Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Highly seasoned

"The Tea Party's most noted national figures include highly seasoned Republican politicians such as Dick Armey and Sarah Palin." This sounds too much like a cuisine reference. I assume the intention is to point out that Dick Armey has been in politics for a long time, but Sarah Palin's experience in politics is not comparable. So does "highly seasoned" mean flamboyant here? Jo3sampl (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that that it is somewhat negative sounding about the TPM. (i.e. aligns with what opponents are saying) and so that alone qualifies it for inclusion in this article. The article is supposed to include as much negatives sounding material about the TPM as is possible. They officially decided that if the material is negative sounding regarding the TPM, or casts negative aspersions, wp:npov or wp:undue are officially waived for that material.

Also, if they are TP supporters who are officeholders or who are involved in politics, the correct noun to refer to them is "politicians". If they are TP opponents, then the noun to use is their title, like the title of the office that they hold or held.

(reduced version of earlier comment, took out part that was not very germane here. While Xenophrenic's tampering with my talk page edit was not proper, it made me notice that this was not very germane here and has been said before) North8000 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Forum post by North8000 (repeated several times elsewhere on this talk page) in violation of policy removed, as directed by page header. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Experience" might be a better term than "seasoned". Will Beback talk 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Palin was elected to the Wasilla City Council in 1992" 20 years in politics but lacks experience? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for the adjective at all, it really just adds a bias (doesn't matter which side that's from.) I removed it. Yaksar (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Springburo Racial Slurs Section Should Stay Out

A good first step towards getting some WP:Undue/WP:NPOV into this article. A twitter message by a guy from a local chapter (which the Tp'ers said doesn't represent the TP) gets a whole section in this article ?!?! Why don't we start looking for sources that objectively review these topics, put content in from them and start tossing more junk out?

It appears to be in a sub-section, unless I am mistaken. I agree that moving it into its own full section would be unwarranted. No TPer represents the TP, as far as I know, and the content you mention appears to be clear on that point. Do you have any specific suggestions for improvement of that section? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You put the twitter section back in before you wrote here, so I'm just seeing this now. The improvement was already made before which is removal of the twitter section per severe violation of wp:undue and as a tiny step towards some semblance of wp:npov. 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to try to drag this article out of junk status one debated sentence at a time. If we can't get some consensus for some big changes, I'll probably give up on this article.North8000 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain how that content is "a severe violation of wp:undue", and how its removal isn't simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You have suggested before that the whole controversies section should be redone (and probably removed, and the relevant content incorporated neutrally into the rest of the article) and I fully agree and support you on that. However, purges of cherry-picked content that is reliably sourced, relevant, significant and of proper weight for the section is improper. Pending an actual legitimate reason not to, I'll be reverting deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The pattern here is so far out of wp:undue, so far away from wp:NPOV, and so different that the other articles that were discussed for use as models, that I'm surprised that it needs saying. One guy from one of the ~1600 local organizations of the zillions of TP'ers types an ethnic slur into twitter one day, the content of which the TP dis-owns. What on EARTH would posess anybody to think that such has a place in or reason for being in the main WP Tea Party article, much less complies with WP:undue?! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, it is possible that we are talking about two separate items of content. "1600 local organizations?" Don't you mean 647 groups? 1600 was the number of groups and/or websites that had both "tea" and "party" in their names, but the vast majority no longer exist and can no longer be contacted or verified. "zillions of TP'ers?" Tens of thousands at last count. There are probably more Red Sox fans, but it is still a sizeable group. So a TP organizer posts some racist stuff, and some other TPers scold him for it; and many local politicians immediately disassociate themselves from him. Sounds like a replay of Dale Robertson: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of Mark Williams: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of the Health Care protests: homophobic and racial crap followed by denunciation and disassociation (except for one loon denialist that tries to make a conspiracy out of it). These incidents are merely examples in a section of the article headed by polling results showing elevated racial animosity among TPers, and you ask what place they have in the article? Before we continue this conversation, please reassure me that you do not jest. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a replay of TP opponents finding, amongst the zillions of things said by TP'er, something bad sounding, and publicizing it in the hopes on implying that it is representative of the TP, the TP dis-owning that point of view, and then WP editors repeating the process in violation of WP:undue. I also noticed that, on another of these, you just deleted the portion that gave it a bit of balance. This reinforces what I said above, and for those reasons, for now at least, I'm 3/4 abandoning efforts to help get this article out of it's current junk state. I'll go work where the other folks want to make good articles instead of biased junk. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please cite the particular opponent that "found and publicized in the hopes it represents the TPers", with regard to the Springboro Tea Party "spics" incident? Surely such an influencial opponent would be someone of note. If opponents are manufacturing this stuff, I think we can agree, in fairness to the TPers, that should be conveyed by our article.

I had previously asked for your explanation on how the Springboro Tea Party content was "wp:undue". Your only response was that you were "surprised that it needs saying." When the surprise wears off, could you please provide an answer? I obviously disagree with your assessment, but if you can explain what I might be missing, it would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, I am 3/4 abandoning this article as being currently hopeless to rise out of it's junk state, which you are pushing it deeper into. But I think it would be good to sincerely answer your question which goes to heart of why 2/3 of this article is junk. And for a better frame of reference, let's use a better made article Democratic Party (United States) as a example. Actually, it doesn't even have a "controversies" section, but let's pretend that it did.

Now there are probably on the order of 100 million people in the US who by some standard might be call Democrats. They probably say about 1 Trillion things per year. Some of them are really really bad sounding. Let's say that one of them (John Smith) says that anyone who voted for George Bush should be killed. The might even be one of the approx 1,000,000 people who has some title with the party. (e.g. precinct captain) It's easy for a DNC opponent to make sure they get into a publication, that a DNC person was advocating murder of 100,000,000 Americans. And then a DNC leaders say "we don't advocate that, and we never advocate murder, it has nothing to do with what we are about".

Now, if I were to create a section "The John Smith Controversy" in the Democratic Party (United States) I will have selected one of the trillion utterances for coverage in the article. That selective process would be a massive violation of wp:undue, and thus also wp:npov. Moreover, the section doesn't really provide any information about the DNC. It's just in there to fool people into thinking that this is somehow representative of the DNC. It wouldn't last 5 minutes at that article. Now, if one jumps down the rabbit hole of this article, one can see that about 2/3 of the article is made up of just such violations, with the Springboro Twitter item being one of these. And your recent selective re-additions and and deletions are pushing it deeper into that biased junk hole. If I sound exasperated, I am, seeing that it is hopeless to make an article on an important topic like this into and informative article, but only a fraction of that exasperation is with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: If you were to add 1 person's comments to an article about a 2-CENTURY old organization of millions of people, it likely wouldn't last 5 minutes — unless it was quite remarkable, and came from someone high in the organization's structure. It would be, as you say, undue weight. When independent polls come out that show Democrats are significantly more inclined toward mass murder than your typical generic American ...AND... not just "John Smith", but many individuals holding positions within the Democratic Party start espousing mass murder ...AND... "opponents" of mass murder succeed in getting many of these promotions of mass murder by Democrats publicized in a short period of time (say, less than 2 years)... then that content will certainly survive more than 5 minutes.

If you are too strapped for time to properly rewrite and summarize the content you view as problematic, then perhaps someone else would like to take a stab at it. However, the selective purging of cherry-picked segments that you don't like, but that are quite relevant and of proper weight and significance to that section of the article, isn't the proper way to do things. White-washing the article into a promotional piece is just plain against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, if we're down to using Twitter posts, then this article has descended into encyclopedia swampland. I've not followed any of the above so can't comment otherwise, but I wanted to ask Xenophrenic, what happened to the photo of Dale Robertson? I thought we got that deletion reversed. Hope everyone had a nice holiday.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyas, Malke — the holidays were awesome, thanks! :) Don't get hung-up on the "twitter" medium, as that isn't really at the crux of the content we're discussing. In fact, we can completely omit the word "twitter" if that is bothersome to some people, and just state that Thomas' comments were publically posted. Some things are posted on blogs, some are faxed, some are shouted through a bull horn, some are said on the political commentary cable shows, as well as more traditional outlets -- this article has examples of them all. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The medium is important context. Twitter is mostly spontaneous, not-thought-out "spouts". North8000 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe all these gaffes or whatever we call them could be combined into a single section of a few paragraphs, without giving them too much weight. This "twitter" issue seems noteworthy, but only briefly. There are so many parts of the article that need to be improved that arguing over this at length seems a waste. Will Beback talk 08:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly too much about the reliable reports of a single tweet of a single incident. I'd be in favor of removing the section, but reducing it to a single sentence would be acceptable. It's WP:UNDUE as it stands. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that would be a good step. Overall, we need to find a few reliable RS's (and no, that's not redundant, wp:rs does not require reliability) that have made an objective overview of the whole TP / racial topic. And then build a real article section on the topic and dump out all of these sections about individual tweets/spouts etc. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would one of you care to suggest sample wording for the one sentence rewrite of the Springboro Tea Party racial slur incident? And if it is not to have its own sub-section, like the several other similar incidents do, then into which section should it be moved? Or should we just head straight to the elephant in the room, and work on a rewrite of the article so that a controversies section isn't necessary? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should head towards the elephant in the room, but I think that the most likely route there is to all (or at least 90% of us) decide to head there, to decide that job 1 is an INFORMATIVE accurate article, and leave everything else (political leanings etc.)at the door. This will be a failure (and I'm not going to waste my time on it)if we can't do that. I think that complete deletion of this twitter sections as wp:undue and also uninformative (if not mis-leading) is a good tiny step towards that elephant. Also, starting a subsection which analyzes the racism questions or accusations would be good. Get some good overview type sources. Eventually that little section to grow and replace all of these sections on tweets and spouts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck?

How can there be no mention of Glenn Beck's role in promoting Tea Party events very early on, and thereby swelling their ranks via his TV and radio shows? His "9/12 Project" webpage dates back to at least March 2009, and I recall him promoting what would become the Tea Party movement from the very beginning; surely there must be reliable source articles out there to back this up. I'll look for documents when I get the chance, but I'm surprised to see no mention of Beck since I was and certainly many others were first introduced to the Tea Party movement by Beck even before it had that name. He was a powerful force of promotion early on, and remains popular with most Tea Party folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.113.181 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics Section

The statistics here are pretty much garbage, the poll is of 1002 people, and the comparison to the rest of the population cites 4 or 5 different polls with differing methodologies. Totally unacceptable for encyclopedic content in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meson537 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree in part. 1,002 isn't a bad sample size, and the 3.1 point margin of error seems in line with other national polls. But the raw percentages mean nothing without the comparison to the general population, and the comparisons given are pure synthesis. The source article does provide overall comparisons on some of the numbers, but not all. Needs a rewrite. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And more synthesis by juxtaposition. How is "mostly white" relevant to the TP? Since America is "mostly white", any group representing a cross section of America is going to be "mostly white". Do you see "mostly white" in the DNC article? North8000 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians

Now that we have a list of TPM politicians, there's no longer a need for an incomplete list in this article. I suggest we move any useful information in the entries from here to there, then delete this list. That would leave the "Effects on the 2010 election cycle" section, which might, in prose, name a few of the most prominent candidate elected to office, but that would otherwise be devoted to a general discussion of the TPM effects on the election. Will Beback talk 21:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, you're probably right, but with with an article that is 60% junk, it seems like a bad place to start with taking a major chunk out of the remaining 40% North8000 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an easy place to start. This has been pending for months, waiting the creation of that stand-alone list. Will Beback talk 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD and the Springsboro TP Racial Slurs piece

The material on Springboro TP founder Sonny Thomas tweeting racial slurs ("Illegals everywhere today! So many s***s makes me feel like a s***k. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?") is not a recent or bold addition. Today is January 9th, 2011; going back to at least May 9th, 2010, the same relevant material was in the article continuously (check it yourself to verify; I went back month-by-month). As a result, it was the material's very recent removal on January 4th, 2011 that constitutes the B in the BRD cycle (see WP:BRD), not it's re-insertion. Maybe the material should be removed, maybe it should stay, but during the pending outcome of the debate, interested editors should observe the BRD cycle which indicates it should stay until if and when consensus emerges that it should be purged. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I read through the sections above - there seems to be a real concern from multiple editors about NPOV and weight of the incident. It should likely stay out until a consensus version can be hammered together. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That wp:npov / wp:undue disaster area of a section (making whole sections out of every tweet and spout) has been disputed and tagged going back at least that far. No way can that claim to be a stable or accepted version just because people haven't been deleting all of them continuously. And AzureCitizen I noticed that you put it back in again, gaming the 1RR, twice in 26 hours. Instead of talking about it. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense; I posted here first, noting that it had been in the article consistently since May 2010 before re-inserting. Bold, revert, discuss, suggests that we should be discussing why the material should be removed, not why the material should be added, but I see now that doesn't count for much with folks who want all mention of it purged. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kelly: The real weight and NPOV concerns run both ways; it is extremely POV for an editor to scrub such individual examples from the racism section of the article under the pretense of "hammering together a consensus version", and then in the same breath claim they don't have time or patience to work on building that consensus. Such a tactic is transparent. As noted above, the bold deletion of this 6+ month old content has been reverted, and per WP:BRD we must now arrive at consensus as to what to do with it. Attempting to continue to push personal POVs by repeatedly purging the disputed content without consensus is against policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is a weight issue then the solution is to reduce the weight, not to delete it outright. If reliable sources connect an event to the TPM then there is a presumption that it is relevant to include here. Kelly, what do you think the "due weight" for this material would be and why? Will Beback talk 03:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the comments above (I haven't been previously involved with this article) I'd have to agree with the sentiments that the statements of a single non-notable individual, disavowed by an organization, don't really have the weight to be included at all in the article of such a massive movement. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to our colleagues, their opinions are not the key factor. More important would be the extent of coverage in secondary sources. The Proquest newspaper archive includes at least a couple of dozen references to Thomas and the Tea Party. It seems like we could include a short mention of the event and a short mention of the disavowal. Will Beback talk 03:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What sort of short mention might you like to suggest? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A movement is defined to a great extent by who is included and who is excluded. This person was a founder of a TP group, and then was essentially ejected from the movement. That's relevant and defining. We don't need to belabor it, but it is relevant. Will Beback talk 03:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

this belongs on the springsboro article when one is/if created. This article is about the movement. For the protest events themselves, see Tea Party protests. same goes for the reports of spitting etc. notice there is not one mention of The 1968 Democratic National Convention in the democrat party article. this controversy section is ill conceived and possibly motivated by those with an opposing political opinion. i have reviewed the edits of those who have included and supported this section, i encourage others to do so also. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If we remove all mention of individuals and subgroups then this article will be much shorter. Will Beback talk 07:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

May be a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's one criteria which I think is so obvious that they didn't feel it necessary to mention in wp:undue which is whether or not it germane to the subject of the article, or the degree to which it is such. An off-hand comment by one individual in an organization where no relation to any of the movement's objectives is shown, and which the organization or movement says is not what they are about has is not germane to the subject of the article.

My proposal is that we remove all sections like that that aren't about the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The subject is the "Tea Party movement", so if we only allowed material on that exact topic then the article would be about 1/10th its present length. I suppose some of the other sections could be split into standalone articles. Will Beback talk 00:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole "racism" angle, with regard to the TP movememt, is very germane to the article. The media firestorm and political rhetoric about it over the past two years (regardless of whether you feel it has been extremely overblown, or has been extremely warranted) has been significant. The Springboro racism incident isn't "an off-hand comment by one individual" with no relation to the article; it is one of many illustrative examples from that poorly written section of the article. Nit-picking away the examples isn't going to make the racism-related section of the article go away. Mischaracterizing the content as "not about the goals or objectives of the movement, and therefore should be removed" is also not helpful; it is obvious that content is there in support of the public perception part of the article, not the "goals of the movement" part. If we can rewrite the article so that the content of the "Reception" and "Controversies" is better conveyed, and without the need for these individual examples, that would be a good solution. Pushing a personal POV by selectively deleting sections is not a solution. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What is my POV regarding the Tea Party? Please illuminate me. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was to me, I really have no idea. I also have no particular interest in knowing what it is. (Note: If your question was prompted by my "Pushing a personal POV by selectively deleting sections..." comment, please know that I was not directly referring to your edit to the article. My point was that purging the content from the article can be seen as POV pushing just as much as insisting the content remain.) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you blatantly mis-quoted me in your post in a very substantial way, essentially saying that I said something silly like something has to be about the missions and objectives of the TPM in order to be in the article.

What I said is that the tweets and spouts by individuals are not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"An off-hand comment by one individual in an organization where no relation to any of the movement's objectives is shown..." --North8000

"...I said something silly like something has to be about the missions and objectives of the TPM..." --North8000

Mixed messages much? Please pardon my understandable confusion. I can only quote what you type, not what you really meant. I agree with you that the comments made by various TP movement leaders are not about the movement; they are usually about race, ethnicity, religion and other popular focal points of bigotry. Hence their inclusion as examples in the part of the article dealing with public perception of the movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) No, you misquoted in a way in a way was nowhere what I said. My statement was that an individual making statements that have nothing to do with the Tea Party means that his utterances have nothing to do with the TP. Your massive misquote says that I said that the only content of the article should be the mission and objectives on the TP. So you can forget the patronizing "what I really meant" misfire, just carefully read what I actually wrote. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I never misquoted you. You said, "An off-hand comment by one individual in an organization where no relation to any of the movement's objectives is shown, and which the organization or movement says is not what they are about has is not germane to the subject of the article." I responded that mischaracterizing that content as irrelevant because it isn't about the movement's objectives (or what "they are about") is unhelpful; and I pointed out that the content was an example in support of the article section about the public perceptions of the movement. You are free to rephrase and clarify what you said previously all you want, but save the "just read carefully" crap. You seem to forget your very words are still right there for all to review. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

virtual revert

i have virtually reverted X last attempt to insert the same material, for the 9th time. since i was blocked for warring, i have decided to revert the offensive material virtually, in my mind. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Will Beback and Xenophrenic that publicized racial slurs made by a TP founder are relevant and warrant brief inclusion given the media attention and political rhetoric over alleged TP racism. This event received plenty of media coverage and sourcing, and actually triggered cancellations by political candidates scheduled to speak at the Springboro Tea Party rally. It was in the article for 7-8 months until the push this past week to purge it from the article on the grounds its either irrelevant or violating undue weight and NPOV if we don't delete it. If the real reason behind removing it is because it's "offensive material," then it sounds like POV and taking offense is the real problem here. Please take a step back and reconsider things. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Will Beback. I think he said that TP relevant item here is that the TP tossed him out for saying it. I'd agree. The current wording is slanted the opposite way. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose some alternate wordings, so that we can see if everyone can come around to consensus or a compromise agreement. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Azure, go to the democrat party article, notice there is no controversy section, no mention of racial slurs and broken skulls at 1968 dem convention. this material does not belong in the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I'm afraid your point is lost on me. Analogizing the TPM article and the DP article looking for something like specific racial slurs doesn't make sense, but if you feel there are relevant and well-known racist slurs being hurled by Democratic politicians that are being whitewashed out of Wikipedia, please feel free to bring it up. Further, have you actually looked at the Democratic Party article? Go there and look at the first section in the article (the History section); click on Main Article: "History of the Democratic Party (United States)." Scroll down to the section 1963-1968. Look for the sentence "During the 1968 Democratic National Convention, while police and the National Guard violently confronted anti-war protesters..." and you'll see that you can click on the link for 1968 Democratic National Convention. There, you can find more of the historical material you are looking for. The breath and depth of the history of the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) is far deeper and wider than the Tea Party Movement, hence you have to look deeper. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@North8000: Do you have any ideas for alternate wordings, so that we can see if we can get consensus on a better way to word the material to the satisfaction of a clear majority here? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Azure, you said click on Main Article my point exactly, it is no where to be found in the article on the democrat party, instead, the text you quoted is on a different article. this is an article on the tea party, not the history of, of even the actual protests. i was not asking you to search both article for racial slurs, i was asking you to notice other party articles, such as libertarian party, democrat party and republican party, are all missing the controversies section that takes up 1/5 of this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"I think he said that TP relevant item here is that the TP tossed him out for saying it."
Thomas was tossed out? Of the Springboro Tea Party he founded? Could you elaborate on that a bit, as I am not seeing it in reliable sources. I see where another TP person disapproved of Thomas' comments, but I've never heard of someone getting "tossed out" of the Tea Party -- and I wasn't even aware there was a mechanic for doing so. (One source and an interesting video here.) I also see mention that "Tea Party officials from around the country formed a federation to counteract perceptions that the groups are racist, unsophisticated and disorganized", which I think goes more to the point of that whole section of our article. I don't recall other movements having such a perception problem that they needed to form a task force just to address it. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

They probably wouldn't need a forum if the so called neutral media wasn't out to vilify them constantly. No large group of people is full of saints, the difference here is that the left, the media, and a good number of editors here wish to make sure that everyone is aware of every questionable thing said by anyone associated with this group. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, let's take note that the article doesn't contain inappropriate behavior like racial slurs being made by "anyone associated" with the TPM (ordinary rank and file members, nobodies, etc). It's always been focused on TPM founders, leaders, and spokespeople, hasn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really The standard for this article is that if it's negative about the TPM, not only can they be a low level person, they can be just a rumor of a rumor of a person and get a 710 words section here..... see the "reports of slurs at the Healthcare protests" section which is exactly that. How junky this article is in it's current state!North8000 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to Darkstar's comment, in the DNC article, you also don't see a whole section put in on every time a DNC memebrs says something bad sounding. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard for this article is that if reliably sourced content is negative or unflattering, that content must be falsely and repeatedly described as undue or a "rumor of a rumor". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally different. The Democratic Party is mainstream and the TPM is extreme. TFD (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that you just illustrated the thought process that made this article the biased mess that it is. Not that you did it. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the problem. It is that people do not realize that these views are widespread. TFD (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. You think the entire US political system is conservative. Within the US, the TPM is not even moderately extreme. Arzel (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is only conservative in an American sense. They do not support monarchy, aristocracy, the established church, etc. but the TPM represents a deviation from mainstream Democratic and Republican politics. TFD (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in their area of interest (fiscal, size and scope of government) they are along the lines of what Republicans theoretically are. But not social conservatism.....it's not on their agenda, and who knows which way they would go on it if it were, considering they also include Libertarians who are with the Democrats on social conservatism/liberalism issues. But in either case "different" certainly doesn't support TFD's "extreme" claim, and their implication that such would justify massive wp:npov / wp:undue violations in this article. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

40% of Mid-term voters support the tea party

totally not extreme, rather, mainstream, and out numbering both democrats, and republicans. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/exit-polls-2010_n_777869.html Darkstar1st (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the source says:

- Asked about Obama's policies overall, about half of voters predicted he would hurt the country. This view was especially strong among voters who support the tea party — about four out of 10 of those who came to the polls. They overwhelmingly voted Republican. Almost all of them want Congress to repeal the new health care law. They also were focused on reducing the budget deficit, followed by cutting taxes.

It says that the TP voters were voting for Republicans, which is usually a way of saying they are Republican. Will Beback talk 07:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Darkstar's post was in response to a previous claim that the the TPM is "extreme" North8000 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

that really doesn't make sense will, do you not remember the battles waged by the tea party in the primaries? the tp is most certainly not republican. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember the primaries. The elections where Democrats were pitted against Democrats, and Republicans were pitted against Republicans, to determine who would go on the ballot in the general election. Depending on which poll you reference, 84.5% or 89% of TPers self-identified as Republican. 100% (as near as I can tell) of TP-supported candidates registered as Republican. The "battles waged", if I recall correctly, were mostly around whether candidates were Republican enough, or had "true Republican goals" -- and those running against TP-supported candidates were desparagingly called RiNOs (Republican in Name Only) or "Establishment-GOPers". Who are we trying to fool by trying to claim the TPers aren't a segment of the Republicans? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me, there is a new spin-off article here: List of Tea Party politicians. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that yet, but I did note that the listed Tea Party politicians are 100.0% Republican. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, it really isn't that complicated. The TP is independent from the Republican organization, and sometimes butt heads with it, but TP'ers vote Republican. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think that saying TPM members outnumber Republicans is nonsensical. As for the question of whether a large portion of an electorate can hold extremist views, I think history provides the answer. But since this thread doesn't seem to be addressing any proposed text, let's just move on. Will Beback talk 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's really a part of the previous section which I think goes to the heart of the problem with this article, but was more consensus building for a general change. But no specific change proposed. So, agree, let's consider this section closed. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

will, perhaps nonsensical, however completely factual. the huffington post has reputation of honest reporting and fair commentary. the fact you are unable to get your head around is less than 4 of 10 wrote "d" on the their registration, same for "R", yet 4 of 10 did identify themselves as tp. you may have misunderstood the data by applying it to the usa as a whole. this information concerned the election only. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By Darkstar1st's logic, a sizeable per centage of Tea Partiers voted Democrat. TFD (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

tdf, not my logic, i am sourcing the huffington post. which democratic candidate in the 2010 election do you consider tea party? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 2010 congressional election, Republicans received 52% of the vote, Democrats 45%. How much of the vote for each party was "Tea Party" vote? TFD (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? Will Beback talk 06:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

instead of reading the link above, allow me to condense. less than 40% claimed to be R, less than 40% claimed to be D. 40% did claim to be tp. the data in the huff post is not a regurgitation of the vote count, rather an independent poll. it is quite possible 51% would have admitted the moon! the sun: it is not moonlight now. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the 40% of voters who were Tea Party supporters, how many voted Republican and how many voted Democrat? TFD (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the source didnt give the data you seek, but you also dodged my question as to which democrat running in the election supported the tea party platform? do you think a tp voter would choose a republican who planned to raise taxes over a democrat who planned to lower taxes? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a point to this thread? Will Beback talk 08:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, the "controversies section" is ill-conceived and not in line with similar articles. i have shown examples of the other major parties, D, R, and libertarian, all void of such a section. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party movement is not a political party, major or otherwise. Will Beback talk 02:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

will, plz list your source. since the party held a convention in nashville last year, and 600 "delegates" registered, saying it is not a party, or it is astroturf is foolish. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Shriners held a convention in Tampa last year with about 15,000 attendees. Doesn't make them a political party.

In what state or national elections has the Tea Party movement had a ballot line or any sort of formal recognition of it's status as a political party? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose we remove "Not to be confused with Boston Tea Party (political party)."

Every time I come to this article and see that notice at the top of the page, I get distracted and irritated by it. Was its inclusion already discussed and approved on this page? If so, I withdraw my proposal. If not, my question is: why would anyone confuse the TPM with the Boston Tea Party (political party)? Pardon the expression (and apologies to Beantown) but, whoever heard of it? --Kenatipo (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since the second paragraph of the lead starts out mentioning the Boston Tea Party. I vote for removing this line. –CWenger (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this one. The people who peruse Wikipedia are not idiots, and you would have to have been in a cave on a deserted island blindfolded with cotton in your ears for the last three years to not have heard the political furor surrounding the Tea Party movement. The 'clarification' is completely unnecessary, and if anything comes off as dismissive. Rapier (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done –CWenger (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

let's get some outside opinions on the scope/validity of the controversies section

is there support for an RFC, or other options? is anyone here willing to take on such an unpopular task? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, this really needs it. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the best way of handling events in articles is often to simply place them in chronological order. In the case of this article that would mean weaving together events, whether (potentially) positive and negative, giving each its due weight. Some of the sections which could contribute to such a chronology include " Background and history" and its subsections, "Effects on the 2010 election cycle" (which needs to be rewritten in light of the list of candidates anyway), "Reception", "Commentaries", "Media coverage", and most of the sections under "Controversy". Will Beback talk 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the "events" are not about the TPM, they are about individuals in it doing stuff that has nothing to to with the TPM. If a member or two of the Democratic party kicked a dog and republican operatives got it covered in the media, the dog-kicking is not about the DNC. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources identify the event with the TPM, the event can be covered in the article. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If the linkage is being created by the source, they they are making the news, not reporting on it and aren't a wp:rs for that aspect. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Making the news? I don't understand your point. If a reporter goes to a Tea Party event, and calls it a Tea Party event, how does that make the reporter an unreliable source? Will Beback talk 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A reporter reports, he/she doesn't manufacture facts. They don't define an event, they report on what others call the event. I can think of many situations where a less than neutral reporter would call something a Tea Party event in order to cast a bad light on those within the movement. Arzel (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular incident you're referring to or is this just a hypothetical situation? Will Beback talk 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

the word astroturf is not mentioned in the source

http://special.registerguard.com/turin/2010/sep/22/tea-party-gop-begin-to-join-forces-for-election/ Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was offering plenty of salve Tuesday.

“I think the tea party’s been a very constructive movement in American politics,” he said. “People are tired of everything thrown at them from Washington, and they are not going to take it anymore. We have embraced their enthusiasm and their energy in the Republican primaries and now we’re strongly behind all the Republican nominees, including a number of candidates who are very actively supported by the tea party movement.” why did you put a citation tag on the part that says it is grassroots, Rasmussen clearly says it is grassroots? is this everything backwards day? if not, it has been said by others, who may or may not have an opinion, there is a chance that some editors may tend to be inclined to feel this is disruptive. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wire service articles can be edited by the papers which carry them. Here's a more complete version: [1] Will Beback talk 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

the only time astroturf is used: The growing pains of the movement are still evident. Meckler, of the Tea Party Patriots, is dismissive of Russo's and Armey's groups.

"They try to portray themselves as some sort of grass-roots movement, but they are a classic example of what those on the left would call astroturf," Meckler said of the Tea Party Express. "They are fake, they're not from the grassroots. These are longtime Republican political activists with their own agenda." this obviously belongs on the tea party express page if at all, as he was clearly not talking about the tp as whole including his own group. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a leading member of the TP movement is accusing another element of the movement of being astroturf. We can adjust the wording of the sentence to reflect that. "A survey said that 26% of respondents called the Tea Party movement 'astroturf'. Speaker Pelosi made that allegation in 2010 and the head of the Tea Party Express called another Tea Party group 'astroturf' as well." Or something to that effect. Will Beback talk 23:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Why is Ron Paul not credited with creating the Tea-Party movement. This article clearly paints the picture that the Tea Party movement is a collection of Neo-Cons cloaked as Tea-Party members. This movement started way before Sarah Palin and John Mccain lost the election in 2008. This is a clear example of the media ignoring Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.28.159 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to realize this isn't "the media" but a wiki that anyone can edit. (Not to mention it's the freaking Internet, where Ron Paul is already president.) If you believe Ron Paul deserves credit, find sources and write it in yourself. Kip the Dip (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System

cute trick, say the exact opposite of the source. those of you in the astroturf debate should consider taking a break from this article. group troutslap.

"The question has been asked of whether the Tea Party is an authentic national movement with broad-based support, or a more limited narrow movement that has only been able to produce real crowds and real enthusiasm because of so-called Astroturf.

Fortunately a large amount of research has been done by a wide variety of organizations that answer the question definitively.

First, the Tea Party movement is broad based with wide support." Darkstar1st (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What're you talking about? Are you quoting the book? Will Beback talk 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a partial quote of the book ... just one of many cherries. One could also quote the same book where it says 26% of those polled believe the movement is astroturfed. The "astroturf", "manufactured outrage", etc., descriptions applied to the TPm can be sourced to more than just the well-known quips made by Pelosi, Gibbs and Krugman, et al. The concern has been raised not only in the investigative report by The New Yorker and in articles in the New York Times, but even the authors in this book acknowledged that Republican interests facilitated the movement — although they attempt to posit a chicken and egg scenario by claiming the origins of the right-wing movement preceded the influence of Republican interests and conservative media promotion. Attempting to hide the "astroturf" assertion by removing it from the article is problematic. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What he is talking about is this line in the lead. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been seen as being astroturf.[15]

Source 15 is from that book. I had changed the wording earlier to make it clear that the book was saying that the movement was grassroots, and that the left was calling it Astroturf to denegrate the movement. You can't word that sentece using this book as the source. It is patently false. Also, you made this change, so don't act like you don't know what he is talking about. Arzel (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Darkstar1st is quoting or how it affects this material. On page 134 of the Rassmussen book he says that a survey found 26% described the TPM as "astroturf" and 48% as "grassroots". I believe that the text in question is correct: the TPM has been seen as astroturf as well as grassroots. Will Beback talk 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel has now changed it to "...although the political left has also claimed it to be a astroturf movement." Which page of the Rasmussen book says that? Will Beback talk 21:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel is correct that the book should not be cited as proof that the movement is astroturfed. The authors attempt to establish the "grassroots" creds of the movement, but fall short of disproving the "astroturfed" aspect of the movement (as noted above). However, the book does indeed convey that the astroturf assertion has been made from many sources (both critics and news sources - not just lefties), and that is what the sentence in the lede should also convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Will's change was terribly POV, basically stating an allegation as fact. Arzel's change gave it much needed context, but I think that "political left" might not be the best word / a bit highly charged. How about "opponents" as a compromise? I'll try putting that in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

that's a misreading. It simply said that tht TPM has been seen as astroturf, which is supported by the survey. The charge of 'astroturfing' has also been made by at least one member of the TPM.[2] So if we want to attribute the allegation then we need to add some more characterizations. What source do we have that says the charge has only been made by "opponents"?[3] Will Beback talk 21:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You can't use a poll in that manner (to Will), it is synthesis of material. I don't remember the exact page, but Rasumussen commented on how the left is calling the movement astroturf to denegrate the movement. All of these reviews have a common theme. Critics, which are almost completely from the political left, have accused the movement as being astroturf to marginalize the movement. However, all evidences shows the movement to be grassroots. To use that source to back up the general statement that some call it astroturf is quite disingenious. review review 2 review 3 review 4 Arzel (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that the Rassmussen books says the TPM is astroturf. I assert that it reports that others have said so. It also includes a survey which says 1/4 of those surveyed think so. The article does not, and should not, say that the TPM is astroturf or grassroots, or any other judgment like that. We should only say that these are things which have been talked about. Will Beback talk 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Then find a different source. You are an admin, you should know better than to misuse sources like this. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There's been no misuse of the source. The text I edited was an accurate statement. Will Beback talk 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Partial truths will not serve you well. You are an admin, act like one. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Xeno's edit looks fine to me.[4] Will Beback talk 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"...although it has also been described as an astroturfed movement" is this sentence a fragment? described by which source? using the source that specifically makes the point it is not Astroturf is not possible. find a new source, until then, the word should be removed. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I Disagree with Xeno's POV edit. The is a grossly disingenious manipulation of the source being used. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to substantiate that little attack. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the TPM has never been described as "astroturf"? Will Beback talk 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, of course it has, the left have been calling it astroturf pretty much from the beginning in order to denegrate and marginalize the movement. I only think we should make clear who is making these accusations. You seem to be trying to imply that there is a general belief that it is atroturfed, but that is clearly not the case. I also take serious issue with Xeno's misuse of edit summaries to imply concensus. Arzel (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the authors of that book say, "Questions were immediately raised by members of both the political and media establishment about the extent to which the Tea Parties could truly be considered a grassroots uprising, given the role that current and former Republican politicians, lobbyists, and media figures played in organizing, financing, publicizing, and executing the events."? So yes, it has been described as astroturf.

It wasn't just critics and detractors making the assertion, by the way, as those authors further note, "The New York Times suggested that perhaps the Tea Party detractors were correct in asserting that the Republican Party was really organizing the movement." Reading is fundamental.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Xeno's and Will's edits were terribly POV. Although Arzels and Darkstar's edits significantly improved this, if we can't agree on something, this needs to go back to how it was a couple days ago, which was a version that came out of a substantial mediation process. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how my edit is "terribly POV", North? Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but I think this sort of answers your question) Now, I think that EVERYBODY here (including Will and Xeno) knows that "astroturfing" claims are only being made by critics and opponents (whether they be individuals or biased unreliable-with-respect-to-this "RS"'s) and only as a tactic by those folks, and that even the folks making the accusations don't really believe them. Not that my comments are for article content, they are just to try to get sorted out on the talk page. Xeno and Will keep trying to game the system to make these comments sound like fact rather than assertions, and to avoid putting in that they come from critic/opponents. Can you two leave your biases at the door, and lets just make an accurate article? North8000 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So now that we are all in agreement that the "astroturf" description was not only put forth by critics of the movement, but also by news sources reporting on the movement, and even by leaders within the movement itself, we can get on with improving the article. Agreed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get this "all in agreement"? Also, Will, what are you doing adding a cite request to the first part. You know damn well that this section is cited to the book. I will say it again. You are an ADMIN. Start acting like one. Gaming of WP is bad enough, but to have supposedly trusted Admin's also promoting their own political points of view only make it worse. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I get the "all in agreement" from the previous paragraph that refers to "EVERYBODY", in all caps. As for your comments to Will, you have repeatedly requested that he "act like an admin", without specifying what administration act you'd like him to perform. Is there a page protection or block or some other "trusted Admin" function you'd like him to perform? Otherwise, his edits here appear to be in the capacity of "Wikipedia editor", just like yours and mine, and should be afforded due respect. Your personal attacks about gaming and POV promoting are unwarranted. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, Xeno is correct when he says that I'm not here as an admin. I'm here as an editor. If I have "gamed the system" or used Wikipedia to promote a political POV then those serious charges should be backed by evidence and addressed in the proper forum, such as a user RfC or the ArbCom.

Darkstar1st pointed out that the astroturf issue did not have any sources, so I added the Rasmussen source as a citation for that phrase. If folks think that Rasmussen is also a good source for view of TPM as grassroots then that's fine too. I think this one sentence consumes far too much attention, and suggestion we move on. Will Beback talk 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I consider many versions of gaming to be minor and common rather than a serious charge. Every time that someone uses/quotes policies towards the end of tilting an article towards a POV, that is gaming. (I try to avoid that, because life's too short to waste it on creating junk vs. trying to create something good). North8000 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not the definition used on Wikipedia. In any case, it's not a relevant topic on this page. The only topic here is improving the article. Will Beback talk 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As an Admin, your edits are viewed differently, even if you claim to just be a regular editor. It is one thing to have a POV, but a completely different thing to appear to promote a POV. Admin's serve positions to which they can block other editors for violations of WP policies, as such they must ensure that they themselves do not violate those same policies. It is also imperitive that they work from a neutral position, and if they cannot, they should relinquish their role as an Admin. Perhaps, Gaming was too strong of a term, but making pov pointy citation request calls into question his ability to be impartial. Arzel (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that admins should not be allowed to edit or participate in community discussions because they hold admin powers? WikiManOne (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am just saying that like it or not, their edits are held to a higher regard. They are the implied police of WP, and should treat basic WP policies with complete impartiality. Arzel (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are you claiming was done inappropriately here? Seems to me you're just attacking a admin because they shock! they dared disagree with your perspective? WikiManOne (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. I invite anyone who wishes to discuss my editing to post a comment on my user talk page. Will Beback talk 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read this section WikiManOne. I won't comment further here. Arzel (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"No taxation without representation"

I'm not American, so please bear with me if I'm being a dummy here. The second paragraph of the lead tells me "no taxation without representation has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement." It apparently draws on the Boston Tea Party protesters, who were taxed by Britain and had no representation there. But the modern Tea Party protesters do have the vote. They do have representation. How does the same concept of no taxation without representation work for them? I searched the article for taxation and representation and got nowhere. They are hardly mentioned again. Is the answer so obvious that I'm missing it, and it doesn't need to mentioned in the article, or could we explain this a little better? (Explaining it to me would be a start.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that note. Aside from the meaning of "No taxation without representation", it's not clear that the phrase has been a significant slogan for the TPM. The only source merely mentions it in passing.[5] Unless there are additional sources we should probably remove it, or replace it with a more common slogan. Will Beback talk 08:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 I think that it is used more in a "general spirit" sense than a direct structural sense. Combined with being the rallying cry from their namesake group/incident. Finally, putting forth the idea that their elected official, though elected, are not representing them or the public on these particular issues. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No one from the Tea Party even uses that phrase in the Fox TV Chicago video clip - it come's from the lady announcer, and even she doesn't claim it's a Tea Party slogan but says the spirit of that slogan is invigorating the Chicago rally, or some such. It probably should be removed. The video doesn't even have a date. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an entire section here on one few word twitter by one guy and 710 words on a vague ghost alleged racial slur. If the "No taxation...." slogan usage is even lower than a vague ghost rumor, then perhaps we should only devote 600 words to it. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I read you loud and clear, brother. But when you have editors who believe that every negative thing reported by the mainstream media should be reported here, what can you do? They just don't seem to realize that a Britannica article would not report the mouthings of every crackpot. In other words, they have no real conception of what a real encyclopedia article should look like. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth though? Unfortunately for us, we don't have the paid professional staff of the Britannica, so we are left with only volunteers to rein in the incessant POV pushing of those that try to whitewash their pet articles. Left to their own devices, they would scrub certain articles into glowing promotional advertisements, completely devoid of information that might question their myopic personal views. They just don't seem to comprehend that Wikipedia is not their soapbox, regardless of how many times you remind them. But what can you do? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that all of this will build a consensus to make this a truly good and informative article. Not biased either way. With more REAL content. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My hopes as well, and that should be everyone's goal. Xenophrenic (talk)18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's do it! North8000 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When an article is on a topic where there are real-world opponents, and a significant number of the editors are those real-world opponents, it is pervasive that those articles are failures in Wikipedia. Sometimes they "stabilize" as badly POV'd article. Usually they end up as unstable, uninformative junky messes as 2/3 of this one is. The WP rules and systems just don't work for those situations...they are too game-able. Possibly we can rise above that here. If not, I will probably 90% abandon this article as a hopeless waste of time. I want to work on building good articles, not fight eternal POV wars on junk articles. People would have to go somewhere other than Wikipedia to learn about the TPM. Are >80% of you with me? Because that's about what it will take to stay on track to build a good article, not biased either way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand we have editors who wish to put in every negative story about the TPM and on the other hand editors who wish to exclude the fact that the TPM has attracted criticism. A further problem is that all the analysis has come from partisan sources. Readers want to know who they are, what they think, what they do, and can make up their own minds whether or not they like them. TFD (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Agreed. But if you want to cover the real story, you have do dig into these things. Probably the most genuine criticism is people who object to the TPM is objection the TPM's agenda/platform. For example, say it is bad for the country etc. For example, say it is bad for the country etc. Probably #2 is that the TPM movement overall helps the Republicans (even if they are independent of and butt heads with them) for the people against Republicanism. But one must recognize that a common and effective way to wage political war in is to find, publicize, and exaggerate the importance of tiny bad-looking things. In the USA, a well publicized video of a TPM member kicking a dog will sway the election more than trying ot argue against their agenda. Take a twitter or a rumor of a racist comment, get it publicized, imply that it represents an overall issue with the TPM, even if they do not believe that. This is really a tactic, not a criticism. But then, we could use an overview of the topic.....how independent/distanced is it from the Republican party? Is it / is it not a happy home for knuckle-dragging racists and their views? Is it /is in not really a happy home for other people with reactionary views, and the folks that see black helicopters? Is it coalescing into an organized movement at the local or national level , vs. a short term spontaneous burst? What fraction / to what extent is it Libertarian vs. conservative......does it have a view in areas where those two groups conflict? Or do they co-exist because those conflicting areas are not TPM issues either? How can people wiht directly opposite political views on social issues (e.g. libertarian Ron Paul and conservative Sara Palin)co-exist in it? And maybe some really objective, expert polling that provides real info instead of the abuses of the current polling section. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

North8000 (aka Sisyphus), in order for all your hard work on this not to go to waste -- copy the article to your sandbox, edit it into something unbiased, and give it to Conservapedia, seriously. There are just too many editors here whose mantra is "if the MSM report it, it belongs in the article" (regardless of MSM bias and undue weight). --Kenatipo (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic: does the Tea Party even have a slogan or slogans? --Kenatipo (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No. But they use symbolism from the American Revolution - Tea Party, flags, slogans, founding fathers, colonial dress, etc. TFD (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally back on topic, eh guys? I suspect some of you are as bad as those you so openly attack while you're meant to be improving the article. Look, there's an odd sentence in the lead. The source doesn't support it. It makes no sense as a slogan. No-one here thinks it's a real slogan. I'm going to delete it. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will Beback talk 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree. Mostly because it's not informative. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally tortured that sentence back into conformity with the video ref. But, I agree it's still worthless. Get rid of it! --Kenatipo (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Perriello's brother

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/2812/tea-party-leader-gloats-over-tucson-massacre would I think make a good addition to the section regarding the Tom Perriello's brother's house being targeted by tea partiers. WikiManOne (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a blog, and if so it would not be an adequate source. Are there any mainstream, reliable sources for this controversy? Will Beback talk 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a blog but it is one of the most influential political blogs in Virginia. WikiManOne (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's connected to a mainstream newspaper it isn't allowable, especially for assertions about living people. If this is significant it will have been reported on elsewhere too. Will Beback talk 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've looked and it does appear that this incident has been reported on over a length of time by multiple mainstream papers who connect it with the Tea Party. For example:

The slashing of a gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello's brother was a "deliberate act of vandalism" that "could have posed a danger," Albemarle County officials said Thursday. Conservative Tea Party activists from Lynchburg and Danville had posted the home's address on the Internet, believing it belonged to the congressman. They urged others to "drop by" the house to "express their thanks" for Perriello's vote in favor of health care reform. A day later, Perriello's brother's family smelled gas and found that someone had severed a supply hose connecting a liquid petroleum tank to burners on a portable gas grill. The grill was on a deck adjacent to a screened-in porch on the back of the house. "Investigators believe that this was a deliberate act of vandalism and that the supply hose was intentionally cut," a statement from Albemarle County said. "While there was no immediate threat to the residence and its occupants, investigators believe the leaking gas could have posed a danger had there been an ignition source nearby." The slashing of the propane line was discovered the same day that someone sent the home a "threatening" letter addressed to the congressman. Perriello's office said the letter was "along the lines of 'You'll have to answer for this on Judgment Day.'" The Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office is investigating in cooperation with the FBI.
- Gas line cutting deemed 'deliberate' vandalism Brian McNeill. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Mar 26, 2010.
The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation -- that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello's, D-Va., brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.
- How the left fakes the hate: A primer Michelle Malkin. The Examiner. Washington, D.C.: Mar 28, 2010. pg. 37
Now their incendiary efforts have failed. Reform has passed. But the anger and rage remain. They are, in fact, reaching feverish and dangerous levels. How dangerous? After Lynchburg Tea Party members posted the home address of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother -- in the mistaken belief it was Perriello's address -- a line between a propane tank and a grill was found severed at the house inside a screened porch. [..] Some Republicans have stepped up to decry these actions. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, for instance, was unequivocal in his denunciation of posting Perriello's brother's address. "I think that is way over the line," he said. "I don't think it's close. It's an appalling approach. It's not civil discourse. It's an invitation to intimidation."
- EDITORIAL: The politics of rage: Republicans have been playing a dangerous game whipping up hysteria about health care reform. They must take responsibility. Anonymous. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Mar 28, 2010.
A propane gas line was cut in March at the Charlottesville home of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother after a self-identified "tea party" activist posted the address on the Internet and said it was the congressman's house.
- Members of Congress facing escalation in number of threats; 'Very vulgar to serious' Police cite opposition to health-care overhaul Sari Horwitz, Ben Pershing. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Apr 9, 2010. pg. A.3
In March, tea-party supporters posted what they thought was Perriello's Charlottesville address online so opponents could "drop by" and "express their thanks" for his vote in favor of health-care reform. The address was actually his brother's and the following day a gas line to an outdoor grill on the porch was cut at the house. Local officials deemed the incident "a deliberate act of vandalism" that could have posed a danger.
- Perriello condemns threat to challenger Wesley P. Hester. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 15, 2010.
In an unrelated incident five months ago, a tea-party activist posted online an address incorrectly thought to be the congressman's. The activist said opponents could "drop by" and "express their thanks" for Perriello's vote to overhaul health care. The address was actually that of Perriello's older brother. The next evening, his family smelled gas and found that someone had slashed the line connecting a propane tank to a gas grill on the home's screened-in porch.
- Twitter posts heat up a hot race in Va. 5th District Olympia Meola. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 9, 2010.
Last March, a tea-party activist posted online an address incorrectly thought to be that of Rep. Tom Perriello, a Democrat who was then the 5th District congressman. The activist said opponents could "drop by" and "express their thanks" for Perriello's vote to overhaul health care. The address was actually that of Perriello's older brother. The next evening, the brother's family smelled gas and found that someone had slashed the line connecting a propane tank to a gas grill on the home's screened-in porch.
- Virginia politicians call shootings an attack on democracy MICHAEL MARTZ, KATHERINE CALOS. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 9, 2011. pg. A.1
On March 25, the FBI and local officials confirmed that a severed gas line found at the home of Representative Perriello's brother had been deliberately cut. At the time, there was speculation that the act may have been tied to a local tea party website that listed the home address of Perriello and encouraged tea party supporters to "drop by" and "express their thanks" for his health-care vote. The site gave the address of Perriello's brother by mistake.
- Arizona shooting: Seven times politics turned to threats or violence last year Andrew Heining. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jan 10, 2011.

Based on the length and depth of reporting, and the frequent connection to Tea Party activists, this incident seems to merit inclusion in the history section of the article. Will Beback talk 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ballots

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots,

This material was deleted with the edit summary:

Rmv "does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots" Its name has appeared on ballots and official needs to be defined. NY-23? [6]

It is notoriously hard for 3rd parties to get on the ballot in New York. Who was the official Tea Party candidate in New York's 23rd congressional district? There's no mention of one in that article. Will Beback talk 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Doug Hoffman ran under the Conservative Party ballot line as a tea party candidate with endorsements from most national tea party groups. [7], [8], etc.

There was a "Tea Party" candidate on the ballot in Nevada. [http://www.dscc.org/blog?blog_entry_KEY=643}

WikiManOne (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally post here, last comment was probably as a moderator on an issue before the November Elections. But your links bely your claims. First, Doug Hoffman ran as a member of the Conservative Party, not the Tea Pary. He had the backing of the Tea Party at one point. And your "Comment" from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blog from February 2010 is hardly a reliable source that somebody ran as a Tea Party Candidate 9 months later.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the edit pending a source that definitively says candidates have run as nominees of the Tea party, as opposed to other parties. That's the intent of the sentence in question. Will Beback talk 23:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough: [9], and [10]. I removed the "its name has not appeared on any ballots" because clearly according to the two articles I just posted, it has (legitimately or not is another question). I removed "does not officially run Congressional candidates" because officially is not defined, who is this "official" tea party that could run candidates? WikiManOne (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In Nevada Scott Ashjian ran as the Tea Party of Nevada candidate for senate.[11][12] But from what I can tell, Scott was trying to capitalize on the popularity of the Tea Party Movement. The other Tea Party movmements in Nevada accused him of that[13] "James, a registered Republican, helped Ashjian set up the Tea Party of Nevada this year solely so that the Las Vegas businessman could run for the Senate. But Ashjian has been called a fake by the movement, including the Tea Party Express"[14] Even ABC used the phrase, "self described Tea Party candidate"[15] Or the statement from the Tea Party immediately after the announcement, “We (the recognized tea party movement in NV) have no idea who these people are … the patriots who have built the Tea Party movement aren’t the people behind the [Tea Party of Nevada.]”[16] I thus, think it might be worth a foot note indicating that a group calling itself "The Tea Party of Nevada" was created and ran a candidate, but was done so on questionable grounds.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem your run into with the Tea Party, since it does not have a clear structure its hard to decide what is legitimate and what is not. The main organizations all claim to be the "real" tea party organization, but how do you define it?Unless a definition can be agreed on, my gut tells me that its going to be impossible to define what an "official" tea party act is. WikiManOne (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Nevada exception should be mentioned. Will Beback talk 23:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Nevada, there were also "tea party" candidates on the ballot in Florida and New Jersey per [17], [18], [19], and [20] all have varying degrees of info on this. WikiManOne (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's what you get when you aren't really a political party, but a movement with semi-autonomous groups all over the place. I do think this needs to go into the article, but probably as a footnote. I think it is telling that both of the articles you linked demonstrated that this appears to have been a case of somebody trying to tap into the Tea Party name recognition. I think the "Tea Party of Nevada" lacked any credibility to be considered part of the "Tea Party Movement" and deserves at most a mention as a footnote. I mean, as soon as the papers were signed, people were questioning, "if this is yet another attempt by the opposition to undermine, discredit or sabotage the Tea Party movement"[21]. Within 2 days of filing, its bonafides as a Tea Party group were challenged[22] And "There was no 'Tea Party of Nevada' until Ashjian created it and the media relished the novelty. He has never been to a Tea Party event and has not been endorsed by any Tea Party out there."[23]---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Florida is a little less clear... there is obviously debate as to whether or not it is a real tea party movment, but I do think the line about Tea Party not appearing on a congressional ballot has to go. Nevada definitely goes in a footnote, don't know about Florida or NJ.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad citation

The citations for the following paragraph have been a dead link since October 2010, a rewrite without claims that cannot be anymore substantiated seems to be in order:

Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.[40] Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[41][dead link][42]

Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog.[41][dead link] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009, reporting "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."[37]

WikiManOne (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove material just because the links are dead. Will Beback talk 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we work to revise it to content that we do have current links for? I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying it seems to me we should... WikiManOne (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything needs to be verifiable. In many cases alternate links can be found, such as Internet Archive. Newspaper articles don't need active links. If every effort has been made to replace a source which can't be located then the citation may be removed and replaced with a citation request. Will Beback talk 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Astroturfing

In the article, the sentence "For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing," is confusing because there is no source cited provided to prove the Tea Party being characterized as "astroturfing" (the paragraph above the sentence explains the "grassroots" connection, but provides no evidence for "astroturfing". I believe this word should be removed until evidence can be provided that this characterization has been made. Dietcherrycola (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

remove, not sourced, slander Darkstar1st (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That response shows a bias. The charge is well-known and easily sourced. I've added a citation. If folks think the article needs more discussion of the charge we can add a section about it. Will Beback talk 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, this article has a fundamental structural bias problem. Where in the Democratic Party or Barack Obama rticle is the "everythign that their opponents ever said bad about them that got printed" section? North8000 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it to match the source that will used. I think it reads nicely now. Arzel (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You should know better than to add POV comments into the text, as you did with your edit.[24] Personal opinions do not belong in encyclopedia articles. Will Beback talk 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to include all significant views with weight proportional to their significance. This article is not strictly comparable to those of organized national parties or politicians. Will Beback talk 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So that makes for a different standard regarding what I said above? A giant "inuendo by opponents and opinions of opponents" section is OK here and not there? North8000 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Will beback, saying "his article is not strictly comparable to those of organized national parties or politicians", although it may have weight, suggests a value judgement. I suggest you put your opinion on the 'political parties of the united states' article, not this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietcherrycola (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Tea party movement is not a political party, it's not a franchise operation, it's not a religion, it's not a lot of things. So comparing this article to articles of dissimilar entities is of limited utility. The TPM is the TPM. As for the question about coverage of negative views of Obama, Wikipedia has articles like:

Not to mention:

Category:Obama administration controversies

When the Tea Party movement gets a candidate elected to the presidency I'm sure he or she will get the same fair coverage as the current and past office holders. But in the meantime let's just focus on improving this article. Will Beback talk 08:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, you will note that none of those in the main Obama article. And all of this IS about improvement of the article, and about addressing the biggest issues that define its current junk status. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think that Barack Obama (or George W. Bush) is the standard by which we should judge all other articles. Better comparison would be to other insurgent political movements. Will Beback talk 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, please cite an example of an insurgent political movement? why do you refer to the tea party as a "movement", if it's members call it a party? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I refer to the topic of this article as a movement because the title of this article is "Tea Party movement". There is no sign that the Tea party movement is aiming to become an actual political party distinct from existing parties. It can be significantly difficult to get candidates of a new party on the ballot in state and federal elections, and I haven't heard of anyone trying to do so in this case. If there is any evidence of a move to a formal party then we should include that in the article. Will Beback talk 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

google doesn't list your neologism "insurgent political movement", could you point us to an article similar this with a controversy section? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any previous or current movement that's quite like the Tea Party movement. There are some parallels to insurgent movements in American Political history, but they were either less structured than the TPM or moved quickly to formalize as parties. The Bull Moose Party comes to mind. As for articles with controversy sections, they're too common to list.[25] Will Beback talk 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? TFD (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, i have, it was in boston i think. you and will have unwittingly made my point. neither example contains a "controversies section" nor should this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We can rename the section but if the material is relevant then it should not be removed. Will Beback talk 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No article should have a controversies section - it should all be included in the relevant sections. TFD (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

should have a controversies section why? how does this improve the article? is it possible the inclusion of the material is politically motivated? how is the section relevant? why is it impossible to find a similar article that includes a controversies section? this was decided a year ago, why are you bringing it up again? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&oldid=344752261#Tea_bagging_controversy_section see the section below also. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&oldid=344752261#Consensus_on_Grassroots Darkstar1st (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of articles with "controversy" sections. OTOH, it's hard to find any topics that are closely similar to this one.

There are two questions here: What material should be included and how should it be arranged. The answer to the first one is fairly simple: all relevant material should be included, with weight proportional to prominence. The second question is more difficult. I suggest that a purely chronological arrangement is usually the least, ahem, controversial. That would mix the good, bad, and indifferent together, which is a more neutral approach. Will Beback talk 01:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this includes irrelevant material. Things that an individual says. which are disavowed by the movement are about that individual, not the movement. If Republican operatives found a Democrat who kicks dogs and made sure that it got into the newspapers as a "controversy" about the Democratic Party, by Will's (double) standards, that would sanction putting it into the DNC article. I would say not, that the material is not really about the DNC, it is mostly about the dog kicker, and secondarily about the tactics of the anti-DNC operatives. This article either needs such material purged, or placed in the context of such. For example, how did one guy's spout on Twitter, which the TPM dis-owned, get to be so prominent in the news? Now THAT would be real content vs. inuendo. North8000 (talk)

Plus, creations of "controversy" sections are usually a POV act to help such junk get into articles by lowering the bar for establishing relevance to the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that we are required to assume good faith. Your comments here about other editors are out of line. Please remember that this is not a political debate show. Civility is a requirement.

As for the substance of your remarks, how does the TPM disown something? Who has the authority to speak for the TPM? The DNC and RNC have chairman and official spokespersons. to the best of my knowledge, the TPM has neither. If so, the best we can say is that the head of some component organization has made a statement. Will Beback talk 22:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

will, can we agree to remove the term astroturfing? this was decided with consensus a year ago. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with the removal, I can't find a clear consensus for it. (I can find a clear consensus for the movement being grassroots, rather than merely being considered grassroots, but we can't have everything.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would we remove sourced, relevant material? Will Beback talk 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP? In any case, although we don't have a (credible; less restrictive than "reliable") source that it is astroturfed, we may have a reliable source that it is accused (by political opponents) of being astroturfed. That might be the most neutral phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to individual people, not movements. Even if we were talking about a single person we wouldn't delete sourced, relevant material. As for how to phrase it, we need to avoid original research. We can probably find a source that says the people who made the accusation are political opponents of the TPM, or something similar, and we should report what those secondary sources say. Will Beback talk 00:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a pejorative term, invented, promoted and almost exclusively used as a tactic by their opponents. It should be identified as such. Using it as a section title pre-supposes that it exists and thus takes the side of TPM opponents, a massive wp:npov violation. North8000 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no section titled "astroturf". Will Beback talk 06:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

by definition once a party becomes so large, it is impossible to be astroturf. will do you really believe the masses of people calling themselves tp are "a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause." the tp is too big to be astroturf. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to approach editing. We're not here to bring our logic to bear on issues and decide amongst ourselves which descriptions of a group make the most sense. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. For example, let's say we're writing about a film and two prominent critics called it the best movie of the year while three critics called it the worst. We don't say that the critics who didn't like it are "opponents" of the movie just because of the bad review. Nor do we decide which critics were correct and report only their view. Instead, we report both views. Will Beback talk 05:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

will the source you champion only reports people have accused the tp of being astroturf, there is no source saying it is astroturf. your job is not to "report", rather to edit. the tp may be considered astroturf on wp, you have my blessing. maybe everyone will believe the tp is actually astroturf, and they wont win seats in congress like the last election. maybe all the astroturfers will return to their real lives and the tp will go away... Darkstar1st (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't "championed" any source. I'm having trouble following your statements. Will Beback talk 06:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is that really a good analogy though? I haven't been keeping strict score, but the impression I get from several months of following this debate is that there are literally scads of mainstream reliable sources calling the TP "grassroots"; "astroturf", OTOH, is supported primarily by unsubstantiated claims by one writer and denied by the principle parties involved (hence the "BLP" tie-in, BTW). Oh, and of course Nancy Pelosi too. So if James Cameron had spent months railing against a particular reviewer, calling him a failed writer and incompetent hack who should be fired from his job, and that reviewer was one of only two who said Avatar was a crappy film, we would ignore the possible bias caused by the previous feud? Really? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a myriad of sources calling TP Astroturf. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have, also. However, none of the ones I've seen are remotely reliable. Are any of yours? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Rassmussen & Schoen book, Mad As Hell, published by HarperCollins? Will Beback talk 06:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but the quote last reported on this talk page said that (some) Tea Party organizations were reported to be astroturfed; the authors didn't seem to take a position as to fact (or to the identity of the reporter(s)). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, they report it in a reliable source, their book. We report what they write. That normal operating procedure. Will Beback talk 06:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. In their book, they note that the TP is reported to be astroturfed. They do not claim the reports are accurate, at least, in any of the quotes from the book so far provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Two different issues. Using the comparison to a criticism of a film, do we, or our sources, need to establish that a criticism is accurate in order for us to report it? No, we report it if it appears in a reliable source and is significant. The allegation has been made and reported - we don't need to verify its accuracy any more then we need to verify that the movement is actually grassroots. We just report, we don't investigate facts for ourselves. Will Beback talk 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still wrong. We don't investigate, but there hasn't been a (Wikipedia) claim that the authors claimed that the TP was astroturfed. The Wikipedia claim is that the authors claimed that TP was reported to be astroturfed. At the present time, that's what the lede says, with reference, but it's not supported in the body of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur. Will, you are conflicting with your own self. What these are about, and what is being covered is is CLAIMS of astroturfing. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All we report on Wikipedia are claims. I don't know for sure if Brazil produces 100 million widgets a year. But if a reliable source makes that claim then we report it (If it's also relevant and significant). As for the Rasmussen assertion, one of his sources is his own polling, in which he found that, in February 2010, 26% of those surveyed believed that the TPM is astroturf, versus 48% grassroots. 26% of the US population is 80 million people. That's a significant number of people. Will Beback talk 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

will 28% of republicans believe obama wasn't born in the usa http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Poll_28_of_Republicans_dont_believe_Obama_was_born_in_US.html but despite a 4 year controversy that is still mentioned in major network news till this day, it does not appear on his article. how are people getting a better picture of the TP by the addition of this section? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't talk:Barack Obama. The contents of that article are off-topic here. What section are you talking about? Will Beback talk 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To Will: Reliable sources describe it as "claims", so we should describe it as "claims" (if, at all). (And surveys, especially those using unfamiliar words (astroturf), can be misunderstood, and should only be quoted, rather than summarized, if there is any possibility of confusion.) The lede was OK (although possibly undue weight) in that regard the last time I checked, but the body used only opposing politicians as sources. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body.

To Darkstar1st: What Will's survey wouldn't be a BLP violation, even if it were inadequately sourced. Yours would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, anything can be misunderstood. But without evidence of it we can't assume that there's been a misunderstanding. This discussion has dragged on and I don't really know what the point of it is anymore. Is anyone proposing an edit? Will Beback talk 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a complete rewrite to change it to what it it actually about. Which is covering who said what about astroturfing, with no wording, or triggering of inclusion of material ( = WP:OR) that presumes one side's view (that it exists)North8000 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a complete rewrite of the article is what we're talking about here, though that might come as a result of the "controversy" thread below. Will Beback talk 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the astroturfing sentence in the intro is confusing, wordy, and unclear. A "movement leader" and 26% of "those polled" are not really helpful or informative facts.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Those identifiers were added at the request of another editor, who wanted the text to indicate who viewed the TPM as astroturf.[26] I agree that it's too much detail for the lead, but I'm not the one who wanted it there in the first place. Will Beback talk 02:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's being worked on below, I hope you participate. WikiManOne (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New Yorker Magazine as source

Why is the New Yorker Magazine an unreliable source? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't that issue already been pretty much beaten to death? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the sentence in the the lede should read "Mayer alleges ...", rather than "It is alleged". With that in place, it's perfectly accurate, although undue weight in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there ever an agreement about the New Yorker article? Will Beback talk 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was agreement that it could be included in a BLP context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there an agreement that it could not be used? Will Beback talk 09:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I apoligize. I should have put this in the talk page first, in terms of discussing David H. Koch. However, I do believe Mayer and the New Yorker are valuable and reliable sources. The article is thoroughly written. Here is what was put in the article:

"Tea Party affiliated lobby groups who opposed climate change, federal economic stimulus packages, and federal health care legislation allegedly have been financially supported by Libertarian billionare David H. Koch.^[1]" Cmguy777 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. p. 45. Retrieved 01-21-2011. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Can this be rewritten with concensus approval? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be put in the lede: "There has been controversy on whether the Tea Party movement has received funding and direction from Libertarian billionare, David H. Koch." Cmguy777 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a second-order "alleged", but something like that may be appropriate. Her article is an example of the controversy, not a source for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The article gave Koch's view that he was not involved with direct leadership in the Tea Party movement. However, Mayer, gives a well researched article into the financing and control of the Tea Party or conservative libertarian movement. Although Koch denied involvement with the Tea Party he gave no evidence that he was not involved. Unless Mayer is a proven fringe researcher the article is valid. I do want to avoid bias in terms of presenting the article in Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does a person prove that they didn't do something? Mayer is making unproven allegations. The onus is on Mayer to prove he is right, not Koch to prove that Mayer is wrong. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that makes makes a very reliable source very reliable is its willingness to correct its errors. The New York Times, for example, runs a daily "corrections" column so whenever they make a mistake they correct it promptly. Likewise, the New Yorker is known for issuing corrections when necessary. If Koch, or anyone within the TPM, showed a reason why assertions in the article should be withdrawn then it's likely that the magazine would do so. That they haven't done so doesn't mean the article is 100% "true", but it means that we can report its assertions here. Will Beback talk 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is a usable source. Unless there was consensus on the noticeboards against it, and assuming it is used properly, I don't see any reason to exclude it. BigK HeX (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I could find nothing in the article connecting the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, except, "A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it....!”" TFD (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the whole point of the Tea Party movement. It is not a party. Nobody has a connection or responsibility with the Tea Party technically. The movement is a collection of conservative groups who have been funded and directed allegedly by Koch, according to the article. There is no Tea Party on the ballot boxes. Koch can influence and pay for the Tea Party movement [conservative think tanks and lobbists] without actually being a member. In essense the Tea Party is an underground movement. Koch was "Tea Party" before there was a Tea Party movement, in terms of funding conservative movements in the 1980's and 1990's. Any conservative think tank can be "Tea Party". The Wikipedia article presents the Tea Party as not a party, but rather a movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here is the sentence: "There is controversial debate whether Tea Party activists are being trained by a conservative advocacy group funded by Libertarian billionaire David H. Koch."^[1] Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen comments

I don't disagree that this is notable to be included in the article, but I suggest moving it later on in the article rather than the lead. Why is Rasmussen's opinion considered so notable that it should be included in the introduction rather than the body?

According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama administrations triggered the Tea Party’s rise. The interviewer adds that the movement's anger centers on two issues, quoting Rasmussen as saying, "They think federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they think no one in Washington is listening to them, and that latter point is really, really important."[17]

WikiManOne (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The introduction needs work. I think what happened there is that it probably started with a short line and grew as editors argued over it and asked for attribution. As a general priniciple, Rasmussen is noteworthy as an author of one of the few books on the TPM. Will Beback talk 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that Rasmussen's thoughts are worth mentioning in the article, I just question devoting a full paragraph in the lead to him. WikiManOne (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be controversial to move the paragraph and rework it into the "Early local protest events" paragraph? WikiManOne (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have a problem with it, I have moved it. WikiManOne (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Grassroots revisited

You (Will) previously quoted Rasmussan as saying the TPm is grassroots, but is called astroturf by others. Are you trying to WP:WEASEL out of it, now? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that. Can you specify on which page that material appears? Will Beback talk 07:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, even if Rasmussen were to say, "TPM is grassroots", that's still just an opinion just like saying "TPM is astroturf" is an opinion. So if Rasmussen sees it as grassroots then it's correct to say, "some see it as grassroots". Will Beback talk 07:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's correct (as I recall your saying), then stating "considered grassroots", "called grassroots", "cited as grassroots", etc., would require a source, which hasn't yet been provided. Rasmussan appears to be a reasonable source for "sometimes called astroturf", but not for "called grassroots". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit abstract. Which page are you looking at? Will Beback talk 07:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing a fairly complex WP:UNDUE problem in the lede; we're weakening the statement saying that the movement is grassroots, while (possibly) strengthening the statement that it may be astroturf. If this continues, balance may require removing the statement from the lede entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it to the version which came out of the recent and extensive mediation work, and said to achieve consensus before changing from that. WikiManOne just put in a highly POV and unconsensused change which tryst to mis-uses selected bit to juice up astrotruf claims. In the context here, this is edit warring, and this kind a stuff endangers getting this article locked up. Please stop, and somebody please revert WikiManOne's change to the version recently derived in the extensive mediation work. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't, the new one is succinct and says pretty much says the same thing. WikiManOne (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement in question is as follows:

The Tea Party movement is seen as grassroots political activity by some while others, including political opponents, at least one movement leader, and 26% of those polled, see signs of astroturfing.

If we need to work on it for some reason, let's work on it here and then move it to the article. WikiManOne (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The heavily discussed, mediated and consensused version needs to be starting point in that article and here. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for the version you added? The text WikiManOne added seems correct. Will Beback talk 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with North. The new wording seriously weakens the grassroots statement and multiplies the atroturf statement. It is clearly a NPOV at this point. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what's so POV about it. It clearly says the same thing in a succinct way. If you don't like how it sounds, lets talk about how to improve it rather than fighting over it and seemingly not assuming good faith. WikiManOne (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback and WikiManOne's approach here. Saying in effect "some see it as political grassroots, some see it as astroturf" is NPOV, not POV pushing. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We had like 8 people develop that as a finely tuned compromize over many weeks of work in a recent mediation project. Before we even get to a discussion of any changes, that version must be the starting point . Its unthinkinable to use WikiManOne idea form the far end of the POV spectrum as as a starting point. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As of right now, there are four people supporting the version I reverted it to or who want it used as a starting point (including whoever made the change that I reverted it back to..), and two who want it reverted to this other version. I think this should be used as our starting point, now can we get productive rather than attacking the current version and improve it then? WikiManOne (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, we had like 8 people develop that as a finely tuned compromize over many weeks of work in a recent mediation project. Before we even get to a discussion of any changes, that version must be the starting point . Its unthinkinable to use WikiManOne idea form the far end of the POV spectrum as as a starting point. If something even this no-brainer obvious, then this situaion is hopeless and I'll not waste my time. The lead is about the only thing that was really worked out so far, and now we have 2-3 people want to start pulling that down into the POV junkhole that 80% of rest of this article is. It's looking like this is a waste of time. Looks like the only way to fix it is to let you guys complete the wreckage of it, (take it from D- to F in POV junkhole rating) and then a recovery group will have to erase the whole thing and start over. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where was this consensus? Will Beback talk 00:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not there was consensus at one point, the fact is that three editors are wanting to move forward with a new approach. Perhaps it is time for a new consensus to be reached. And instead of complaining about it not being NPOV, why not bring it up for discussion here as I have done below? WikiManOne (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this the "consensus" you are referring to? [[27]] WikiManOne (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The to look would be the mediation page for the first 3/4 of it, and then look at the talk page at the dates for the development and finalization of the text for the first 3 paragraphs in the lead. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problem from lead

This is from the lead paragraph in the article:

Its platform is explicitly populist

I believe this is a NPOV problem since it is not necessary to have there (that specific claim could be removed without issue), the word populist is generally used in promoting the tea party and there are plenty of other words that have been used to describe the tea party. Also, the statement could be held to be false. [28], [29], [30], etc. WikiManOne (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Same situaiton and roots as I described a few lines up. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the section recorded by North. Here is the final mediation resolved about 8 weeks ago. This should probably be the starting point. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, I think the best course of action is to change the link in the lead to right-wing populism as there appears to have been consensus on that in the past. If I'm missing a relevant conversation on that specific point, please bring it up. Otherwise I will WP:BEBOLD and make the edit soon. WikiManOne (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Resurrecting

If we are to include Populist in the lead, perhaps this would be the appropriate link, per Archive 13. Comments? WikiManOne (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous conversation:

Add Brewing-up Trouble: Chip Berlet On The Tea Party And The Rise Of Right-Wing Populism in current The Sun (magazine) interview with Chip Berlet by David Barsamian. 99.102.180.27 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps the word "populism" in the lead could be linked to Right-wing populism, to avoid any misconceptions. Dylan Flaherty 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Separate discussion:

Briefly:

grassroots - This is questionable, due to such things as the Koch factor. We can't lead with it.

conservative - Unquestionably accurate, and includes both libertarian and right wing as special cases.

populist - The distinguishing factor from the GOP is populism.

libertarian - Qualifies the general sort of conservatism, and should be mentioned, but not essential for the lead.

right wing - Applies to some, but not all, and is a bit strong. However, the term makes more sense to non-Americans.

This is why I support "conservative populist" or perhaps "conservative/libertarian populist". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty has it just right Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Grassroots is definitely reliably sourced and belongs in the lede. Grassroots conservative/libertarian/populist is fine with me, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me too. Especially conservative/libertarian populist. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, North8000. Yes, agree the libertarians should be there, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the change based on the consensus above. Hopefully, it won't be modified at random. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, being consensused,lets resolve to defend it, and move on to working on other parts of the article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I think the next trouble spot has to be Koch. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a new talk section. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On Mediation

No the appropriate place to look would be the mediation page for the first 3/4 of it, and then look at the talk page at the dates for the development and finalization of the text for the first 3 paragraphs in the lead. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Care to provide links? I've spent enough time searching for this consensus you keep referring to. WikiManOne (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have supplied the Mediation page result twice, once above and once below. Arzel (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Result

Here is the final mediation result.

FinalizationIt looks like it has been resolved. Thank you HamTechPerson for your help!

For the record, here is the worked-on portion of the lead (the first three paragraphs) that came out of it: North8000 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is a political movement in the United States that has sponsored locally- and nationally-coordinated protests since 2009.[1][2][3] Its platform is explicitly populist[4][5][6] and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian.[7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] lower taxes,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."[12]

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots, but it has so far endorsed Republican candidates.[13] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

The Mediation page is Here. This should be the place to start. I was not involved in this process, but considerable time was spent on it. It should not just be disregarded. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read through that, it appears to me that consensus was never reached. Rather, the "pro-grassroots" majority ran rough-shed over those opposed to it. Also, it appears to me that North8000 has a conflict of interest regarding this thread being libertarian (which is described as one of the goals of the tea party), but at the same time, everyone has political views.... WikiManOne (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say a final mediation result is pretty much a concensus. I am not sure what you mean by a COI with North. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It usually would be, but on that particular mediation, it doesn't even look like it was closed by the facilitator. He just gave them free range to continue discussing it. WikiManOne (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, please read the Mediation Cabal infobox, carefully. Also, having a point of view does not disqualify anyone from editing anything. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did. It is certainly worth noting that three editors have expressed their support for the current version until your unilateral revert against current discussions on this page. Also, please don't insinuate I said that having a point of view disqualifies anyone, I did not, and it is rather non-productive of you to insinuate I did. WikiManOne (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"North8000 has a conflict of interest regarding this thread being libertarian (which is described as one of the goals of the tea party)". Sound familiar? --Kenatipo (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that editors were able to reach a consensus back then. However this is now. Notice that we've all agreed, more or less, to delete the "no taxation" slogan. So consensuses can change or evaporate. The decision of December 2010 does not bind anyone in January 2011. Will Beback talk 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice what the starting point of the discussion was for the particular material in question. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, consensus can change, and I understand you are trying to make a point, but if something has been debated for several months, has gone through mediation for a consensus, and has only been in place for a matter of weeks (December 10 - January 11), then any challange to that consensus without significant new source material based on "a change in concensus" borders on bad faith editing. Wikipedia has policies in place for a reason. If there is information that was not taken into consideration, then by all means include it, but consensus doesn't change just because people want to bring up old arguments. Rapier (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding "unilateral"

The following comments are copied from my talk page (Fat&Happy (talk)):

Three different users voiced support for a new version and other users participated in the editing. I'm not sure how that falls under "unilateral." WikiManOne (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus version existed. You have modified it multiple times, and insisted that your version become the new base for discussion rather than the existing consensus. You continue to force your version after it has been reverted, in total disregard of WP:BRD. And, for the record, you are also now in violation of the article's 1RR restrictions. I suggest you revert yourself and allow present discussions to progress to conclusion rather than continuing to force your favored wording into the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where was this talked-about consensus discussed? We've been going over this same sentence for the past weeks and I don't see any clear consensus in any direction. Will Beback talk 08:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any notice of a 1RR limit for this article. Will Beback talk 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When you hit "edit" on the article, there's a notiice in giant letters that says:

"Attention!!! This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. (yes, that means you, the person trying to edit right now!)"

And the "notice below" says 1RR

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a probation notice to the page here and logged the probation on the relevant page. Will Beback talk 22:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where the current first three paragraphs of the lead came from

About 2/3 of the discussion was on a separate formal mediation page, and the final 1/3 of the discussion mostly moved to the article talk page. The result was the first three paragraphs of the lead. I'm guessing it was just about 2 months ago. This was one of the few sections in the entire article that has been the result of a substantial effort and consensus. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(added later)The main mediation page is at [[31]]

At the end I recorded and summarized the result and as such in a December 8th post in the article talk page which is now in archive 13. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where? Link? Will Beback talk 12:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The mediation page is as I inserted later above. The latter part of the process is in the article talk pages later november / early December. The end summary is at Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 13#Record the lead discussion / mediation process results for posterity

North8000 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus there, just an editors asserting a consensus. Will Beback talk 13:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is there is about as a thoroughly discussed and obvious consensus that ever occurs in Wikipeedia. Even the person who was most opposed to it in general (and who was subsequently perma banned for disruption)did not object. I don't know who to respond to someone who denies obvious and shown reality. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I clearly do not see consensus. Unless I am completely missing something. Therefore edits reverting to that version claiming "consensus" are not productive to the continual collaboration occurring on that article. WikiManOne (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The mediation result is the concensus. Will, WikiManOne, just why do you two fall to accept the mediation as a starting point? Do we need another mediation to decide whether to use the previous mediation as a starting point? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should the starting point be a version lacking consensus that has been productively edited by other editors since that point? That mediation ended inconclusively and the version proposed in the mediation has been improved upon by editors who are not taking part in this discussion, it would seem that the newest version should be the starting point for any discussions on improvement. _{nonsense.this}.WikiManOne.^{speaking.drivel!} 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing to used a recently badly POV attempted changes as a starting point for a discussion on changes in lieu of a recently heavily discussed, mediated consensus and decided version as the starting point. What rabbit hole have we jumped down here that it even needs discussion as to which way to go. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't a party to the the mediation, which I didn't even know about. Past consensus does not bind current editors. Let's move forward. Will Beback talk 21:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, consensus can change, and I understand you are trying to make a point, but if something has been debated for several months, has gone through mediation for a consensus, and has only been in place for a matter of weeks (December 10 - January 11), then any challange to that consensus without significant new source material based on "a change in concensus" borders on bad faith editing. Wikipedia has policies in place for a reason. If there is information that was not taken into consideration, then by all means include it, but consensus doesn't change just because people want to bring up old arguments. Rapier (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, any consensus that existed at that time has elaborated, let's continue collaborating to improve the lead rather than arguing over whether the lead can be edited. _{nonsense!this}WikiManOne^{speaking.drivel!} 01:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, consensus can change, and I understand you are trying to make a point, but if something has been debated for several months, has gone through mediation for a consensus, and has only been in place for a matter of weeks (December 10 - January 11), then any challenge to that consensus without significant new source material based on "a change in consensus" borders on bad faith editing. Wikipedia has policies in place for a reason. If there is information that was not taken into consideration, then by all means include it, but consensus doesn't change just because people want to bring up old arguments. (Thanks, Rapier. I couldn't have said it better myself.) --Kenatipo (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

80% of the article is unconsensused junk. Maybe 15% is unconsensused good stuff. And 5% has been heavily and recently consensused and worked on. And so a few folks have made it their mission to start with the 5% for "rework". And why is that? North8000 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.169.72.25, 15 January 2011

The first section should be changed as follows:

The article says:

Its platform is explicitly populist[4][5][6] and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian.[7][8]

The word "libertarian" should be deleted. Most libertarians belong to the libertarian party, and not the Republican party, specifically because the Republicans do not accept the social freedoms promoted by the libertarian movement, and the libertarian party. I know many libertarians, as well, who do not support the tea party because of their radically conservative social views, and, considering that many join the libertarian party in OPPOSITION to those views, I do not see how the Tea Party can be described as "libertarian". Some examples: Most Libertarians support rights to abortion, pornography, drugs, sex, free speech in all its guises, and are antiwar. Most Tea Party people do not. It would be more accurate to describe the tea party as populist, constitutionalist or conservative or some other word.

Most importantly, while Tea Party supporters may want the Federal government not to get involved in some things, they would have no problem with state governments doing the same thing, while a true libertarian wants neither government to intervene. That is the crucial distinction.

A quick look on Google confirms these views:

Classically Liberal: Tea Party, neither tea nor a party.Apr 16, 2010 ... First, the big news: the Tea Party is not libertarian oriented. Not in any way, any shape, or any form. What I saw was the worst of the ... freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/.../tea-party-neither-tea-nor-party.html - Cached►A libertarian take on the Tea Party movementMar 15, 2010 ... Now, I think what you see is that within the tea party thing they're not talking most of the time about foreign policy; they're not talking ... www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com...id... - CachedLibertarian Tea Parties? Not So Much : Dispatches from the Culture ...Jun 7, 2010 ... I have no doubt that Tea Party is not a libertarian movement. It is an authoritarian movement. The people in it want an authoritarian ... scienceblogs.com/dispatches/.../libertarian_tea_parties_not_so.php - CachedLibertarian Fantasies and the Tea Party MovementJan 3, 2011 ... The Tea Party and the current state of libertarianism are ... For libertarians, not all progress is created equal, and perhaps these two ... hnn.us/articles/135005.html - CachedPalin Drives Libertarians out of Tea Party | FiredoglakeFeb 8, 2010 ... The tea party is not pro interventionist foreign policy. A really good way to get libertarian factions to disassociate would be to make that ... firedoglake.com/.../palin-drives-libertarians-out-of-tea-party/ - Cached - SimilarPat Dixon: Libertarian take on the tea party movement ...Aug 16, 2010 ... There is no unified tea party platform. Much of what we see promoted by its presumed leaders is not Libertarian. It has veered in many ... www.independentpoliticalreport.com/.../pat-dixon-libertarian-take-on-the-tea -party-movement/ - CachedOn Social Issues, Tea Partiers Are Not Libertarians - Chris Good ...Oct 6, 2010 ... The Tea Party is full of desire, but I'm not sure social conservatism means ... on music and culture, Wendy KaminerLawyer, civil libertarian ... www.theatlantic.com/politics/.../10/...tea...not-libertarians/64169/ - Cached

The articles referenced to support that the tea party is "libertarian" do not even use the word "libertarian" in the articles! The polls of tea party participants show that they do not hold libertarian views, and are more similar to conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.154 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Both this particular topic and the entire first sentence are the end product of an extensive discussion and mediation process. Would take hours to recap all of that (look a few months back, and be sure to follow the links to the mediaiton page) it can still be looked up in the mediation page) , but briefly the TP is diverse in that respect, which can be the case because the areas (which you correctly identified) where it's Libertarian and classic Republican "members" would disagree are generally not a part of the TP agenda, either way. But you are absolutely wrong about "most Libertarians are in the Libertarian Party", with myself and many Libertarians that I know being an example (none are in the LP) North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale

Was there ever a discussion as to the importance of this article? It is currently considered "high" importance in WP:US but only "mid" importance in WP:POLITICS? WikiManOne (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of since I've been here (like August). But those ratings are usually assigned by folks from those projects. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the editor who rated it.[32] FWIW, Libertarian Party (United States) is rated "low" on the same scale of importance, despite being the third-largest political party in the country. Will Beback talk 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Those rating are very arbitrary... some projects have better guidelines on how they are rated, but for the most part, importance ratings is more or less haphazard. As for different ratings, that is to be expected. An issue can be more important to one project than to another project. For example, a person who is might be notable for two things... on one project, his importance is low on the other it might be high.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will (and all), thanks for your note. As Balloonman indicates, rating isn't an exact science and it is perfectly reasonable to have different importance ratings for the same article on different projects. I think the reason i put it as mid on politics was that is for all politics in the world, whilst the Tea Party is basically an American movement. I'm pretty sure the low rating for Libertarian party is too low so have changed that up. whilst the liberterian party is technically the third party in the US, the Tea party movement would seem to have more importance. there can be reasonable disagreement over the ratings so feel free to change them. Tom B (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My question was about ratings within a project. Given the scope of articles covered by Wikiproject US, "high" seems excessive. "Mid" seems more appropriate. Any objections to changing it? Will Beback talk 02:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

High= "Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." Mid= "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." On reading this, I would say that the article was "High" Tom B (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorsed candidates

The Tea Party is an American political movement that, beginning in 2009, has sponsored protests and endorsed candidates locally and nationally.

An editor deleted the statement from the lede that the TPM has endorsed candidates, saying "given that there is no real consensus over who represents the movement as a whole, this is somewhat too controversial to add to the first sentence".[33] This article includes a large section about candidates endorsed by the TPM. If the TPM does not endorse candidates then we should deleted that section. If it does endorse them, then those endorsements seem as important as the protests. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we're not sure who represents the movement can we say that they sponsor protests? Will Beback talk 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback brings up a valid issue over endorsements. Any office seeker or incumbant candidate that speaks at Tea Party rallies is a de facto endorsement from the Tea Party by applause. For example, Rep. Joe Wilson was applauded at a Tea Party Rally on Capitol Hill. That is an endorsment by the fact Rep. Joe Wilson was accepted by the Tea Party movement by applause. Concensus is given at these rallies by their applause support. Until the Tea Party becomes an actual party, this is the only way to discern whom the movement supports at these individual state rallies. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another solution is to say that groups affiliated with the movement are acting on behalf of the movement when they endorse candidates or organize protests. If there are no known members of the TPM then this article will be much shorter. Will Beback talk 00:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just an opinion. When a party claims to be independent there is difficulty with pin pointing any blame or responsibility on any movement participants. That in part is why the TPM has been successful. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

An important point to take note of is that in politics, the word "endorsed" is usually interpreted differently that just the word support.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the right word to describe the relationship of the TPM to so-called Tea Party candidates? "Promoted"? Will Beback talk 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say supported.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you object to putting that in the lead, next to organizing protests? Also, I believe that some of the Tea Party groups do explicitly endorse candidates, which we should say somehow. Will Beback talk

I think that would be acceptable. In terms of individual groups endorsing candidates, we have to be careful. I can't think of an fitting metaphor (this political movement really is quite interesting), but we can't give off the notion that these groups are necessarily speaking for the movement as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Add reference from Dante Chinni and James Gimpel's October 2010 book Our Patchwork Nation regarding Tp [34]

Add reference from Dante Chinni and James Gimpel's October 2010 book Our Patchwork Nation: The Surprising Truth About The "Real" America section called Reading The Tea Party Leaves starting on page 178; with example quotes [35] "... |quasi-independent quasi-grassroots" conservative voter groups..." and which Community Types draw the most and least ("Boom Towns" and "Industrial Metropolis") with geographic distribution of 67,000 members as of March 2010. 99.181.145.88 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

IMHO, the first sentence of the lead should say WHY they protest and/or WHY they support certain candidates. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence describes the platform - how's that different from what you're asking about? Will Beback talk 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence should tell us more than that they protest and vote; it should summarize the whole article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to summarize the entire article in a sentence - that's the job of the intro as a whole. Per WP:LEAD, a first sentence should instead aim to tell readers why the subject is notable.

The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.

The subject is an American political movement that became active in 2009. We could stop there. Since the second sentence concerns the policies supported by the movement, it'd be redundant to include those in the first sentence as well. Will Beback talk 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I would take any writing advice from the person who wrote that sentence from WP:LEAD. "The subject of this article is the Tea Party movement." Wonderful. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Which person is that? I don't see that text anywhere. Will Beback talk 02:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. is the sentence I'm talking about. If I follow its advice, I get: "The subject of this article is the Tea Party movement." --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant that suggestion seriously. Obviously, that's not what is meant. Have you read any other articles on Wikipedia? Do any of them begin that way? Let's not waste each other's time with unhelpful discussions. Will Beback talk 04:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the sentence. It asks about what the subject of the article is, not just what it's called. As in "Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States," not "Barack Obama is Barack Obama."--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) Yes, you're right. I probably misinterpreted the sentence. I avoid reading WP policies like the plague. Much prefer to rely on common sense. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged racism

I plan to add the sub segment title "Alleged racism" in the Controversy section. This will cover the paragraphs that give attention to alleged racism in the TPM. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which paragraphs would those be? One objection I have is against adding to the controversy section when we should be integrating the encyclopedic portions of it into the article while reducing or eliminating the present laundry list format. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Views of supporters

This subsection is extremely obscure, and horribly difficult to understand. It does not make it clear what Arizona's immigration law is, with no links to Arizona SB 1070. It also does not make any attempt to explain why they are against Obama's policy to Muslims-- or even which policy it is. Are they against how the policy is not discriminating, or too discriminating? The subsection is nearly impossible to understand, and cites two tiny sources which appear to be trying to save pixels by using as little words as possible. And the page protection prevents anyone from clarifying it. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The protection just requires an account (possibly an autoconfirmed one). Maybe get an account and join us? Or else write it here for us to put in. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Register an account and you'll be able to edit the article in four days. Will Beback talk 04:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Republican vs. Tea Party "membership"

If there is a Tea Party membership, then, why are all the Tea Party participants part of an established Republican Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Who says they are all Republicans? Also, just for the sake of argument, it is possible that not all "A" are "B", but all "B" are "A". This is a classic causation mistake that people make all the time. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the list Tea Party Politicians. The Tea Party is about the issues, not the candidates. Rep. Joe Wilson is not part of the TPM because the Press does not consider him part of the movement. That seems to be a circular arguement. Also, who is to judge "A" and "B" in the first place? Person "C". Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works is that we report what reliable sources say. Will Beback talk 04:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)

Is Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) is Tea Party politician? It's not mentioned in his WP bio. Just because he spoke at a Tea Party event doesn't necessarily make him a part of the movement, does it? I'm asking because of the "You lie" material. Will Beback talk 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Going twice... Will Beback talk 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no official Tea Party party ballot, yet. The only way to gauge if a person is a participant in a Tea Party is by speaking at the Tea Party. Rep. Joe Wilson is accepted by the Tea Party movement since he is speaking at events. Confirmation is given by applause or cheers from the Tea Party audience. Technically nobody is a member of the Tea Party, until an actual Tea Party ballot and platform are made. Rep. Joe Wilson by his participation at two [correction: three Tea Party rallies] Tea Party rallies is a Tea Party participant and he has received applause from the Tea Party audience on Capitol Hill in 2010. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a muddled video; however, Rep. Joe Wilson is at a New Jersey Tea Party event; Mike Proto Interview with Joe Wilson at Tea Party Rally in Morristown, New Jersey...and another Heading To New Jersey. Here is a news link: Congressman Joe Wilson Headlines 'Tea Party' at Ford Mansion; Rallies for Chris Christie Rep. Joe Wilson was the headline speaker! Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Joe Wilson went to two Tea Party events in New Jersey plus the Capitol Hill Tea Party rally. This was in 2009. I currently do not know if Rep. Joe Wilson is currently affiliated with the TPM. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. He may be a hero to the TPM, but that does not mean he is part of the TPM. He was not included in any of the three lists of TPM politicians put out by news media in 2010.[36][37][38] Nor does he hold any positions in Tea Party organizations. He made appearances after the outburst, but not before. For those reasons, I don't think we should include the Wilson material in this article. Will Beback talk 23:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you except for the point that there is no official Tea Party to join. The Tea Party currently is a faction of the Republican Party. Rep. Joe Wilson is a conservative Republican. There maybe a Democratic faction of the Tea Party, however, I am unware of any. Rep. Joe Wilson was embrassed by the TMP as a hero. He stood up to President Barack Obama, and shouted "You lie!" when the President was speaking on Health Care. The TMP is staunchly against the Pres. Barack Obama Healthcare movement. Since there is no official TMP ballot or platform everyone and no one can be a member. How can one tell if a person is TMP or just a Republican? A cheering TPM rally welcoming Rep. Joe Wilson as their keynote speaker is evidence that Rep. Joe Wilson is or has been a participant in the TMP. He may not have current affiliation with the TMP, however, he used to. I only suggest any further opinions from other wikipedia critics. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that merely appearing at an event or two means one is a member of a movement. Do we have any source that actually says he is a member or the movement or any subgroup, or are we just using our own original research to decide that? Will Beback talk 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no official membership. A party has a ballot, candidates, and a platform. No one can yet register to be a member of the TPM. There are no registered members in the TMP, just participants. Rep. Joe Wilson became a participant in the TMP when he voiced "You lie!" during Pres. Obama's speech on healthcare. There is no original research on my part. Since there is no official party to join, then, how can one decipher whether one is a participant of the TPM? This leaves only one method of deciphering who are TPM participants, that is approval. According to Wikipedia applause is "primarily the expression of approval. The "louder and longer the noise, the stronger the sign of approval". Cheering, according to Wikipedia is "uttering or making of sounds encouraging, stimulating or exciting to action, indicating approval". I admit this is a touchy area since there is no official Tea Party ballot, candidates, or platform. Until there is a platform, candidates, and ballots only approval can be considered recognition in the TPM. Rep. Joe Wilson has been approved and recognized by the TMP. As far as I know, all Republican participants in the TPM remain registered Republicans on the ballot. Rep. Joe Wilson participated in three TPM rallies. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Joe Wilson became a participant in the TMP when he voiced "You lie!" during Pres. Obama's speech on healthcare. Huh? That's quite an extrapolation. As I listed above, three different news agencies compiled lists of TPM candidates. There are also organizations which are discussed as belonging to the movement. Wilson is not a part of any of them, and was not on any of the lists. He did not attend the rallies until after he made the outburst, so even if speaking and being applauded at them made him a TPM member that happened weeks later. Adding things that people did before joining the TPM seems unnecessary. I'll add a note over at talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) pointing to this discussion and asking if anyone there thinks he is a TPM politician. Will Beback talk 01:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no official Tea Party on the Ballot, therefore, the news media's compolition of Tea Party members is moot and entirely subjective. The whole TPM is nothing but a media event. The media created this TPM and even is assigning "membership" to a party that does not exist. If other editors do not believe Rep. Joe Wilson to be part of the TPM even though he yelled "You lie!" at the President of the United States on international television, even though he refused to apoligize to the House of Representatives, even though he spoke before three TPM rallys, then the paragraph can be deleted. Other input would be valued. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Joe Wilson yelled "You lie!" to President Obama because Wilson was upset over the alleged "coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill". Rep. Joe Wilson Yells Out "You Lie!" During Obama Health Care Speech Illegal immigration and healthcare are highly prioritized with the TPM. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to the health care reform effort predates the Tea Party movement, as does the immigration issue. I disagree that the media's lists of TPM candidates are moot or subjective. I especially object to the idea that we should use the judgment of Wikipedia editors in the place of reliable sources. I still haven't seen a single source that describes Wilson as a Tea Party politician, even those which report that he spoke at a few TPM rallies. Will Beback talk 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not argueing that the Press institutions are not reliable sources, rather, the legitimacy of whether there is an actual Tea Party ballot with candidates and a platform. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be going in circles. Is there an official Tea Party on the ballot? Until there is an official Tea Party, there is no membership. This Wikipedia page claims the Tea Party is a movement, not an official party. How can the press claim this candidate or incumbent is Tea Party, when there is no Tea Party on the ballot? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Couple of sidebar items. First, the question of whether or not it is an official PARTY is irrelevant to the above conversations. Elements of it can be fully organized, partially organized etc., can have / not have official members. And a movement can have people that are part of it or participants in it without the existence of membership categorization, or inclusion in that categorization were it does exist. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree! Rep. Joe Wilson participated in the Tea Party movement. How can the press choose who is part of the Tea Party movement, when there is no Tea Party candidate to vote for on the ballot. Here is the Democratic Party web site: Democratic Party. Here is the Republican Party web site: Republican Party. Here is a website for the Tea Party: Tea Party Patriots. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties have a committee chairman. There is no committee chairman or national committee for the Tea Party. I looked on the Tea Party web page an there was a list of things Tea Party Members are suppose to do. There was nothing there about joining a national organization. Here is a list of things you have to do to be in the Tea Party:

"1.Hold rallies and vigils in very public places and try to get as much media as you can

2.Write letters to the editors of local newspapers.

3.Write articles on your own blogs and comment on other blogs, especially those that seek to propagandize for Obamacare

4.Call, email, and fax Congress.

5.Post the facts on your Facebook pages and Twitter accounts.

6.Respond through press releases to local media.

7.Form your own rapid response team to combat the Obama machine.

8.Most Democrats like to trot out personal, anecdotal stories about how repealing Obamacare will hurt a specific person, so tell your story about how Obamacare will hurt you if it is not repealed.

9.Take the time to confirm and double check the facts and arguments.

10.Use your network and the experience you gained from working for campaigns to reach out to people in your area - i.e. schedule phone banks, door belling, sign waving - basically, instead of working to educate your neighbors about a candidate, work to educate your neighbors about the dangers of Obamacare."^[2]

The Tea Party seems to be just a list of things to do, rather, then a platform. This Tea Party website claims to be the Tea Parties official home: [Tea Party Patriots]. How can the press say there is any membership in the Tea Party. Rep. Joe Wilson protested health care and illegal immigration to Pres. Obama's face on international television, then he spoke at three TMP events. That is evidence that Rep. Joe Wilson is part of the TPM. However, if the editors agree that the Press is the best source for alleged membership in the Tea Party movement, then take the reference to Rep. Joe Wilson off this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

^ Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. p. 45. Retrieved 01-25-2011. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "Tea Party Patriots". Retrieved 02-03-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Here is a list of things you have to do to be in the Tea Party: That is entirely incorrect. That is described as "some ways that you can combat the statist machine and their talking points, starting right now:". Any number of political movements could put out similar lists of suggestions for things to do to help a cause. It's not informative to this discussion. Will Beback talk 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually sort of saying the opposite. They are a movement, and an agglomeration of organizations. People are participants, members (even if not formal) or a part of the movement. The "not a party" thing is a red herring to this conversation and has no relevance to anything. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, North8000, that this is a movement rather then an actual party. The question is whether Rep. Joe Wilson was part of that movement when he shouted "You lie!" at the President of the United States. Do you, North8000, believe Rep. Joe Wilson was part of the TPM? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There probably isn't a black and white answer to that question. In the shades a gray, I would say that the connection is stronger than it is for a lot of the other stuff that is included in this article. Regardign the topic, reducing taxes and government spending is clearly on the TPM agendas, racism certainly isn't (despite the inuendo crap that this article is full of). Illegal immigration is borderline, but somewhat prevalent in TP agendas. He appears to have some prominence and acceptance in the TPM. I haven't seen whether or not he identifies himself as a TP'er (I'm guessing yes) which would have some relevance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks North8000. My whole arguement is that any progressive association with acceptance by TPM participants towards TPM rally speakers is in a sense "membership" to the TPM. I am not disputing any persons that the Press has associated with the TMP. Those persons are valid. Since the Press does not list Rep. Joe Wilson as a "member" of the TMP, does that exclude him from this article? I mean it takes guts to say the President is a liar and interupting a joint session of the U.S. Congress. What is the difference between that action and the TPM protesting outside Capitol Hill? I have attempted to make this article "race neutral" as possible, however, if the polls or any canvasses are accurate, then many in the TPM have conservative views when race is presented as an issue. I just believe that this should be presented with other views TPM participants have. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On the main question (now that I understand it) I agree with you. By the standard that Will put forth in this discussion, nobody would be considered to be in the TPM.

Race is a skin color not a specific issue. Anytime we talk about race issues, we have to be more specific. For example, I am aware of conservative view on government actions regarding race (e.g. affirmative action) and on illegal immigration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There are scores of politicians who've been called TPM politicians in sources. Note the three media lists linked above. It's just that Wilson isn't among them. Will Beback talk 22:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide an actual source saying the Wilson is a member of the TPM or its constituent parts then he should be included here. Saying he is a member without a source is "original research". Will Beback talk 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying Rep. Joe Wilson is a member of the TPM. That is my whole point. There are no members, ballots, candiates, platforms, or committees. However, since this is causing a hurluberlu, I will put the Rep. Joe Wilson paragraph in the talk page for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed from TPM article:

Former President Jimmy Carter had mentioned that an outburst, "You lie!", by Rep. Joe Wilson during President Barack Obama's joint session of Congress speech on healthcare in September, 2009, was "based on racism" and an attempt to spread fear of having an African American as President. The White House, has made efforts to downplay the accusations, and said that Obama does not believe he is being criticized because of his race. Wilson insisted that his outburst was "spontaneous"; however, the House of Representatives gave a rare formal vote of rebuke for Wilson's controversial action.^[1] Wilson spoke before a Tea Party Capitol Hill rally in November, 2009, where he criticized then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and advocated financial protection for senior citizens and lower taxes for small businesses. He also appeared at a Tea Party event in Morristown, New Jersey in late September.^[2] Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

^ "White House disputes Carter's analysis". MSNBC. September 16, 2009. Retrieved May 13, 2010."Joe Wilson says outburst to Obama speech 'spontaneous'". September 10, 2009. Retrieved 01-30-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ Kleefeld, Eric (November 5, 2009). "Joe Wilson A Hit At Capitol Hill Tea Party". Retrieved 01-30-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Thanks. We can reinstate it if we find a source that says he's part of the movement.

As for your statement that there are no members, ballots, candidates, platforms, or committees, I have to disagree again, but we can discuss it separately if necessary. Will Beback talk 01:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I can start a new discussion on why all the current Press confirmed Tea Party "members" are all Republicans, rather then have their own party on the ballot. Also, I not sure why the Press is the all knowing factor on who is part of the TPM and who is not. In fact the Tea Party Patriots states, "instead of working to educate your neighbors about a candidate, work to educate your neighbors about the dangers of Obamacare". That means the TPM is not directly concerned with candidates, but rather a specific issue. The list does not say anything concerning informing people on the incumbants. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Will, by the new standard, if it's not about an RS confirmed official TP member, it doesn't belong in the article. Finally, a reason to get rid of the 2,000 words of junk that is in this article. Unless you are advocating a double standard. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty obvious standard, and it should have been applied from the beginning. If someone has not been mentioned as a member of the TPM or its constituent elements in a reliable source then we shouldn't describe them as a part of the movement based on our own judgment call. I don't know which "2,000 words of junk" you're talking about. I suggest starting a new thread to discuss any specific issues that aren't related to Wilson. Will Beback talk 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

With all do respect, since this a movement then there are only participants rather then members. Do any sources have these Tea Party "members" show an actual registration of their membership. Or at least say the membership is chosen by the media rather then persons joining an actual party. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you read the article we're discussing?

Tea Party Patriots, an organization with more than 1,000 affiliated groups across the nation[87] that proclaims itself to be the "Official Home of the Tea Party Movement;[88]
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, a loose national coalition of several dozen local tea party groups;
In July 2010, Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, formed the House congressional Tea Party Caucus.

These groups belong to the TPM and have members. Anyway, if we're done discussing Wilson let's close this thread and start a fresh one for any other issues. Will Beback talk 22:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That is fine about closing this segment. I can start another segment on what constitutes membership in Tea Party movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party membership

What constitutes Tea Party membership? The national leaders in the Tea Party movement, are they registered or members of any of these groups? How does the Press judge whether a national Tea Party leader is a Tea Party member? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the Press exactly how they make their determinations. The New York Times' list of TPM candidates was compiled from endorsements by several Tea Party groups. Membership in a Tea Party group would be an indication of membership in the Tea Party movement. Self-description as a member of the movement would probably suffice as well. Will Beback talk 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to violent far right groups

Is this best put in the other controversies or does it need a new section. Is it even controversial or just part of the movement's makeup? --94.0.232.142 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What violent far right groups are you talking about and which sources link them? Will Beback talk 22:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

did you mean Right-wing, Far-right, Right-wing authoritarianism, or radical right? all four are different beliefs, all four have been accused of being violent, which specific group did you mean to link? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're reading this...

Then you have what it takes to be a part of the best project ever conceived on wikipedia... Find out more here... Lionel (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. p. 45. Retrieved 01-21-2011. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[2] Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. p. 45. Retrieved 01-25-2011. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[3] "Tea Party Patriots". Retrieved 02-03-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[4] "White House disputes Carter's analysis". MSNBC. September 16, 2009. Retrieved May 13, 2010."Joe Wilson says outburst to Obama speech 'spontaneous'". September 10, 2009. Retrieved 01-30-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[5] Kleefeld, Eric (November 5, 2009). "Joe Wilson A Hit At Capitol Hill Tea Party". Retrieved 01-30-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]