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)

Just wanted to link to more "evidence" that the Ron Paul folk were having Tea Parties back in 2007: [2] Nobody can prove that this is what led to the 2009 Tea Parties or that it didn't, but the influence is pretty likely, the same people are still involved (though to a lesser extent since the media took over), and so this should definitely be mentioned in the article. No edit wars for me, but someone should add this in. 173.79.164.219 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "the squicks" has decided that he won't tolerate any mention of facts that he doesn't like. Yes, the tea parties started in the Ron Paul movement, but that doesn't fit the spin that the right- and left-wingers want to put on the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The origin of tea parties as a protest against the federal government overreaching its constitutional boundaries began with Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency. This fact needs to remain in the article. (A brief mention of the Boston Tea Party is also required.) JLMadrigal (talk) 00:24, 18 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)

I've made a change to the present version, which I reference below in "History Error". Sorry I didn't initially see the discussion here. Duh.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

HuffPo citing Maddow citing HuffPo?

Nice circular referencing here: [3] and here: [4].

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)

Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster have all made "teabagging" jokes on their programs, and I suppose they're legitimate media sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:02, 19 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)

Congrats on missing the point entirely and not addressing the question. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:14, 17 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)

Oh good grief. It would do everyone a whole lot of good to completely avoid using Fox as a news source. It is possible, you know - there are newspapers of all stripes in these places and I'd say if the protests were of any significance at all in those communities there'd be something on that paper's Web site - for example: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/wnt/news/43069877.html--Happysomeone (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to include Neil Cavuto's comments about the Sacramento attendence being ~5000 when he thought he was off the air, only to state that the attendence was 10-15,000 after the cameras 'started rolling'. This gives additional insight on the motives of Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.44.74 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like about 700,000 people attended. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rally organizers typically severely over count heads at their own rallies. Not reliable. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Million Mom March says, "Supporters claimed that 750,000 people gathered on the National Mall. Supporters of the event also claimed 150,000 to 200,000 people across the country held sympathy marches." So why can't this article make a similar kind of claim from the supporers? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think we're basically at that point with the Pajamas TV numbers. They say the numbers are from their supporters (although I take significant pause with some of those, i.e. NYC numbers from AP: 2,000/NYC numbers for PJTV: 11,000) and add a disclaimer at the end saying they won't vouch for the reports. The two examples cited are one of a liberal-leaning math geek who spent his spare time compiling 350+ news report links vs. an conservative activist Web site claiming their affiliates said x and we won't "vouch" for it. And you're complaining?--Happysomeone (talk) 22:35, 18 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.

[5] —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."[6] 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)

If you wish to remove the hyperlinks, feel free to do so. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media to make fun of the protests. The term "teabag the White House" came from one of the promoters, though.[7] (Yes, I know it's the Daily Show, but they have the video clip that spawned the whole teabag joke there.) The media just ran with the joke after that faux pas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The media just ran with the joke. Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Either this was something made into a big deal by and promoted by the media, or it was made into a big deal by and promoted by the protesters themselves. Both cannot be true. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, you're conflating two different things here. The term did not original with the media, they simply pointed out its absurdity. From there, it snowballed into a joke. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But it was the media that made it into the centerpoint idea/image/ethos/whatever of the protests.

There were people at the anti-Iraq protests in the US that were smoking pot, that were having open public displays of nudity, that were making blatant anti-Semitic remarks, and so on. Those people did not become the central image of those protests. The Squicks (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, do we really need as big a mention as we have now. I think readers get the point after one or two double entendres. By my count we mention 6 distinct examples. Is that necessary? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a verbal orgy like this, you're expected to climax several times. The Squicks (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I first remember the term entering the "mainstream" with the 1998 film Pecker.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. But as JoshuaZ points out, this is a serious article. We don't need to have more than a paragraph on this unfunny joke. Nevard (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed the section considerably, trying to stick to the more noteworthy significant issues and removing many of the direct quotes, and statement of context about exactly when and where people used the word. It's still way too long in my opinion and does not rest on very reliable sources. Hunting for uses of the term then citing them isn't very encyclopedic, nor is an analysis of which partisans hurled which insults at each other. This kind of thing really ought to be sourced to a reliable, neutral, secondary source (e.g. salon, fox, etc.). The exception might be the organizer, who should probably have their say over what they think of the term. Wikidemon (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is way too small now and I have tagged it as such until consensus on an appropriate size can be reached here. Prior to your edits, the section had already been cut down from 7,609 bytes to 5,486 byes.

I think we should have at least a few direct quotes from the political commentators who used the term so readers can know what the fuss was about. The term was also used extensively by Rachel Maddow, so I think that her name, at least, should be mentioned. Could you please justify your removal of the responses by Media Research Center, NewsBusters, and Joe Scarborough? JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider: The "Astroturfing" section is currently 5,126 byes (which I think is an appropriate size) and the "Teabagging" section is currently 5,486 bytes. However, Google News turns up 77 hits on "astroturfing" and 1,336 hits on "teabagging". JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 19 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 [8] 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)

I wasn't threatening you. I was warning you because you have repeatedly removed content without a valid reason.

According to WP:RS, Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable. This specific blog is already used by many other articles. Why is it not acceptable here?

Nate Silver is not an expert in crowd estimation. Show me some place where he has been cited as an expert or even used in this capacity. Now I don't know about all of his citations here, but some of them are sepecifically related to polling aggregation and baseball analysis, for which he has been used as an expert. This is not the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He is an expert on statistics. If you want to narrow it to experts on crowd estimation, you should remove the entire section as it includes no estimates from such a narrow group. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, I am an expert on statistics as I have been published several times. I really think you fail to understand reliable sources and self-published material. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You fail to understand WP:RS by making the mistaken assumption that all blogs are not RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Read up. [9]

Use of statistical data

Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.

Arzel (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, all conservative attendance estimates should also be removed. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had read you would have seen that I removed the conservative estimate as well and stated that I didn't think the other estimate should remain either. The Grover estimate was reported by MSNBC though, so that is a different issue. FYI I reported your bad faith second warning. If you want to discuss, discuss here, don't go threatening people on their talk page when you hadn't even taken part in the talk here.

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)

Nate Silver is not an expert in crowd estimation. The guidelines for WP:RS show that he fails as a reliable source. Now if you want to repeat the entire list of paper estimation go ahead, but simply adding them up and saying that is the estimation is OR. Silver self-published his addition, which makes no difference in interpretation. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver's estimate has been reported by the conservative National Review Online [10][11] and The Denver Post [12]. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Denver Post is conservative? They seem pretty evenhanded to me.

Regardless, I support including Silver's count so long as he as identified as who he is. The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the National Review Online is conservative. The Denver Post is centrist. Sure, I don't have a problem with him being identified as a liberal statistician who voted for and supports President Obama (as long as conservative estimators are also identified). JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the widespread quotation of his number, his give experience as an accomplished statistican and given the discussion of his estimate in reliable sources it should be mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still a poor use of statistics, but I'll concede that it has been somewhat reported by a third party and no longer falls under self-published. I still think a better report is that from the specific cities, or a few of the major cities. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Teabagging Wikilinks

There are several wikilinks in the teabagging section which are not only superfluous, but violate WP:SYNTHESIS; they link words like full-throated to fellatio. First of all, such links aren't constructive, and second, because the sources don't specifically say that full-throated means fellatio (and so forth), it's WP:SYNTHESIS to link the two. Unless the majority opposes it, I will remove the links.  EJNOGARB  —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm tempted to request that you leave them, to demonstrate the pettiness of the coverage but I'll copy them here for the record: well, no I won't, someone has already cleaned up most of them. People can look in the history and find them. htom (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:

On April 10, MSNBC's David Shuster said that the protests were "fluffed repeatedly by FOX News" and that "limp or not ... more of these things are supposedly unfolding on or near Tax Day, April the 15th." He continued, "We see the video of them holding up the tea bags and—I suppose the symbolism of that can be read a lot of different ways." On April 13 he offered "details of who is stimulating the movement and where the money is blowing in from" and described the movement as "short on outrage and long on Republican manufacturing." He said that the right wing is "going nuts for it" and that "thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend." He continued, saying that "the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals" and "want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." He then spoke about the source of the protests, saying "the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists, as well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped." He then addressed Fox News, saying "Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday." He concluded by saying, "If you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you‘re going to need a Dick Armey."

On April 13, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow offered "a double entendre palooza." Her guest, Ana Marie Cox, said "Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging." On April 14, she admitted that her approach to the protests was "to laugh at it, even while trying to report on it, which is the prurient, juvenile approach." On April 15, she said "the turnout today can probably best be characterized as a mixed bag" and mentioned an "offbeat path tea party." She said that protesters had "joy and the enthusiasm to teabag." Her guest, Ana Marie Cox, said "These people who turned out were truly dedicated to teabagging. And they really, they put a lot of muscle into it, but, hopefully, not too much. But I think that they were very, very excited to be there."

On April 14, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said "FOX has whipped up excitement for the parties, recruiting viewers to come out, guaranteeing huge outdoor gatherings, spilling into the streets, choking off traffic with all their teabagging." and "Nor is FOX alone. Republican talking-heads like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging—down the throats of teabaggers." He spoke about the source of the protests, saying "Dick Armey [is] at the head of it" and that "right-wing money bags... have blown lots of cash to make the movement look as if it's coming from the bottom-up and not the top-down." One the possibility of counter-protests, he said "if enough counter-protesters rear their head tomorrow, if things get too testy, teabagging might jut blow up in FOX‘s face."He suggested that the protests might have "had the news programs on FOX News going off half-cocked." On April 15, he said "After all the anticipation and buildup, the teabagging exploded all across America." and that "it is hard to change position right in the middle of a teabagging." On the origin of the protests, he said "In Washington, it climaxed at that grassroots organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, founded by “Mr. Grassroots” himself, Richard Mellon Scaife, funded by him anyway." He continued, saying "But this Dick Armey revolution only came out in dribs and drabs. At some spots outside the beltway, in crowds that numbered at least one dip, teabaggers hoping to get at least two dip, got some help from FOX News, sending its big guns all over the country." On the motivations of the protesters, he said "oddly, teabaggers oppose stimulus, even the stimulus package. Dick Armey hates inflation." and "these teabaggers claim high taxes have brought them to their knees."

JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. What is the point?--Happysomeone (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It helps readers who aren't up on American English slang to see how their commentary is either hilarious or juvenile (likely depending on the readers' political persuasions). JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

John Waters is probably going to go in the seventh layer of hell for this. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

History Errors

There appears to be an error in the "History" segment. For all concerned, please review Liberty Belle's blog here, where the protest is clearly referenced as a "Porculus" protest. The "Tea" meme did not begin with this event. I can see, however, how this is related to the Tea Protests that were held on April 15. But it is factually incorrect to label this a "Tea" protest. That event should be labelled correctly and in the near future I intend to make the appropriate chages to reflect that. Please see here, Liberty Belle's blog on this: http://redistributingknowledge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-15T15%3A36%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7--Happysomeone (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Astroturf

When reviewing this article I notice the fringe theory about protests not being grassroots. Thus far no credible evidence has come up showing this other than 1 or 2 politic activitists/politians stating their fringe theories about it and suggest in the removal of this section under the fringe theories section of Wikipedia.Jason 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

• The section is called "Allegations of astroturfing" and the allegations are well sourced and high profile. Black Kite 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, and Paul Krugman have all leveled accusations of astroturfing. They are all admittedly liberals, but I don't think they're on the fringe... JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's not only not fringe, it's the widespread mainstream expert opinion of what happened -- and, seriously, for anybody who has ever studied politics in this country, damned obvious to boot. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

PJTV

An editor is repeatedly inserting the Pajamas TV estimate of ~600,000 people attending into the article. I've reverted twice and explained why on his talkpage, so I'll bring it here - should such a partisan and involved (they promoted the event) party be quoted as such, not quoted at all, or quoted with caveats? Black Kite 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've made a compromise edit on this section. Black Kite 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm firmly opposed to this edit. Pajamas TV, admittedly a conservative advocacy source, openly states that it "does not vouch for the legitimacy of these events" at the bottom of the Web page cited. Silver, who perhaps more subtly displays a liberal bias, provides links to verifiable sources for ALL his numbers (but appears to leave out a number of smaller municipalities). How are the two equal in standing, apart from bias? Please remove the Pajamas TV number, as it is an unverified piece of information IN THEIR OWN WORDS.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - feel free to remove it - I am not going to revert again on this article. Black Kite 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two options here. (1)Avoid openly partisan sources, which means both Pajamas TV and Silver are gone. (2)Include all sides.

I personally favor (2). (1) is justifiable and reasonable. But employing an ideological double standard either way is simply unacceptable. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, please share your thoughts on my query, "How are the two equal in standing, apart from bias?" re: Silver vs PJTV. It is hard to argue that the Silver article, which provides verifiable links to every source he cites, is openly biased. I would again observe, however, that his list appears incomplete compared to the unsourced lists the Tea Party proponents are providing. Methinks the truth lies somewhere in between. Thoughts?--Happysomeone (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of (1), I think that Norquist should go too because he's the head of a conservative lobbying group. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Include both (labeled "liberal critic") Silver and (labeled "conservative supporter") PJTV. htom (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside Black Kite's opinion, what legitimate concern is there for the use of Pajamas Media as a source for attendance data? It seems like Citizen Reporters who post attendance data on the PJTV website are more legitimate than other news media who did not cover the events but "estimate" their own numbers - I favor (2) and believe all sides should be included. Holding a double standard is not appropriate in my opinion. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What proof must be made in order to reach a "consensus" allowing the use of PJTV as a source for attendance data? Obviously not everyone will post their opinion in the Talk Page here, but I'd be willing to bet over 600,000 thousand people (the ones who attended the events nationwide) would say it's allowable. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Janeane Garofalo

I added another source and some more background. If you still think she's non-notable, feel free to remove her. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that her quote is non-notable, but I am not inclined to remove, as long as its sourced, which it looks like it is.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, I agree with you that she's notable, but we can't include a quotation from every notable person who's commented pro or con on the tea parties. Would you elaborate on why you think this particular quotation should be included? JamesMLane t c 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the magnitude of the response from the right about her comments? JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Although her comments are abusive and innapropriate, her opinion is just that, her opinion. We can't add every opinion by every person, especially has-beens.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the quote. I thought it was interesting that she's implying that Republicans wouldn't hate Hillary Clinton because she's white! What a ridiculous idea! Of course Republicans hate Hilary Clinton! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Political labels

Will interested parties please vote on/discuss what to do with political labels? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Label everyone as liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc. If this option is chosen, we'll have to reach consensus on who is liberal/conservative, etc. For some (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc) it should be easy.

2) Label no one.

3) Something else. However, I think labeling only conservatives or only liberals might violate WP:NPOV.

Incidents

I created a new section called incidents after finding this line: A protest by several hundred people outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over its fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people placed in the turnout section. It was rather awkward in the turnout section and is worthy of it's own section. I have a feeling that there are other incidents that happened during these protests that can also be included in that section. Brothejr (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, I do not believe a section should be created based on one incident. Unless there are others, I believe this information can be put elsewhere without the section. Showtime2009 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Then might I ask where? I first thought of adding it to another section. However, it would also be awkward in the other sections just like the section it had been put in. Plus, it is an incident during the protest, so it should be reported as such. Brothejr (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

Just for the record. Nate Silver did not perform any statistical analysis on the turnout estimations. He simply added up all of the reported estimates he was able to find and used that number for his total. Please do not try to convey in that section that what he did was statistical in nature. Satistics can be easily manipulated, and it is best to simply report was reported. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted. I think most readers will be able to understand that and in fact Silver does appear to be providing a useful service here in compiling the 300+ links to all the numbers. That's more links than in this article. He does appear to partake in some manipulation, however, with verifiable sources reporting different numbers for the same place. But we can see how that is done as well since he provides links to that as well. Seems pretty transparent to me, apart from leaving out a number of municipalities - which he explained elsewhere that he couldn't find a news source for.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So I note that you're altering Silver's attribution from "statistician" to "political-poll aggregator." That doesn't square with the first sentence of his Wikipedia bio and runs the risk of violating WP:BLP and WP:RS. You might want to take more care with that.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Brothejr, edits look good, apart from cutting out the fact that Silver culled the number from 346 cities and towns. Didn't see any harm in showing that number. Thanks for jumping in.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what his Bio says, he is not technically a Statistician. He does not have a degree in statistics, or a related field. Statistician is a professional title usually requiring a Masters or PhD in Statistics or a closely related field like Mathmatics or Operations Research. A little bit of searching does have him often being referred to as a Baseball Statistician (which is an entirely different occupation). Additionally, I did find sources which call him a political polster. If you want to call him a baseball statistician or a political pollster, or polling aggregator (same thing) that is fine, but to call him a Statistician is similar to calling someone a Doctor or Engineer or other profession which requires a specific education or certification. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about amateur statistician? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. Basically put, we must follow the WP:BLP policy in this matter. Simply, we cannot call him what the sources do not call him. If there is a source that calls him an amateur statistician then we can. Also before I forget, the source (and all sources for that matter) needs to also conform to the WP:RS and WP:V policies too. Brothejr (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton2052

I am really fed up with how this user somehow has the authority to write anything he wants, while generally using unreliable sources. Anytime I try reverting any information that I feel is biased, He suggest that I'm vandalizing the article by blanking and I get warned for it. Then add the constant labeling of people who support the tea party as "conservative" or "libertarian" and those who oppose it as "liberal" is not only repetitive but unfitting for some. Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal. I wish something could be done about him. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please share the unreliable sources you believe I'm using so that I may address that.

You removed 8k of content without first sharing your concerns on the talk page. I agree that the "Teabagging" section was too long so I have left that.

I added the labels because other editors were complaining that it's NPOV to not label them. If you'll look up a bit, you'll see a section I created where I tried to find consensus about whether labels should be used or not. Please feel free to add your input there so that consensus can be reached. Personally, I don't think it's fair to only label conservatives or only label liberals (as some editors were doing in days past).

I don't see how you can argue that Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative or Keith Olbermann is not a liberal. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As JCDenton2052 does not seem to want to discuss before re-adding anything and does not understand, I have started an AN/I case for admin attention. The case can be found here: [13] Brothejr (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to discuss shortening the article. I just think that consensus should be reached on the talk page before removing good faith additions to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal." is really rather pointless. We should label commentators based upon which political stripe they follow -- and in fact hiding it is equivalent to trying to hide pertinent information about bias in sources -- and those descriptions of liberal vs. conservative are obvious and uncontroversial. To even suggest, for example, that there's any doubt that O'Reilly is conservative, or that the teabaggers are predominantly right-wing, is just ludicrous. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wiki has become 1984's RecDep were histroy is rewritten. Somehow this article has more information about the Boston Tea Party in the overview than the actual event itself and talks about a scant counter-protest as if anyone even noticed the two guys on the other block holding a Barack Rocks sign.GoreBullWarming (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Turnout

I don't know why people keep removing important parts (N) of the reported numbers, but perhaps a little example will help.

It was reported yesterday that 25 students at Central High cheated on their SAT tests.

Now ask yourself does the 25 mean anything? Is it 25 out of 25? or 25 out of 5,000? The second number (N) is needed to present the statistic in context. Can we please have an agreement that if turnout is to be reported then it include N so that the base number is presented in the proper context. The Nate Silver calculation should not be reported. That is my professional opinion of 12+ years in the statistical and related fields. If it is to be reported it has to be listed as a simple ennumeration and that it was based on a summation of only a partial representation. That said I am going to add the (N) numbers back (the 750 total is important as well, plus that is already cited earlier). Arzel (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "346 towns and cities" should be added back in, as it appears there may have been more protests than news reports (such as a gathering in Redmond, WA of 25 people).--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about something like "Liberal blogger and President Obama supporter Nate Silver has summed up crowd estimates and claims that n protestors attended m rallies. However, according to x source, there were actually m + p rallies." ? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to stick to what the sources call him and not try to invent labels for him. If the sources call him a liberal, then we can, if not, then we cannot as per the WP:BLP policy. Brothejr (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor called him a "statistics blogger." The New York Times called him a "boy genius." The Denver Post called him "invaluable." The National Review Online mentioned him twice but gave no title. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then out of those you got to choose what to call him, unless you can find another title that another reliable source calls him. We are not allowed to make up titles that the sources don't use or support. Brothejr (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you cannot find a appropriate title for him, then you can simply drop the title all together. Brothejr (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the original problem was that since he's not a PhD Statistician who specializes in crowd estimation, readers might ascribe more authority to Silver than he is due. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to use a title from an older article about him (e.g. during the 2008 elections when there were lots) or does it have to be one specifically about the protests? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we need to present the number in context. So should present the number as "Nate Silver reported cumulative crowd size for 346 cities from various newspapers to be around 311,460 out of a total population of xxx,xxx,xxx?" Are we talking the population of just the cities, or their metro areas too? That would probably amount to a population of well over 200,000,000 people, or roughly a 0.15% attendance rate at the events. Or we could report it as 1 out of every 1,000 people in America showed up. Or maybe we could compare the number to weekly NFL attendance, where on average 1,020,054 people pay money to show up to just 15 NFL games each Sunday in the fall. Maybe we could compare the attendance numbers to the 500,000 people who showed up at Grant Park to celebrate Obama's victory on election night or the 1.8 million people who showed up in DC to watch his inauguration, or the 38,000,000 people worldwide who showed up in 800 cities at the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest . Context is a tricky thing you see, or are you suggesting a context that paints it as your POV? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The context in this situation was the number reported. There were N number of cities with protests. If you present the total estimation but withhold that your total estimation was based off of X out of N then you lose the correct context. The statistic reported by Silver was ~300,000 from 346 cities with the earlier caveat that there were at least 750 protests nationwide and Silver himself stated this limitation to the statistic. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of organizers having ties to companies that received bailouts

On April 15, liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said:

It‘s also controversial because some of the insider D.C. corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups, astroturfing these protests, these protests against profligate government spending against the bailouts, the folks organizing the anti-bailout protests are also lobbyists for the bailout companies. Freedom Works, for example, a key protest organizer, is headed up by Dick Armey, who‘s lobbying firm in the past year has represented AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, as well as other recipients of TARP funds. Organizing the protest against the bailout after lobbying for the firms that got the bailout, it‘s almost like Dick Armey is talking here out of both sides of the teabag.

Should this be included in the article? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, seems relevant. What about information from this story about some Tea party organizers? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If true (by which I mean verifiable per the weight of good sources), the fact that the protests were in large part organized by PR firms, companies, advocacy organizations, etc., would be more important than what particular stripe some of those groups happen to be. Trying to show hypocrisy by pointing at a couple examples is usually not very encyclopedic. Further, whether she is liberal or not, it is just one person's comment / analysis. The bigger astroturfing issue is not whether one particular organization sponsored one particular protest, but to what extent the protests overall are more planned than grassroots. All if sourced, of course. Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More pictures

I found some more pictures on Flickr that (I think) are okay for use on Wikipedia. Does anyone think any of these would be good for the article?

[14][15][16][17][18][19] JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. I think we would need some solid sourcing that those signs are representative. If we can find good sourcing that racism, fringe conspiracy theories, etc., were a significant issue with the protests then it would make sense to have a section on that, and one of those pictures might reasonably accompany that section. Wikidemon (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw a lot more signs like that on Flickr, but most were "all rights reserved" so I don't think they can be used here. JCDenton2052 (talk)

I saw a good one on Flickr and uploaded it here (under CC 2.0), but it was just removed [20] by someone called "The Red Peacock" as "my god, enough with cherrypicking protest signs." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Without having looked at any of the images, for us to choose one or two of the thousands would be OR, whatever the message was. There are thousands tagged "tea party protest" on Flickr alone. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tea+party+protest htom (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We currently have 6 images in the article. We should determine some way to figure out which images to include, or we should remove them all. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply limit pictures to wide shots where specific signs or POV if you like, are not easily readable. If the picture is vague enough to not promote a specific sign, yet still provide a visual context then you shouldn't have to worry about NPOV or OR ramifications. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Selecting which wide shots to show will also have POV implications. If you select a wide shot of an event with 20,000 people that will imply something very different than if you select a wide shot from an event with a few hundred or a few dozen people, and therein lies the OR/POV. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How does that result in POV? If there is a wide shot picture at an event that was attended by x number of people and it there is a reference to the size of the attendance there is no POV. Silver has links to many of the actual reports of attendance estimates. If there are pictures associated with these event then there should be no problem. Certainly less of a problem than some of the POV pictures found on flikr focusing on specific signs. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OR does not apply to the content images, for reasons long explained over at NFCC, WP:V, etc. Nevertheless, there are issues of POV, COATRACK, etc. Some of these images reveal bigotry, extremism, promotion of fringe theories, lapses of logic and spelling, and ever worse things like bad graphic design. It's fair to ask that the images chosen are good exemplars and reasonably representative of those at the protest. Cherry-picking embarrassing or alarming signs like the Hitler one is unfair, although it is something that even neutral journalists like to do on slow news days order to have an interesting story to tell - unlike encyclopedias, newspapers go for the sensational and "photograph of the day" kind of things are one of the places where they get to let their hair down a bit. As I mentioned above, if there are news stories about how the protests admit extremist protest messages then we might want to write a special section on it and use an image there, but not suggest that this is how they all are unless that's sourceable. Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll see if there are any articles from WP:RS about extremists at the rallies. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then how do other articles with thousands of images to choose from choose just a handful without violating WP:OR? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Red Peacock has a history of blanking this article. [21][22][23] JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor story on size & meaning

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0418/p25s03-usgn.html

By some estimates, over half a million Americans took to the streets last Wednesday to protest taxes and Washington spending – the largest single-day turnout of protesters in the US since 750,000 people marched in Los Angeles to protest foreign immigration on March 25, 2006.

---

Pitched as a non-partisan protest, but dominated by conservatives and libertarians, the national Tea Party protests took place in over 800 locales – from mega-city Atlanta to little Craig, Colo. – with people waving mostly homemade signs, chanting "USA! USA!" and recalling the spirit of the country's revolutionary roots to demand smaller, more responsible and more constitutional government.

---

Critics doubt the higher estimates of the turnout, and say the numbers represent the extreme right rather than a burgeoning political counterpoint to President Obama and current Washington policies.

---

Yet the idea of non-traditional protesters using bottom-up organizing to foment a national movement in the span of 60 days may have marked a turning point for the tea partiers – especially since the high attendance estimates rivaled the estimated 500,000 or so protesters who converged on New York City and several other major cities to oppose the Iraq War on Feb. 15, 2003.

---

"I think it's not dissimilar from what we had in 2003 with the anti-war protests, where a lot of people were uncomfortable with the war, but also uncomfortable with the anti-war position, recognizing there are terrorists out there," says Jeremi Suri, a history professor who specializes in social movements at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "Here we have a similar thing: There are serious economic issues, and it's unclear to many people whether the stimulus is going to deal with these."

---

Trying to estimate crowds at over 800 rallies nationwide is, to be sure, more art than science. And experts say the counting itself often becomes politicized as authorities, organizers, and attendees often come up with dramatically different counts. Cheerleading by Fox News and the appearance of popular host Sean Hannity at the Atlanta event effected the outcome, some critics say.

---

"Numbers give an indication of support, interest, and passion, but there's now a difference, with Fox News, between what's motivating to people and how people are mobilized," says Blaine Stevenson, a sociologist at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant.

---

The conservative Pajamas TV network said on Saturday that it used 850 citizen reporters, police accounts, and video tape to estimate the size of the crowd at each event. The network said in a release that total attendance reached 618,000.

---

Statistics blogger Nate Silver, who trumped many organizations with his polling data during last year's election, pegged the turnout at 240,000. But that count included only about half the locations. The largest events drew close to 20,000 people, but some drew only dozens. A protest in Washington included about 1,500 people in a heavy rain.

...

blockquote doesn't recognize paragraphs? Ah well, ---- instead. htom (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas media estimate

I've removed the Pajamas Media estimate because, even with caveats, it is not a reliable source. --TS 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Pajamas Media is not a reliable source because it is a blog? Arzel (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is a reliable source. I would like to hear more from TS on why he believes it is not a reliable source, but simply deleting the source because of a personal opinion against PJTV does not prove that it is a unreliable source. It just proves that someone doesn't like the source. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read [24] for a fuller discussion of Pajamas Media vis-a-vi WP:RS. Not only is the reliability of PJTV in question but the article that you are trying to include specifically states the numbers were "sent in by citizen journalists who signed up to the site to enter attendance data from the event they participated in."[25] Typically "citizen journalists" do not rise to the standards of WP:RS. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There were no counter-protests of note

GoreBullWarming (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A number of counter-protests were held on the same day to show support for the economic plans and actions of President Obama.[7] .... The reference is to "possible" counter protests.

Unless someone can show a reference to a real counter protest, please remove this from the article.

Are any of these WP:RS?

Kansas City Infozine: A small group staged a counter-protest. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of women's activist group Code Pink, said Americans pay high taxes to cover the cost of important government services. "We believe that civilized nations need taxes and those taxes should go for good things like public schools, and a health care system, and fire departments, and fixing roads, and public transportation and great jobs," Benjamin said. "I think some demagogues have really turned this into trying to get people against the stimulus package or against the budget."

Waco Tribune-Herald: The protest was not without its counterprotest, either. A group of counterprotesters led by former Baylor University student Ryan Young attended both rallies, holding signs designed to make light of the event. One sign read, “Say no to stop signs.” Another stated, “I hate roads.” Young and his cohorts were not unnoticed at the evening rally, as conservative talk radio host Garret Lewis took the microphone and repeatedly noted their presence, asking them to come forward and explain the meaning behind their signs to the crowd. Young refused the offer. Young used Facebook.com to help organize the counterprotest, creating a page titled “Waco Tea Party Counter-protest & Shenanigans.” The page states, “We’re going to have fun with it because nobody is taking these tea parties seriously, anyway.”

The Press-Enterprise: Palm Spring's protest was expected to draw 1,000 people as well but it also sparked a counter-protest by local Democratic Party members. A group of several Democratic clubs from throughout the Coachella Valley gathered at 11:30 a.m. to show their support for Obama. "We are respecting that it is nonpartisan," said Elle Kurpiewski, president of Democrats of the Desert. "We are saying, 'Guess what, we support the president of the United States.'"

The Oxford Press, JournalNews, and MiddleTown Journal: At the Fountain Square event, there was a small counter-protest. About a dozen people protested the protesters, one carrying a sign that read, “Where were you when Bush was spending billions a month ‘liberating’ Iraq?”

WBIR: Meanwhile, counter-protesters staged a much smaller rally in the park. Around 25 people paraded through the park holding signs in support of President Obama. They said the stimulus package has been helpful to Americans, including the University of Tennessee and its students. "Let's just call it, stop the insani-tea, 'cause this group simply doesn't have the facts right," said Commissioner Mark Harmon, who walked in the counter-protest. "If you look at it, President Obama and the Democratic Congress just delivered the largest middle-class tax cut in history, so why are we out here talking taxes except maybe to say thank you to President Obama and the Democratic Congress."

Channel 3000: A small counter-protest was held Wednesday saying that some aren't being taxed enough. "We're here to remind people that we have a very unfair tax system," said Scot Ross, with One Wisconsin Now. "I think this is great that tons of people are coming out here on a beautiful day to talk about taxation. We just happen to think that this corporate-funded rally is not the direction in which the country should go." JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on? This seems silly. 25 people (the largest group sited) does not constite a counter-protest.

I think this falls under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT....distinct minority, tiny insignificant minority, flat earthers. Not for their views but their so-called counter-protest.

As I stated before there were not counter-protest of "note".

GoreBullWarming (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about saying something like "counter protests were few and very small", using the above stories as references? JCDenton2052 (talk)

The way I look at is if I were to read this 5 years from now what would I think that it meant? Almost all political events have some counter-protest. But to even mention it here is dishonest, in my opinion. The fact that you agree they were "few and small" seems to make my point. If 10 to 20% of the crowd been counter protesters then I would agree with the statement. However, there was no significant counter-protest. UNDERWIEGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoreBullWarming (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the major points of the article, which are then fleshed out in the rest of the article. Since I don't see a whole segment in the article about small counter-protests, the mention of them probably doesn't deserve a spot in the lead paragraph. But before you go yanking out the counter-protest sentence, a few of you should consider that you are completely missing the biggest counter-protest. Arguably a third (or more?) of the nations major media and news outlets counter-protested the event by mostly ignoring it; by making a joke out of it; by critically analyzing it; I even hear some reporters got in the protesters faces and berated them. And guess what — there's a whole segment in the main article devoted to the longest running "teabag" joke in history, yet not a word mentioned about it in the lede. According to the sources listed above, it appears some counter-protesters were making light of the protests, "...because nobody is taking these tea parties seriously, anyway.” Sounds like lock-step with the media outlets to me, and maybe the sentence in the lede should reflect the opposition to the tea parties ranged from the small counter-protests to the major media response. Reliable sources providing, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I get an addition into the article?

Is it possible that one of you with editing power for this article can insert the following passage (including its footnote) into the first paragraph, following the sentence about the American Revolution (and following what is currently footnote no. 6):

Ironically, the original Boston Tea Party protested lower taxes, not higher ones. The Sons of Liberty were protesting the Tea Act, which Parliament adopted in 1773 to eliminate the duties on tea exported from Britain to America. The Sons of Liberty had been boycotting the the consumption of tea in response to the 1767 Townshend Acts, and they were afraid that the reduction of the tax on tea would undercut the boycott. Members of the Sons of Liberty destroyed the tea, rather than see it enter the American market.

As a college history instructor, it bothers me when people misunderstand the point of the original Boston Tea Party. (By the way, the footnote references Edmund Morgan's The Birth of the Republic 1763-1789.) Thanks. MCB in Boulder (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

These protests were also against lower taxes, since Obama just passed the largest middle class tax cut in history. Your information would probably be better suited for the Boston Tea Party article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume the Boston Tea Party article examines this issue (although I admit that I did not look at it). My point is, the people at the protests were envoking the Boston Tea Party, while, at the same time, misunderstanding what it was all about. MCB in Boulder (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

GoreBullWarming (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what the nuances of the Boston Tea Party have to do with this protest.

This protest was about the unabated growth of the federal government under both Bush and now accelerated by Obama not about Boston in the 1700s.

GoreBull, perhaps you are right. But, then I am curious, why was this referred to as a "Tea Party Protest," and why did so many of the participants display tea bags? According to the Wikipedia article, "The name 'Tea Party' is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, and the protests have sought to evoke images, slogans, and themes from the American Revolution." Is that not true? If it is not, someone with editing powers should delete that sentence (and then my suggested addition would not be necessary). MCB in Boulder (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MCB, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, which basically means in this case that material like this should not be added unless there are reliable sources that explicitly discuss this disconnect between the Boston Tea Party and the 2009 protests. The fact (which to those familiar American history, may seem obvious) that the protests appropriate the Boston Tea Party's historical legacy and apply in ways that aren't necessarily in line with the context of the original tea party...it may be true, but (like many historical and political inferences that might shed light on Wikipedia articles on modern politics) historical legacies can be interpreted and re-interpreted in many ways. All that said, I think that except for the framing of "Ironically", what you suggest is a good addition. As long as the article doesn't explicitly make judgments about the historical legacy in relation to the modern protests (without sources to that effect, that is), historical background is helpful.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ragesoss, the book I have cited is a simple survey of the American Revolution. The author, Edmund Morgan is considered is a respected historian. Obviously, because it is a survey on the Revolution, the book does not make a judgment on the modern tea party protests. Neither do I. But I do think it interesting that the original Boston Tea Party protested a tax reduction, while last week's protest seems to be focused on tax increases. It looks like I've been unblocked from editing this article, so I am going to try to make this addition. I will respect your suggestion and leave out the word "ironically." Thanks for your input. MCB in Boulder (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[On second thoght] something along those lines you suggest might be appropriate, but I think your proposed passage is somewhat misleading. The Tea Act was a reduction in taxes, but was also an act that brought the issue of "taxation without representation" to a head; the Tea Party was at root a rejection of the right to tax the colonies at all. As long as the article doesn't explicitly make judgments about the historical legacy in relation to the modern protests (without sources to that effect, that is), historical background is helpful. But it would basically just need to be a short summary of the Boston Tea Party article, rather than something tailored to highlight inconsistencies in the 2009 protests.--ragesoss (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ragesoss, the Boston Tea Party did not bring the issue of "Taxation without Representation" to a head. That was the Stamp Act eight years earlier. The British colonists had recognized Parliament's right to regulate trade, and customs duties were seen as an efficient way to do. Consequently, most colonists accepted the right of Parliament to impose "indirect," "external" taxes on trade, such as import duties. What they opposed were "direct," "internal" taxes generated within the colonies, such as the stamp tax on printed documents published in the colonies. The colonists claimed that Britain did not have the right to impose internal taxes because they were not represented in Parliament. (For the contemporary argument opposing internal taxes but accepting external taxes, see Reasons Why the British Colonies in America, Should Not Be Charged with Internal Taxes, by Authority of Parliament, Humbly Offered for Consideration, in Behalf of the Colony of Connecticut, written by Conn. Governor Thomas Fitch in 1765.) It is really hard to claim that the remaining tax on tea was an internal tax. It was imposed in America (unlike the tax that was repealed in 1773, which was imposed in Britain), but, as a part of Townshend Acts, it was a tax on a British product imported into America (the other British manufactured products hit by the tax were lead, paper, paint, and glass). As I said, the reason the Sons of Liberty destroyed the tea was they were afraid that, if the tax on the product was lowered (but not eliminated completely), people would abandon the boycott. MCB in Boulder, 4/19/2009. MCB in Boulder (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I was trying to say was the Boston Tea Party was not an anti-tax protest. It was a pro-Republican Ideology demonstration fueled by a suspicion of the imperial government. The Tea Act was actually passed to "bail out" the British East Indian Company (gee, bailouts even then), but the colonists mistakenly saw it as a deliberate attempt to trick them into buying tea (and, consequently, an attempt to trick them into paying the Townshend duty on tea). I thought it was interesting that the current protest used the analogy of the tea party, even though it describes itself as an anti-tax movement, and my thought when I suggested the revision was that irony should be pointed out.

Upon further thought, however, I can see that the current tea party movement has an important thing in common with the original Boston Tea Party: Both protests seem to be rooted in a distrust of government. (Republican Ideology was always suspicious of government, even to the point of imagining conspiracies that did not exist.)

Because there is not a consensus that my original insertion contributed anything of value to the article, and because both tea party movements share a suspicion of government (even if one was an anti-tax protests and one was not), I am going to delete my revision. MCB in Boulder (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neal Boortz does not support tea parties

Neil Boortz spoke on his show that he doesn't support tea parties because he feels they're uneffective. He is for the fair tax (national sales tax) and writing your representives, but not tea parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.224.242 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good for him. But what is the point in this post? Neil is not mentioned in the article at all. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the question is whether the article should mention that, although the tea parties were heavily promoted by some conservative media, not all were on board. My inclination is that the nonunanimity among conservatives isn't all that important and there's no reason to include it. JamesMLane t c 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping this in our back pocket, though, in case someone attempts to introduce a case for unanimity on the issue and the protests; such a piece of info could help maintain NPOV in such a case. 68.146.86.244 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Is there any agreement on condensing the timeline? Is there any reason to have 8 events from Feb 27 in the timeline? Maybe we can shorten it down to the 5 or so events which best capture the timeline of the teabagging movement? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)