Talk:Tea Party protests

Significance?

I'm not sure how significant or widespread these protests really are, but they do seem to have been mentioned fairly widely, if briefly, in the mainstream press such as The Guardian and The Economist. Possibly related to Rick Santelli's odd performance on CNBC, and I'm picking up a lot of chatter about them on Twitter (see for instance #tcot and #teaparty on search.twitter.com). Conservative politics is a closed book to me, but this does look interesting. --TS 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there are a lot of libertarians involved too. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The protest are becoming more common as the government spends more of the taxpayers money, also there was one in Oklahoma City in late feb, early March, i didnt see it on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.245 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I rename this article?

I want to change it to Tea party (protest). Do I have to create a new article and then redirect this page there, ect, ect. Sorry for my ignorance :) Thanks, --Tom 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just use the "Move" link and type in a new name. In the default skin, the "move" link is in a tab near the top of the page. You need to be registered for a few days before you can perform moves. I think your suggested name is fine. --TS 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try it at some point. I hate "screwing" things up around here even though this project is hard to "break", but learning a new "tool" is always helpful. I actually did a AFD the other day correctly on the first try, go figure :) Cheers! Tom 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How about 2009 TEA Party protests (written like that) since TEA is the official name?

I'm not comfortable with the present title (2009 "tea party" protests), either. It reeks of POV from a user whose only contribution to this page was to move it. Specifically, the fact that the name "tea party" is in quotation marks fails Wikipedia:NC#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis. I'm going to move the page to 2009 Tea Party protests. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea party images

(copied from my user talk page --TS 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Some other free ones from Flickr that you could use, if desired:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324190043/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3325026156/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324189285/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324189073/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/34536315@N04/3317043350/
• I think any thing in http://www.flickr.com/photos/e53/sets/72157614438575147/

I don't know if any of them are good, but they are free to use. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

External links question

What kind of external links would be good for this article? Would a link to a local website organizing a tea party work? For instance: the Cincinnati tea party website. Or would more national (coordinating) websites work? For instance: the Tax Day tea party website. If we list the local ones, would we simply have too many links (linkfarm)? Are any of them "official" enough to qualify for inclusion? As it stands, there are no "external links", so I was curious. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, a good place for sources: http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22tea+party%22 --Ali'i 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has made a google map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112875499027114938790.0004647d9f61bab744fd4&ll=38.272689,-96.679687&spn=27.495109,57.128906&z=4&source=embed htom (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Two sections removed

I've removed a section called "Responses" because the only reference was to a separate initiative by Barack Obama dating from early February, before the protests.

I've removed a section called "Momentum" because it only referred to partisan sources. --TS 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a similarly sourced section, "Capstones", containing a single poorly sourced statement. Statements about the size of a protest should be sourced reliably. Police estimates are often all that can be relied on because organizers themselves do not have experience in counting the crowd. --TS 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed an entry from events that read as follows:

February 27 / Nationwide / The Tea Party had 30,000 protesters in 50 cities nationwide.

The sources given were a video made by Glenn Reynolds and hosted on Pajamas TV, a website for the Oregon Tea Party, and a website called "Speak Now America". These are not reliable sources for the figures claimed. --TS 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin?

RON PAUL

The tea parties began on December 16th, 2007 (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party) as a fund raising/protest initiative started by Libertarian leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. This was the second and larger of two major fund raising days for Ron Paul from 2007. The first one was on November 5, 2007. They were both huge sucesses the first raising 4.2 million dollars in one day and the second raising 6.6 million.

There is a strong liklihood that the 2009 tea party protests were influenced or inspired by Ron Paul 2007 tea party and the movement that grew out of the Ron Paul candidacy.

It's not just a strong likelihood. The Tea Party events were started by Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty supporters, and both the left and the right wing partisans are trying to pretend otherwise, for differing reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can prove a direct connection but this should be at least mentioned in the primary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.250.65 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

see this wiki article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.73.99 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not acceptable as a reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is just like any other part of the internet - you have to judge any information gained from it on its merits. In this case the video clearly shows that certain things happened, and when they happened (before date of posting) --PeterR (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just put back my paragraph about the Ron Paul campaign rallies that were billed with the "tea party" name. It's misleading to pretend that this just started in February of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. Please read WP:V and WP:OR. The Squicks (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced, with the link to the USA Today article that references the Boston Tea Party anniversary. No, will you knock it off if you don't have anything to contribute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed once more. That source does not say that the money bomb is any way connected to the tea parties.

The article can only mention things that reliable sources say are in some way connected to the protests. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the article I linked. I quote: "It was timed for the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, a day meant to resonant with the Libertarian sensibilities of his supporters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. It said absolutely nothing about those people thinking that they were going to protest in Spring 2009. The Squicks (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see that the facts don't fit your agenda, so you'll just keep deleting what I wrote. Have it your way; wikipedia isn't the only place people can learn about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the facts do not fit your agenda. Either find reliable sources that support your claim that Ron Paul's supporters a year ago planned the protests going on right now, or stop adding that material. The Squicks (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

In relation to the origins of these protests, it seems to me that protests happened the day before the signing of the bill, but they were not called anything remotely named 'tea party'. They had another name, 'Porkilous'. But they are cited as the source and origin of what are called 'tea parties'. This is in conflict and something is not true about the situation. The name clearly came from a broadcast on Feb 17th, and not from what is cited in the article as a blogger in Seattle. This should be redone to reflect the source of the actual protests that have used the name 'tea party', since Feb 17th as the broadcast on CNBC. There is no indication of any other protests called 'Porkilous' since the day before the signing of the bill. The only 'Porkilous' protest documented should be cited as a footnote to indicate that protests of the bill started the day before the signing of the bill, but not as the origin of the protests documented, and named by the organizers, and the press, as 'tea parties'. Godfollower4ever (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the dates of the posts and that the video was posted. The name was in use as the name of a political organization, even if small. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqWHqXBZIlA http://www.bostontea.us/debtrepudiationrelease011009 htom (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be more roots to this than the CNBC broadcast, but it wasn't viral enough to energize a mass gathering like these protests have become. The turning point appears to be the passage, by Congress, of legislation that brought the remark.. the now infamous rant.. broadcast on CNBC on Feb 17th.. it was brewing before this, but it hadn't started to boil until that broadcast.. therefore it seems, for the purposes of this article, that the origin of the name and movement to protest point both forward to and backwards to the CNBC broadcast 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godfollower4ever (talk • contribs)

I removed the references to "derision" of the protests by liberal commentators becuase I couldn't find any reference in the Barack Obama article about him being derided by conservative commentators (which he, of course, has been). Just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofthepeopl (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I readded it. Since, after all, critical things about Obama are in his articles, notably Public image of Barack Obama.

I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. The Squicks (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're doing nothing of the kind. You're deleting material you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. A couple of extremely brief mentions of his inexperience? I don't see how that adequately covers everything that has been said about him.

Whatever though, I can't be bothered, I'll let you have your way and leave you to your little masturbatory, hagiographic gay Obama fanfics. Have fun. Voiceofthepeopl (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another bigoted homophobic personal attack like that and it's time for a 'Request for comment' on your editing account.

Happy easter, BTW. Last time I checked, the Savior of humanity said to 'love thy neighbor', not 'God hates fags'. Try to keep that in mind. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

HuffPo citing Maddow citing HuffPo?

Nice circular referencing here: [2] and here: [3].

I'm really not seeing any legitimate reason to include the mention of Maddow and the reference, especially in light of this. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculing of the "teabagging" name is widespread in legitimate media sources. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Such as...? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The MSM does this kind of stuff all the time. It's how they work.

What exactly is your point? The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If a low-rated conservative commentator riding on the coattails of another low-rated conservative commentator picked up a phony meme from an extremist blog, regurgitated it while tittering like a 10-year-old boy hearing a dirty joke for the first time, and then the blog reported on that, do you really think it would worthy to be on Wikipedia? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace the word "conservative" with "liberal" in that last comment

Does that change make a difference in your or anyone else's mind? If so, then something is wrong. The Squicks (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't have time to fully discuss but the bias is starting to stand out. Removing labels from Liberals while labeling conservatives. Linking to unrelated links to give the impression that this is a false event. Over hyping FNC and trying to make some supportive link where one does not exist. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the label "liberals" from a list that includes Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Reagan and for Bush 41, and who wrote a book criticizing Bush 43 for not being conservative enough. That list also includes Andrew Sullivan, who supported Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. It would clearly be POV to call these men liberals so as to serve the right-wing view that only liberals have criticized these protests. I'd certainly agree that some of the critics (e.g., Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman) are liberals, but if you want to try to characterize the ideology of the critics, it has to be more nuanced than just calling them all liberals.

As for Fox News, we have one sentence reporting the channel's publicizing of the events, and one sentence reporting that four of its well-known hosts will cover tea parties live. Is that overhyping? Given the importance of Fox News in making the public aware of these protests, and in increasing the attendance, I'd say it's underhyping. As for a "supportive link where one does not exist", the cited source states: "Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with 'tea party' protests across the country...." There is certainly support there. If you think that the description of what Fox has broadcast is factually inaccurate, you should be able to find a source contradicting it. JamesMLane t c 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, and with the current state of the article, it doesn't matter who's calling who a conservative/liberal or what the sources are saying. The overall cadence of the article, the language and structure that are used, and the sources that are cited leave an overall tone that wreaks of multiple, competing authors. The fact that it's got a structure "liberals would says this" followed by "conservatives would say this" suggests that the principal maintainers of the text thus far are too emotionally involved with either side to really give a dispassionate treatment to the body of work that's available. The fact that the neutrality of this article is disputed is quite appropriate. The only solution I can think of is for the people who have any stake in this (for or against) to not edit the article, but I suspect that's impractical to execute at this point.

Bottom line is this: keep doing what you're doing with an awareness that you are creating a schizophrenic article that will have to be cleaned up some day further down the road.Imaginos (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What you dislike as schizophrenic is fully in accord with Wikipedia policy and should not be "cleaned up". Here's the relevant language from the NPOV policy:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

So, yeah, that pretty much dictates presenting a controversial subject in the form of "liberals say this and conservatives say that". What do you mean by a "dispassionate treatment"? that all the editors who have an opinion should leave, after which those remaining decide whether the liberals or the conservatives are right, and tailor the article to announce that position as true? If so, that's ruled out by the policy. JamesMLane t c 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane, can you please post a link to the citation about FNC supporting these protests? TIA, Tom (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's this story about the coverage in Politico, which summarizes the point, including this passage:

:::::Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.

“Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.

For further support, the principal report from Media Matters has multiple links and screen caps. The people who love to denounce Media Matters as biased could make their case by showing that even one of those links or screen caps is false. In my experience, though, that won't happen. Media Matters is an accurate and reliable source, so the right-wingers who dislike it are reduced to name-calling rather than addressing the substance of its reports. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? Last time I checked, this story is cited in the article, and the allegation by Media Matters are fairly mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that that material was deleted. I readded it. The Squicks (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job folks

I won't weigh in about NPOV, but I did want to stop by and thank all the contributors for creating such a decent article so quickly about a fairly controversial subject. Sure, there is room to improve but their always is. The whole "conservative and liberal" thing is important to consider and my presence is to minimize both sides and just concentrate on the events themselves. But it doesn't seem glaringly biased one way or the other. On a first read nothing stands out as being a big problem. I had in mind to start an article on the subject today, with all the new coverage, and what do you know, not only does it exist but it is very informative, well written, and thoroughly sourced. So thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically I feel that the article is largely insufficient. I wish someone would publish turnout numbers. Also, the media bias in the US is now more apparent than ever. I know it is touched on, but Fox spent a good amount of time covering it, with several hosts seemingly supporting the protests and claiming them to be highly successful. CNN and MSNBC paid almost 0 attention to them, often portraying the tea parties as highly unsuccessful. -Lib

I think the article's pretty good, too. People can draw the obvious conclusion why some networks downplayed and others supported the protests, and I think it's an appropriate length.  EJNOGARB  16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say you guys both views on why their was the protest and the both the counter views and support on it. Kudos to Wikipedia.--66.229.26.39 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I see that this was readded with the edit summary "rvv"? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Events

I'm using this section of the talk page to list reports of events (not planned events) that have taken place, from newspapers or other reliable sources. --TS 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• New Jersey, AP
• Livonia and Plymouth, The Detroit News
• Des Moines, Radio Iowa
• New Orleans, WDSU
• Salem, The Oregonian

Cleaning up Responses section

"Responses" doesn't include any responses. The "responses" given were 1) someone saying that this isn't a real tea party because those who are pushing the taxation without representation are elected; and 2) & 3) two more comments about how taxes aren't necessarily bad. I think NPR got it right by saying it's fallacious to say this is a revolt about taxes--it's not, it's a revolt about deficit spending. Anyway, I deleted #2 & 3 because they are simply unrelated to the article.--Mrcolj (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is turning into garbage, but that was to be expected I guess. I see that Ron Paul now invented the tea parties? Anyways, I would be all for including less "material" and keeping the article as "focused" and well sourced as possible, trying to keep out as much extraneous material and opinions as possible. --Tom (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Readded. Those criticisms were all completely valid. 2 and 3 both directly commented on the protests and expressed disagreement with them. Just because you happen to personally disagree with those statements does not matter. The Squicks (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who that response was directed at, but I am trying to remove material that is not sourced, is not notable or relevant, sourced to blogs or not covered by reliable 3rd parties without attribution. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added Obama's response. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all object to including his response, but I believe that it should be in the section that is about the April 15 events since his statement was made on April 15. The Squicks (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Total attendance...

111,899? thats a bit low considering there was "at least 2000" rallies... are you trying to tell me that the average is less than 100 at each rally? considering Atlanta had 15-20,000 people last night I think this number is very low... I was estimating 500,000+ thinking possibly upwards of a million. Obviously until we get a more accurate source this cannot be posted.

It looks like 700-750 rallies is the "number" being tossed around.--Tom (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Silver did not count Atlanta or San Antionio (among others). His estimation is not based on any statistical analysis, only a count of what he could find. By those means it is hardly a reliable estimate of anything other than his guess (which is what he called it). Silver is also an Obama supporter, and is hardly an unbiased source. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to cite Silver as long as the article mentions that it is him, a pro-Obama political activist, making the estimate. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Fairly note both sides. The Squicks (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Consiedring that the liberal media is trying to manipulate the whole event to fit the left wing adgenda, getting a good source may be difficult.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and since Fox "News" wants to try and manipulate attendance as well, it looks like NOBODY will be truly correct in the numbers.

Fox tells the WHOLE story, thats something that the left wing nut jobs can't handle.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible picture

How does this one look? The signs that were being displayed at these demonstrations weren't all tax-related, you know.

[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.98 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This happens when you tolerate people who are "off message". Given the choice of free speech or controlled speech, I'll take the former. The photo is non-typical and should not be used. htom (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I display photos of people who claim "Jews = Zionist Terrorists" on pages about anti-Iraq war protests? The Squicks (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Preferably not, in my opinion. Warning, it looks like we might agree on something! htom (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Teabagging

Several liberal (e.g. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster) and centrist (e.g. Anderson Cooper) talk show hosts have made jokes about the sexual practice of teabagging. This has elicited responses from Fox News and national organizer FreedomWorks. I have tried to present both sides (the jokes and the responses) neutrally. If anyone has issues with the section, please bring them up here and I will try to resolve them. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper is a liberal, not a centrist. Anyways, the left has been pushing and shoving down this homoerotic meme really, really, really hard* and for really long, so, sadly, I think that it is notable enough to be mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I am aware of the possible pun there.

Edit: Wesley Pruden, a conservative, also refers to the protesters as "teabaggers."[5] JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whomever wrote up the teabagging section with the hyperlinks to the various plays on words. I must say it is quite funny. However, it does appear to require a great deal of OR to make all of those connections. In reading it I can see how they were made, but the question is was that the real intention behind Shuster and Olbermann? I won't delete them right now, but they probably need some third party reporting to make the causal links. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

I don't see a problem with including Nate Silver's estimate of the turnout as long as we note that he is a liberal [6] and include any reliable conservative sources (and note that they in turn are conservative). If any reliable source has criticized Nate Silver's estimate, please include that in the article too. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, for one I don't appreciate the threat you posted on my talk page. You hadn't participated in any discussion so don't come threatening me for no reason. Two, this is a blog source, and a self-published source at that. It is equal to OR and is not a reliable source. If you want to provide specific references to a specific place that is a different story, but to use a blogger who did nothing more than add up sources he could find is not a very reliable way of presenting information. The fact that he is an Obama supporter only reduces the quality of his presentation in this manner. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source from the tea party webpage is also not reliable. The remaining source would also not be reliable if MSBNC had not reported it. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver has a new post up: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-party-nonpartisan-attendance.html ;

... Here are the new and revised listings; followed by a complete list from top to bottom. The new listings bring the cumulative estimate of attendance to 311,460 between 346 cities. The same caveats apply as before: although I've included any estimates I've found that seem even reasonably nonpartisan and credible, there were many protests in which reliable crowd estimates were not readily available or where there wasn't even any press coverage at all. However, essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for. ...

Since one of the complaints before the party was about lack of coverage, is the lack of estimates in the usual RS news or fact? htom (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)