Talk:Tea Party movement

Stick to the Tea Party

The article is about the Tea Party and its issues, and how supporters and opponents respond. So I dropped long quotes by Obama defending his record in a general way, while keeping one pointed directly at the Tea party. Likewise poll results on scads of unrelated issues don't fit here. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The opinion polls are direct information, so should stay. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Obama quote is directly apropos, and should go back as well. PhGustaf (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the Tea Party movement and its issues, including the responses of its biggest target: the Obama Administration. I returned to the article responses from the administration that specifically illustrate that certain Tea Party positions do not make sense in light of actual facts. In particular, placing blame on the recovery act and claiming excessive taxing when taxes have been reduced for 95% of Americans. I also returned other content that the cited sources convey as directly related to the Tea Party movement. With such a loosely defined, wide-reaching movement such as this, attempting to pigeon-hole it in a neat little article that only describes one side of the coin is not likely to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When the Obama Admin talks about the Tea party it can be and is quoted; every day the Obama people boast about their record--that's what politicians always do at election time--and it is not relevant to this article. Keep in mind that the Tea Party mostly criticizes Congress (not just Obama) and includes attacks on Republicans--many of whom were defeated in primaries by angry Tea Partiers. As for polls, the main results come from a poll deliberately selected for attention because of its results, which differ sharply from Gallup and other national surveys. The U of Washington poll, it turns out, was based on N= 117 strong supporters and N = 66 strong opponents in six selected states. (source = http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html )That does not pass the reliability tests used by pollsters for reporting data, and does not pretend to be a valid national sample (it came from 6 states). Furthermore the data was put here, according to the footnote, because it caught the attention of an anonymous blogger who looked for info hostile to the Tea Party. That is, it was deliberately selected instead of the many polls that gave the opposite conclusion because the commentator could use it to demean the movement. That violates NPOV rules that insists Wiki articles must strive for balance. (The blogger asked "Are tea partiers racist?" and said "So a new poll by researchers at the University of Washington caught my eye." -- ie it was selected to prove racism, as opposed to polls that don't show racism. The blooger admitted it was an outlier poll: "These results cast the tea-party crowd in a different light from other recent surveys." source = http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/04/09/new-poll-finds-tea-partiers-have-more-racist-attitudes.html )

I have already pointed out in detail how that particular poll is worthless, yet because Newsweek produced a biased report using the worthless results it does not matter. Unfortunately this study didn't recieve much attention in the MSM so it's obvious flaws are not reported either, even the preposterious claim in the section "A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology". The Newsweek source is original research (bad at that) from what the actual poll says, when it should be noted that it is Strong supporters against Strong against. Sections like this show all that is wrong with WP and there is little that can be done to fix it least it be called original research. Arzel (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When the Obama Admin comments on the Tea Party, it can be, should be, and is quoted. If you would like to remove those quotes, please come up with a justification stronger than "it sounds like he's boasting about his record." Most of that "rhetoric" also directly addresses the TP's core issues of taxes (he's actually reduced them); recovery spending (experts across the board agreed it was necessary); and spending solutions (viable ones completely missing from the TP positions). As for polls: Of course all polls that produce unflattering results are flawed, everyone knows that, and everyone knows all unflattering poll results are produced by biased, unscrupulous cretins with hidden agendas. Unfortunately, they are also reported on in reliable sources that convey the poll results are both relevant and applicable (your personal interpretations notwithstanding). Xenophrenic (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Rjensen. You deleted a block of opinion polls, yet your edit comment only objected to a single-state poll. I restored the remainder of the text not covered by your edit comment. I'll note that my edit should not be taken as having any particular prejudice against the poll of Washington state, and that it may well be worthy of inclusion. BigK HeX (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit restored what? As I look at it now, it appears only to have deleted text. Mistake? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably a mistake then. Maybe someone already restored the entire block, which means my edit would only have deleted the Washington State-only text. I meant to (mostly) undo the large deletion in this Rjensen edit. BigK HeX (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

yes I agree, and I deleted the rest of the Washington poll. It has multiple flaws: a) based on 110 tea partiers (far lower than any other poll); it is not national; it is not a well-established poll; it does follow standard polling rules as it does publish its margin of error data (which may be around +/- 9 for n=110) Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I returned the polling data. I've reviewed the reliable sources to which that content is cited, and I see no indication in those reliable sources that the poll "has multiple flaws" or doesn't "follow standard polling rules". (The margin of error is 3.1%, by the way.) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The margin of error for the total sample is 3.1%, the margin of error for the smaller splits is no where near 3.1%, it simply not mathmatically possible. Arzel (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely don't see any reason to discount the reliably-sourced multi-state study over an editor's unsourced claims that it "has multiple flaws." BigK HeX (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I misread the section header as "Stick it to the Tea Party." Needless to say, I was unimpressed with the neutrality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

not populist?

I see "populist" has been removed from the article, not appearing anywhere. Yet "conservative" appears 19 times. I believe this is misleading, because the Tea Party movement has distinctly less support from the conservative establishment/elites than, say, Reaganism. There are several examples cited of Tea Party-endorse candidates upsetting "establishment" candidates without any analysis or explanation provided as to what the common element of these upsets is.Bdell555 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it is hard to generalize about such a loose-knit and diverse movement, I think that "libertarian" would be much closer to accurate than "conservative". (I'm not too sure about "populist") One example of this has been TP conflicts with conservatives over religion, as well as the pervasive battles in the primaries of the type that you describe. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Politicians like Rand Paul have been described as Tea Party-endorsed and yet Paul has run radio ads calling attention to James Dobson's endorsement of him. I don't see how one can be a libertarian while courting social conservatives so assiduously.--Bdell555 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's populist and conservative, with libertarianism being one particular aspect of conservatism. As far as I can tell, it's just the GOP with a populist makeover. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that I'm not tossing out original research, here's a reliable source that calls it populist. This is one of many. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source that calls the movement both populist and conservative (http://www.thewaxhawgazette.com/Tea%20Party%20Lights%20Fuse.pdf). It's a New York Times article and says "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent." I think it would be perfect for the first paragraph of the article. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The new populism is a main theme of Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen (2010). For example, on page 8 they say that the tea party movement turn Scott Brown into a "populist hero". On p 19 they referred to the TP as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement." They say "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right -- manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement." (p 19)Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The same editor has removed "populist" several times.[1][2][3] The most recent time he left an edit summary of "The movement doesn't fit the definition of populism." That may be so, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We report what the reliable sources say, not what we believe. If we have good sources that describe the movement as populist then that's what we report. If there are other descriptions then we report those too, with weight according to prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback is correct. Here' another scholarly book that states the tea partyers are populists: Victoria Carty, Wired and Mobilizing: Social Movements, New Technology, and Electoral Politics (Routledge Studies in Science, Technology and Society, 2010) p 73. The Populists of the 1890s wanted big-government and they're always considered lefty-wing populists. The New York Times says "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent". ("Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right" NYT Feb 6, 2010); And see a recent scholarly paper by David Perkins, "The Cultural Determinants of Economic Populism in the Tea Party Movement" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISPP 33rd Annual Scientific Meeting, 2010-10-22 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p420080_index.html . Liberal history Gary Gerstle says the "most pressing issue for the GOP is whether party leaders can continue to ride the conservative populist wave" [New Labor Forum - Vol 19#3 Fall 2010, pp. 22-31] Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Again? As previously argued, how they are "populist" can easily be touched on in the lead but is not needed as a label in the first sentence.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Populism" is as important a part of a description of a political movement as "conservative". It's used in other articles on political parties. Swiss People's Party, for example. I don't think there's really any dispute (except among Wikipedia editors) over whether the TPM is populist.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point of the Tea Party is that they're populist. We already have a regular conservative/right-wing party, but it's fallen on hard times, so this populist movement is intended to reinvigorate it, to make it cool again to vote Republican. Really, the only controversy here is over whether the populism is genuine or astroturfed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Heath Shuler

Heath Shuler was not there. Story from the WSJ. Arzel (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely is a source for Shuler's claim he wasn't there, plus that the entire matter is utterly confused. Ravensfire (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuler

I've been requesting reliable sources which justify the deletion of [newspaper article] sourced material. BigK HeX (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The source provided so far is a WSJ op-ed (here). If it's even regarded as reliable, then I'm still not sure that justifies deletion of text sourced to an actual news article. Was there something more substantial? BigK HeX (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems pedantic, but I was able to find another source here. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better source. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, I am glad we can agree. Arzel (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Know Nothing

Sources

• They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy), anti-immigrant, and pro-corporate and privatization. They are largely anti-government, which is the supposedly “Libertarian” strain – which in the current popular rendition is largely “conservative” as well. (See site sampling at end of article). This is a far cry from the rebel terrorists (and as far as the British were concerned the folks in Boston were terrorists) of the original “Tea Partyers”. [..] However, the current “Tea Party” does have close corollaries to another historical party. The party in mind is the “Know Nothings” also known as the American Party which arose roughly 80 years after the revolt of 1773. Both parties were responding to a social environment of slavery (and the conflicts around the institution), and to waves of European immigration. [..] As stated in Wolf (2008): The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college. The “nativist” Know Nothing/American Party, were vehemently anti-immigrant, mirroring one of the foci of the current “Tea Party.” As noted in Wolf: The American Party platform included the following: 1. Only native-born Americans could hold public office; 2. A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote; 3. Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992) [..] The point here is that nativism is an old theme, and the current “Tea Party” joins a long line of white “nativism” and so-called conservatism. It seems disingenuous to call them the “Tea Party,” and “Know Nothings” seems more appropriate. Regardless, it joins the long theme of racism and exclusion that is the uglier part of the history of the United States. While even loosely this movement does not represent the majority of Americans, they are currently influencing – even defining – the social and political terrain. Their effectiveness, one might even say their very existence, is due to corporate funding and big monied interests on the right. For example, their birth is out of Fox “News” owned by Rupert Murdock.
  • "Is the “Tea Party” Really An Appropriate Name?" Rowan Wolf, The Greanville Post [4]
  • Rowan Wolf is a sociology professor

• Sworn to silence, members of clubs such as the Supreme Order of the Star-Spangled Banner became known as "Know Nothings" because (like Sgt. Schultz in the old Hogan's Heroes TV series) "I know nothing" was their response when questioned about their activities. The Know Nothings, with their anti-immigration emphasis, morphed into a political movement. Their candidates won elections for governor in seven states in the 1850s, including Massachusetts and New York. Philadelphia Mayor Robert Conrad, who ran as a Whig, was later outed as a Know Nothing. [..] [An immigration issue] [..] Immigration aside, today's tea-party movement can be compared to the Know Nothings in its ability to successfully inject itself into political races and move candidates to declare allegiance to it even as they run for office under a different label - largely Republican. Like the Know Nothings, the tea partyers are energized, and their energy draws people. The question is whether that energy can be sustained. It's possible that tea-party candidates will be so co-opted by the party they joined to make themselves more electable that they will lose the qualities that created the buzz that pushed their movement to prominence.
  • "With the tea party, history repeats itself; The movement seems an echo of Know Nothings." editorial page editor Harold Jackson. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Oct 10, 2010. pg. C.1 [5]

• According to state Assembly candidate Tim Donnelly, a Tea Party Republican running in the 59th District, the Church "is totally in favor of illegal immigration because it fills their pews." Hogwash. In the time-honored tradition that brought the United States the Know-Nothings of the 19th century, a resurgent Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and John F. Kennedy haters in the 1960s, Donnelly went after the Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Tea Party candidate blames Catholic Church for illegal immigration" Frank Girardot.(editor of the Pasadena Star-News) Whittier Daily News. Whittier, Calif.: Oct 4, 2010.

• Backward-looking civil religions carry special dangers. They may become xenophobic, blaming economic and social ills upon elements whose culture and religion violates what is imagined as "real America." The sacred texts of such a civil religion are hodge-podge citations of bible and the U.S. Constitution. Absorbing the ever-present paranoid in American politics, conspiracies both right and left thrive, protected from factual truth by anti-intellectualism. Finally, backward-looking civil religions have gained political influence by filling the void created when one of the major political parties begins to implode. These are very broad strokes of history, but they are verified in the Know-Nothings of the ante-bellum United States when the Whig Party proved incapable of surviving the slavery issue. Catholics suffered greatly from the Know-Nothings because their cause was a restoration of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) hegemony as the real America. The Know-Nothings soon disappeared, leaving space for the visionary Republican Party of Lincoln. Know-Nothingism reappeared, however, when Catholic Al Smith ran for president in 1928 braving the Ku Klux Klan that had marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, boasting that 15% of white Americans were KKK members. The Democratic Party thereafter split into a liberal New Deal wing and a right-wing faction of Dixiecrats. The latter eventually joined the Southern strategy of Republican Richard Nixon's Silent Majority. Today the East Coast Country-Club/Midwestern Republican Party is being co-opted by the Tea Party's version of old-time WASP civil religion. The targets today are new: Islam, a religion identified with terrorists; and Latinos and Latinas (mostly Catholics), caricatured as "illegals." But the xenophobia is familiar.
  • "Tea-publicans and the Know-Nothing recycle" Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo The Washington Post September 23, 2010 [6]

• Which brings us back to the Know Nothings, the 19th Century political movement that sprung from fear of Irish and German immigrants coming to our shores. Those who attended Catholic schools are familiar with the Know Nothings, for they preceded the "No Irish Need Apply" crowd with their anti-Catholic fervor. The Tea Party is not new; it is just another example of shameful anti-immigrant bigotry that has always been part of America's history. It is no accident that the Tea Party and its cry of "take back our country" was launched after the first black president was elected. "Take back our country" is code for: Only whites are legitimate leaders. Hence the birth certificate nonsense.
  • "Who is drinking the Palin Kool-Aid?; Massachusetts had thoughtful candidates on both primary ballots, but scarier scenarios are developing elsewhere" JoAnn Fitzpatrick . The Patriot Ledger. Quincy, Mass.: Sep 18, 2010. pg. 9 [7]

• America has a long tradition of contempt for big government and the secret machinations of Washington. The Tea Party's ancestors lie amid the dispossessed southern states defeated in the civil war. It has its precursors, indeed, in the American Party of the 1850s, the proudly anti-immigrant "Know Nothings". Richard Nixon's appeal to the "silent majority" was an appeal to the sort of American who flocks to Ms Palin. Mr Reagan cultivated the type assiduously, as did Mr Bush.
  • "Will America really turn right to sup with the new Tea Party?" Ian Bell. The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Sep 18, 2010. pg. 13

• Populist movements have generally failed in America because of their extremism, the "Know Nothings" in the 1830s, the William Jennings Bryan crowd in the 1890s, the Birchers in the 1950s. That's a likely outcome for the tea partiers as well.
  • "Emotional rationalization spurs new populism" STEVE HAYCOX COMMENT. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Sep 17, 2010. pg. A.11
  • Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

• But there has been nothing since the anti-fascist inoculation of 1945 to match the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 50s, the absurdities of the anti-red John Birch Society, let alone the kind of paranoia which denounces Barack Obama as a Kenyan-born communist/socialist/fascist bent on destroying the American way via healthcare reform. The core belief which distinguishes what the historian Richard Hofstadter (1916-70) called "the paranoid style of American politics" is a visceral dislike of government, especially the federal government in distant Washington DC. [..] But a strand of Americans, especially people who see themselves as the dispossessed "real" people of the heartland (not those cosmopolitans in New York in LA) see Washington not simply as greedy and corrupt but as a plot to undermine liberty and free enterprise. Under strong leadership, such "know-nothing" movements have usually been beaten back by progress and prosperity. But the American middle (ie skilled working) class has been suffering job losses and wage stagnation for decades.
  • "Political briefing Paranoia politics crosses the Atlantic" Michael White. The Guardian. London (UK): Sep 10, 2010. pg. 4

• Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky, ... [..] has yet to retreat from his support of a call for Congress to find a way to undo the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship. In 1856, the Know Nothing Party's platform called for a waiting period of 21 years before an immigrant could become a citizen. Paul and other candidates, such as Utah's Tea Party-Republican Mike Lee, say children born here to illegal aliens shouldn't automatically become U.S. citizens. [..] With the general election fewer than 60 days away, voters ought to focus on reversing the meteoric rise of the Tea Partiers, who are the linear successors to the aptly named anti-immigration Know Nothing movement that flourished for a brief time during the 1850s. It elected eight governors, 43 members of the U.S. House and five U.S. senators during that time. But it ultimately collapsed from the weight of its own intolerance and blurred political vision. The Tea Party movement claims to be rooted in the traditional -- but long compromised -- Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility, small government and free markets. But its support of Arizona's immigration law signals an intolerance of Hispanics that mirrors the Know Nothing movement's attempt to keep Catholics out of this country. Left alone, there's a good chance the Tea Party will sputter out of existence as quickly as the Know Nothing movement did. But that may not be fast enough, given the stand Tea Party candidates are taking on issues.
  • "'Tea Party' is today's 'Know Nothing' movement" DeWayne Wickham. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Sep 7, 2010. pg. A.11 [8]

• Mark Brewer, an associate professor of Political Science at University of Maine at Orono, also cited the surprisingly large Republican turnout on the Tea Party movement, whose cloaked composition he compared to the 19th-century secret organizations like the anti-immigrant Know Nothing Society.
  • "GOP turnout largest in 60 years" Kennebec Journal. Augusta, Me.: Jun 11, 2010. pg. A.1

• From the Know-Nothings to the People’s Party: Over the course of American history, the populist instinct, now resurgent in the Tea Party movement, has oscillated between a desire to transform, and so create a new order of things, and a desire to restore a yearned-for (or imagined) old order. Before the Civil War, one such movement that caught both these urges was colloquially dubbed the “Know-Nothings” (not for any anti-intellectualism, but because its members deliberately conducted much of their business in secret -- hence, if questioned, were instructed to say, “I know nothing”). Know-nothing-ism exuded the desire to move forward and backward at the same time. During the 1840s and 1850s, it swept across much of the country, North and South. There were “know-nothing” candies, “know-nothing” toothpicks, and “know-nothing” stagecoaches. Soon enough, the movement evolved into a national political party, the American Party, that appealed to small farmers, small businessmen, and working people. Its attraction was two-fold. The party vociferously opposed Irish and German Catholic immigration to the U.S. (as well as that of Chinese and Chilean immigrants working in the gold fields of California). Yet, in the North, it also denounced slavery. As planks in a political program, nativism and anti-slavery might seem like an odd couple, but in the minds of the party’s followers they were joined at the hip. As Know-Nothings saw it, the Papacy and the South’s slave-owning planter elite were both conspiring to undermine a democratic society of masterless men. [..] Almost entirely white, and disproportionately male and older, Tea Party advocates express a visceral anger at the cultural and, to some extent, political eclipse of an America in which people who looked and thought like them were dominant (an echo, in its own way, of the anguish of the Know-Nothings). A black President, a female Speaker of the House, and a gay head of the House Financial Services Committee are evidently almost too much to bear. Though the anti-immigration and Tea Party movements so far have remained largely distinct (even if with growing ties), they share an emotional grammar: the fear of displacement.
  • "The strange history of Tea Party populism: The resentment fueling today's Tea Party movement is as old as America" Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, Salon.com Monday, May 3, 2010 [9]
  • Steve Fraser is editor-at large of New Labor Forum, co-founder of the American Empire Project, a writer, TomDispatch contributor, and an historian. His latest book is Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace.
  • Joshua B. Freeman teaches history at the City University of New York. He is currently completing a history of the United States since World War II as part of the Penguin History of the U.S.

• To be sure, the Tea Party's brand of aggrieved populism -- and its composition of mostly white, angry, middle-class voters -- has deep roots in the United States, flaring up during times of change. But observers who have drawn comparisons to the Know-Nothings, the racist, paranoid, anti-Catholic, and anti-immigrant party that surged in the 1850's, are reading the movement far too superficially.
  • "Tea Time in America" Daily News Egypt. Cairo: Feb 28, 2010.

• No doubt third parties such as the Know-Nothings have historically enjoyed a short life span in America. Historian Richard Hofstadter famously observed, "Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die." But the tea party may wield a very potent stinger. Its fortunes likely will be bolstered by the towering federal budget deficits that the administration is accruing.
  • "The 'tea party' dance; Will the movement sink or save the conservatives?" Jacob Heilbrunn. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 21, 2010. pg. A.28
  • Jacob Heilbrunn is a senior editor at the National Interest and the author of "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons."

• The first-ever Tea Party Nation convention this weekend in Nashville, Tenn., taps into two great, and sometimes troubling, traditions in American history - both of which have to do with the unique democratic experiment that is America. On the one hand is the Jeffersonian strain - a return to the ideals of the individual and the blessings of small, restrained government. On the other hand is a strain of McCarthy-type paranoia that started well before the mid-1900s. In the 1850s, it gave rise to the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party, and according to some critics, it was a factor in the xenophobic supremacist movements of the late 20th century.
  • "'Tea party' movement: lessons from earlier uprisings; While movements like the tea party have fervor and anger, historians caution that such groups can quickly lose momentum and influence." Patrik Jonsson. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Feb 5, 2010.
  • Patrik Jonsson Staff writer

• The Tea Party movement, as we know, is mostly comprised of patriotic Americans who are concerned about the drift of the country away from prosperity and, they believe, freedom. It is also has more nuts than a forest of almond trees.
  • "The Know-Nothing Party Redux" Joe Klein, Time. February 6, 2010 [10]

• On Tuesday, the chairman of the state's ruling party (Mike Tate) followed up with a fund-raising e-mail repeating the rant and comparing the crowd to historical baddies. "From the red-baiting McCarthyites to the Know-Nothings and the KKK, we have seen this story unfold many times in the past. Fueled by ignorance, racism and intolerance . . . ."
  • "OPINION: Guess who learned how to Internet?" Patrick McIlheran. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 23, 2009.
  • Patrick McIlheran is a Journal Sentinel editorial columnist.

• Dodd described the Tea Party protests as a mixture of sincere frustration, particularly among older Americans living on fixed incomes, talk of "death panels" and other "non-existing things," and nostalgia for an earlier time. "Some of it we're dealing with is almost a 21st-century knowledge of the Know Nothings," said [U.S. Sen. Christopher J.] Dodd, referring to the nativist movement of the 19th century. "It's sort of rolling the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America."
  • "Senator looks back on difficult year" Robert Koch. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 19, 2009.

• Then there was the Know-Nothing, or American party, of the middle 1850s. It arose because of the large number of Irish and German immigrants at that time. By 1860, there were some 4 million immigrants in the U.S. and many native-born Americans suddenly became frightened by the phenomenon, especially as so many of the immigrants were Catholics in the overwhelmingly Protestant country. So the new party evolved into an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic and anti-slavery party to save the nation, one that showed promise of winning the presidential election of 1856. But the party's rhetoric was so virulent that it was questioned by other Americans about its aims and purposes, only to be told "I know nothing." And indeed, they didn't. As tempers cooled, sanity returned, and once again the nation survived. [..] The current frenzy, so evident in last week's so-called national tea party in Washington, is only the latest example. The catalyst is the attempt to reform the nation's failing health care system.
  • "INCIVILITY REARS UGLY HEAD WITH HEALTH CARE REFORM AT FOREFRONT" WILLIAM M STEWART. The Santa Fe New Mexican. Santa Fe, N.M.: Sep 19, 2009. pg. A.9
  • William M. Stewart, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Time magazine correspondent

Other sources

• The Tea Parties are just the John Birch Society all over again. In a recent issue of Mother Jones magazine, Kevin Drum argued that the Tea Parties are nothing new: Whether the president is F.D.R., L.B.J. or Bill Clinton, a batty conservative populism flourishes "whenever a Democrat takes over the White House." Writing in The New Yorker, the historian Sean Wilentz made a similar point, linking Glenn Beck's daffier ideas (and the Tea Partiers who love them) to the Cold War-era paranoias of the John Birch Society. These parallels are real. But there's a crucial difference. The Birchers only had a crackpot message; they never found a mainstream one. The Tea Party marries fringe concerns (repeal the 17th Amendment!) to a timely, responsible-seeming message about spending and deficits. Which is why, for now at least, it's winning over independents in a way that movements like the Birchers rarely did.
  • Tales of the Tea Party ROSS DOUTHAT. International Herald Tribune. Paris: Oct 20, 2010. pg. 9

• University of Washington history professor Margaret O'Mara said the Tea Party phenomenon is not entirely new. "The Tea Party is very reminiscent of earlier moments of populist outrage in American history when there was similar rhetoric about the people -- the little guy -- standing up to the powerful and the politicians," O'Mara said. In the past this anti-elitist anger fuelled left-wing movements, which blamed big business for America's ills and saw government spending and regulation as a solution, she added.
  • American Revolution, part 2; The right-wing Tea Party movement is growing in Seattle of all places. Meet its unlikely chief agitator Doug Ward. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Oct 9, 2010. pg. A.8

• Democrats, unable to run on their policies, will try to demonize the opponents with tea party support as unstable extremists with personality disorders. They have ridden this hobbyhorse before. In 1964, the slogan of the Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, was "A choice, not an echo." Forty-six years on, the tea party is a loud echo of his attempt to reconnect American politics with the tradition of limited government.
  • Table-pounding from the American left:; As usual, Dems' friends in the media carry the message George Will. Charleston Daily Mail. Charleston, W.V.: Oct 12, 2010. pg. A.4

• LIKE many popular insurgencies in American history, the Tea Party movement has attempted to enlist the founding fathers as fervent adherents to its cause.
  • The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party; [Op-Ed] Ron Chernow. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 24, 2010. pg. A.29

• For all its ignorance and anger, the Tea Party is on a roll. Historians see it as the successor to Barry Goldwater's conservative uprising in 1964, and Ronald Reagan's 1980 revolution. Over the decades, the Republican Party has steadily moved right, shedding moderates from the north and east, picking up religious and social conservatives from the south and west - the new, Tea-powered party is a less rational, more ideological creature than its forbears
  • For all its ignorance and anger, the Tea Party is on a roll LARA MARLOWE. Irish Times. Dublin: Sep 18, 2010. pg. 13

Discussion

Commentators often compare TPM to the 19th century Know Nothing party. The comparisons cover several different aspects of the Know Nothing party's existence, especially as a populist third party and as a nativist, anti-immigration movement. Here are some excerpts of editorials and analyses, but there are many more like them. I suggest that these comparisons are so common that they merit mention in the article. It's probably worth a two-sentence paragraph in the "Other commentaries on the movement" section. Maybe something like, "Several commentators have drawn comparisons to the 19th century Know Nothing party. Journalists and editorialists have said the movements share these qualities: ...", with a list of some of the comparisons.   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, interesting comparison but it could be construed as a form of 'journalistic astroturf' to discredit the movement. I don't think you can reach back to a setting with entirely different circumstances and apply them to present day. This movement arose from the massive financial crisis, not from shared concerns with the Know Nothing Party. I could be wrong. You should ask RJensen. He knows a lot about that period in history. Also, can anyone speed up the archive bot? That guy who tinkers with archive bots changed the settings and we've got stuff here from July. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the bot.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is obviously one of a long line of poplist movements in the U.S. I suppose some liberal columnists may use the comparison with the Know Nothings (who were also populists) because of the double meaning of KN. But we should stick with notable opinions, and none of these sources meet that. TFD (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "notable opinions" are, nor why they apply here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. There are multiple, independent, reliable sources. That should suffice for any NPOV, OR, NOT, V, etc concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable views would be ones presented by people who are experts in history, and their views would be published in academic journals. It does apply elsewhere in Wikipedia. Plenty of sources claim that Obama is not an American, 911 was an inside job, etc. But we give no credence to these views unless the experts do. In fact we do not even report these views in articles about these movements until secondary sources have begun to write about them. Using common sense, if I wanted to know about Know Nothings, I would read a history book nothing a current newspaper column by someone who is not a historian. TFD (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather we follow NPOV and NOT rather than censor what information is presented in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Unless you can should that these views are widely held, NPOV does not allow its inclusion. TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"There are multiple, independent, reliable sources. That should suffice for any NPOV, OR, NOT, V, etc concerns." --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not. We do not conduct our own original research into how independent sources view topics, but find reliable sources explaining how they are perceived. In other words you need to find a source that says, "Many writers compare the Tea Party with the Know Nothings." As Rjensen pointed out there are over 700 scholarly papers on the Tea Party and none of them compare them with the KNs, let alone acknowledge that the comparison has any credibility in the literature. TFD (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD is right. And, to put it a couple of other ways, sources fulfill sourcing criteria. There are other criteria for inclusion that must be met. For example, synthesis, undue weight and being germane to the article. Also, if the source is the one initiating the assertion, then they are primary and not suitable even if they meet other RS criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is not being subjected to such standards of sourcing (and probably cannot be given the very recent origins of TPM). The imposition for such standards on a single topic to exclude that topic violates NOT and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What you just said does not address what I wrote. And wp sourcing standards apply even if the topic is new. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my chiming in here, I have to agree that this information is well-sourced and belongs in the article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

North8000, "What you just said does not address what I wrote." Sorry, I believe I already had. Please explain what specific policies, guidelines, etc you're think are applicable. You didn't mention any in particular, so I assumed that they were the ones already mentioned and addressed. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That your proposed edit violates OR, NPOV and RS has already been explained and no further explanation is necessary. If you would like to use the available noticeboards or some type of content dispute resolution then go ahead, but please it is unhelpful to keep repeating the same points. TFD (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so controversial. Here are two paragraphs in the current article:

• Dan Gerstein, a former Democratic political advisor, argued in Forbes that the protests could have tapped into real feelings of disillusionment by American moderates, but the protesters put forth too many incoherent messages.
• According to Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, America is locked in a culture war in which either America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise, limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces, or America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. Brooks states that while some have tried to dismiss the Tea Party demonstrations and the town hall protests as the work of extremists, ignorant backwoodsmen or agents of the health care industry, this movement reveals much about the culture war that is underway, and it is not at all clear which side will prevail.

The views of Michael White (journalist), Joe Klein, and Jacob Heilbrunn seem equally noteworthy. For an overview, the Egyptian paper notes that observers have made this comparison (though it disagrees with it). If dozens of newspaper editorials express a certain view, then devoting 50 words to that view is consistent with NPOV, which requires that we include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the Salon.com piece was written by two historians.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to be a synthetic assertion, a journalistic form of astroturfing. The Know Nothings were not in these circumstances, the Tea Party movement is rooted in the economic meltdown. I've never heard a tea party participant make a reference to the Know Nothings. If a tea party did that, like they did with the Boston Tea party, then you'd have something. That would be reliable.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to know that I'm on HWY 66 to be on HWY 66. Self-awareness is not a requirement for a condition to be true. What is "a journalistic form of astroturfing"? Are we saying that journalists are not a reliable source for this topic?   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Will, no I'm just thinking that the journalists, like astroturf groups, have their own agendas. And Joe Klein was in Obama's corner and said some pretty nasty things about Hillary Clinton, brilliant presidential candidate, now goddess of American foreign policy and Joe Klein is not. And I think Joe might be astroturfing the playing field.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has some kind of agenda. We quote a number of folks who have obvious ones, like Newt Gingrich and the head of the AEI. We also quote journalists on other aspects of the movement, such as journalist Howard Kurtz talking about its coverage in the media. I don't see how professional commentators giving their opinions is like astroturfing. If anything, it seems like the opposite.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Newt's and Howard's commentaries are very different animals than the comparison to the Know Nothing Party. Trying to characterize the Tea Party movement by using something from the very distant past, before World War I, and before the Great Depression and before the Second World War, is just not credible. The world, and America in particular, are entirely different places from that time period, and nothing specific like the Boston Tea Party that spoke specifically to taxation, etc., is being shown with the Know Nothing Party. But as I said, you should ask RJensen as he is very familiar with this period in history and he might have some ideas about it. :-) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If commentators said a modern political movement had things in common with a citizen's uprising in Ancient Greece, would we evaluate that claim using our own analysis and decide whether or not the comparison is credible? No, I don't think so. It's not our job to decide if the conclusions drawn by commentators are credible. It's our job to summarize those that are significant, regardless of whether we think they're right.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If the comparison to the two was as widely notable as the comparison to the Tea Party movement and the Boston Tea Party, yes. To the Know Nothing Party? No. That's not credible. It's just what I said it was, journalistic astroturfing. They're simply putting another label on the TPM to discredit it, and they had to grasp at straws to come up with this comparison. It's silly. It's a nonstarter. There's no wide spread notability here. It's isolated to a handful of pundits with an agenda. I'll leave a note on RJensen's talk page. Gotta go, now Will. Talk at ya later.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of "journalistic astrotrurfing", and the term doesn't seem to make sense or be applicable here. The view is widely repeated, so I don't know how you can say it isn't notable. Are the other views which we do report more notable? How so? Is Gingirich agenda-less?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Will Beback here. I think if an editor should never enter material on Wikipedia that he thinks is probably erroneous or is not well argued. Editors are decision makers, after all. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So RJ, what do you think of this comparison to the Know Nothing Party?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone think it's untrue that these commentators have said these things? That's the question here. We don't second guess opinions. If we did, we could have a similar discussion about the "credibility" of every view expressed in Wikipedia articles. We write articles about political and religious beliefs without judging whether those views are "true" or not.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

that's the other role of editors-- to SELECT from the huge stock of tens of thousands of pages of media material on the Tea Party. Lots of effort is being made in this election campaign to discredit the Tea Party--it's a standard technique, much like calling a Democrat or Obama a "Socialist." Items that are selected because an editor thinks it will demean the Tea Party are no-no's because they violate the NPOV rules--the goal here is to stand above the political debate swirling around us and take a genuinely neutral position. I will add that there is unanimous agreement that the Tea Party is not a third party; it is a faction inside the GOP, where it defeated numerous party favorites. Comparing it to a third party is so much a stretch that one suspects the goal is to discredit it. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point about the GOP thing. I also think it's politically motivated to come out with this so close to the elections on November 2nd. If this were widely notable comparison, it would have been drawn long ago.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the recent past, I've seen the Know Nothing references without actively looking for them, so it well could be a notable view on the Tea Party. It could just be a partisan slant, but I generally don't pay much attention to hyperpartisan sources, so I'd guess there is some notability for me to have become familiar with it in passing. I'd have to look back and check the sourcing, but it seems like a legitimate aspect to discuss. Just my 2cents... BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more excerpts, some of which go back to September 2009. There are letters to the editor which made the comparison even earlier, not that it matters. When the TPM started, it was not connected to any party, and there's nothing in the article now that says the TPM is merely a faction inside the GOP. If we have sources for that then let's add it.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times reported that the Tea Party is pushing 138 candidates for Congress, all in the GOP. Are there any at any level in the Democratic party--I don't think anyone of note has been reported. The noted primary campaigns were all in the GOP as well. That makes it a faction of the GOP--it's very hard to call it "independent" with 138/138 for one party. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we can add the article to Category:Republican Party (United States) organizations.   Will Beback  talk  04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

• Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement is one of a series of predominantly white populist movements, including the 19th century Know Nothing party, that have shared a "fear of displacement". U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd also compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying the movement seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America". Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of the Know Nothings and other third parties in U.S. history that have faded quickly.

This is a neutral account of a significant point of view. It cites two historians, a U.S. Senator, and a conservative columnist.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Salon article compares the Tea Party with the Sons of Liberty, Know Nothings, Populists, Huey Long, Couglinites, Goldwater, Wallace and Nixon supporters, McCarthyites, and Birchers. Why single out the KNs? Why not just say that they have been described as populist? Rather than use this magazine why not look at the academic literature to see if there is a consensus or majority view on how they are described? TFD (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if we want to upgrade the sourcing for this article to only include academic sources then we can start rewriting it. However I don't see any academic literature cited in the article now so we'd have to start from scratch.

As for the KNs, we have 17 sources that compare TPM to it, which adds weight. How many sources compare TPM to Couglinites?   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The news archive provides 29 hits although they include blogs.[11] Other hits: George Wallace, 114[12] William Jennings Bryan, 38[13] Ross Perot, 304.[14] TFD (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Then let's find the best sources and add something about Perot too.   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at all of the "Father Coughlin" hits.[15] There are no usable sources in the entire lot. Most of them are reader comments or duplicate links, and the rest compare Beck, not the TPM, to Coughlin. I wouldn't trust those Google numbers unless they're confirmed as relevant, usable sources. There appear to be a significant number of comparisons to the John Birch Society. Maybe we can broaden the paragraph into something like "Observers have compared the TPM to previous movements in U.S. history, including...." Let's keep the list short.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that if you are looking for something you can find it on Google. But a review of the literature shows that the most common comparisons are made with right-wing populism in Europe and similar movements in the American past. The number of hits is highest with the most recent populist movements - Perotistas, Wallace supporters, Birchers. There are more comparisons with William Jennings Bryan than KNs. TFD (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to sift through the Bryan hits and see if there are any usable sources then go ahead. I think that the Google numbers are useless because the net Google casts is so indiscriminate. I've been using the Proquest archive, available for free through many libraries, because almost all of the hits are reliable sources, and it just necessary to filter out duplicates and the rare false-positive (more of a problem with search terms like "tea party" and "know nothing"). Anyway, getting back to the proposed "Observers have compared the TPM to ..." format, is that preferable? If so I'll make a new draft.   Will Beback  talk  08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist, nativist, or secretive movements and third parties. Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement is one of a series of predominantly white populist movements, including the 19th century Know Nothing party, that have shared a "fear of displacement". U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd also compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying it seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America". Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order.

We'd still need to add a sentence on connections with the earlier Reform Party, etc., once sources are found.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why of all previous populist movements you would choose the Know Nothings. I don't know if you saw Gangs of New York but it is not the first thing I would associate with the Tea Party. I do not see how a Salon magazine article should be used as a source. How accepted is the "fear of displacement" theory anyway? Neutrality requires that we state this which is why we should use academic sources. And I see no reason why we should go into detail about the history of populist movements in this article. TFD (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, this is getting over the top. Just because a couple of pundits want to write a biased article in time for the elections, as if they could sway American voters, is no reason to suddenly believe there is a new direction in the Tea Party movement. It is the same Tea Party movement. It is using the Republican Party that is often at odds with it, but it is not at all in existence as the Know Nothing Party was. This is entirely original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The mission here should be to write an accurate, informative article about the TP, not to try to game the system to see how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings") one can torture into the article to pursue the personal agendas of editors. For those who can't follow this higher calling there are only the policies and guidelines. In the cases in this article, the RS section of WP:ver is the least relevant of the wp policies and guidelines regarding deterring this, folks keep pretending that if something meets that one section, that all other policies and guidelines are canceled. The other ones (which must also be met) do apply and need to be applied. Two relevant ones are wp:undue and the restriction on use of primary sourcing in wp:ver. Covering a chosen detractor's opinion about a multi-million person movement violates both. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work! I think we're taking the necessary caution to avoid WP:SYN issues, and we've plenty of sources to meet any NPOV concerns and even the extra-high-quality-standards that some editors insist is required here. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. It's not original research to add accurate summaries of reliable sources that directly address the subject. Salon is just as good a source as any other used in this article. No primary sources are being used. There's no "gaming" involved. If there are no other suggestions for improving the text I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are basing this on opinion pieces. There is no widespread notability by credible reporters with evidence that the Tea Party movement is using the platform of the Know Nothing Party. This article is being used to push a POV. You are not doing great work to avoid pushing a synthetic issue, you are pushing a synthetic issue put forth by left wing pundits.

If Joe Klein decides to liken the Tea Party movement to the KKK, should we add that, too?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"You are basing this on opinion pieces" I believe we have multiple sources that meet WP:RS. That should suffice.

"There is no widespread notability" there doesn't have to be per WP:NPOV

"the Tea Party movement is using the platform of the Know Nothing Party" No one is saying any such think, thankfully! --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, notability does count. And opinion pieces comparing/contrasting the Know Nothing Party, is original research. Show us where the Tea Party movement began as an effort to stop immigration to America? Where is that? What are these pundits basing this on? A couple of ivory tower professors with liberal backgrounds who are paid to write a specific piece for Salon does not make for notability. Show me the New York Times article that connects the two groups. Where's the investigative reporting, the widespread news reporting? There is none. This is not notable. This is pure POV pushing.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All irrelevant as far as I can make out. We have multiple reliable sources meeting WP:RS, that present a significant viewpoint per WP:NPOV, and we're not making an improper synthesis from the sources per WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"RS" has two meanings in WP; one of them is that the source is suitable for the use according to wp:ver. This fails that. The sources are asserting the viewpoint, not covering it. The other is meeting the RS subsection or wp:ver (which does not cover other wp:ver requirements such as primary/secondary).....meeting that is not sufficient to meet wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We obviously disagree. Take it to WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That could deal (just) with the primary source issue which I raised. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We could ask Balloonman.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

North8000, which one is the "primary source"?   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I just reviewed the references for this article and found that there appear to be at least a couple of dozen op-ed pieces used as sources. We also use videos of people speaking, including pundits on the Glenn Beck show. I think if folks are concerned about op-ed pieces and pundits then they'll need to do a lot of work to bring this article up to the standards being applied to this text.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No Soap Boxing

I removed [16] this from the section "Obama Administration Responses." This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political parties to get their message across to the voters.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If not outright soapboxing, it's certainly undue weight without other references. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly undue weight. May not be outright soap but it looks like sources were cobbled together to make an essay (boarders on SYNTH and SOAP). It also doesn't belong in a section "Obama administration responses" since it is commentary related to Obama but not an actual response from the administration.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the policy on soapboxing, and this isn't soapboxing. It may be unbalanced, in which case we should balance it instead of kill it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And instead of reverting you should have followed WP:BRD. Write up a new draft with the concerns mentioned here in mind.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE indicates that removal is sometimes the proper way to balance viewpoints of a "tiny minority." Without other sources, this looks like a tiny minority viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it reflects a very widespread view on the Left regarding Obama's weak campaigning skills in 2010--as compared to his very strong skills in 2008. Lots of websites echo this-- Daily KOS for example. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll need specific references. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If any of it is included in the article, it can't be in the Obama section. It's just a commentary.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent} It is an analysis of the Obama Adm. responses to the Tea Party, and it fits this section perfectly. here are today's stories taht show it reflects current thinking: (as selected by the neutral editors of RealClearPolitics.COM) #1 "The embattled President has had difficulty grasping the disappointment among his left-leaning voter base, aides told the Daily News" #2. "Obama Has Soft Pedaled Achievements" by Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune. Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be drastically reduced, reliably sourced, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Rjensen. It is Tomasky's response not the administrations. I actually screwed up earlier though sine I thought it was two separate authors. Regardless, too much weight and the wrong section.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV rules require that if we have a political statement by the Obama Admin we have to have opposing statements as well; Tomasky made a sharp critique from the left -- he says the Obama Admin did a poor job in responding and explains why. This view is widespread, and even the White House partly agrees: "In a remarkably candid Oct. 17 New York Times Magazine interview, Obama concedes that he let himself look too much like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. We can't leave the Obama section without counter arguments, otherwise it looks like the section is a campaign billboard for the President.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Benefited from support"

• Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including:

It's not neutral to include only those who've benefited. "Affected by support" would be more even-handed, and the list should include those who did not succeed, whether because of or in spite of TPM support.   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But we do put in mention of all the candidates. It needs to be succinct, no editorializing of course, but there is mention of who wins, who loses, etc. And there are candidates who don't win and they had tea party backing, or at least some tea party support, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@will replace "benefited" with "affected"? do you think the tea-party support actually hurt some candidates? if so which? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm googling that now.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Candidate in New Hampshire won against tea party candidate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_primary_rdp

Here's a chart on some others: http://washingtonindependent.com/86523/chart-how-have-the-2010-tea-party-candidates-fared Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of us know whether the TPM benefited every candidate on the list, and I presume we've excluded from the list candidates who lost.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

most of the tpm backed candidates on your list won their race? the ones who didn't split the vote with other tpm candidates. the NH rnc backed, heavily favored, candidate narrowly won against the tpm candidate. my original question, do you think the tpm support actually hurt any candidates, if so who? there is overwhelming evidence the tpm helped candidates in the primaries, and none to suggest they hurt candidates. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If we say "these candidate benefited from TPM support" then we need to have a source for each one that says they benefited from TPM support. It's much easier to find sources for the assertion that they received support (or endorsement).   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's very hard to source "benefited", while "endorsed" is easy. We don't really have to list each and every candidate, so long as the choices are representative and we fill in the gap with accurate generalizations. For example, if all of the supported candidates are Republican, this should be mentioned. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

i think the reality tpm has helped candidates is undeniable and above the need for a rs, however if you want to make it an issue, so be it. it strikes me a another attempt to minimize the impact the tpm is having, which actually seems to drive more people to the party who are annoyed with the same tactics by the rnc, msm, and now wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In good encyclopedia writing, it's better to show than to claim. The example I remember is that we don't claim "George Washington was a great man". Instead, we show that he was great by listing his achievements. This article should neither diminish nor enhance the subject, which is why it's best to stick to neutral language.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

i doubt you would be able to show a rs or otherwise that considered the tpm support a negative to any candidate. since you are making the change, perhaps you should simply use the inline tag for now so others may supply sources until consensus can be reached here, or until you are able to show evidence the tpm is actually harmed candidates in the primaries. (Angle, O'Donnell, Paul and many others. nothing on the other side of this debate for you yet) Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to show harm to avoid using non-neutral language. The burden of proof is on the editor making the assertion and not on the editor removing it. If this list comprises politicians who've "benefited" from TPM support, not just received it, then each entry has to have a source saying so.

More generally, "benefited" is a wishy-washy, boosterish term. Kansas benefits from having flat farmland and Colorado benefits from having mountains. But we don't say so in either article. Instead we show those benefits.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The conservative tea party movement's rise within the Republican Party gives President Barack Obama's Democrats an opportunity to limit their losses in the Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections the tea party clearly benefited the candidates they backed in the primary. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read what that sentence says? Here it is in full:

• The conservative tea party movement's rise within the Republican Party gives President Barack Obama's Democrats an opportunity to limit their losses in the Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections, the Democratic Party chief said Sunday.

In other words, the TPM involvement in the GOP is being described as benefiting the opposing party.   Will Beback  talk 

all of which may be true(personally i doubt it) but either way, the tea party obviously benefited the candidates it supported in the primary or there wouldn't be a discussion about how it affected the republican party as a whole. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you insist, we can add the Democratic Party chair's view that TPM involvement hurts the GOP.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] The critical case is Delaware, where the upset victory of Tea Party activist Christine O'Donnell will probably cost the GOP a Senate seat, according to observers left and right. Indeed, although she is running far behind in the polls and is given little chance of winning, Democrats from OTHER states are attacking her, perhaps to suggest that she is stupid & representative of the tea party ethos-- or maybe they're afraid the Senate will get a real witch.Rjensen (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@will. the orignal point was did the tpm benefit candidates in the primary, the answer is yes. did the tpm hurt the gop? remains to be seen. please put the text back, and the dnc chairs opinion if you must. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The edits recently made are POV pushing. The section is going to list every single candidate who has benefitted from Tea Party endorsement. That's the point of the section, to show the effects of the Tea Party on the 2010 election cycle. Candidates they've backed who lose will also be encluded, but we're not going to parse out the list. ALL the candidates will be included.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here thinks asserting, on our own authority, that TPM support always benefits its candidates is a problem? If so, I doubt folks here really understand the "no original research" policy.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@will, the facts are several candidates have benefited, and none to the contrary, should you know any, cite your evidence. this debate is not whether the tpm benefits the gop, rather candidates they supported in the primary. instead of suggesting others do not understand wp rules, maybe it is time to accept you are wrong here, and reverse your edit as consensus is clear. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a source that says "many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including" and we can add it to the article.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

will i did, see above, you thought i had somehow misread it. i actually i chose an article from the left to show you both sides agree, the tpm had an impact on the election, whether that impact is good or bad for republicans remains to be seen, however, the fact the dnc chair thinks the tpm candidates actually weaken the republicans chance by electing less qualified candidates in the primary, is proof the tpm did benefit the candidates supported. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've summarized Kaine's comments in the article.[17]   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomasky

Given the need to keep the overall article comprehensive and readable, do we really want to devote about 275 words to a single article written by a single person? Tea Party movement#Tomasky's response. Can't we do a better job of summarizing this view more compactly than this? Is Tomasky worth more than a line or two?   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We could include any of the viewpoints on the Tea Party movement, or on the Obama Admin's specific responses to the Tea Party movement -- but what the last version gave us was a critique of the Democratic Party in general, going back to the Reagan era. Not exactly relevant here. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• In its cover story on "Why Obama is Losing the Political War", Time magazine reported a widespread sense among analysts that the White House has not effectively responded to its critics:"With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters." [18]

What's missing in that narrative are the key words: "Tea Party". There's nothing in that text that's obviously related to this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very obvious who is being talked about here. Who exactly do you think is doing all the criticizing? And when President Obama speaks of his critics he frequently refers to the Tea Party.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that Obama is being talked about, but this isn't Wikipedia's Obama article. Nothing is said of the TP movement in the cited article, and Tea Partiers are only mentioned once, and that is only to say that the source of criticism is beyond McCain and Tea Party supporters. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this article is about the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit is a good one now. It provides balance to the Obama quotes which actually should not be set apart with the blue quote marks. They seem to be giving WP:UNDUE to his comments. There aren't any comments like that from actual Tea Party movement participants.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Top o' the mornin to you, Malke. I somewhat agree with your opinion of the block-quoting. I don't mind them if they are used through the whole article, but right now they could be viewed as giving deference to Obama's quotes over all the many other quotes in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the edit clearly speaks to the Tea Party. Please restore the edit. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me how that content addressed the Tea Party. It certainly wasn't self-explanatory in that short excerpt, and the source article from which it came make it very clear that their criticism is not Tea Party-specific. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Top O' the morn to you, too, Xenophrenic. It reads to me like it's very tea party specific: [19].Malke 2010 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Malke; I thought we were discussing the content from the Time article mentioned above. Regarding the content you linked, the source does indeed reference the Tea Party, but the segment introduced to our Wikipedia article was about faults with the Democratic party going back to the Reagan years, and not TP-related circumstances. You'll note my edit summary: (re-removed mischaracterized criticism of Democrats going "back to the Reagan years"; not Obama Admin specifically). There may be usable content in that article, but not presented and mischaracterized as it was. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] The Time story was specific about the Tea partiers, listing them first along with McCain voters, so I revised the text to make that point as per the suggestions here. Note that in the story Time asserts there is a national consensus among "most politically engaged elites":

In its Oct. 11, 2010, cover story on "Why Obama is Losing the Political War", Time magazine reported a widespread sense among analysts that the White House has not effectively responded to the critics. Noting that many voters "appear deeply skeptical of Obama's capacity to turn things around, especially ...Tea Partyers and John McCain voters, but also tens of millions of middle-class Americans" it asserted: "Most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters." Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Time was specific in its one single mention of the Tea Partiers, listing them first in their explanation that the criticism was not sourced to just them (or McCain supporters, etc.) -- and then they never mentioned TP again. This article, and the criticisms it makes, are not about the TP. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

the article is about Obama's failure to respond to his critics--and Time specifies "especially" the TP -- mentioning them first because they are the main critics. Fact is this encyclopedia gives a lot of space top Obama's responses (which hardly mention the TP), so NPOV rules require that we mention the other side. Indeed TIME clearly says it is stating the consensus views of a majority of political experts, so it is not a flaky fringe viewpoint, but the dominant one.Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of the Time article and Wikipedia policies are interesting, but do not appear to me to be accurate. The Time article does not "mention them first because they are the main critics"; quite to the contrary, the Time article passes right by the Tea Partiers and waves them off as being already obvious critics, and goes on to stress the critical sentiment is also coming from tens of millions of Americans, including Obama voters. The article you are citing is not about a Tea Party-specific subject:

And that sentiment is spreading. Many members of the general public appear deeply skeptical of Obama's capacity to turn things around, especially, but not exclusively, those inclined to dislike him — Tea Partyers and John McCain voters, but also tens of millions of middle-class Americans, including quite a few who turned out for Obama in 2008. The misery afflicting the country has no political affiliation.

What information about the Tea Party is your proposed paragraph supposed to convey? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

a) TIME singles out "especially" the TP; b) it says that Obama's responses to the TP have been poorly received. The TP is in a dynamic hostile relation with the establishment and a tepid response to their enthusiasm is a major factor that RS are talking about. TIME says that most of the experts agree that Obama has not handled his critics well, and explicitly mentions the TP. Since it comprises about 35% of the voters this year, that failure is a big deal in national politics, say the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

a) Yes, TIME singles out TP and McCain supporters, in order to clarify that TIME isn't making a point exclusively about them (they are obvious critics) when it discusses criticism; it is far beyond them. b) It does not say anything about "Obama's responses to the TP" - nice synthesis there. It only speaks of Obama's response to critics, of which the TPers is but a small subset. You are welcome to contribute that content to the Obama article under criticism, but it tells the reader absolutely nothing here that is TP-specific (unless you apply your synthesis). That is why I asked you to clarify what you intended that paragraph to convey to the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree with that. And the Tea Party movement is all about the financial moves made in his administration, and all his comments in the Obama section are about the TP protesters, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All his comments are about the TP protesters? I see the comment where he tells the TPers to quit blaming the recovery act, and that he is willing to discuss reasonable solutions but those won't include cutting programs for average Americans while cutting taxes for the rich. I also see his comment where he says he doesn't understand the TPer's complaints about taxes, since he has passed more than 25 tax reductions and reduced taxes for 95% of Americans. And I see his comments where he specifically challenges the TPers to come up with actual, workable solutions, instead of just complaints. I don't see his comments about protesters, just comments about fiscal matters. Which comments of Obama's were you referring to? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

weasal words

I object to this entry: "Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist,[143] nativist, paranoid,[143] or secretive movements and third parties such as the Know Nothing party, the John Birch Society,[144][143] and the movements led by Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, Barry Goldwater,[144] George Wallace,[145] and Ross Perot.[146]"

This is a blending of op-eds and is over the top. You can't make accusations like that. This is pure WP:OR and is highly offensive. The Tea Party movement hasn't shown any such signs, especially that offensive "paranoid" bit. The rest of the edit, with the salon.com bit is all right, but the opening is nothing but POV pushing.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Why can't we just write an accurate informative article instead of continuously trying to torture offbeat stuff into it? North8000 (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like bad news for my planned insertion of a five-page unsourced essay on types of tea and how they relate to political views... Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, and I was so looking forward to that. I agree with North8000, these edits are not relevant here. I think that lead bit should be deleted.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ORN then. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of Association fallacy. The Tea Party has been called populist, therefore they share the perceived negative characteristics of earlier populist movements. TFD (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not in the text. We don't make any comment about populist movements.   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This new standard being hatched in this article will change the face of Wikipedia. Anything that one or two editorialists say about about someone or something is now to be included in articles. Throw all other WP standards (e.g. primary sources for the opinions, wp:undue) out the window. By this new standard, the article on President Obama could now have hundreds of negative allegations, negative comparisons, negative associations and negative characterizations added. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV vs WP:NOTCENSORED can be difficult to resolve, but that's what noticeboards are for. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Ronz, we don't need those. The edit needs to come out. The policy is clear. This is a synthetic edit. The salon bit can stay, but the para leading to it is over the top.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The policy is clear" Not even slightly. Editors can't even make up their mind if it a RS or OR problem, and repeated requests for clarification have been ignored.

So please, clarify. If it's not clear what needs clarification, ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

observers have compared to others, is that really elegant refreshing prose? i suggest we remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 October 2010

The text is "Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history". It could say "to other movements" but it seems pretty clear without it, and "movements" is repeated again later in the sentence so it would get repetitive.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's compounding the problem. Please feel free to remove. Also, I did ask Balloonman to come take a look. He'll be by later.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The material is sourced and accurate. The first sentence is directly from the Salon article, plus additional sources. I can find at least several high quality sources for each comparison. The sources each mention the Tea Party directly, so there's no original research.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion about how the Tea Party is viewed by observers is based on finding sources that describe it that way, which is original research. You need a source that says this is how it is viewed and explain whether it is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view. TFD (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"You need a source that says this is how it is viewed and explain whether it is a consensus, majority, minority or fringe view." It would be nice to have one, but there's absolutely no requirement to do so, at least none that anyone has been able to communicate despite all the requests. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making any conclusions. I simply reported some common comparisons to earlier American political movements. I don't understand what it is TFD is asking for. If a writer compares TPM to George Wallace's following, do we also need a source that's commented on that comparison? If we follow that standard for all of the commentary then we'll have to get rid of most of the material.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD is correct. This is original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR covers a lot of ground. Could you please quote the text that you're referring to?   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted it at the opening of this section. The Salon.com bit is fine, but not what comes before.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean the text of the OR policy - which aspect of that policy are you saying is being violated?   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think several, but one of them is the primary / secondary source section. This is reporting on people making those allegations, yet the allegations themselves are given as the source. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We use a Dick Morris column to report what Dick Morris says. Is that what you mean by a primary source? Primary sources are not forbidden. They just have to be used with care.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we can start here, too: [20]. You are taking op-eds that hold various views and creating a synthesis. These op-ed editors are left leaning liberals. This is their tiny viewpoint. It doesn't belong in the article. I've already pointed out to RJensen where his edit went over the top and he fixed it. It would be really cool if you'd do the same.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. We include the POVs of Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, and the heads of the AEI and American Majority. But you're saying that including the views of (supposedly) left-leaning writers violates NPOV? Should we only use right-leaning commentators in this article?   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm being specific about this edit and how it's been put together.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please help me understand your objection. We use right-leaning commentators, so I don't see why using left-leaning commentators is a problem. (I'm not sure which of these sources are the left-leaning ones -could you list those?)   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are taking comments out of context and crafting them into this edit. I've just examined all of the citations and they do not make the claims you are claiming they do. And one citation, from the Financial Times, dated 10/20/2010, I can't find anything. But I did find an article on the tea party but it's not the one being cited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0205/Tea-party-movement-lessons-from-earlier-uprisings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304746.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/03/tea_party_populism_history

http://www.thehour.com/register/?storyid=475199

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-heilbrunn21-2010feb21

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-07-column07_ST1_N.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e83c3c00-d579-11df-8e86-00144feabdc0.html

This last one is the one for which I cannot locate any such article in the FT.

^ Lind, Michael (October 20, 2010). "A Tea Party cannot change a nation". Financial Times (London (UK)): p. 13.

None of these articles/op-ed pieces, even put together, support your edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So the issue isn't with left-leaning writers or the use of editorials. Thanks, that helps. Taking the first link, to the New York Times column written by Frank Rich, is used as a citation for comparisons of TPM to the John Birch Society and Barry Goldwater's campaign. Rich writes:

• You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president. [..] The Koch brothers’ father, Fred, was among the select group chosen to serve on the Birch Society’s top governing body. In a recorded 1963 speech that survives in a University of Michigan archive, he can be heard warning of “a takeover” of America in which Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the president is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.” That rant could be delivered as is at any Tea Party rally today.

So he's an observer comparing the TPM to Goldwater and the JBS. Would you like more sources that make the same comparisons? There are plenty.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lind is used as a source for this sentence:

• Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order.

He wrote:

• America's two-party structure flows from an electoral system, inherited from Britain, with a bias against third parties. Such parties, when they do occur, are short-lived vehicles that introduce a new issue or ideology, fading away once one of the major parties has co-opted its concerns. In the words of the historian Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees; once they have stung, they die." Insurgent ideological movements, such as the Tea Party, can play the same role. But movements that only mobilise the base of a party do not have that effect. Instead, they increase turn-out, and thus may shift control of the government.

That seems like an accurate summary, though it could be longer.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally synthetic. Frank Rich doesn't say that, none of these op-eds are drawing these conclusions, the professors on Salon don't say these things as you do, you've simply strung them all together. It's WP:OR.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't think Rich is comparing TPM to the JBS and Goldwater?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) The connection between the Tea Party and earlier populist movements seems obvious, their name is a reference to the Boston Tea Party. But you need to establish that this connection has been established by historians and report what they say. Jimmy Carter recently compared the Tea Party to his supporters, they included evangelicals and wanted honesty in government, yet you consistently compare the Tea Party with the more sinister elements of populism. TFD (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we follow a policy where the only sources who can comment on American history are history professors. But the Salon piece was written by historians, and the Anchorage Daily News piece cited above was also written by a history professor.   Will Beback  talk 

The way the edit reads, Willbeback is making the connection using the sources. It's entirely synthetic. In addition, these are the views of a tiny minority, not widespread, and as pointed out earlier, this policy also applies: [21].Malke 2010 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is satisfied, as I explained to you before, and it requires that we include this material. As for synthesis, I don't think it applies here. If we have a source that says a TPM candidate won in Ohio, another that says one won Texas, and the third that says one won in Iowa, then it is not synthesis to write "Candidates have won in Iowa, Ohio, and Texas." We could separate those into three separate sentences that would have the same meaning. "A candidate won in Iowa. A candidate won in Ohio. A candidate won in Texas." Same thing, but no one wants to read that.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The major advantage of using academic sources is that they usually explain the degree of acceptance that various theories have. If Wilentz had written his paper for an historical journal for example he would have to address whether other scholars had made the same connections and we could see how later writers responded to his writing. Another advantage is that he would be required to emphasize the most obvious comparisons rather than the most alarming ones. TFD (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, academic sources are great. In fifty years I bet there will be many academic sources discussing this movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The 700+ academic papers already published should be sufficient. There is no reason to believe that these scholars have ignored observations which need to be in the article. TFD (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of those papers being used as sources. If editors here agree that we should limit ourselves to academic sources in this article that's fine with me. Is there a list or search engine that points to the 700 papers?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Note also, that most reliable sources call the tea party movement a grassroots movement and that it's rooted in the financial crisis. And as for the sources I posted above, none of them make any claims that the Tea Party movement is paranoid, or nativist, or John Birch, etc. These sources are mostly talking about movements in general, how they arise, and how they recede back into the political landscape. None of them are using all these labels at once and claiming they are identical to the TPM, and none of them call the movement 'paranoid,' etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"The most reliable sources"? Which ones are those, in this context? It's quite possible for a movement to be grassroots, and populist. Even if sources describe the movement in contradictory terms it's not for us to decide which is correct. NPOV says to report all significant points of view using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just now noticed that Malke deleted the entire paragraph, even though he hadn't been complaining about the rest of it. I've restored it while we're discussing it. If WP:SYNTH is the main complaint concerning the lead sentence, due to the fact that it is a list and no one source contains all of the items on the list, then that can be addressed by "unpacking" the list and dealing with each item individually. That'll take a paragraph rather than a sentence. Something like, "The TPM has been compared to earlier populists movements by X, Y, and Z. Others, including R, S, and T, have compared it to nativist movements." and so on. While i don't think the WP:SYNTH complaint is valid, I'm flexible and would be willing to re-write the material in that more verbose manner. Simply deleting relevant, well-sourced material is not an option though.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You should not have restored it. The rule is Bold-revert-discuss. I've reverted it. We're discussing it. Also, Will you are making very bold edits in this article that has been stable for sometime and you're not using the talk page to discuss these changes. I've restored the Contract from America content as it clearly belongs on this page.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss the "Contract" separately. I've addressed your issues with the "Commentary" material, so I'm not sure why you deleted it all anyway. Last you said that Rich was not comparing the TPM to the JBS and i said I think he was. Can you respond to that point?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

Per WP:SUMMARY, I shortened the material in the "Contract from America" section because we have an entire article that's almost a duplicate, Contract from America. The alternative is to keep the material here and redirect that article. Having the same content in two places is not an option. Do editors prefer to have it here or in a separate article?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That section is appropriate for this page. What is not appropriate for the page is the bloated section on the Commentaries. That could be eliminated entirely.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So I assume that means you endorse redirecting the Contract from America.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no need to do that.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's one or the other. We can't just have multiple copies of the same material. See WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: (see disclaimer below workin way up through talk page bottom to top) Again, I have to side with Will Beback. The article is already on the long side, 109 KB. When articles start getting long, it does become appropriate to break them into multiple articles and to have links to "the main article". This is a standard best practice. The Contract from America section should be 1 maybe 2 paragraphs at the most summarizing the Contract with a highlighted link to the main article. See the article on George W. Bush as an example of how almost every section is a summary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else I'll restore the summary.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Viral video of Rick Santelli

Wrt this new edit:

"Traders Revolt: CNBC Host Calls For New 'Tea Party'; Chicago Floor Mocks Obama Plan". DrudgeReport.com. February 19, 2009. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/02/19/20090219_164153.htm. Retrieved April 23, 2010. [dubious – discuss]

There's no dubiousness about this report or cite. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

"After CNBC's Rick Santelli made his famous "tea party" remarks on the air in February 2009, spurring the protest movement, Russo said he decided to rebrand the PAC." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-tea-party-ads-20100919,0,5669482.story

Please revert the [dubious – discuss]. (For the record, Matt Drudge doesn't write his own stuff, but links to other sources, often reliable. His headlines and choice of content do tend toward the sensationalist side, but more often than not, the report is factual. Not saying I'd necessarily call it a RS, but I wouldn't automatically label a link to it "dubious." The point in this article is that Drudge propelled the story to prominence.) --Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the actual source we're using - a headline on Drudgereport? If the source is the Chicago Tribune or CNBC then let's cite that instead.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You really should be bringing questions to the talk page before you continue with these edits. The Drudgereport is just a news aggregation website. It was the siren notice on the Drudgereport announcing Santelli's rant that made the video go viral. It is not dubious. Please revert.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of tags is to mark items for discussion or repair. The assertion in the article is this:

• The video of Santelli's speech went viral after it received a "red siren" headline on the news aggregation website, Drudge Report.

So we need a source that says the video went viral following its posting on Drudge. A link to the Drudge site doesn't support that assertion. It could be used as a primary source for the fact that Drudge linked to the video. Do we have any source that the video went viral due to Drudge?   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For now it will be enough to put 'citation needed' there. Please revert the 'dubious' bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found some proper sources and will use those instead of Drudge.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No you will not. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Drudgereport mention will stay. This citation is fine: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/02/19/20090219_164153.htm.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a citation that the video went viral, the assertion that it is being used to source.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, please remove the WP:OR edit you made in the commentaries. It is entirely your construction and none of the citations support your theories.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Drudgereport citation needs to be there because of the mention of the red siren. Please put it back.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT (and disclaimer)... First, Malke asked me to take a look here as I helped resolve an issue on these pages about a month ago or so and he said things were getting heated up again. So, I come here per request. Second, in this specific example, I have to side with Will Beback. If the claim is that the video went viral due to the Drudge report, then the Drudge Report becomes a primary source. Thus, any claim it makes about its own contribution to the video going viral has to be treated as a primary source (thus dubious) and not a secondary source. The same would be true if it were NBC/CBS/Fox/BBC/etc... you need a third party to support that claim. Third, again, this is the first section I've looked at, I'm working my way from the bottom up... Malke, your tone here is a little strong. Namely, "No you will not."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, got it. But we can still keep the link to the Drudgereport page, as it shows the siren and it links to the video.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether it stays or go, I don't really care... but honestly, I don't see the need for it. We can link directly to the video and a news report saying that it sparked the viralness of the video is enough.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link that goes directly to the video.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will; I didn't intend to stir up a hornet's nest. The flaw in my post was asking that the [dubious--discuss] tag be removed. I should have suggested dropping the Drudge reference. Here's an excellent reference that I hesitate to insert since there's been so much unexpected ado. I'm bolding the pertinent part.

Santelli's full-throttle call for a Chicago Tea Party "dumping in some derivative securities" into Lake Michigan, boosted by good play on the Drudge Report site, made him a near-instant viral video star, a voice of opposition to the administration's stimulus package and, if he plays it right, secured his very own personal economic stimulus. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-sun-phil-rosenthal-22feb22,0,7002362.column --Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine source too. I'll swap it in in place of the Atlanta Journal - Constitution ref.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Since that page has the video embedded I dropped the separate video link.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not break the discussion up, the issue about "compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history" was raised above and I'll look at it when I get to it... let's not start it all over down here.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this edit in the commentaries, and then look at the links to the sources I've provided. Observers have compared the Tea Party movement to others in U.S. history, finding commonalities with previous populist, nativist, paranoid, or secretive movements and third parties such as the Know Nothing party, the John Birch Society, and the movements led by Huey Long, Father Charles Coughlin, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Ross Perot. Two historians, Steve Fraser and Joshua B. Freeman, have written in Salon.com that the Tea Party movement and anti-immigration movements share a "fear of displacement". U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd compared the movement to the Know Nothings, saying it seeks to roll "the clock back to a point in time which they've sort of idealized in their own minds as being a better time in America". Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order.. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Links to Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0205/Tea-party-movement-lessons-from-earlier-uprisings http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304746.html http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/03/tea_party_populism_history http://www.thehour.com/register/?storyid=475199 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/21/opinion/la-oe-heilbrunn21-2010feb21 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-07-column07_ST1_N.htm http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e83c3c00-d579-11df-8e86-00144feabdc0.html This last one is the one for which I cannot locate any such article in the FT. ^ Lind, Michael (October 20, 2010). "A Tea Party cannot change a nation". Financial Times (London (UK)): p. 13.

Balloonman chimes in again

Ok, once again my input was requested on this article. I was asked for input a few weeks ago and I provided it. Once my initial comments were responded to I took this page off my watch list. This is not an article that *I* particularly care about one way or another and prior to my being asked for input a few weeks ago, my only real involvement was to remove a BLP statement until a reliable source was provided. Too many POV pushers and drahma that I didn't want to get involved with (election cycles are particularly bad.) I mention that so that you can assess my statements/input.

This took a lot longer than I expected and I wasn't able to really review this subject bottom up like I started... there is too much history and discussion here. I've been reading this for close to two hours now.guess it took me 2 more of reading this to finish! I've spent a while reviewing this issue and reading just about all of the articles (that don't require registration) that have been brought up on this subject. I was going to respond under each section, but this became longer and longer, so here are my thoughts.

• Opinion pieces have to be used with extreme caution. Is the opinion piece at all reliable or is it a political screed? I mean, how many people would trust Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck to draw a "straight line" between a liberal movement and a past event? And if you did, would wikipedia allow Limbaugh or Beck's statement to be construed as a reliable source? The answer is no. Especially if they were presenting their comments in a partisan manner intended on invoking a certain response. The Rich opinion piece is nothing more than a political screed ripe with sarcasm and exaggeration. Of all the pieces mentioned, it is by far the most biased. This is a political screed that should not by any stretch of the imagination be used even to explore positions that "observers" have noted---I would not trust the Rich opinion piece for reliable facts any more than I would rely on Beck/Limbaugh.
• Many movements can be compared to populist movements/paranoid movements/JBS/etc; this is nothing new. Virtually every political movement can be compared to other political movements---both favorably and unfavorably. I personally have no problem with drawing the comparisons, the question becomes how and to what extent?
• To address Malke's comment above "I've never heard a tea party participant make a reference to the Know Nothings." That doesn't matter. If historical parrallels exist, they do not have to be self acknowledged. Just because a precursor movement occured before WWII, does not mean that there aren't associations that can be made. Malke, I was trained as a historian (BA in history and completed the course work for a Master's level degree in history), this is what historians do---they find parallels with the past. As one of my profs used to say, "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
• Listing every organization that the Tea Party has been compared to is unnecessary... I mean, to carry on Will's example above when he talks about various sources reporting on winning states, would we list every state that Obama/McCain won in the 2008 election? No. It is unnecessary, especially when the parallels are not explained. In a list as presented, it adds very little value, in fact is detrimental. In some of the sources, the Tea Party is being comapred to a predicessor for a specific reason or comparison. In the list, those specific aspects are lost and the sentence becomes cumbersome. Personally, I like Will's wording in his edit at 08:40, 20 October 2010 (sorry too late for me to go through the history to look up the link---if somebody else wants to feel free to do so.)
• The Lind Opinion is an interesting piece. A number of people don't expect the Tea Party to emerge as a third party or to endure long term---I don't. But I'm not sure if that is their long term goal.
• While not part of the scope that I was originally looking at, I have to comment on Rjensen's conclusion above when he wrote, "The NY Times reported that the Tea Party is pushing 138 candidates for Congress, all in the GOP. ... That makes it a faction of the GOP--it's very hard to call it 'independent' with 138/138 for one party." No that is an example of synthesis. Just because the Tea Party supports the Republicans, does not mean that it is a Republican faction. To reach the conclusion you did would be like arguing: "Every square is a rectangle, therefore every rectangle is a square." It may be true or it may just be a fluke or it may be something else. But the conclusion is not one *we* can make. That would be OR and SYN.
• Also, Malke, you keep throwing around the words Original Research and Synthesis... but I'm not really sure if you understand those concepts as defined by Wikipedia. Original Research and Synthesis apply to Wikipedian authors writing something new... it does not apply to what third party sources write. If Will was "comparing/contrasting the Know Nothing Party" then it would be Original Research; but if somebody else does it, it is not Wikipeida:Original research. The fact that Salon.com et al make the argument is NOT original research---ok, it might be in the wider scheme of things, but not as we define Original Research.
• RE North's comments how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings")---false logic for the exclusion of material.
• RE the issue of "Many politicians in the 2010 election cycle have benefited from support from the Tea Party movement including." I have no problem with the word "benefited" here. I think there are plenty of articles that talk about how this year the Tea Party movement is en vogue and helping many candidates (especially during the primaries.) I also have no problem with including the White House/Democrat quote Will provided.
• RE Tomasky's quote/edit here---I love the quote. Personally, I think it is very insightful... in a year where patriotism/nationalism seem to be on the rise, the Democrats have not tried to claim that motiv and have seemed to concede it to the Republicans. That being said, what's it doing here? My views on this seem to mirror Xeno's.
• There is one phrase that I do have some problem with, but I'm not sure if there is a better wording. "Other commentators, like Jacob Heilbrunn, predict that it will share the short life span of third parties in U.S. history which have faded quickly after upsetting the political order." I know what it is trying to say, but in the sentence as written, it reads that the Tea Party is here just long enough to "upset" the established "political order". It's kind of negative. I'm too tired to think of how I would reword it, but something like "after making a mark on/influencing a political party/election cycle?"

Wow, that's a lot... and took me almost 4 hours to read it all and it is now late (3 am). I'll probably watch this page for a few days to respond to immediate questions/comments, but in all honesty, I'm not interested in the subject enough to keep in on my watch list that long. Too much drahma, hopefully my input is deemed valuable, if not c'est la vie. Oh one more comment, I don't know how the emotions have been going on when read in real time, but reading the discussions after the fact, I wanted to commend you all... for the most part the discussions have been conducted in a mature sensible manner.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I'm new to this article too. I won't respond to every one, but here are a few thoughts.

The article makes extensive use of op-ed pieces. I stopped counting at a couple of dozen. I'd support a effort to get rid of all of them, so long as it is applied consistently. That would mean a lot of work, but I'm willing to spend a week or two finding replacement sources and re-writing the article.

I agree that we should keep the list of comparisons short, and I suggest we use those which appear most frequently in the available sources.

Regarding the wording of "after upsetting the political order", several commentators make the same point:

• A popular, and correct, aphorism about grass-roots movements is that they act like bees -- they sting, then die. Third parties fold into major parties, like the 19th century Populists did with the Democrats.
• "Third parties are like bees," [Jonah] Goldberg said. "They have their influence by stinging, and then they die. If the tea party successfully stings the Republican Party into girding its loins and returning to its roots and providing a choice and all of these sorts of things, it will already have served its purpose." He predicted the tea party would fail if turned into "a fighting wedge for pro-life causes" or strayed from a "constitutional argument" focusing on "government living within its means."
• No doubt third parties such as the Know-Nothings have historically enjoyed a short life span in America. Historian Richard Hofstadter famously observed, "Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die." But the tea party may wield a very potent stinger.
• [Third parties], when they do occur, are short-lived vehicles that introduce a new issue or ideology, fading away once one of the major parties has co-opted its concerns. In the words of the historian Richard Hofstadter, "Third parties are like bees; once they have stung, they die."

Others talk more about the co-opting aspect. Perhaps "after altering the political order"? I'll make that change while we keep looking for better language.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You should try to get consensus from now on.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Balloonman, the original research I was referring to is this listing of all the organizations in the first para there. As you noted here:

*Listing every organization that the Tea Party has been compared to is unnecessary... I mean, to carry on Will's example above when he talks about various sources reporting on winning states, would we list every state that Obama/McCain won in the 2008 election? No. It is unnecessary, especially when the parallels are not explained. In a list as presented, it adds very little value, in fact is detrimental. In some of the sources, the Tea Party is being comapred to a predicessor for a specific reason or comparison. In the list, those specific aspects are lost and the sentence becomes cumbersome. Personally, I like Will's wording in his edit at 08:40, 20 October 2010 (sorry too late for me to go through the history to look up the link---if somebody else wants to feel free to do so.)

The specific problem is that the parallels are not explained in the articles/op-eds. It is Willbeback linking them together, not any of the sources, which is why I said it was WP:OR. Also, I wasn't able to locate that edit you said you liked.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Most of the op-ed stuff should be used VERY sparingly/carefully especially when citing historical facts, but if you are trying to justify the Rich piece, then that would be OTHERSTUFF. The Rich article is over the top. As for the numerous quotes about bees... I'm not sure what your point is, that Hofstadter's quote is oft cited? The conclusions the 4 quotes above after referencing Hof diverge at that point. The first merely observes the quote, the second state that all the TPM needs to do is sting to accomplish their goals, the third says they gave a potential stinger, the final uses it dismissingly. The problem I have with using it is that the TPM is not a third party---to my knowledge it doesn't have any candidates running in the November election on any level (naional/state/local.) TPMs are supporting a number of candidates and many are considered the "Tea Party candidate", but (as mentioned above) they are all Republicans. The group is not trying to establish viability as an independent party, but rather to shift the national focus to a few specific issues. If the Republicans co-opt the tpm's issues, then hasn't that the TPM fulfilled its objective? Therein I guess lies my problem with the sentence about "upsetting the political order." The sentence reads as if the TPM will be a failure if it disappeared in a few years, but I think most TPM'ers will consider it a success if it forces a change in the political landscape.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to delete the "Commentaries" section. Comments should be from Tea Party movement members as this article is about them. The section now is so POV pushing, it's all WP:UNDUE weight. It keeps getting bloated with racist comments like the Christian Science Monitor bit at the beginning, etc. These comments are inflammatory and don't provide a balanced, NPOV article.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments should be from Tea Party movement members as this article is about them.

That is not how Wikipedia operates. Please re-read WP:NPOV. "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." All significant points of view must be included, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, and presented in a neutral manner.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks so much for the analysis. Please give us a suggestion, as you did with the Koch brothers edit, on how this edit should read and what citations to use per Wiki policy. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, thanks for all of the excellent work. One clarification: on your one comment on my comment:

"*RE North's comments how many negative sounding linkages (in today's case, to "Know Nothings")---false logic for the exclusion of material.

The context of my comment was plea to focus on a good informative article, not an argument for exclusion of material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."

— Ron Paul, December 24, 2002

• More recently, the libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to end fiat money and the Federal Reserve System, disengage from foreign entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and uphold States' rights; which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.

---

What does the long quote, added here[22], have to do with the Tea Party movement? Which source says that Paul's libertarian themes laid the groundwork for the TPM?   Will Beback  talk  03:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

given the vast amount of space devoted accusations of racism and other critique of the tpm, the quote denouncing racism by one of the more influential voices in the movement is appropriate here. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't accusing Paul of racism, and the quote is from seven years before the TPM was formed. If we allow that in then what's to keep us from adding random quotations from other influential voices in the movement, made at any point in their lives? That doesn't seem like a good way of writing an article. Do we even have a source that says Paul is an influential voice within the movement?   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the quote, it is non notable, and non TPM specific. This article needs improvement and this doesn't help in the least. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no other input, I'll remove the long quote and rewrite the Ron Paul sentence.   Will Beback  talk  07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the "tea party" movement(s) is not a political party per se, why is the title "Tea Party" movement, not "Tea party movement"?

Since the "tea party" movement(s) is not a political party per se, why is the title "Tea Party" movement, not "Tea party movement"? From this article: In 2010 it is not a political party, does not officially run candidates, .... 99.102.176.33 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not a party movement about tea, it's a political movement named after the Boston Tea Party. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Major new study

In Monday's editions, the Washington Post newspaper reports on its months-long effort to identify and analyze every TP group in the United States. The Post identified 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. for all the details see the article online at the Post website.Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconcile with Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Tea_Party ?

Reconcile with Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Tea_Party ? 99.35.8.247 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede Right-Wing Populist

The recent edits to the lede using the "Mad As Hell" book cannot be used to define the movement. For one this this is a self-published book of opinion. For a second thing the selected quote inserted into the ref is not the statement the authors are using to define the movement. The authors are saying that sometimes there are anti-systemic populist movements from the left and the right. The authors do claim that the movement is overwhelmingly from the right, but does not call it a right wing movement. Editors should no used self-published original thought and then synthesize what the original thought says and use it to make factual statements. By the authors arguement all populist movements are either left-wing or right-wing, but that is clearly an opinion. Indeed the individual movements themselves have clearly not labeled themselves as right-wing. It is fine to use some of this opinion to describe the movement, but it is not ok to use it to define the movement. WP is not a publisher of novel thought, and by using opinion to define any movement that is exactly what we are doing. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the analysis of the leading experts-- that is our job. Rasmussen and Schoen are leading pollsters for many years; they are widely quoted every day in the major media. The credentials are beyond cavil, and the book is published by Harper, one of the most prestigious and oldest New York publishers. There are over 100 references to populism in the book, (and over 100 to "right wing") and they explicitly call the TP right-wing populism. For example p 22 (online at Amazon.com) "These right-wing populist principles influence much of the political dialogue, as the Tea Party movement has become the most vibrant and powerful political force. This is the principle focus of this book." Rjensen (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Koch Industries Billionaires "Climate change alarmism"/Climate change denial lobbing connections, per October 19 NYT's Kate Zernike.

Add Koch Industries Billionaires "Climate change alarmism"/Climate change denial lobbing connections, per October 19 NYT's Kate Zernike: ...Those efforts, the letter makes clear, include countering “climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care,” as well as “the regulatory assault on energy,” ... and opposition to ... California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases... 99.190.91.240 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the Tea Party there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The TPM is mentioned on the second page. Here's a link to a single-page version.[23]   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

The Tea Party movement article is 1/3 information about the tea party movement and 2/3 commentaries, media bias, astroturfing, allegations of racism and other comments. Abbreviating the tea party's agenda "Contract from America" based on one editor's claim that Wikipedia can't have both the article on the Contract from America and as well as have those details here in the article doesn't make sense. There are dozens and dozens of articles on Wikipedia that are either outright redundancies or derivatives of other articles. But more importantly, to strip this article of the factual information regarding the Tea Party movement means the page is gradually becoming nothing more than a screed against the Tea Party movement. This article has been stable for a long time now, and this kind of change is POV pushing.

There is absolutely no consensus to remove this, as the edit summary would suggest. I'm going to restore it.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)