do you want to have duplicate manifestos in two locations?   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We aren't here to label them. I don't see any source calling it a "political manifesto," and even if it did, I believe the Communist Manifesto is here on Wikipedia. I don't see a problem with a separate article. I don't see the Communist Manifesto merged into a companion article about the Communist Party. And there is the separate article on the Republican Party and the Contract with America. The Contract from America has been gaining attention with candidates who are being asked to sign it. I easily found this mention here: [10].Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as the Tea Party movement is brand new, only 2 years old, and the Contract from America was only finalized in April 2010, it's reasonable to have a separate article as this topic is likely to continue to grow. Also, right now the Republicans are creating confusion with their new Contract on America. So keeping these things separate is essential for the reader coming to Wikipedia to clear up any misconceptions and confusion.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not include one copy (much less two) of the Communist Manifesto, just an article about it.
I've learned that the Contract is copyrighted, so we can't just post it here in its entirety even once (much less twice).
I agree that there's plenty to say about the Contract, using reliable secondary sources. Let's clear up the copyvio problem and add more sourced content.   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't change the need for the separate articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, please describe the "need" for duplicating the same manifesto in two locations.   Will Beback  talk  12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The basic contract itself has two cited sources: http://www.thecontract.org/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15contract.html Here's what those sites say:

  • 2. Reject Cap & Trade
  • 2) reject cap-and-trade regulation of climate-warming gases;

This WP article says:

  • Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

That text is totally different. We need to cite the actual source for this text.   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


I've found a reliable source for the old version of the Contract. "Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract from America'" ABC News April 15, 2010. I've also found the CFA webpage that has the long version: [11]
However, I note the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. The Contract is copyrighted. Including the complete document it in its verbatim language is a violation of copyright, and forbidden on Wikipedia. Even if the document was in the public domain, Wikipedia is not a repository of primary texts. A sister project, Wikisource, was created to hold public domain documents, like old manifestos.
The bottom line is that the verbiage of the text in the article is verifiable, but it's also a copyvio and a primary document, and this material needs to be radically trimmed or re-written.   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we can get permission if that is actually required. We can ask Moonriddengirl.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If Moonriddengirl is the copyright holder for the Contract from America then it'd be swell if she could grant a free license. If someone else is the copyright holder there are procedures in place for giving permission for free use. See WP:PERMISSION.   Will Beback  talk  12:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We're repeating a public announcement; this is an obvious case of fair use. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if this were public domain, we would not quote it in its entirety. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to reproduce, in whole, twice, a political manifesto.
It is not in the public domain. It is presumably copyrighted. We are reproducing it in whole. That's a clear copyright issue, just like copying any other entire document.
This version appears to be obsolete. The current version on the CFA website is much shorter.
The logical thing is to summarize both versions, in our own words, using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dylan Flaherty, I think this is fair use. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Precisely, which aspects apply towards the fair use exemption?   Will Beback  talk  13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
And in terms of summarizing, I'm against that. It should be very clear, point by point, what this agenda is all about.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The fair use exemption would seem to be easier to apply to the current, much shorter version of the Contract. Any objection to swapping that in?   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
None whatsoever, but keep in mind that, just because fair use allows us to quote it, we only need what benefits the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't object to quoting text in our own summary. Quotations are often necessary to capture the exact tenor or focus of a phrase. That's what good summarizing is all about.   Will Beback  talk  13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Listing each point is best to avoid the insertion of POV later on. There are 10 items and a reader coming here will be expecting to see that. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If the original is wordy, a fair summary will do. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't wordy, it's very succinct and defines exactly what the agenda is. That way POV pushing is easily avoided.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The long version, which is a copyvio and has to be removed, is buried on the CFA website. We can either rewrite this in our own words, or use the shorter version, the one which our citations point to. It's still questionable to use an entire copyrighted document, but it's more defensible if we use the shorter version. Since it's the one prominently displayed on the CFA site, I presume it's the "official" version anyway.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I sent an email to Ryan Hecker and he said yes we can use the full document in any Wikipedia articles. I forwarded the email to Moonriddengirl. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. I hope you followed the guidelines in WP:PERMISSION so that the permission will be valid. Did Hecker said that anyone can use the text for any purposes, including commercial re-use, or did he limit it to using it on Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Other Issues

This is a poll of "supporters" [12] and would probably be best placed within the poll section. It isn't a separate issue. The Tea Party is not focused on global warming only as it relates to the fiscal cap and trade and that is already covered in the Tea Party agenda list. Cutting it out and putting it as an "Other Issue" seems to give it WP:UNDUE as does the Dick Morris quote which is blended with a comment about immigration but the Morris quote isn't related to it.

Every source I've seen today, and I've gone through many today, seems to overwhelmingly point to fiscal issues and the size of government. I think they should be put in Commentaries and the Poll sections. I'm wondering what other editors are thinking.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to put agenda-related material together instead of scattering it around the article. The TPM is not a unified movement, so different elements will have different issues of concern. We can't easily say the TPM is or isn't focused on this or that, unless we have sources who say so. The NYT says that TPM supporters do not consider global warming to be a serious threat and oppose cap and trade. That follows from the "Contract" entry that opposes cap and trade, so it's clear they're talking about the same thing. FWIW, the "Contract" itself was created through a poll. The other material in the polling section is mostly about the demographics of the movement, which might be better placed as a subsection of "composition".   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, if there's more on the fiscal issues and size of government beyond or different from what's in the "Contract" section, then this would be a good place to put it.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's really just a poll and a comment by Dick Morris who is hardly a tea party spokesperson. I think it should be removed and the items put in the sections that are there for them. This is why I asked for other editors to comment.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, you said We can't easily say the TPM is or isn't focused on this or that, unless we have sources who say so. Almost all sources say that the Tea Party movement is all about the fiscal issues and the size of government. This is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Great then let's add more material on what TPM folks say about fiscal and size of government issues. That's the point of this section - to give a space for discussing the agenda outside of the "Contract", which only concerns one document.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually we should be putting these edits into their proper sections. They don't have anything to do with the Tea Party agenda which can stand alone as it is already well detailed and explained. They should be back in the categories where they came from and eliminates POV problems.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how having a section on the views of TPM members is a POV problem. The "Contract" is one element, but it's not the official TP platform. It's logical to have a section on who belongs to the TPM, and a section on what they believe.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The poll information belongs in the poll section and the other para in the commentaries section. To cherry pick these comments and give them their own section is giving more weight to them. The supporters are not members. The agenda has been adopted by the actual groups in the tea party movement. The views belong in the commentaries section. This section was created to avoid just this problem.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the miscellaneous material in the poll section to their relevant sections. Demographic information is under "composition". Movements do have members/supporters, otherwise they wouldn't be a movement. I moved the information on views on race to the race section. I moved the views on Obama to the Obama section. I moved the views on fiscal issues to the "other issues" section. That's a much more logical arrangement of the information. The fact that the information was gained through polls doesn't mean they should be lumped together. We don't have special sections for information found in books versus info from magazines.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issues section has now grown. It is out of place and inappropriate where it is as it gives WP:UNDUE weight. Can you please tell me why you don't seem concerned with the comments and suggestions of other editors?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the issue with "undue". What is being given undue weight? I'm familiar with the policy, but I don't see how you think it's being violated. Can you help me understand your position on it?   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
When you cherry pick these issues, you give them undue weight because you are associating them with the Tea Party agenda, and immigration and other social issues and global warming are not part of the agenda. These edits belong back in the commentary and polling sections.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. According to whom are these issues not part of the TPM agenda? It appears that the vast majority of TPM supporters are concerned about immigration, for example, and it's been an issue in campaigns of TPM-endorsed candidates.
Do you believe that the only issues of interest among the 1400 TPM groups are those in the Contract?   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You cannot mix polls of supporters and make the claim that this is the agenda. I think you need to consider the opinions of other editors. You are making bold changes to this article without consensus, sometimes over the objections of others, and yet you show no concern for their opinions. As an administrator, other editors often look to admins to be stalwarts of consensus building and examples to the rest of us on creating a collegial editing environment especially on a page such as this.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Contract is a poll, albeit one that's been endorsed by many. If it'd make you happier, we could move most of the material to "views of supporters" and put it next to demographics, where much of the other poll material is already. But we still need an "other issues" section, or something like it, to discuss issues that aren't listed on the Contract. For example, the presence or absence of a foreign policy is itself worthy of note. I saw a source discussing it.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party movement is concerned with domestic issues.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"ultra conservative" in lede?

I see many more hits on google news for descriptions such as plain old "conversative" and even "grassroots" over the term "ultra-conversative". Is this really necessary? Ronnotel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that today and meant to check that out. I've never seen it called Ultraconservative. I think it could be deleted.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Ronnotel, you also reverted "right-wing populist" which has been discussed at # not populist? above for over a week and seems to have consensus. Regardless of the "ultraconservative issue, could you restore the populist part?   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see that discussion. I'm happy to restore to whatever the consensus is - but I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing - i) "right-wing conservative populist social movement" or ii) "right-wing populist social movement"? Go ahead and revert to whatever you think it is - I think we agree on 'ultra-conservative' being a bit over the top. Ronnotel (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Ronnotel, the issue of Populist in the lede isn't really settled. Editors have just stopped commenting. A lot of reliable sources call the movement grassroots.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
"Populist" and "grassroots" aren't contradictory. A movement can be both.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The tea party conflicts with conservatives, sometimes on opposite sides of a particular issue, and always on priorities. It's an absolute error to characterize it as conservative. If we feel the need to use classical political terms to characterize them, "Libertarian" would be the closest. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, the only unifying theme among tea party activism seems to be anti-Establishment (big E). Not sure what the best way to describe that would be but any of the traditional memes (left/right, conservative/liberal, free-market/socialist, etc) all seem inadequate. Ronnotel (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the Tea Party movement is very, very clearly conservative/libertarian, if not simply right-wing. This isn't just my own opinion, but what our sources tell us. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
the standard term for people that are intensely anti-Establishment is "populist". Those populists on the left want more government and those on the right want less government. Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's populist on the conservative side. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We could say all that. We could say "The Tea Party movement is known variously as a grassroots Libertarian, conservative, populist, etc. Because it does encompass all those ideologies. But it's not ultra-conservative.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I added three sources that say that the movement is populist:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/my-country-tis-of-me/8088/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/28/tea-party-debra-medina-texas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123137382
Everyone seems to agree that it's important to say that the movement is populist. I could add more sources if that's the problem. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering Dylan, "Conservative/Libertarian" is an oxymoron.  :-). I think that Libertarian is the most accurate of the political labels. But the hottest TP issues (taxes size of government, expansion of government on the social side) are ones where Libertarianism and Conservatism overlap, so TP'ers tend to support Republicans vs. Democrats. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cielbleu has been changing the lede section against consensus, although the most recent change removed the most controversial aspects. My invitation to engage here was blanked. Is the most recent change the best option? I would prefer some combination that includes "conservative", "populist" and possible "grassroots". Ronnotel (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that. The Tea Party movement is all those things and there are many reliable sources to support an edit like that.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New detailed Washington Post research

The Washington Post tried to contact every Tea Party group they could find, reaching out to more than 1,400 groups and interviewing 647. It provides great material for this article.

guanxi (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this has been incorporated yet. It looks like it would add a lot to "Composition of the movement" section and subsections. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Race and Racial Politics

This title is not accurate. The Tea Party movement is not engaged in racial politics. The tea party rallies attract racially biased individuals who carry signs, etc. We call this section "Accusations of Racism" because that is what is being described there. There are not racial politics as in school bus issues, desegregation, employment discrimination, etc. The section covers bad behaviors of slurs and name calling, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. How about immigration policies? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no agenda regarding immigration.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party is generally opposed to immigration. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've not seen that......do you know of sourcing that says that? But either way, how could one equate immigration with race? North8000 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Immigration is not necessarily racial. Do you have reliable sources to show that immigration is a notable agenda of the Tea Party movement, because I'm looking at major mainstream sources right now that say it's fiscal and it' about the size of the government.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that immigration is an agenda item. It's just a more neutral heading than "accusations of racism" and covers some other views.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Racial politics" is a loaded term. The heading "Accusations of Racism" is accurate for that section.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
How about "Racism and race issues" instead?   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It is not about issues of race. It's about "accusations of racism." English is a very specific language. When you start using other terms, you change the meaning.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's simply inaccurate. We have reliable sources saying that the TPM has actual racism within its ranks. Anyone who has ever seen the sort of signs they wave at their protests knows this is undeniably true. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Any mulit-million person group of people (the tea party movement, the Democratic Party etc.) will have racists, murderers, child molesters, rapists, wife beaters, husband beaters, child beaters etc. within it's ranks, and RS's to say so. Unless those things are a part of the agenda of the organization, they have no place in an article on the organization. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds neutral enough. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dylan Flaherty why did you delete my edit that was here? [13]Malke 2010 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If I deleted something during the edit conflict, I apologize. Please restore it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the heading "Accusations of racism", but I don't see any previous discussion. I don't thin it's good to have a section that only shows one POV.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That title tries so hard to be neutral that it winds up biased. The issue isn't the accusations, it's the recognition on all sides that racism does exist within the TPM and plays some role. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Tea Party movement is a right-wing populist[1] ultra-conservative[2][3] social movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests."

Right from the get-go this article uses not-so-credible research to establish some pretty biased claims that it is:

1. A ring wing movement 2. A populist movement 3. An ultra-conservative movement 4. A social movement 5. Coordinated through protests

The article cannot purport to be neutral if it begins in this fashion. Moreover, the research used in this article actually ignores its own section on "Claims of media bias." How can the research used to support Wikipedia's encyclopedic entry for the movement contain as its main sources for information those very same anti-Tea Party media articles?

Finally, the article has not been updated to include the recent Pledge to America or to address the prior claims of bias and lacking neutrality, etc. The Tea Party is an important political movement in America (particularly right now due to the midterm elections). It is disappointing that Wikipedia's editors don't recognize that and take action to correct the biased representation of it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.130.238 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is a mess in this respect. For example, devoting 710 words to evidence-free "somebody said that somebody said racial slurs". Even if it were true, and the offenders weren't "plants", it would just say that this (as any) any multi-million person movement has a few misfits in it. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. There's not enough about the Tea Party movement. It's loaded instead with polls of "supporters," etc., who answered questions that were skewed to elicit the negative. The claims of billionaires funding it---all 1400 organizations? It would be cheaper to finance an airline----and now all the things that explain the Tea Party movement are being pushed down into the article, as if to bury it. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
According to whom were the poll questions "skewed to elicit the negative"?   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You might as well ask for a source behind the conspiracy theory about TPM racists being "plants". All I see here are a bunch of partisan claims that are entirely unsourced. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS/Contract from America

Ryan Hecker has given his permission for full use of the Contract from America. Thanks VernoWhitney for posting so fast. [14].Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great. That means we can move it to Wikisource. Even with the license granted we should not include the whole thing there. See WP:NOFULLTEXT and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. But we can quote from it freely.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably you should just remove all of it. And delete out the elections, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
We can use quotations. I'm not sure what you mean about elections.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought I saw where you mentioned earlier about what to do with the elections section.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have some questions at #"Benefited from support", above. Should I move them down to a new thread? It has nothing to do with "Contract" issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a new thread would be better.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll copy those questions to a new thread. For the issue of quoting, I think that the simplest approach might be to keep the bold parts of the Contract, and leave off the commentary/explanation. Does that sound workable?   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

not populist?

I see "populist" has been removed from the article, not appearing anywhere. Yet "conservative" appears 19 times. I believe this is misleading, because the Tea Party movement has distinctly less support from the conservative establishment/elites than, say, Reaganism. There are several examples cited of Tea Party-endorse candidates upsetting "establishment" candidates without any analysis or explanation provided as to what the common element of these upsets is.Bdell555 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it is hard to generalize about such a loose-knit and diverse movement, I think that "libertarian" would be much closer to accurate than "conservative". (I'm not too sure about "populist") One example of this has been TP conflicts with conservatives over religion, as well as the pervasive battles in the primaries of the type that you describe. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Politicians like Rand Paul have been described as Tea Party-endorsed and yet Paul has run radio ads calling attention to James Dobson's endorsement of him. I don't see how one can be a libertarian while courting social conservatives so assiduously.--Bdell555 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's populist and conservative, with libertarianism being one particular aspect of conservatism. As far as I can tell, it's just the GOP with a populist makeover. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to make it clear that I'm not tossing out original research, here's a reliable source that calls it populist. This is one of many. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's another source that calls the movement both populist and conservative (http://www.thewaxhawgazette.com/Tea%20Party%20Lights%20Fuse.pdf). It's a New York Times article and says "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent." I think it would be perfect for the first paragraph of the article. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The new populism is a main theme of Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen (2010). For example, on page 8 they say that the tea party movement turn Scott Brown into a "populist hero". On p 19 they referred to the TP as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement." They say "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right -- manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement." (p 19)Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has removed "populist" several times.[15][16][17] The most recent time he left an edit summary of "The movement doesn't fit the definition of populism." That may be so, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We report what the reliable sources say, not what we believe. If we have good sources that describe the movement as populist then that's what we report. If there are other descriptions then we report those too, with weight according to prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback is correct. Here' another scholarly book that states the tea partyers are populists: Victoria Carty, Wired and Mobilizing: Social Movements, New Technology, and Electoral Politics (Routledge Studies in Science, Technology and Society, 2010) p 73. The Populists of the 1890s wanted big-government and they're always considered lefty-wing populists. The New York Times says "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent". ("Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right" NYT Feb 6, 2010); And see a recent scholarly paper by David Perkins, "The Cultural Determinants of Economic Populism in the Tea Party Movement" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting, 2010-10-22 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p420080_index.html . Liberal history Gary Gerstle says the "most pressing issue for the GOP is whether party leaders can continue to ride the conservative populist wave" [New Labor Forum - Vol 19#3 Fall 2010, pp. 22-31] Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Again? As previously argued, how they are "populist" can easily be touched on in the lead but is not needed as a label in the first sentence.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Populism" is as important a part of a description of a political movement as "conservative". It's used in other articles on political parties. Swiss People's Party, for example. I don't think there's really any dispute (except among Wikipedia editors) over whether the TPM is populist.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the whole point of the Tea Party is that they're populist. We already have a regular conservative/right-wing party, but it's fallen on hard times, so this populist movement is intended to reinvigorate it, to make it cool again to vote Republican. Really, the only controversy here is over whether the populism is genuine or astroturfed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. So everyone seems to agree. Populism is an important aspect of the movement. Why isn't it included in the first paragraph? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Populist is a controversial term. Propagandists will employ the political terminology because it sounds similar to "popular," and can falsely insinuate that the movement or group is publicly popular or enjoys mainstream acceptance. Cielbleu 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cielbleu (talkcontribs)

Cielbleu is incorrect--"populist" is commonly used by commentators and scholars. In the spectrum from popular-to-elite, it means to be on the popular side. Is the TP "publicly popular"--well the latest NBC poll shows that 35% of the likely voters support the TP, which makes it popular enough. Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, populism doesn't necessarily involve popularity, just a stated objection to the status quo. The TPM objects to "Beltway insiders" and the like, which is what makes it populist. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If I understood the rules correctly, it's okay to write that the tea party movement is populist because there are many credible sources that say that it is. I used three sources for the adjective "populist." Cielbleu, I don't mind to add more sources. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Tea Party movement" page has been hijacked by TP activists. You'd have to be blind not to notice that. -- Ben J. Brendle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.255.191 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Koch Industries Billionaires "Climate change alarmism"/Climate change denial lobbing connections, per October 19 NYT's Kate Zernike.

Add Koch Industries Billionaires "Climate change alarmism"/Climate change denial lobbing connections, per October 19 NYT's Kate Zernike[1]: ...Those efforts, the letter makes clear, include countering “climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care,” as well as “the regulatory assault on energy,” ... and opposition to ... California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases... 99.190.91.240 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) See California Proposition 23 (2010). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Tea Party there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The TPM is mentioned on the second page. Here's a link to a single-page version.[18]   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the only reference to the tea party in that article:
"They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations."
What the Americans for Prosperty group does is sponsor free seminars in hotel conference rooms showing Tea party members how to get out the vote. They give them lists of Congressmen and Senators to lobby. This does not have anything to do with climate change. To claim that it does is original research. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
So the article clearly says that the Kochs founded the AFP, and that the AFP aids the TPM. If you have other sources for the AFP's connection to the TPM we can add that material too.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the article is about climate change. To add the line, "and echoed in the NYTimes. . ." is clearly to get the climate change camel's nose under the tent and this is not at all a tea party movement agenda. That is the Koch brothers' agenda, and as this article is not about the Koch brothers, the citation doesn't belong there.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the TPM, and the NYT article mentions a connection to between the Kochs and the TPM. I'll rewrite the material and restore it.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The connection you are making is original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The NYT says: "...Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations." I suggest that we can summarize it with something like, "the NYT has described the Kochs as founders of AF, which they say has given support to the TPM." I don't see how that would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit that is there now was the result of very recent consensus. It's very stable and what you seem to be wanting is to insert the citation that speaks to the climate change. That is original research, and as an administrator, I would think you'd be more careful of protecting the project from that.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not interested in adding anything to this section about climate change. Do you see that in the text I've proposed? This is a new source. Perhaps it was published after the consensus developed.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Climate change denial and the Politics of global warming (United States)? 99.190.91.193 (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussions of specific policy proposals are probably best discussed in the "Agenda" section.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made an "Other issues" under the TP agenda section and moved some of the text on climate change there. We'd need ore sources to supporter additional content.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A source? Cover Story of Sojourners November 2010 "The Theology of the Tea Party: Can libertarianism be reconciled with Christian faith?" by Jim Wallis ...

A source? Cover Story of Sojourners November 2010 The Theology of the Tea Party: Can libertarianism be reconciled with Christian faith? By Jim Wallis including "Resources on Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, and the Tea Party" with sidebar article "Jesus Shrugged?" 99.155.144.254 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable? Accurate description? Probably not both, considering the user. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's not judge a source by its poster. I'll read that article later and see if it fits in. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Is Evangelical environmentalism mutually exclusive from the TP movement(s)? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What is/are the Tea party movement(s) position(s) on Fee and dividend for Climate change mitigation?

What is/are the Tea party movement(s) position(s) on Fee and dividend for Climate change mitigation? 99.54.141.69 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Against. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
What is your source? Or do you speak on behalf of all Tp movements? 99.155.150.154 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. All sensible people are against.
  2. Why would this be important to either article, if sourced. If asked, I'd have to say the the Tea Party is more notable than "Fee and dividend", but I don't see why their opinion on it would be notable in either case.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you speak on behalf of "All sensible people"? Who is "their" opinion? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


  • An example is California Proposition 23 (2010).[29]
    • Zernike, Kate (February 27, 2010). "Unlikely Activist Who Got to the Tea Party Early". New York Times [19]

I don't think the source supports the statement. It might be worthwhile listing TPM-endorsed propositions, if any, in the election section.   Will Beback  talk  08:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I hadn't seen this source. "California tea party activists work to pass Proposition 23".   Will Beback  talk  09:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Change this articles title to Tea party movements?

Change this articles title to Tea party movements? 99.88.228.10 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that adds anything. Why do you think it should be changed? Arzel (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There might be smaller groups within it, but I'm fairly certain there's still only sourcing to support ONE movement. BigK HeX (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing

Please revert the edit that says, "Financial support." You are making a claim with that that the tea party movement is financed by the Koch brothers, et al. This is not true. The Tea Parties among the various groups, etc., raise their own funds. People like the Koch brothers don't give them money. They give them lists of congressmen, they tell them how to canvass neighborhoods, plant yard signs, etc. They aren't giving them money.

Would it be possible for you to use the talk page BEFORE you make these edits so that other editors here could offer their ideas as well?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. The Koch bros founded AfP and AfP supports the TPM. It therefore follows that the Koch bros are contributing their finances to the TPM. This is what the reliable source says. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what the reliable source says. They are not bankrolling 1400 Tea party groups. They give their money to the AFP foundation. The political arm is the AFP and they don't give money to the tea party movement. They sponsor free seminars on how to lobby, how to canvass neighborhoods. That's not the same as providing financing.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I read the article, and your summary is not accurate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you show us exactly what it says? Does it say that the Koch brothers are supporting the Tea Party movement. The entire movement, right?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a long article, mentioning the Tea Party 30 times, so I can't summarize it all here. However, try the paragraph that starts with "At the lectern in Austin". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not say the Koch Brothers are financing the Tea Party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to say this, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, I'm assuming that what this is about is that you are supporting retention of the statement: "In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer examined statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through The Americans for Prosperity." If so, you need to provide a specific cite to an RS that clearly says this, and it seems to me that Malke is asking you to do this and that you are not doing so and instead are making vague patronizing statements. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (responding to the above statement, plus a now-deleted statement) North8000 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but do you wish to discuss the article or do you wish to insult me? If it's the former, then you need to respond to the question that Malke had so much trouble with. If it's the latter, then you're just wasting my time. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I was specifically responding to your statements/ questions here, 2/3 of which you subsequently removed. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, apparently Willbeback changed the section title from "Claims of Astroturfing" to "Financial Support." I've objected since this is misleading. Dylan believes the article states that the Koch brothers are supporting the entire tea party movement. And as it is, in the article the Koch brothers vehemently deny supporting the tea party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I changed the heading so that it needn't be limited to the astroturfing charges, but could also include information about how smaller TP groups "raise their own funds", etc. That increases the neutrality.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Would editors prefer "Financing" or "Finance sources" to "Financial support"? The financing of political campaigns is a natural topic.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
"Fundraising and support"?   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I like "Fundraising and support" because it doesn't limit itself to direct funding and is neutral (unlike just about any heading that mentions astroturfing). Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In the sporadically labeled section Astroturfing, a Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/09/26/GR2010092600175.html?sid=ST2010092600314 is not being characterized as "opinion" and it states:

Who they are Largely funded by oil billionaire David H. Koch, Americans for Prosperity spends money on issue ads, phone banks and bus tours, and was instrumental in organizing protests at health-care town halls in summer 2009.


Arthur Rüb, you are exempt from comment, since you might not be able to get a copy, or even say have seen it ... friendly joke, to those with a similar sense of humor ... 99.190.90.49 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.
  1. David H. Koch funds (actually false; founded is what the source says) AFP
  2. AFP supports some of the Tea Party rallies. (The source doesn't say it supports the movement, as a whole.)
That article doesn't support anything that belongs in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)