Talk:Tea Party movement

Dale Robertson Section

I changed "Tea Party leaders state that he was ejected from the event because of the offensive nature of the sign and is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org, but as of November 2010 Dale Robertson is still shown as the President & Founder on the TeaParty.org/about.php webpage" to → to "It's been reported that he was ejected from the event because of the offensive nature of the sign, and Houston Tea Party Society leaders ousted him from the society shortly after. It has also been reported that he has sold and is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org, but as of November 2010 Dale Robertson is still shown as the President & Founder on the TeaParty.org/about.php webpage."

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The refs don't state that about Tea Party leaders or chronicle that he was ejected. And according to the sources only Dale Robertson has stated that he was selling the domain TeaParty.org. —Digiphi (Talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are two:

• Meanwhile, Dale Robertson, who owns the website TeaParty.org, has filed papers to run as an independent. He was repudiated by the Houston Tea Party Society after being photographed holding up a sign with a racial epithet. He does not deny carrying the sign.
  • Squabbling threatens to ice 'Tea Party' momentum Kathy Kiely. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 5, 2010. pg. A.4
• After a picture of Robertson, carrying a sign that prominently displayed the N-word (misspelled) at a Houston rally early in 2009, Tea Party Society founders in Houston declared that Robertson "is NOT a member of our Leadership team. ... has never been a part of organizing any of the Tea Party rallies" and "[w]e do not choose to associate with people that use his type of disgusting language."

• • 'Ultimate Civics,' tea party groups should do homework RICHARD FINEBERG. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Apr 4, 2010. pg. B.7

I think that second one would count as a statement.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page on the TPS site that carries the "repudiation".[6]   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That one is crystal clear. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Will. Sure. But look at the language I'm referring to. My complaint isn't that he was reported, or not reported to have been repudiated. Do you see? The previous version of the article seemed to state that Tea Party leaders had ejected him from TeaParty.org. In fact, he owned, and might still own TeaParty.org, and only he is quoted as stating that he intends to sell it. It sounded like a group of people had made a claim, and had been caught in a lie, according the "About" page on TeaParty.org. —Digiphi (Talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked: as of this very moment, he still owns it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Nice work Dylan. So now we can see why it would be silly to report that Tea Party leaders state that "he is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org" and then report a refutation, like Aha! They aren't telling the truth. He is the only proprietor of TeaParty.org. Furthermore we should probably add more clear language that he was repudiated by the Houston Society, the organizers of the event which he attended with his sign. —Digiphi (Talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the only problem here is that my original research is, well, original research. To avoid undue synthesis, we would need to find someone else -- someone notable -- who did the same trivial research I did. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We should just delete the bit about his website completely.−Digiphi (Talk) 03:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I suggested no such thing. Rather, I spoke of finding better sourced. Please try not to misunderstand my statements so consistently. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well gee Dylan. You made a really great argument against original research. The only source supporting that passage is an image grab of the web page. Looks like OR. I agree wholeheartedly. It probably isn't relevant. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's 0 for 3. It's almost as if you were trying to misunderstand my words.

It's not original research to visit a web page. It's original research to bring up a rebuttal that nobody else has seen fit to offer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I'll get rid of it. —Digiphi (Talk) 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you somehow managed to misunderstand me again. Don't worry, though: I corrected your error. The fact that he put it up for sale is well sourced. The fact that it's not for sale anymore is trivially verified: the eBay link shows the item as cancelled and the domain is clearly still registered to him. Most likely, it just plain didn't sell. Now, I'd be happier if we got some of crossed the t's and dotted the i's by having a source that says all of this together, but we already have all the pieces and some of the bridges. Removal would be unwarranted. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah that's not it. The question isn't whether there is a source listed for anything in the section. The question is of why the fact that Dale Robertson at one time considered selling his domain, but ultimately did not, is relevant to the section about him attending the HTPS event with his controversial sign. If anyone believes that the sign holder's consideration of selling his website is relevant to the controversy about the sign, and the description of his repudiation by the HTPS, then it can at least reflect the source.-Digiphi (Talk) 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you suggesting that his attempt to sell the domain had nothing to do with being expelled? Really? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No. What the guy who brought the controversial sign said he was thinking of doing with his website is irrelevant. The Dale Robertson article is a good place for that content. —Digiphi (Talk) 03:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you managed to miss my point again, so I'll repeat it more loudly and clearly. The fact that he responded by trying to sell the site is itself notable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Add March 5, 2010 Psychology Today "We Need to Have Empathy for Tea Partiers" ?

Add We Need to Have Empathy for Tea Partiers Empathize with Tea-Party paranoia in order to fight it published on March 5, 2010 Psychology Today by Michael Bader, D.M.H.? 99.88.229.175 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? (And why should we call him a "D.M.H."?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article, I think we should cease to consider Psychology Today even a potentially reliable source, unless we can distinguish personal opinion columns from news. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a poorly written rant, not an article that looks like it has received any editorial oversight.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we should not use opinion pieces even though they are published in mainstream media. We have no way of knowing the degree of acceptance of the views expressed. BTW, Will Beback, this article follows the same analysis of Wilentz, but is written in a different tone. TFD (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to jump on the same wagon, in that I don't recognize the significance of that article. TFD, you're right to a point. I submit that there's always a place for content taken from opinion pieces in "claims" or "controversy" sections. Still, certainly not this one. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that piece was actually published in the mainstream media. It's a blog.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we look for more real content instead of trying to game-in even more swipes by opponents, which this article is already overloaded with? North8000 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than the anon editor, I don't think anyone wants to use this as a source.   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Good example of why it's not a good idea to use opinion pieces.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are different qualities of opinion pieces. There's nothing wrong with using high-quality ones that represent significant points of view.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts: it's ok to use high-quality opinion pieces but this isn't one of those. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins

I know that there has been some discussion on what role, if any, that Ron Paul has had on the current Tea Party movement, so I thought I would bring this to the attention of those who are more familiar with this article and the consensus on what should or should not be included. An article by Ron Smith (radio host) in The Baltimore Sun credits Paul as "the founding father" of the movement, saying he "sparked a new American Revolution", as well as his supporters for "kick-starting" it. See Smith, Ron (November 18, 2010). "The vindication of Ron Paul: Will founding father of the tea party movement get his due from party leaders?". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved November 19, 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |pmd= and |trans_title= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help). Location (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly news to me. Dylan Flaherty 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he is one of it's inspirational engines but TPM really doesn't have a founding father. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, North8000, it doesn't have a founding father because it's founding was the result of grassroots organizing through social networking that produced the rallies, at first locally like Keli Carender's and then exploded when Rick Santelli said Congress shouldn't be bailing out losers. That struck a chord nationwide, and the social networking really took off. I have reliable sources if needed.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan".   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which explains why so many non-tea party entities want to glom on to the success of the movement by co-opting the message and polluting the air with their bus.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please. I certainly agree that the term "founding father" is a bit a nebulous, but the point is that there are plenty of people in reliable sources who point to Paul and the grassroots work of his supporters as the beginning of the movement (e.g. Scott Rasmussen's book, Ethan Fishman's book, David Neiwert and John Amato's book ). I do think the article gives the appropriate weight to Paul, however, it seems to dissociate him from the current movement even though the December 2007 Tea Party moneybomb preceded Carender's "Porkulus Protest" by only 14 months. Location (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While Paul's supporters (not Paul himself) ran a grassroots campaign, it did not turn into the Tea Party, although some of his supporters have become Tea Party supporters. TFD (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Tea Party movement and I've just supplied four sources that credit the origins of it to Paul's supporters. With that said, I don't deny that other sources place the origins of the movement elsewhere. Location (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly there Ron Paul peeps were out there and familiar with the setting up rallies and using blogs, etc. And one of the reasons the groundswell rose up so fast was the fact that people were already out protesting with FedUP, and the anti-Tax groups who'd been around for 30 years. The tea party movement seemed to give them a common voice. I'd have to agree that the Ron Paul peeps certainly had an influence in getting things going especially as the Libertarian aspects are easily discerned if you read those tea party websites. But it would not be fair to say that it was an organized, coordinated action by the Ron Paul peeps that got it going. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Location, I am a Ron Paul fan. He might even be iconic of the TPM, but he's not the founding father of the TPM......it doesn't have one. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above and did not mean to give the impression that the TPM was organized or coordinated by Paul or supporters. Cheers! Location (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

possible new section

Maybe we should mention the candidates that defeated the tea party backed candidates, like this: [7]. Of course, this might be more the result of voters being 'against' Palin, than against the 'tea party.' Might be worth looking into.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should have both a discussion of the effects of the TPM on the 2010 elections, and a complete list of candidates (in another article) with the outcomes of their races.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Erwin Chemerinsky's 2010 book The Conservative Assault on the Constitution?

Add Erwin Chemerinsky's 2010 book The Conservative Assault on the Constitution? 99.27.174.251 (talk)

Could you expand a little on what you are saying / what it is saying? Didn't see anything on this in that article. BTW the article looks like it needs a lot of work.

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Google books can't find any mention of "Tea Party" in that book.The+Conservative+Assault+on+the+Constitution&cd=1#v=onepage&q=tea%20party&f=false If it's correct then that would not be a good source for this article.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant. TFD (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Will, if I understand correctly, Google will not let you search the whole book, just selected pages. So there might be something about the TPM in there. Dylan Flaherty 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So, we have to either buy the book and read every sentence to prove a negative, or let 99.27.174.251 present the relevance. Doesn't seem like a tough choice. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot search this book on Google books. However, it is about how conservative judges have interpreted the constitution, not how the Tea Party interprets it.[8] TFD (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Try your local library. They have it at our library if anybody wants me to get it and look up things. Couldn't do it before Tuesday though.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In the overview at the link, the subject seems to be the areas where conservatives and libertarians conflict. As a libertarian,VERY interesting to me personally, but I don't see TPM activity in these areas, nor any indication that the book covers such. . (not surprising since the TPM has both conservatives and libertarians in it) North8000 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Google allows searching the whole book. It doesn't always show you the entire page, but it'll say if the search term is there.   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. Here is a link to your Google search. Here is a link to a book with "snippet view". The second book has a search box, while the first does not. TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really matter. If someone finds something in the book about the TPM we can include it. Otherwise, not.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Tea Party's Constitution" on the Social Science Research Network[9] provides an interesting view of how they see they constitution, but unfortunately it has not yet been published in an academic journal. TFD (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Jill Lepore in TimeOut Chicago "The revolution, revised"

Add Jill Lepore in TimeOut Chicago's Issue 298 11-17.Nov.2010 The revolution, revised: An expert in early America ensures the tea party isn’t the only one writing history by Julia Kramer 99.190.88.30 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are links to the book on Google Books and Princeton University Press: [10][11] I will read what is available but it would be a reliable source. TFD (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links ...

Lepore traces the roots of the far right's reactionary history to the bicentennial in the 1970s, when no one could agree on what story a divided nation should tell about its unruly beginnings. Behind the Tea Party's Revolution, she argues, lies a nostalgic and even heartbreaking yearning for an imagined past--a time less troubled by ambiguity, strife, and uncertainty--a yearning for an America that never was. The Whites of Their Eyes reveals that the far right has embraced a narrative about America's founding that is not only a fable but is also, finally, a variety of fundamentalism--anti-intellectual, antihistorical, and dangerously anti-pluralist.

This alone has me interested. 99.102.181.110 (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that quote is not usable, as Lepore doesn't call the TPm "far right", but it appears that Lepore's book, and any academic papers, would be reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not rushing to use this source, as we have many others, the blurb from above may be found at http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9389.html, so it should be entirely reliable as a description of the book's contents. Dylan Flaherty 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, is anyone suggesting using the content of the blurb to support content? — Digiphi (Talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. This section started with the 99. anon <redacted> placing a request to add a reference, without giving an idea why. And the blurb appears to be from the publisher's advertising section, so cannot be considered reliable other than in an article about the publisher or about advertising. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a page from the Political Research Associates (PRA), that provides links to sources about the Tea Party. According the them, the Tea Party was "spawned as astroturf, [then] morphed into a constellation of actual grassroots right-wing populist movements".[12] TFD (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We have evidence that PRA is reliable? (We don't don't even have evidence in the article Political Research Associates that they are credible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(I see I'm attacking my own position. Still, that appears not to be a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and has been discussed on the RSN noticeboard.[13] However the usefulness of the page on the PRA website is the numerous "links to sources about the the Tea Party", each of which would have to be evaluated separately for reliablity. For example the first link under "Demographics" is to a CNN article about a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey about Tea Party supporters, obviously a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments made below are wholly off topic and relate to who funds what political party , the origins of the term populism and the definition of "right wing populism", and do not directly relate to the Tea Party article at hand. If a discussion is desired on the term populist being in the article please start a new discussion on that issue and do not stray in to areas which are not directly related to the Tea Party article at hand. Comments which are of a forum nature, or are inappropriate, or are off topic may be deleted or redacted without warning. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Populist??? How??

Just exactly HOW is the TP movement "populist"? I strenuously (and I mean strenuously) object to this, because none of its ideas or origins are "populist".

Look up populism in any political science textbook. The TP movement is the exact opposite of populist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.175 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See "right-wing populism". TFD (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party is nothing but populist. It seeks to stop the elites destroying America with unsustainable debt for elitist items like corporate bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, public union giveaways, foreign aid and giveaways to illegal aliens. Many of us are libertarian and/or isolationist who want to see the military industrial complex gutted and the war on drugs ended, neither of which the Bushama elite would ever willingly do. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Antipluralist antihistorical is not anti-elitism. TP is funded by Billionaires who don't want to be regulated from polluting ... that is Elitism of Superclass Wealth. See the Koch family for example. 99.155.158.225 (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We are a grass roots movement. The elitists Democrats are funded by billionaires and millionaires like Soros, Huffington, Marc Rich, Ron Burkle, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Wall Street, banks and the public employee unions. The people, united, just teabagged the elitist Democrat party for 70 seats, a bunch of governors, and thousands of local officeholders. That is populism my friend. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism usually combines a middle class base with elements of the elite. TFD (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You know this would stop coming up if it was explained with a line in the lead instead of slapped on as a label, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We need good sources that describe them as populist, etc., and so far no one has provided any. TFD (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hightower is populist. He says the Tea Parties are not populist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.175 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hightower is a socialist elitist who kisses the behind of the globalist, corporate, Wall Street, public union bailing out elitist Democrat party which just got massacred for 70 seats. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Populism contains many strands. The key element is the "people" against the "elites". Where they differ is who are the people and who are the elites. One may believe that the people are white men in Kansas and the elites are minorities in New York City, or one may define the people as the "middle class" and the elites as the bankers. Left or right it is the same because it blames problems on the ethics of the elite rather than on the structure of society. TFD (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There was substantial discussion which resulted in the word being in. I think a month or 2 ago. I'd start by reviewing that. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the appropriate article's talk page section). No further edits should be made to this page.

OMG, gays in the Tea Party?!

This article looks at an interesting little turf war in the ongoing battle to define the Tea Party. Probably still too insignificant, unless there are further developments. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but not shocking article. More evidence that the TPM has both conservative and libertarian types (who conflict on social issues) in it. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that it's Tea Party Nation responding which isn't really a tea party. GoProud seems to have support from Tea Party Patriots, which is a real tea party group. But I don't see why gays can't be part of the tea party movement. It's fiscal policies at issue, not social ones. Also, CNN appears to have only put up the letter from GoProud. I didn't see anything from Tea Party Nation.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article linked above doesn't correctly link to Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips' letter, a copy of which can be found here. You'll note that TPN claims to be part of the "mainstream Tea Party movement". Is there an official programme that I can review to see just who is and isn't "really in the tea party" movement on any given day? I'm guessing there is not. Here is a video of a CNN discussion with both of the letter writers, and their opposing views on this issue: CNN 3-Way Discussion Video. It appears Phillips disagrees with you, Malke. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, who determines who is in the party? Perhaps to the larger point of so many national factions-- a term by the way which does not appear in the article, only in one of the reference titles [14]. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.zcommunications.org/tea-party-poses-threat-to-democracy-by-roger-bybee Z Magazine by Roger Bybee November 2010 issue Volume 23, Number 11 ?

Add Tea Party Poses Threat to Democracy: There have been ugly incidents at Tea Party events as well as openings for progressive dialog by Roger Bybee November 2010 issue Volume 23, Number 11 ? 99.54.142.12 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for lede/lead

Our mediation cabal mediator has left the building, so I propose Nillagoon's suggestion for the lede/lead:

The Tea Party is a populist political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.

The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of 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.

Please indicate !vote here:

• Support.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support North8000 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - but why is it called "British Tea"? The colonists were British subjects and the tea would have been owned by London merchants not the Crown. TFD (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we deal with that separately/later. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, East India Company had a monopoly granted by the Crown. All the ships that arrived were from East India Company. But let's worry about that later.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any version that calls it "populist" or "grassroots" is an automatic oppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.236.175 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Grassroots" is much worse than "populist" in my opinion. "Populist" describes a highly debatable type of political belief, and the TPM does see itself as populist. "Grassroots" describes a matter of fact, however, and thus is inaccurate when applied bluntly to the TPM, (which, given its billionaire funding and corporate support, is clearly not a grassroots phenomenon, although the TPM does see itself as grassroots). — goethean ॐ 16:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party overwhelmingly supports Republican candidates, and consistently demonizes Democratic candidates. Additionally, they have been funded and supported by Republican organizations like the Wall Street Journal and FOX News. This central, defining characteristic is absent from the proposal. I submit that the lede as proposed has given excessive credence to the internal myth of the tea party movement, which falsely sees itself as independent and separate from the Republican party and Republican organizations. Sources that are external to and independent of the Tea Party movement and Republican organizations should be used. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's an 'oppose' then?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a suggestion. If you ignore my suggestions, then yes, I oppose the proposal. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You could say that Tea Party enthusiasts see the Tea Party movement as a grassroots phenomenon, while critics see it as astroturfing. That would be accurate and easily sourced. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, rather than putting grassroots in unexplicated quotation marks, it should be explained that the movement was funded and supported by national organizations which attempted to give a veneer of local grass-rootedness to the movement. — goethean ॐ 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a Republican organization? I don't think you could even make a case for conservative. This argument fails the common sense test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Seems comparably unsatisfactory from each of the various major POVs on the topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Would the third paragraph be more fully explained in the body of the article? Specifically the assertion that it is "often cited as an example of grassroots activity" because it has no central leadership. I never looked at that as a defining characteristic of "grassroots". I also note a lack of explanation in that proposed lede for why the movement isn't universally described as grassroots, instead of just "often cited". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)