Talk:Tea Party movement

Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:

And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.

Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.

This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.

99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See Pork barrel. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Corn Refiners Association the "corn lobby"? 99.181.134.238 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not the best term for it. The concentrated interest for ethanol production is core refiners. Beyond that it gets broader/ less focused, i.e. all farmers / the farming industry. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest

But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.

Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This? Video: Tea Partiers, Sponsored by Big Oil, Speak Out Against Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine). 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good is an anti-reliable source. If something appears there, it makes it even less likely to be accurate. Still, there may a reliable source for the fact that some TPmms (Tea Party movement members) are against subsidies for and/or against Big Oil, although you haven't yet produced one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is anti-reliable, can't find it: WP:anti-reliable ... ? 99.181.156.238 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, founder of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, says ending that ethanol subsidy would amount to a tax cut for everyone else. "Mr. Norquist says that violates the pledge," he says, "but when you look at what tax-payers have to pay [in higher food and energy costs], it's a tax reduction."

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin calls to eliminate energy subsidies this one is from Politico.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol and this is from the LA Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this in Sarah Palin too? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

From Reason (magazine)'s Reason.com ... Mitt Romney's Embrace of Ethanol Subsidies is Enough to Make Tim Pawlenty Look...Less Bad! by Nick Gillespie; May 31, 2011 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time

One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman (Jr.), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.

from GOP presidential contenders are cooling toward global warming (Denver Post) 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Energy subsidies hard to quit for GOP candidates on Politico.com and In an Era of Partisanship, Who Are the Grown-Ups? by Katie Howell of Greenwire on the New York Times published: June 8, 2011. 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb

In 2010 Exxon Mobil Corp., the most profitable company in the world, earned over $30 billion in profits on gross revenue of over $350 billion and paid no U.S federal income taxes. In fact, the industry receives over $4 billion per year in direct taxpayer handouts to promote drilling - as if the energy industry needs to be motivated to drill. This contradiction is obscene. (New York Times)

Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor

The targeted tax breaks for the top five oil companies – Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips – account for about $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years, or $2 billion a year.

99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:

Fred Upton, who was first elected in 1986, discussed the decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Let’s face it — it is a bad idea,” he declares.

from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...

Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From June 26, 2011; The San Diego Union-Tribune's SignOnSanDiego: Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies by John H. Reaves. 99.35.13.202 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented on most of your references, but this one does not say much of the Tea Party. It might be appropriate in other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin on this one, too vague and all-inclusive to be in just the TP movement wp article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See related http://energytomorrow.org by the American Petroleum Institute. (Fossil fuels lobby). 99.181.136.35 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The greenwashing fossil fuels lobby TV ads? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You could say that, but stay focused on this section. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting: GOP Rep Seeks to Stop Kids from Learning about Energy Efficiency on TreeHugger by Brian Merchant, July 18, 2011.

The Tea Party crowd's aversion to better energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is well known by now: A straightforward, industry-supported 2007 bill signed into law by George W. Bush has now been falsely construed as a 'light bulb ban', and pushed as the latest overwrought metaphor for freedom itself slipping away into the cold American night. Of course, it's mostly little more than opportunistic grandstanding. ... Sandy Adams (R-FL) has introduced an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill that would "would limit funds for any DOE website 'which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents,' according to Politico. In Adams' cross hairs is the Dept. of Energy's "Energy Kids!" website ...

99.190.80.55 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See Energy Information Administration for eia.gov 99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See United States Department of Energy for "DOE". 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See George W. Bush or more accurately Presidency of George W. Bush for Executive Branch of the United States. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from Republicans Seek Big Cuts in Environmental Rules by Leslie Kaufman, published: July 27, 2011 in The New York Times ...

Environmental regulations and the E.P.A. have been the bane of Tea Party Republicans almost from the start. Although particularly outraged by efforts to monitor carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas linked to the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, freshmen Republicans have tried to rein in the E.P.A. across the board — including proposals to take away its ability to decide if coal ash can be designated as a toxic material and to prevent it from clarifying rules enforcing the Clean Water Act. ... “It is already like a wish list for polluters,” Mr. Dicks said, “and it is going to get worse on the floor.”

also see Environmental policy of the United States, Energy policy of the United States, Climate change policy of the United States, and Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration #Climate change. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Republicans should have a wp article. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No need for any different article, but the title might lend itself to decreasing the confusion of this article. But you can get to where you want to go from here. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see Tea Party Caucus. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would the fossil fuels lobby/Tea Party Republicans holding-up progress on lowering the Federal debt with 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis brinksmanship be part of this section? 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

See United States public debt, but it needs improvement in its graphs, for example clarity of Presidency of Bill Clinton era verses Presidency of George W. Bush era. 99.35.14.231 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See National debt by U.S. presidential terms, focus on increase in debt/GDP % ... 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.231 (talk)

How about this, with a quote from Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation regarding post-carbon sustainability ... Crashing the bus: why we should watch the Tea Partyby Erik Lindberg, published Jul 30 2011 by transition milwaukee, archived Jul 30 2011. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the Post Carbon Institute associated with energybulletin.net? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What of this The EPA: the Tea Party's next target _ House Republicans aim to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, rolling back 40 years' progress on clean air and water by Diane Roberts on guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 August 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Energy Subsidy Battle Reignites as Debt Deal Preserves Tax Breaks by Elana Schor of Greenwire via The New York Times published: August 1, 2011 ... excerpt

The study sought by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) restricted EIA to "models that have long been used by the fossil fuels lobby to defend the massive government handouts it receives," environmentalists at Greenpeace, Oil Change International and the Checks and Balances Project wrote in their request for data today.

99.181.151.50 (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an Easy $100 Billion Cut NYT Editorial published: August 7, 2011, excerpt

If the Republicans are truly determined to slash the budget and end government waste, they will start with two obvious and long overdue cuts: ending the web of tax breaks enjoyed by the rolling-in-dough oil industry and terminating the ethanol subsidy. Together these cuts would save up to $100 billion over 10 years, without hurting the poor and middle class or slowing the economy. If only. The oil industry’s well-paid defenders — lobbyists and lawmakers in unison — will surely scream “tax hike” and claim that ending $4 billion a year in sweetheart subsidies will decrease production and increase prices at the pump. All of which is nonsense ... According to the Congressional Research Service, ending the subsidies would have no effect on gas prices and a trivial effect on profits. The Big Five — Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Shell — reported combined profits of $35.1 billion for just the second quarter. Yes, you read that right. The ethanol subsidies are just as unnecessary. The big one is a 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit that costs between $5 billion and $6 billion a year and goes not to corn farmers, as commonly supposed, or to ethanol producers, but to the refineries that blend ethanol with conventional gasoline. Which is to say, the oil companies.

99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, see Petroleum industry for "oil industry". 99.190.85.108 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

99, are you going anywhere (regarding TPM article content) will all of this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a great idea Special:Contributions/North8000! Do you want to help? (",) 99.181.138.215 (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no North8000 response, how about Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race August 17, 2011 NYT article by John M. Broder; excerpt

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., the former Utah governor, thinks most new environmental regulations should be shelved until the economy improves. Only Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has a kind word for the E.P.A., and that is qualified by his opposition to proposed regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. Opposition to regulation and skepticism about climate change have become tenets of Republican orthodoxy, but they are embraced with extraordinary intensity this year because of the faltering economy, high fuel prices, the Tea Party passion for smaller government and an activist Republican base that insists on strict adherence to the party’s central agenda. But while attacks on the E.P.A., climate-change science and environmental regulation more broadly are surefire applause lines with many Republican primary audiences, these views may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say. The American people, by substantial majorities, are concerned about air and water pollution, and largely trust the E.P.A., national surveys say. “Not only are these positions irresponsible, they’re politically problematic,” said David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group that believes that conservation should be a core value of the party. “The whole idea that you have to bash the E.P.A. and run away from climate change to win a Republican primary has never been borne out. Where’s the evidence?”

99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism redirects to Global warming controversy, while Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That is only reliable for when you check it, redirects can be changed. 99.181.141.119 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would this be more relevant to the seperate wp articles for who the "Tea Party movement" supports such as the Republicans vying for the United States presidential election, 2012. An example of a seperate article would be Political positions of Mitt Romney, Michelle_Bachman#Global_warming, Rick_Perry#Environmental_issues or maybe even Sarah_Palin#Environment? I'd guess Jon Huntsman, Jr. is not supported by the TPers. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting kind of confusing. Long story short, if someone has objective sources and has something that is really about the TPM, put it in. That would be better than the 80% crap in this crap article. But I think we should start using a higher standard for new material. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to be helpful in adding this (edited) information, Special:Contributions/North8000? 99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying.North8000 (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar question by Special:Contributions/99.181.138.215 above this one. 50.42.182.54 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.82.45 (talk)

This is just going to be just mysterious chaos until somebody clearly says what they are suggesting /proposing. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Perry's climate views shared by 'tea party' faithful, survey says by Mark Z. Barabak in LA Times September 9, 2011; excerpt ...

When it comes to global warming, the poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication finds a stark difference in opinion among Democrats, independents and even most Republicans as opposed to the "tea party" faithful -- the most conservative of conservative voters, whom Perry is courting in his bid for the GOP nomination. Nearly 8 in 10 Democrats believe that global warming is happening, as do just over 7 in 10 independents. Just over half of Republicans share that view. But only 34% of tea party acolytes accept the notion and more than half, 53%, reject the notion our atmosphere is getting hotter. In a follow-up question, participants were asked if, in fact, global warming was happening, what was the cause. Fifty percent of tea partyers attributed it to natural causes, rather than man's activities; 21% wouldn't even entertain the question, again insisting it wasn't happening. That number compared to 43% of Republicans and 35% of independents who blamed nature. More than 6 in 10 Democrats cited human activities.

Among other findings:

• A substantial majority of Democrats, 72%, worry about global warming, compared with 53% of independents, 38% percent of Republicans and 24% of tea party activists.
• Tea party acolytes are more likely to be "born-again" or evangelicals (46%) than Republicans (31%), Democrats (21%) or independents (20%)

With his poke-in-the-eye stance on global warming and provocative statements on Social Security, Perry is clearly focused on winning the party's nomination by leaning far right, leaving the wooing of those independents, moderate Republicans and cross-over Democrats for later. (Presuming he makes it to the general election.) Will the strategy work? Mark McKinnon, a Texan and veteran GOP strategist, sized it up well post-debate: "Mitt Romney said everything establishment Republicans wanted to hear. Rick Perry said everything anti-establishment Republicans wanted to hear. The question is where are there more Republicans in the primary today?"

99.119.130.203 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That TPM-oriented survey sounds like it'd be worth summarizing.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(added later) If we could do it well with accurate & neutral wording, I think that would be good. But such is unlikely in our environment here. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe add a wikilink to global warming and resulting climate change (Climate change in the United States), Politics of global warming (United States), Attribution of recent climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change in contrast with portrayed Media coverage of climate change and resulting Public opinion on climate change? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Cap_and_Trade_wording maybe related. 99.181.150.29 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why has Fox's involvement been downplayed?

I didn't see any good explanation why in the archives. I did see a repetition of Fox News's (countered) points (e.g. "Fox news was only covering and was the only one covering them" even though they put their name on them and organized them, and other networks also reported them), but no explanation why Fox's involvement in the protests they put their name on and organized should be treated as something they had no involvment with. There's nothing about Fox's promotion of the FNC (Fox News Channel) Tax Day Tea Parties? Mediamatters has plenty on this:

• REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests

• Fox & Friends left the "FNC" out of "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties"

• Fox News takes ownership of tea parties, and, therefore, their extremist rhetoric

• Fox News again declares ownership with label "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties"

... And so on. If the objection is "Mediamatters isn't balanced," neither is Fox, but we don't decide that, we present any semi-reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. MMfA is a left-wing activist site with a declared objective to bring down FNC. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While it is accepted as a source, the issue is what weight should be given to the opinions. Fox obviously plays an important role in the Tea Party, but there are better sources that explain it. TFD (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Op-ed pieces by an 100% advocacy organization such as MMfA are just that. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

News organizations with a tilt (CNN, Fox, MSN etc......actually most of the big ones) are still news organizations. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Fox News is AWESOME and so is the tea party and Media Matters is only for dirty hippy communists. — goethean ॐ 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the latter is for advocates with the the mission of bringing down FNC. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you think that this is an appropriate place to insert GOP talking points. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN has previously established that if we cannot use MMfA because it's left wing, we can't use Fox News because it's right wing (and not even because it has used stories from the Onion with a straight face); but that excluding either for such reasons is tantamount to original research. It is allowed in other articles.

MMfA says they're "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," they don't state that they're dedicated tot taking down FNC. Seeing how they also monitor (and criticize) NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC as well, accusations of being an advocacy organization dedicated to taking down Fox sounds more like talking points by Fox's investors and owners. While it had declared a war on Fox last year, that was after years of finding problems in Fox's programming.

In short: the claim that MMfA is not a reliable source is not even a myth, it is totally wrong.

As for weight, MMfA wasn't the only one at the time to cover this. Fox News covered it (seeing as they organized it), the Washington Post did, so did MetroWest Daily News, and the Huffington Post did as well. If you don't like Media Matters, then just use their hosting of Fox's coverage of it, because it's just Fox with a Media Matters border. Heck, even the Daily Show mentioned the Fox News denying being involved with the protests they put their name on, sent speakers to, and organized.

Outside of news coverage, one of the biographies used as a source for the Glenn Beck article mentions this.

It would be undue weight, even borderline censorship, to pretend that FNC did not sponsor this movement. It would be giving in to political interests instead of summarizing what the sources say. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to create a concrete proposal for us to debate. I wish that I could be optimistic and say that it is worth your time to do so. — goethean ॐ 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The real answer is to treat op-ed pieces as op-ed pieces, i.e. as an expression of the writer's views and talking points. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not an opinion in the slightest that Fox organized, advertised, and sent speakers to a number of tea party events which they put their name on. It's fact. Creating an event when they put their name on, asking people to come to it, and sending speakers is nothing but sponsorship. Furthermore, the Washington Times article I linked to was not op-ed, neither was the MetroWest piece.

How about the following be added to the history section, right before "symbols":

Many of the protests in 2009 were "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," which Fox News Channel placed its name on, organized, promoted on air, and sent speakers from its network to. This included then host Glenn Beck.

That much is undeniable. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

At least that sounds like real & relevant info, if it is sourced/accurate. A real step up for this article. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, everything you added as MMfA opinion, and a parroting of that opinion stating that MMfA was making the accusation. The WaPo article was simply a report of MMfA claim, not an independent story. The other was also an Opinion from some unknown person. On top of it you stated it as if it were a fact. Arzel (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the main MMfA source I gave in the article was just them reshowing an original Fox clip. How is simple reshowing a clip from Fox News of then-Fox News commentator Glenn Beck promoting FNC Tax Day Tea Parties featuring speakers from Fox News. How is a clip of Fox News MMfA opinion? Did you bother to actually look at the link I cited at all?

Again, the consensus from RSN is that MMfA is as reliable a source as Fox News. If we are to exclude MMfA on the grounds it is far left, we must exclude Fox News on the grounds that it is far right.

Parroting far left opinion would be saying "the Tea Party is an advertising campaign by the Koch Brothers and Fox News." Stating that Fox organized Tea Parties in 2009 is repeating a simple fact, observably demonstrated by footage from Fox News itself that just happens to be hosted for convenience on MMfA. How is a clip from Fox News MMfA opinion? How is it an opinion that Fox sponsored these events when the clip shows that Fox their name on the events, organized them, promoted them, and sent speakers from their network to them? It is not! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

FNC and MMfA are not equivilent, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously make that claim. MMfA is an activist site with a dedicated objective to bring down FNC. While they were a marginal RS in the past, their new stated objective shows that they are no longer a source that can be used for much of anything other than their own opinion, and even then under limited circumstances. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We should review the addition to see that it is neutrally/accurately worded and sourced. Two issues that popped out at first glance are using a video for a reference, and use of the vague and far-reaching word "many". But again, if it meets all of that it is more relevant than the crap that 90% of this article is composed of. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over. The sourcing is not up to supporting the statement made. Has one brief real source, one op-ed rant, and one video presumably given as an example of the statement made...a double problem....any such statement dra3n form it would be OR, plus mis-use of a primary source. But nevertheless I think that Fox to some extent supporting these is real and relevant material. I'm going to try to fix the issues enough for it to stay in.

Getting semantics / fundamental nature right will go a long way towards unscrambling this mess of an article

If we apply a basic understanding to what we are dealing with here, it would help to sort out the endless crap that the article is full of and that folks want to insert. As we all know, the Tea Party is not a party. It's really a word that flies around and get attached to or claimed by a whole range of things and people. Politicians, organizations, events, agendas, rallying cries, voting blocks, visions in people's minds etc.. Probably the only thing in common with all of the above is the agenda items that are in common to all of the above, roughly speaking reducing taxes and reducing government spending, and placing a very high priority about doing such. Getting the TP name attached to this has given it legs, but does not make it an entity. So anything that treats it overall as A group of people, or as AN entity (as 90% of this article does) is really inevitably going to get it wrong. This could be a Rosetta stone to help deal with the issues that arise and fixing this junk article. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just get your personal theory published by a reliable source and we will be happy to quote it in this article. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For folks like yourself who's conversations here consist of just trading barbs, it's the reverse, the statements involved imply or claim that it is an entity are statements and need sourcing. Also that wp:ver applies to article content, not to approaches of getting things done with articles. For the others, I present this as a potentially useful approach. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are right; I should spend more time advocating for purely partisan talking points, like other model Wikipedia editors. — goethean ॐ 17:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The point that you did not provide sources for what you're suggesting still stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if talk pages need sourcing, do you have a source for that statement that you just made?  :-) Just pointing out that you missed my point. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. You have a thesis (that the Tea Party cannot be treated as an entity) upon which you would like to change the article. That thesis needs a source if it is going to change the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's mistaken in like 3 ways. If you prefer to deal down on the wikilawyering level, any statement that says or implies that the TPM is an entity needs to be sourced or removed. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article goes about treating it as it as We would a political party. The tea party is Social movements with a loose ideology that is flexible. Social movements are always a composite of many grass roots groups. That compository nature is what separates them from organizations or political parties, There is no Chairman, Board of directors or official platform. You have a very diverse groups that attend any one of these rallies. From the Militia Movement, Christian Patriot movement, Christian Fundamentalists, and various hate groups running about. There is too much variation from Tea party to Tea party to treat them as single entity. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

"Generally recognized as ... libertarian"? Citation please.

The citations listed do not attest to this claim at all, and there are plenty that will attest it isn't so. It isn't so. They're not libertarian, and if "generally recognized as ... libertarian" aren't weasel words too vague too ascribe a truth value to, then they're false (but I think the former). Vanyo (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph (which, being in the lead, should be a summary of what is in the article, and usually not cited, although this one has cites, but certainly not all of the ones from the body of the article) is about the only thing in the entire article which was both heavily discussed and consensused, having (with any and all of it imperfections) been the result of an mediation process. But a few quick notes. First, there is no defined "they" to characterize, which was the posited basis of your third sentence. The result of the mediation process was based on there being an immense amount of sources regarding a strong libertarian component in the TPM, just as there is conservative component in it. One could start with the fact that the person most often called the founder (Ron Paul) is an avid libertarian. And TPM agendas are generally libertarian agendas, having the social conservative agenda being noticeably absent, the area where libertarians and conservatives conflict. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is debate on the matter. [1][2]

Nor does evidence support the myth that the tea party is a libertarian-leaning faction of the conservative movement. "Americans who support the conservative Christian movement, sometimes known as the religious right, also overwhelmingly support the Tea Party," noted a February Pew poll, finding that tea partiers were more likely to support traditional conservative positions on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

— goethean ॐ 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that what Goethean just said is all also true, but it does not refute what I said, nor the reasons why the mediation result was to put both in there. I was speaking about the TPM agenda, which is the items where the two (conservative and libertarian) agendas overlap. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to gay marriage and abortion are not libertarian positions. Pew found that these positions are popular within the Tea Party. This is clear and hard evidence against the first claim of the article that the Tea Party is "fiscally conservatuive and libertarian". It is evidence that the Tea Party is simply conservative (and authoritarian, per the other link). — goethean ॐ 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On a secondary note, those sources you gave certainly have a slant to them but still had factual material. But more importantly you are making several false logical leaps and mis-statements as well as misquotes fro the lead (just) in in your most recent post. Rather than dissecting all of those, and without defending the minutiae of the wording from the mediation process, I think the core thoughts there are:

• It has substantial amounts of both conservatives and libertarians as supporters and in leadership roles
• It's AGENDA is in the areas in common with both
• You can't characterize the TPM phenomena by opinions of supporters in areas unrelated to its agenda. To illustrate the point in a funny but clearer way, if the majority of TP supporters prefer thin crust pizza, that doesn't mean one can characterize the TPM as a thin crust pizza movement. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that supporting a ban on gay marriage and supporting a ban on abortion are unrelated to libertarianism? — goethean ॐ 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. The far left socialists of America support Obama, does that mean that Obama supports socialism? Arzel (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the far left socialists do not support Obama. Read for example this article in the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA's website that refers to him as " the chief representative of the imperialist system in the U.S." They support Kim Jong Il. TFD (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am claiming that such are not TPM agenda items. And the TPM is basically an agenda and associations with that agenda. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also evidence that TPMers support government entitlements, such as medicare and social security, provided they are directed towards deserving Americans like themselves, which is not a libertarian position. In fact they seem concerned that universal health care will undercut medicare and that social security may not be sustainable. TFD (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there are two important tracks in response to your discussion. The first one is, from whoever said that, what do the me by a "TPMer". And second, if even in the highly unlikely event that the majority of TP supporters felt that way, (vs. someone trying to spin from some snippet) it's not an agenda item of the TPM, and so really isn't informative about the TPM. Maybe with a stretch one could put in a bit of poll info about TP supporters such as what they think about the societal normalization of homosexuality, what type of pizza they prefer, views in social conservative areas etc., but such is really not informative/relevant overall to the topic. North8000 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

...the societal normalization of homosexuality, what type of pizza they prefer...

Okay, you are not discussing the topic seriously. When you are ready to discuss the topic seriously, pleae rejoin the conversation and help us to improve the article. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that partially in the context of being one of your usual insults. But yes that is discussing it seriously. I was giving (using my previous elucidation) a more obvious example where opinions of supporters on non-TPM-agenda issues are not info directly about or descriptive of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The rest of us are discussing political topics and the Tea Party Movement. You are bringing in unrelated nonsense. You let us know when you are ready to seriously discuss improving the article. Until then, you can and will be ignored. — goethean ॐ 18:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See previous comment. And please start being more civil. If you genuinely haven't figured out what I'm saying and its relevance, that is no basis for assuming otherwise and writing based on that wrong assumption. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge and comments

I know this has probably been proposed a million times before, but I really think its pointless to have a separate article for Tea Party protests, considering the majority of the Tea Party movement IS protests. A lot of this article seems to also be OR, synthesis, and opinion.. proclaiming Ron Paul to be the "intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party" for instance.. that is a bit much. Yonskii (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, about 80% of the article is junk, and the most common OR is implied relevance of irrelevant material. Problem is we need to start junk/non junk standard instead of POV standard for what stays/goes. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Protests is sort of a sub-topic of this.

First paragraph changes

The recent change by Yonskii was a nice try but introduced an issue which I made an edit to try to resolve but which Goethean reverted. I probably should have just reverted to the previous version which came out of the mediation process. Unless we have a strong consensus for I change I think we'll need to stick with that version. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm cool with Yonskii's change. The problem with it is that the TPM agenda (which is an overlap / subset of the libertarian agenda) has another major prong (smaller government, not necessarily fiscally related) which is not listed. And so the attempted summary, by purporting/appearing to be a summary is wrong. But it is a tiny step forward towards clarity, i.e. exactly what the sentence is talking about. So I plan to leave it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yonskii notes "Tea Partiers tend to support non-Libertarian stances on social issues". I would go further in saying they place priority on conservative stances on social issues over conservative or libertarian stances on fiscal issues (case in point: drug prohibition), and thus shouldn't be called "fiscally libertarian". Fiscally libertarian where it does not conflict with their social conservatism might be more accurate. Vanyo (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, not that I agree with you, but with all of these questions, and with the new addition now tagged as weasel words, perhaps it's best to return to the version that came out of the mediation process. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed at length above, the TPM is basically a phenomena built around an agenda. Information on supporters views in areas that are not a part of the agenda is not descriptive of the TPM. So what 51% of the supporters think about gay marriage, preference in pizza types, drug prohibition or what their favorite color is or any other items not related to their agenda is not descriptive of the TPM, which is basically defined by a particular agenda on particular itemsNorth8000 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(partial ec with North8000) I disagree with Yonskii and Vanyo. The positions seem to be, more-or-less in order (1) Reduction in the size of government (2) Fiscal responsibility (3) decreased regulation and taxation of "business" (including business by individuals) (4) increased regulation of morality ("social issues" have been co-opted by the "left" to the point where I don't know what the term means; it might include discrimination, which falls under point (3)).

The order of (3) and (4) might be reversed, but the primary positions associated with the TPm are (1) and (2). Positions (1) and (3) are libertarian; (2) is not, exactly. The "official" positions are (1), (2), and (3); (4) is a position taken by many TPmms (Tea Party movement members), but no one claims it's a Tea Party position.

I don't know what "fiscally libertarian" means, hence the tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd disagree on #4. I think one has to make a distinction between the agenda of the movement vs. views of supporters. I don't see #4 in any of the TPM agendas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "fiscally libertarian", should just be "libertarian", should it not? Their beliefs are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. Or conservative libertarian. Or just "conservative". I don't think any of the above is controversial. Swarm ^{u / t} 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to interpret the meaning generally / vaguely as I think the sources and the mediation did. If you want to talk precisely about it's agenda, the agenda is really too narrow to define it as any full spectrum ideology such as conservative, liberal or libertarian. The most precise description is that the agenda matches about half of the libertarian agenda, the portion related to taxes, government spending, and size/scope of government. But I think that what the sources and mediation had in mind was more along the lines of what types of political persuasions of people are prominent in the TPM. And I think they concluded that there are lots of both conservative and libertarian who are leaders and supporters of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarians are fiscally conservative, so "fiscally conservative and socially libertarian" is simply libertarian. The TPM may have had a libertarian beginning, but today, judging by those currently on the TPM bandwagon, and by core principles enumerated on more prominent TPM websites (there being no 'official' one), the TPM is currently more conservative, socially, than libertarian. Vanyo (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree on your first sentence; I've seen nothing indicating the second one. Can you give any examples/links to places you were referring to? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) Libertarian principles are commonly part of American conservatism, but "conservatives" are not necessarily "libertarians". I think what Vanyo's getting at is that TPM encompasses mainstream conservatism, which entails more than just libertarianism. Swarm ^{u / t} 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Libertarian principles are commonly part of American conservatism" is clearly wrong. Some are, some aren't. For example, libertarianism is in direct conflict with conservatism on social-conservative issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all conservatives are social conservatives. In any case, it's not for us to decide on our own - we should just be summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight according to prominence in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree on both, although that latter takes a framework. But think we're more discussing this as background/framework for content rather than for content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the intro section should just be a summary of the rest of the article. If folks are debating content it would be best to first make sure that the material people want to see in the lead is already in the body of the article. Once that is stable and sourced, then it'd be the right time to circle back and revise the intro. (Which is probably overdue anyway).   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but that's a tall order considering what shape this article is in. But I was thinking that one of the threads out of the hole might be to develop way out of the hole might be to start building some quality sections. Maybe one or two in this area might help kill two birds with one stone. One might be something along the lines of "agenda". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the newer attempted revisions are good efforts, but folks are raising issues with each. The approach taken by the mediation and the sources avoided this by just speaking about general recognition as.... And there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian in this respect. Our newer discussion and edits are trying to take on a much more difficult (and possibly impossible) task of actually characterizing it by or with respect to those two terms. For those reasons, at least until something with a consensus emerges, I'm reverting it to the version which was developed in the mediation process, which is the version from a few days back. For the reasons described by Will, plus the fact that the first paragraph is really the ONLY wording in the entire article that WAS developed by a substantitive consensus process, perhaps we should work on other areas of the article at this point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"...there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian..." Then why don't we just say "conservative and libertarian"? This is not rocket science, it's a very minor issue of wording. Swarm ^{u / t} 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"...there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian..." ... Is there? Other than in that first sentence, the word 'libertarian' appears 3 times in the side box linking to the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism (which has a single unsupported mention of a the Tea Party in "Libertarians are prominent in the Tea Party"), and 1 time in the title of a citation. That's it. As for Libertarians having any recognition as prominent in the Tea Party, this article would suggest otherwise: A year ago, Palin, Beck and Bush (hardly Libertarian) were viewed favorably by Tea Party supporters, while of Ron Paul "Only 28 percent of Tea Partiers said they have a favorable view of him, while 56 percent said they hadn't heard enough about him". Other than the claim that Ron Paul, a noted Libertarian, was instrumental in the founding of the Tea Party, there seems to be no connection to Libertarianism, in general or evidenced in the article. I'll note again the repeal of federal marijuana prohibition as one significant example where the Tea Party clearly fails to qualify as Libertarian, in that it's followers and current prominent leaders do not support repeal. Vanyo (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to expand on "libertarian" and add conservative, because I don't think anyone here disagrees that the TPM's principles are not simply "libertarian". Swarm ^{u / t} 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just figured out that the change that you just made truly changes it back to the version which came out of the mediation. Contrary to what I said, mine didn't quite do that. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to various comments above, this article is currently in a 90% junk state. Other than the first paragraph and the "contract" listing, nothing here has come out of a specific consensus. Some quality items have been put in with a tacit consensus, but most of it is just the shattered junk pile smoking ruins of POV wars. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a movement claims to be "populist," and brands itself as such, does not make it so, and to call it "an American populist political movement" can hardly be called "neutral."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines populism as "A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite." The Compact OED defines it as "a person who supports or seeks to appeal to the concerns of ordinary people." I would personally define it as meaning "the political viewpoint expressed by the assertion that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,' and would further assert that socialism is simply populism taken to extremes, much as anarchism is libertarianism taken to extremes, and totalitarianism is authoritarianism taken to extremes.

How, then, can a movement, no matter how vehemently it claims to be populist, be legitimately so called, when every action it has undertaken has been to protect and expand the wealth and power of the already-wealthy and already-powerful, while actively seeking the repeal of government programs that have proven their generally beneficial nature over a period of over half a century? Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

browser wrongly redirect to this article

When I type "T Party" in the URL bar in my Firefox 2 in order to search for info about a party named T Party in Hong Kong, I was redirected to here. Is there any necessary to add {"T Party" redirected to here. For T Party in Hong Kong, see [[:zh:T Party]]. to the top of this article? C933103 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. "T Party", in English, returns here. Now, if entering "T Party" in zh.Wikipedia's search field came here, that would be different. Do we list English phrases used in other countries for other than the English meaning elsewhere? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean entering "T Party" in english wikipedia search box then i redirected to here, but instead, I type that in a browser's URL+search bar (combined), then i being redirected to this article....C933103 (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't directly control which page your browser sends you to. However, if the "T Party" is notable then you could write an article about it. Maybe then the browser would have a better target. (Firefox 2? That's a five-year-old browser - it seems so ancient now! But a newer browser would probably act the same way.)   Will Beback  talk  10:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Cap and Trade wording

Text

Old text (from 2011-09-16T13:48:19)[3]

• The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. Opposition is particularly strong to Cap and Trade with Tea Party supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change by emissions trading, which would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide. An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor.

New text (as of 2011-09-26T19:27:56)[4]:

• The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions that would be a part of emissions trading legislation that would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change. An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor.

Discussion

I think Peter and I agree but have just been trying to get the wording right. Hesitant to tweak it further without discussion due to 1RR. Right now it has a "double negative" in it and says the opposite of what it intends. (essentially says the TP folks are opposed to limits on limits) Also, it would be better to say "carbon dioxide" rather than "pollutants" because that is more specific, and also less POV way to refer to a gas which is naturally the 3rd most prevalent gas in the atmosphere. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide is only one of many greenhouse gases. A more generic term, like "greenhouse gases" would be more accurate. Where is the text you're talking about?   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the proposed legislation applied to just carbon dioxide. But "greenhouse gasses" would also be fine. For methane (which I think is next one down the list) the sources mostly aren't industrial and they'd have to measure cow farts to implement cap and trade.  :-)  :-) I put in "carbon dioxide" but that change would be fine. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the text you're talking about? Which section is it in?   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in the 4th paragraph in the "Views of supporters" section. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this sentence:

• Opposition is particularly strong to Cap and Trade with Tea Party supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change by emissions trading, which would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide.

Was changed to:

• The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions that would be a part of emissions trading legislation that would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change.

All derived from a New York Times article: "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith". Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks right. Result of a series of changes by Peter and me, starting with Peter removing "Cap and Trade". North8000 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any significant changes.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it took some bigger swings during the intermediate stages. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it says:

• The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of emissions trading legislation to encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change.

Apparently there's a dispute over the source.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a brand new topic. But I'm guessing the tagger felt that the wording jumped the tracks from the source rather than disputing the source. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I understand the tag to mean. One ref (John M. Broder "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith" The New York Times, October 20, 2010) was used for the entire sentence. I attempted to show by rearrangement (and ES) that only the last phrase is in question, not the entire sentence. In particular:

• "vilifying" seems a bit strong, and doesn't seem to be supported by the source;
• whatever verb describes what supporters are are doing, the objects are primarily but not exclusively Democrats, as evidenced by Mike Castle, who is mentioned in the source;
• the [verb to be determined] is only discussed as applying to those supporting cap-and-trade, or at best additional government regulation, not necessarily all "who supported efforts to mitigate climate change"; for example, no mention is made of a TPM position on tax credits for industries or individuals voluntarily taking pollution abatement or energy conservation steps.

BTW, going back earlier in this section, the source specifically mentions carbon dioxide, not greenhouse gases in general, though another source referring to the latter should be out there somewhere. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with either word, but I think that carbon dioxide is more accurate. I don't think that cap and trade has been seriously proposed for any other greenhouse gases. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Emissions trading, there is already a cap-and-trade market in the US for acid rain-creating compounds. But rather than fight over it here I suggest we just use whatever term is most common in sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a dispute here, just a discussion. A rarity for this article. :-) We just need someone to fix the wording. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On Carbon dioxide v. Greenhouse gases there seems to be a discussion but no dispute. On my three bullets above – the main point of my post – I see a dispute but no discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd call those three points a possible future dispute, but not a current one. I agree with your points and reasoning on those. I'd recommend just editing it all and seeing what happens. North8000 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Ravndal's comments

pov push much? we have enough man bites dog already. i think its time for rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've been trying to get massive wp:undue violations like this out, and here's a duo trying to force yet another one in. North8000 (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing relevant material from the article. I understand that you are displeased that the news media covered this event in connection with the Tea Party Movement. However, the sources are reliable and the event is relevant to the subject. Your edit warring, in violation of article sanctions, doesn't change anything. — goethean ॐ 20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite my having given you the main concern with that problematic insertion (pov via massive wp:undue) you are baselessly and falsely inventing insulting-to-me motivation which does not even make sense to the discussion here. There are thousands of things that TP supporters do that are covered which are not info about the TPM. Far beyond failing to AGF, you are baselessly inventing bad faith. Second, just saying taking such a disputed, controversial potential insertion to talk is not "edit warring". Your behavior here is terrible! North8000 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please watch your tongue. It is not I who has been incessantly pushing to have all of the negative material removed from this article. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating the same behavior, this time with new false material. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am. That how I know that it is not the issue here. Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. Got any more tangents to try? North8000 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the content in question. It was covered by multiple reliable sources, which seems to give it sufficient weight to make a mention of it in the article, so maybe I'm not seeing the issue here. While it is true that "there are thousands of things that TP supporters do that are covered which are not info about the TPM", when the person in question is the leader of a state's Tea Party, it makes it much more relevant. As president of Montana's Big Sky Tea Party Association, that makes him a spokeperson for the Tea Party in Montana, and makes this event very relevant to the article. Unless there is some issue that I'm not aware of, having this information in the article is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. - SudoGhost 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sudo, thanks for the intelligent and polite conversation. There are thousands of things that persons at that level in the TPM do in their personal lives outside of the TPM that made the newspapers. If the head of the Chicago chapter donates money to the save-the-children foundation, or writes or twitters something nice on his facebook page or twitter account, (nothing to do with the TPM) does that makes the newspapers, does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM? I'm guess rather than this one being totally irrelevant (one could say that the chapter taking action against him, and the reason for it IS about the TPM) , the article is is a state where people have been mining through those thousands of items looking for negative ones and putting in whole sections in the article on them. Heck, we even have a 700+ word section on a personal twitter comment made by a low level TP'er. And a whole paragraph on how some people suspect that iti was a TP'er who damaged their BBQ grill at their house. See anything like that in the top level US Democratic Party article? And we can't seem to get the article out of it's current junk state. And this one looks like just going deeper in that same hole. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the twitter comment you're referring to, but I'm not seeing the BBQ one. Could you point out which section that is in? I do think that the twitter paragraph could be shortened, and I think the Racial issues section needs to be seriously looked over and trimmed, but I personally don't see an issue with this information being added to the article as a brief mention, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that it would violate. - SudoGhost 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, I found what you mentioned. I was skimming through for "BBQ" or "barbeque", and completely missed the entire section until I went over it again. As large as the racial issues section is, I think it might be appropriate to split it off into its own article, because it is taking up a third of the article, which gives it (in my opinion) way too much weight. - SudoGhost 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been asked, presumably to make a point about the relevance or importance of some information in this article: "If the head of the Chicago (Tea Party) chapter donates money to the save-the-children foundation ... does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM?"

The obvious answer to any question carefully posed in that fashion would be, "of course not". But, the selective phrasing of that question hides the actual issue we're discussing here. If you wish to pose such a hypothetical question as an accurate analogy to the real issue at hand here, it would be phrased thusly: "If a person, in his capacity as the head of the Chicago (Tea Party) chapter, donates money to the save-the-children foundation during a Tea Party event, and other Tea Party leaders and ranking members make similar philanthropic gestures toward save-the-children foundations, and even vocally support and espouse governmental policies seen as conducive to generosity toward save-the-children foundations, to the extent that these actions generate extensive national news coverage and even prompt national polls and academic studies inquiring into this specific phenomenon ... does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM?" The obvious answer would be, "of course it does".

You see, we're not asking what the relevance of a popular piece of cooking equipment (barbeque) or a popular social network (Twitter) has to the Tea Party movement, nor are we asking what relevance any single individual (numerous though these "single individual incidents" appear to be) has to the movement — and asking such questions misdirect us away from the actual subject matter. There has been a significant amount of hoopla (read: news coverage, commentary, academic study and actual journalism, etc.) made over both the "elements of racism" and "reactionary, even violent" proclivities as they relate to the movement. Whether we like it or not, those are relevant issues in an article about the movement, and our article should convey reliably sourced information about it. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to something more neutral and relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

time for rfc. this article reads like an attack piece and much of the trivia has nothing to do with the tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What trivia are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

the section title was altered, the title now reflects the trivia. it evidently offended one editor so much he reverted this section, then self reverted when he realized all this is actually in the article after editing niggar out of the section title. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALKNEW: headings should be neutral. What I was asking about were specific sections or passages of this article, not a string of offensive phrases. Please remember this is a serious, adult project, not an adolescent BS session.   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• seriously racist, racist people.
• Colored People:naaCP.
• Lord Hanuman, Monkey God.
• rat bastard.
• Niggar.
• faggot.
• White nationalists i am amused by the adults who think these words are too offensive for the talk page, yet insist they remain in an article about lowering tax. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not a neutral heading. I guess the question could be why a political movement that's ostensibly about tax policy is led by people who are so often found to be using offensive racial and other epithets. But stringing those terms into a heading and calling them trivia is probably not the best way to have a sober discussion of the issue.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

so not neutral in talk, but ok for the article? what other articles have a racial issues section? i am even more amused you do not see the racism in all politics.

• typical white person, Obama
• You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent, Joe Biden
• You fucking Jew bastard, Hillary Clinton
• Hymietown, Jesse Jackson
• Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
• I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, Former Klansman and Democrat Senator Robert Byrd 2001
• too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write, Mike Wallace
• Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, Harry Truman Darkstar1st (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to go look at each one of those, but I do see that the "Hymietown" issue is addressed in Jesse Jackson article. If someone wanted to take it out on the basis of being "trivia" I'd object. I'm not sure that there's racism in all politics, but even if there is that's no reason to ignore it.   Will Beback  talk  06:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

you don't have to, our racial issues section is the only one in wp, including actual hate groups like the kkk and neo nazi. my point, which you inadvertently made, is these are people and their comments belong on their page, not the democrat page. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussions of racial issues concerning the Ku Klux Klan are spread throughout that article. They aren't omitted.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the above list of alleged bigoted comments, I fail to see what point you are trying to make. It appears that you have struggled to assemble a list (or copied one that I've seen on a few right-wing blogs) of incidents over the past 100+ years, from a demographic (Democrats?) that covers half the population of the United States over several past generations. Is your point that bigots can be found anywhere? I don't believe anyone was arguing against that obvious point. Are you trying to draw a comparison between the incidents of bigotry associated with this 2-yr old movement of tens of thousands of folks and those of half our nation's populace over the past century? No serious person is attempting that comparison, either. If you could please provide the reliably sourced news coverage, polling data and academic study conclusions that show the correlation between your above list of remarks and the "Democratic Party", it would be greatly appreciated and might help me to understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. It reads like an article based on news stories. If you want to remove ALL the material that is based on news clippings, then feel free to do so, though the Wiki article would probably be no more than a stub after that. BigK HeX (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

the democrat article has none of the above racial issues, even though nigger from mud is far worse, or fucking jew bastard from the lips of our current secretary of state, somehow didnt make it into wp, balderdash, the tea party has the lone section titled racial issues in wp. unless someone can point to another political party with the same, i am going to delete the whole section. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and that is obvious. I think this mess needs more eyes to get it fixed. This article is crap because 3/4 of it consists of specially selected trivia, specially selected to paint a particular picture. And some people want it that way. The used meaning of "trivia" here is with respect to being informative about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The rosetta stone is that the big picture is realizing that the TP is an agenda and set of opinions on a particular few issues (lower taxes, lower government spending, and less government) and a name, not an entity. So all of the stuff which this junk article is loaded with that isn't about that or that doesn't recognize that is irrelevant. So the answer is to stick to stuff that is about the subject and informative about , not selected bits of what's happening in the personal lives, facebook pages etc. of people who are supporting that agenda. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

While it can be argued that the "TP is an agenda and set of opinions on a particular few issues", this article is about the movement. Perhaps a separate article is needed that focuses specifically on the policy agenda of that movement — but good luck nailing that down. There appears to be plenty of competing notions among the various TP factions about the specifics of their agenda. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My main point is that it is not an entity, and can't be treated as such. A good analogy might be the pro-choice movement. We don't see efforts to define what "their" agenda is regarding the war in Iraq, or consider some dumb embarrassing comment made by a pro-choice leader on an unrelated topic (e.g. insulting polish people) to be informative regarding the pro-choice movement to be included in the article. No real difference, except for the huge but superficial one which throws everybody for a loop. It has a name which doesn't state the agenda, and a name which makes it sound more like an entity. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xenophrenic on this point. This article is about a movement, not just an agenda. We discuss its leaders, its membership, its history, its symbols, its impact on elections, and so on. If someone wants an article purely devoted to Tea Party ideals then that would be a different article.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, many people consider Barack/Biden/Hillary a party leader, yet no mention or typical white person, slight Indian Accent or fucking jew bastard on the democrat page. all valid racial issues which may or may not belong on the respective persons article, but certainly do not represent democrats as a whole. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You should most definitely improve the "democrat page" with the information and reliable sources you have. I support you 100%. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[E/C] A) The chair of the Democratic Party is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. B) We're not here to discuss the Democratic Party article. If that's your interest please go to talk:Democratic Party (United States). When the Tea Party becomes one of two major contemporary political parties in the U.S., and one of the oldest political parties in the world, then I'd expect this article to resemble that article in form and content. In the meantime, this is an article about a nebulous, recently formed movement. It's a very different entity from the Democratic Party. Let's just on this article and stop the invalid comparisons.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)