Talk:Tea Party movement

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material

Typo

>demonizing tea party activists tends to energize the Democrats' left-of-center base" amd that "polls suggest that tea party activists(...)

> The koch brothers had little to do with making the movement grow. The tea party was a grassroots movement and still is.

Boston Tea Party vs teaparty movement

History, written by the winners, fails to mention that Washington was a rebel leader, and the war tax of 2% on tea was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". This was the federation of 1st independent states, which continued to annex land from the indigenous population, as well as invading Canada on 3 separate occasions and [see "Canada" box set] as well as conducting a civil war. Studying the history of Mexico & Canada gives one an insight into how much "American History" is fabricated. This Talk page should note that, like the original tea party, the main page on this subject appears to be politically biased towards it. Tea party politicians use incendiary language to incite hate and have extreme Views on immigration, Barack Obama, gay marriage etc, none of which is addressed on the main page.

Balance?

It seems to me this article has been mainly edited by Tea Party supporters, and there is little or no objectivity. For instance, the "IRS Scandal" sun section fails to mention that liberal groups were equally scrutinized. Wouldn't it be helpful and appropriate, also, to mention that some of the candidates who identify as Tea Party - or who have been so identified by the media - have made statements, or hold beliefs, that can be interpreted as violent, inflammatory, or, well, stupid? I'm thinking of Joni Ernst saying she would use a gun on officials trying to enforce laws she didn't like, Sharon Engle's "2nd amendment solutions", Steve King's idea that immigrant children are drug mules, and Louie Gohmert (among others). I would be happy to undertake this if it's agreed there's a need. Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the articles I've read mentioned that liberal groups were equally scrutinized; if I recall correctly, the key words used were "Tea Party" and "Patriot". If you can find a source for that, it might be appropriate to remove the section.

I don't think that "one-off" comments by people associated with the Tea Party should be listed, unless notable and have significant coverage. Significant coverage should be required for any controversial quote, both for the fact, and for its importance.

My impression is that the article is principally edited by Koch-haters. But, if we both think it's biased, perhaps it might be WP:NPOV, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is one story from a major news source. It says: "The bottom line: Contrary to his assertions in countless appearances on Fox News, there's no evidence that the Obama White House directed -- or indeed was involved in any way -- in the supposed targeting of conservative nonprofit groups for special scrutiny by the IRS. There's no evidence that "tea party" groups were exclusively targeted, as opposed to tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations from across the political spectrum.....As it turned out, the agency also looked for liberal code words like 'progressive.'.....No tea party groups were denied approval. In fact, only one c-4 organization lost its tax exemption because of this scrutiny -- the progressive group Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office." I agree that "one off" comments are mere anecdotes. But if there is a pattern, or if the comments reflect policy directions, then I think they belong.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that high officials, either in the Administration, or in the IRS, were involved, except that the review occurred in many IRS centers. There may have been other types of enhanced scrutiny of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) group applications, but there was specific investigation of groups with "Tea Party" and "patriot" (associated with conservative causes), as well as "progressive", "occupy" (associated with liberal causes) in their names. (I don't know why liberals don't call themselves "patriots", but they don't.) (Also, I don't think any group associated with the "occupy" movement should be tax-exempt; they are, at best, trespassers, and possibly vandals. But the "occupy movement" is specifically unorganized, so any group which has sufficient organization to file for 501(c)(4) status probably isn't part of it, anyway.) However, our article 2013 IRS controversy notes that organizations opposed to "ObamaCare" were targeted, and opposing a law (as opposed to supporting or opposing politicians) is a specifically allowed activity for a 501(c)(4).

In regard this specific investigation, no groups were (known to be) denied approval; approval was deferred, pending information that was almost certainly illegal for the IRS to request.

This was a real investigation of "Tea Party" organizations, possibly organized by an assistant director of charitable organization oversight at the IRS. As this article is on the "Tea Party" movement, it seems relevant, although possibly overweighted. (We might mention here the Congressman quoting an anonymous IRS source saying it wasn't directed against conservative organizations, but I don't really consider that a reliable statement of what the IRS person said. I'm not sure it's appropriate there, either.)

As for notable comments by Tea Party movement "members", I think we would need a more-or-less unbiased reliable source stating that they represent the policy of the movement, in order to include the quotes. I seem to be in the minority in requesting evidence that the person making the statement is a "leader" in the Tea Party, or that the statement is representative of the Tea Party, in order for it to be relevant here. I haven't checked lately, but for quite a while, there were allegedly racist statements made by a local (I believe something on the order of a metropolitan area in the South) TP leader, but not confirmed except by "liberals" in the crowd. No media persons heard the comment, nor were any recordings made. The local TP organization which the person belonged to denied that the statement represented the view of the organization, and the person himself was apparently not heard from again. That marginally notable person X says that he heard marginally notable Tea Party person Y say something inappropriate seems to me to fall under WP:GOSSIP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Now I'm wondering what passes for accuracy around here. House committee (led by Issa, pretty much a Tea Party guy) - above. Senate sub-committee - here. FBI conclusions - here. I understand it is a facet of the Tea Party self-identity to believe it is singled out and persecuted, but that doesn't mean that a specific incidence of persecution has to be included if all the evidence is that that incident never happened.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That "tea party" is on the list of key terms, even in the FBI report, makes it (at least marginally) important to this article. As for your specific comments: Issa is pretty much mainstream Republican; not Tea Party material at all. If the IRS were targeting conservative groups, the Democrat-run Senate sub-committee would have denied it. And the Forbes "article" is a reprint of a blog post. I like "taxgirl", but she's not a reporter. I'm sure you can do better than that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I get it: no matter how many sources report on the matter, if they do not agree with the Tea Party mythology, they are wrong or undependable. However, I think there is enough to change the article. Something like "In 2013, it became known that Tea Party and progressive groups were 'tagged' by the IRS. No Tea Party groups were ever penalized as a result." That would be accurate, wouldn't it?--Daveler16 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not provable that "no Tea Party groups were (ever) penalized as a result." Some applications for 501(c)(4) status were suspended. If they would have been processed absent this IRS "witch-hunt" (applying to groups with liberal, conservative, and some non-partizan politcal views), the statement is incorrect. It would be correct, but misleading, to say that no applications by Tea Party groups were denied. Some existing groups were asked for their membership list; as that was an illegal request in many cases, it would be incorrect to say that those groups were not "penalized", even if the investigations were stopped. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed, penalized might not be the best term, maybe hindered, or obstructed? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems overly long and is not clear whether the groups were targeted for ideological reasons or if the IRS officials believed that organizations with Tea Party sounding names were being used to funnel money to political campaigns. TFD (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what was going on. An anonymous IRS manager reported that he (or she) instituted the audit to protect the integrity of the process, although I cannot understand the reasoning. In terms of weight, it may only deserve one or two sentences, but, to say it that briefly, these questions would not be adequately explained. Personally, I think the section in this article should be drastically trimmed, but, as I'm considered a Tea Party supporter, I don't think I should do it, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away on other things. I could do the trimming. What do people consider essential to retain?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I read that sub-section again, it seems to be it is far from a NPOV and is chock full of what looks like OR. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I assume that no response (in 24 days) to my offer to re-write the IRS sub section is tacit agreement that I cshould do so? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't so assume. Why don't you put your proposed edits here for discussion so all can see and agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This topic was started by me to discuss this. However, I'll be glad to share work and ideas here before editing the actual page. Not today, though. :-)--Daveler16 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done a draft of the IRS subsection in my Sandbox, [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Government Study: The Tea Party was created by the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers

• [Removed sock comment]

One academic study does not a fact make. This particular theory is highly controversial generally and particularly on this page. it would be important to get substantial buy-in and consensus to make this bold change to what was perhaps the most contentious area leading up to the ARBCOM investigation and decision. Please review the archives for the previous discussions. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

First, you need to quote the report, not the abstract, since often they do not correctly summarize what the report says. Most of the articles I have read say that the Tea Party had both astroturf and grass roots elements. See for example Robert Altemeyer's Comment on the Tea Party Movement. TFD (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Too often people read stuff into a report that is not in the report. The report states no connection between the Kochs and tobacco, and basically says that organisations set up by Big Tobacco were then a model for later organisations - it does not make any connection that Big Tobacco set out in any way to create the "Tea Party", nor that Big Tobacco ruled the Kochs. Also, there is no doubt that many Tea Party groups did, indeed, arise from grass-roots organisations, and the Kochs gave money to foundations which then gave money to organisations sympathetic to the grass-roots organisations. Frankly the "Kochs run everything" theory has been done to death, and (while it makes for nice sound bites in Congress) there is precious little evidence to make them the puppet-masters of the Universe. [2] does not even use "Koch" in its diagram. And most of the "links" are single people and ad agencies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be something about this particular journal article that causes people to repeatedly make false statements about it. For some reason, editors have a hard time accurately discussing its content. For example, in this thread, we have:

• User:Letstrythisagain2: A 2013 academic study by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health... FALSE. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was funded by a grant from the NCI.
• User:Letstrythisagain2: front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers created the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene... MOSTLY FALSE. The article makes clear that the Tea Party is not solely a creation of the tobacco industry or the Koch brothers: Many factors beyond the tobacco industry have contributed to the development of the Tea Party. Anti-tax sentiment has been linked to notions of patriotism since the inception of the USA when the colonies were protesting against taxation by the British.
• User:Collect: The report states no connection between the Kochs and tobacco... FALSE. According to the article, CSE (which split into AFP and FreedomWorks in 2004) was co-founded in 1984 by David Koch, of Koch Industries, and Richard Fink, former professor of economics at George Mason University, who has worked for Koch Industries since 1990. CSE supported the agendas of the tobacco and other industries, including oil, chemical, pharmaceutical and telecommunications, and was funded by them.
• User:Collect: [3] does not even use "Koch" in its diagram... TECHNICALLY TRUE, BUT HIGHLY MISLEADING. The figure shows extensive connections between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party, and Americans for Prosperity (which is the Koch brothers' primary political vehicle; David Koch is its Chairman). So the figure clearly connects the Koch brothers, the tobacco industry, and the Tea Party. It is irrelevant (and misleading) to pretend otherwise simply because the Koch influence is listed as Americans for Prosperity rather than by name.

I'm not sure whether or how this article should be cited, and I'm not sure I want to involve myself in this article, which has been marked over the years by very poor editorial conduct. But I don't see how a serious discussion is possible unless we're capable of accurately and honestly presenting the contents of sources. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Before saying "false" - the connection between the CSE, the Kochs and tobacco was what? I read the entire article -- and the bit about "A is connected to B which is connected to C which is connected to D" - and then asserting "Therefore A is connected to D" is about all one can claim -- and that is a pretty weak claim at best. Sorry -- fails the rational connection requirement used in science.

The chart shows the "Tea Party" (part thereof) connected to AFP and FreedomWorks (your "Koch Connection"). FW is connected to Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe and Dineed Borelli. Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe are then connected to Dana Catuso and Citizens for a Sound Economy, which is then connected to "Big Tobacco". But -- "Big Tobacco was not the backer of CSE. It was backed by literally dozens of corporations.

In fact, the abstract states " It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations."

The real problem in all that theorizing is that the Tea Party movement is not noted for opposing tobacco legislation!

The article specifically refers to "key players" in connected organizations - the chart shows the linkage requires three or more actual steps. (Four steps to reach the Kochs who are not noted as being pro-tobacco - in fact they give a lot of money (well over $300 million, in fact)to cancer research!) So the Kochs are within "four degrees of separation" which means very little indeed. And no sign they are "pro-tobacco" at all.

DailyKos [4] Look, it's true that many of the same players involved with CART back then are involved with Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity groups now. But the truth is, the whole right wing PR front group racket is a big, incestuous crowd. Many go in the same circles, draw from the same talent pool, and work for all the same corporate interest groups. Finding a connection between Freedomworks, CSE, AFP, and any other organization or group, is like finding fish in a fish tank. But what matters here is not just six degrees of Fred Koch, but an operational connection. And this study fails to present any evidence that even suggests that one existed in 2009 between the Tea Party PR campaign and big tobacco. Have no doubt that tobacco is still a client, along with scores of other banks and big businesses. But this study provides zero evidence that big tobaccos was the client that pulled the trigger on the "Operation Tea Party" in the spring of 2009. Collect (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

[Removed sock comment]

Facts presented in the source are certainly reliable, the issue was what weight to provide the opinion that big tobacco created the Tea Party long before 2009. If the paper does not say that then the issue is moot. If it did say that, then we would have to determine how prevalent that view was. By definition, papers that present original opinions cannot be used to show that those opinions are prevalent. Letstrythisagain2, my position is based on policy, and that is where you should take your concerns. 02:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)TFD (talk)

As per what MastCell said, I must agree. No matter how good a source is, by itself, there's little point in including it in an article if it's going to be inaccurately cited and deliberately false information is going to be asserted. An accurate description would be something like "In terms of the think tank organizations that helped co-ordinate and give resources to some tea party groups, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco found that they had multiple past links to corporate-funded organizations connected to individuals such as David Koch and others, with those individuals pushing against anti-tobacco legislation efforts." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

There seems to be contradiction some missing details according to Boston_Tea_Party#Resisting_the_Tea_Act

• The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues

The article says:

• a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773

I think this sounds just a bit misleading without the details. Darknipples (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Why doesn't this article mention anything about the Tea Party's openly assumed islamophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.93.58 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because there is no reliable source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome again. Be bold, add a sentence or two with some reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This would surely serve as a starting point. I gave up editing a long time ago, and I was hoping for a Wikipedian with a good conscience to take this task upon themselves. Cheers. 41.142.117.85 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it would not be a good starting point. See WP:SPS and WP:RS Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry you gave up editing. Looks like this might be a thing. How about a secondary source writing about Tea Party tendencies toward islamophobia? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)