Talk:Tea Party movement

Dale Robertson Section

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

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

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

Here are two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New issue here: Why on earth are the words "It has been reported" in this paragraph? Weasel words like these are not usually included in articles because they imply ambiguity as to the truth of the statement. If there is a source that states "what was reported", then it should be included. If there isn't, then remove it. Was this wording part of some compromise that isn't apparant here? Rapier (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because none of the statements are true (or at least reported by credible sources), so "it has been reported" is really all that can be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possible new section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the links ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. See below. Dylan Flaherty 00:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Populist??? How??

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

I'm sorry, but I disagree. This conversation seems to be relevant to the matter of reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty 01:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, gays in the Tea Party?!

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I can tell, the Tea Party movement determines who counts as being in the Tea Party movement. It's like asking who determines who gets to edit Wikipedia, except without Jimbo. :-) Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's like that at all. Seems like some groups who consider themselves a part of the national movement are trying to decide who else in the movement doesn't belong, and vice versa -- with several factions claiming ownership and/or seniority. As the lead even says, "The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups." [15] If you're saying this isn't true, then there are clear problems with public perception. The section entitled "Composition of the movement" could therefore be improved by describing this divisiveness and struggle for group identity. Further into the article we have another example: "efforts by white nationalist groups and militias to link themselves to the tea party movement.^[203][204] White nationalists have attempted to recruit new members at Tea Party events. Steve Smith, Pennsylvania Party Chairman of the white nationalist American Third Position Party, has called Tea Party events 'fertile ground for our activists.'^[205]" -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, if you can replace those superscripted numbers with reliable sources, then these things do belong in the article. Dylan Flaherty 00:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

talk page concerns

For the record I think it's important enough to note here that one editor has tried to remove this section three times [16] [17] [18] (for alleged WP:Forum violation) and it's been restored by three different editors, including me, per WP:TPG. I invited the editor to post her objection here, yet she continues to argue about it elsewhere. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Twice it looks like but the third was also a removal based on the same reasoning. You should chill out on the reverts of the talk page, Lucy-marie. I get the frustration and have removed comments from talk pages for being to forumy before myself. However, these are not clearly forum-like discussions. Multiple editors are commenting on the issue and attempts at sources (not sure if they are RS) are being presented. Maybe try changing the title of the subsection to something a little less snarkey? In regards to the populist revert, that is very similar to a talk page discussion I started here and the archives show several of them. We are addressing it again below. One option if it appears to forum like (which I disagree with in this case) would be to collapse it as seen here.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Lucy has gone a bit overboard, so I've removed the markings. Dylan Flaherty 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place to discuss individual editors. Discussion should be contianed to talk pages of indivduals as is currently being undertaken.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie#TPM talkpage I trust my comments are sufficient but for those interested you can see the wiilink to the discussion referred to. Alternatively, we could open up a talk page of this talk page to discuss edits to the talk page but that seems silly. FWIW, I have modified the section header.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rubin, this is a great teaching opportunity for you! Would you please explain what precisely makes this source unreliable? (I'm sure it's not simply our disagreement with it's content.) Dylan Flaherty 08:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubin? Anything? Dylan Flaherty 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It's an opinion piece in a little-circulated opinion magazine. And just for kicks, it's written by a little-known guy.-Digiphi (Talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubin, I'm very impressed. It's almost as if you've possessed Digiphi and speak through him. However, I'd really prefer if you spoke for yourself, so nobody has to wonder whether Digiphi is saying things you would support. Dylan Flaherty 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Your ownership template must have been accidentally removed from the section head or something. So, how do you feel about the Z item? Do you think it should go in, or just playing devil's advocate? -Digiphi (Talk) 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Voting for lede/lead

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

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

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

The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity.

Please indicate !vote here:

• Support.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support North8000 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - but why is it called "British Tea"? The colonists were British subjects and the tea would have been owned by London merchants not the Crown. TFD (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons stated on on the mediation page. I'm still for this model.-Digiphi (Talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your info TWSJ was boughten by a born again christian who no longer thinks it is enough to "just deliver the news." references available. Richrakh (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Richrakh is correct; the WSJ is generally considered to be a conservative newspaper. It's highly regarded, and rightfully so, but let's not pretend it's politically neutral. Dylan Flaherty 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Informed critics of the Tea Party now describe it as grass roots, while stating that it was spawned by professional activists and that some groups are funded by wealthy donors. TFD (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting generalization, but I'm not sure that it's accurate. Dylan Flaherty 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I think you have an excellent point. A truly and unquestionably grassroots movement could still wind up with a central leader, and a movement with no central leadership . To be grassroots, it would need to have origins in the common people, untainted by existing political organizations. It's basically a claim about historical origin and authenticity. This is precisely what those who accuse the movement of being astroturfed bring up; they claim that it has been coopted by the GOP, the Koch's and other extant political organizations, to the point that it is no longer true to any grassroots origins it might have had. Having a single leader is, frankly, a red herring.

Let me offer an example. Imagine if the GOP actually walked the walk with regard to the the states-rights views it espouses and decided to disband the national organization in favor of 50-something local ones, with representatives from each voting at a national conference. This would make the GOP a decentralized organization, but would it somehow become grassroots? For that matter, if it's true that the DNC astroturfed the Coffee Party Movement, would its apparent lack of central organization make it grassroots? Dylan Flaherty 08:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Objection - I've been spending time with my family over the holidays, so I have not been keeping up with this page. As such, I am not ready to support or oppose anything. I realize some people are frustrated by the mediation process, but switching venues like this is not a step forward, or even sideways. Generally, I agree with accepting some variation of Nilla's lead, but I cannot support the ones I've seen so far (including the one I proposed as a draft). In the next few days, I will try to catch up with what's been happening here and update my stance. Dylan Flaherty 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I can't support anything that says "populist" in the first line. I do not dispute that it has been called populist (and they even might be) but applying labels like that without clarification is problematic. More importantly, many people read these articles without wikilinks and without the explanation in that wikilink we cause confussion. There are too many different definitions of the term and some are contrary to the group. If "populism" is explained in the lead (half a sentence even) out of the first line I will be behind it.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I share your reluctance with regard to controversial characterizations. My thinking is that "populist" is different from "grassroots" in that the former speaks of the stated platform ("down with the beltway elite", etc.) while the latter is a factual claim about its actual organization, origins and funding. There's quite a bit of debate over whether the movement is truly grassroots, and it's easy to see how it can be argued, regardless of what view you take. However, how would someone even dispute the populist label? Short of arguing that the movement doesn't speak out against what it sees as the government elite, there doesn't seem to be anything factual to grab onto. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty 08:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Populist has a few different meanings and it is often linked to the left. This has caused confusion. We cannot rely on the wikilink due to two reasons 1)knee-jerk reactions 2)not every reader of this article will have that wikilink. I'm completely understanding of why we should make sure it is mentioned but it is better off outside of the first sentence while still in that first paragraph somewhere.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a description of populism (which includes Jim Hightower and right-wing U.S. movements). It describes it as an appeal to "the people" and some form of anti-elitism. There are different types of populism, but there seems to be only one definition. TFD (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I got busy with life. If needed, I can still work on this. I just need to know if that is wanted or not. Hamtechperson 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. IMHO I think we should take this back to the mediation page. And deal just with "grass roots" plus (only) any other uncontested changes. So, discuss potential deletion of "populist" separately. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to delete it. I want its relevance (which is there) to the subject briefly explained a line or two down since some readers cannot click on wikilinks. Whether it is "forms" or definitions", the word can convey several (and sometimes contradicting) aspects. If it did not, editors would not continuously react to it. Something like "The movement has been called populist due to..."Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a decent compromise. MBMadmirer (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

North8000, there seems a consensus for making the edit. Let's go forward, shall we?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK with me. Basically, it is compromise wording on "grassroots" and no changes in other areas of contention, although with substantially improved wording. My suggestion was intended only if this starts to discuss new proposed contentious changes. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All right. I think, though, that Cptnono has a good point. So we'll put in the edit as it is and then we'll open up the question of the populism thing. Because he's right about the wikilink thing and making it understandable to the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. There are enough supports. I would appreciate it if we were able to continue the discussion to get a draft and consensus on a line about populism. That can be adjusted after this main edit is made if consensus forms.Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put in the edit, so let's now open a section about the populism thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the mediation issue is the treatment of grassroots. While the TPM "is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity", it also "is often cited as an example of "astroturf" political activity". This POV is likely not insignificant, but receives no treatment in the discussion of grassroots in the proposed lede. BigK HeX (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I see some folks above indicating that consensus has been reached. Could someone please provide for me a link to that consensus conclusion? It isn't present in the above discussion, as I see there have been several concerns raised that still have not been addressed. As a reminder: Consensus is not achieved by voting (or !voting); it is achieved by agreement upon a solution that addresses all reasonable concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, Xeno. It looks like 7 to 2. We have to count Nillagoon, you know. It's his proposal. The discussions been here for a while. I think it's safe to make the edit. Also, I have no objection to adding in that some consider it astroturf. I know other editors get touchy with that, but I'd be happy to write that in. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiyas, Malke. "7 to 2" is meaningless to me, as we're talking about achieving consensus, not voting. All edits are safe to make, as are all reverts. :-) The problem arises when we have disagreements regarding those edits, as we evidently do with the most recent ones. It is time to address the unresolved concerns so that actual consensus can be achieved, and you have rightly identified one of those concerns: how to address "astroturf" (or the complete lack of addressing it) in the lede. I didn't mind this version, although I would have wikilinked "grassroots" if astroturf is to be wikilinked. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. I think we could go with that for now. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick notation like that seems to cover the bases appropriately to me, too. BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To date, this whole process has been about one contentious issue (grass roots) and non-contentious wording cleanup. Now in the 11th hour we're tossing in another contentious proposed change (astroturf) and moreover, a pejorative term hurled by TPM opponents. I think that the astroturf change should be dealt with separately. Maybe "draft" it in now (in order to keep this whole thing moving) but consider it something we'll look at later. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issues are distinct. Consider how BigK had some objections to "grassroots" but was willing to accept it so long as we also said "astroturf". It may well be that the way out of this is to include both. Dylan Flaherty 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm in. But let's be clear what we're deciding, It's the proposal at the beginning of this section, except with the last paragraph changed to this. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if you change the article to that version, North8000, I will not revert you. As for whether or not the concerns of other editors have been satisfied, I can't speak for them. I do believe your clock is a little off, however: this is not the 11th hour with regard to this issue ... it's about the 3rd hour now, as this topic is more than a year old, and is likely to still be debated a couple years down the road. Also, 'astroturf', being the antithesis of 'grassroots', is and has always been part of this particular discussion. Naysayers of the TP movement have acknowledged grassroots components of the movement, and TPers themselves have acknowledged astroturfed components of the movement. Defining the movement as wholly one or the other isn't supported by reliable sources; defining the movement as absent either of these characteristics is also not supported by reliable sources. Our article should reflect this. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My "11th hour" was just referring to the recent cycle of working on this. That said, you and Dylan made some good points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Go with what Xeno suggests and make the edit. I think it'll be okay.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I agree that we do not have a consensus at this time, and it's wise not to speak in terms of reverting. Dylan Flaherty 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've had a structured discussion for weeks. It's 7 wanting to move forward and see what kind of response it brings, and 2 against. Potentially 8 for, if we count Nilla. What do think a measure of consensus is? This works fine. If it's awful and ends the world then more editors will start showing up here in a hurry to discuss it. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We've had structured discussions on this matter for over a year, off and on. I do believe everyone involved in the discussion, far more than 7, want to move forward. As for seeing what kind of response a proposed edit will bring, I think we've already seen that over the past 24 hours when such edits were made. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 2 are against going forward (you kids and your new math), but I haven't seen anyone express that. I do see many editors raising concerns with the above proposed edit from myself, and Geothean and BigK and Dylan and Captnono and an IP (anyone want to claim that?) that I can recall from memory. What do I think a measure of consensus is, you ask? I've already explained that, 9 paragraphs above this one; perhaps you missed it. I agree with you, this works fine. So let's not sidetrack the process by "counting heads" — as if that makes any difference whatsoever to our achieving consensus. Moving on, what are your thoughts on the latest wording being discussed? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"What is consensus" is a complicated question, but "unanimous" is usually not possible nor one of the answers. I'm ready to bite the bullet on "astroturfing" in order to move forward SOON, otherwise not. I plan to wait another approx. 1/2 day and probably then put in what was discussed above and see what happens. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

suggestions for wording line about populism

Please add suggestions here: Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Note:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement has a new referendum on what to do with the mediation. Hamtechperson 03:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Add "European polluters fund US candidates" The Guardian, example BP

Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters: Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000 24.October.2010 The Guardian and "European polluters fund US candidates" in recent issue. 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.86.138 (talk)

Speaking as someone who also opposes the influence of the Tea Party Movement on American politics, your comments are completely unhelpful and borderline spam. Please contribute to the discussion in a mature manner or just shut up. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't even know where to start with the issues and problems with that. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_48/b4205120106907.htm book Griftopia ?

Add Interview with a Vampire Squid in BusinessWeek by Sheelah Kolhatkar? Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi's new book Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America uncovers a new class of grifter responsible for maiming the economy ... regard the TP movement, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Goldman Sachs, and Rick Santelli. 99.27.175.180 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Add The Sun (magazine) http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/419/brewing_up_trouble interview with Chip Berlet by David Barsamian

Add Brewing-up Trouble: Chip Berlet On The Tea Party And The Rise Of Right-Wing Populism in current The Sun (magazine) interview with Chip Berlet by David Barsamian. 99.102.180.27 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populism. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a good model to navigate this article towards, out of the mess that it is - Part 2

Here were the two ideas from the early November discussion for a model:

• From North8000 It's Democratic Party (United States) This shows the type of content that should be in an article on an organization. Not like the dumb stuff that constitutes 50% of this article. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• From Digiphi: "......the African_American_Civil_Rights_Movement. Not because the two movements are ideologically similar, but because the topics of their articles are categorically similar, and the CRM page is very well done.

We need some sort of a compass to navigate this article out of the mess that it is. I think that Digiphi's idea is better than mine. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So what's next? Do we change section title headings, rearrange content? Where do we start?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A better idea is to discuss what makes the article "a mess" and address them directly instead of invoking vague derisions. BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any reasonably balanced treatment of the article's subject will be seen as too critical by its fans/followers. I disagree with the assertion that the TPM is "categorically similar" to either the Democrats or the AACRM. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are examples of overall coverage of the subject. This article is loaded with thousands of words like "this guy said this" and this guy said that this guy said this". North8000 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly to PrBeacon, I'd disagree with the proposed comparisons, with the most obvious difference being that those subjects have decades of history and scores of even tertiary sources from which to form a stable encyclopedic article. I'd add that the recentism of this article's subject matter alone is what forces the "this guy said this..." material, since there is a lack of tertiary sourcing and accepted conclusions on the subject material here. So long as we choose to have a detailed article on political subject material with little history, news articles are likely to form the bulk of the sourcing. I doubt whether there is any "fix" for that (even if it is a problem). BigK HeX (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there BigK, nice to see you. I don't think Digiphi means to duplicate here. It's more of a guideline in organizing the sections. The flow of importance, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to wait and see what Digiphi is proposing. It's kinda hard to tell whether it'd be an improvement at the moment, although I'd guess that there are reorganizations that would be a large improvement. BigK HeX (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Let's see what he's got in mind. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. First, PrBeacon: do you know what categorical means? Where we're talking about articles, it means their topic categories. And I don't like the Democratic Party page, although it's so-so in quality because, categorically, its way off the reservation. The CRM article is categorically similar, and is a well done page which would probably be a Good article if someone cleaned up that section in the middle. It's a good model to lean on when asking ourselves what fits and what's inappropriate for this category of article. The fact that its topic is old and dated is specifically why it's good. This article should be treated the same way by editors, objectively and not like an ideological hot potato. If good solid content gives readers the impression that it's a hot topic, then that's fine, but we shouldn't aim for that in our editing. Also, I don't see anything wrong with using "X said this" content where it happens to be the most appropriate, but yeah, case-by-case a lot of what's in this article now does suck. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, maybe you could give us a sample of how the article should be organized. It might give everybody a better idea of what you have in mind.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

D- as we've had no previous exchanges I'll give you the benefit of (some) doubt and assume you didn't mean to be patronizing -- but it sure as hell comes off that way. Perhaps it's from the way I quoted your words. Whatever the case I should think we could disagree without resorting to presumptuous slights. So then: in at least one historical sense, the Tea Party is tantamount to a political fad. That may and likely will change, but issues of due weight should be considered in the meantime. BigK has sufficiently explained a couple of major differences that preclude TPM from being treated either as an established political party or movement in the encyclopedic sense and not just the party brand. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought up the "model" idea in the first place. A part of that would be for a general comparison to see how trashy this article is. I'd compare it the the National Enquirer style, except that the National Enquirer has progressed to a much higher level than this article. I mean, just as an example, a 710 word section on a unsubstantiated accusations that some unidentified person person in the TPM said something racist?! I mean, even if it was proven and on videotape, it would still be undue weight what one person in a multi-million person movement did, especially when the TPM organizations involved always condemn the behavior. And this is in an article that doesn't even cover the 2006/ 2007 beginnings of the movement! North8000 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Populist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the Tea party be described as a Poplist movemnt or should the article describe the TPM in a different but similar way, or not describe them in that way at all.--01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some research, and "populist" is a term often used to describe left-leaning views. This means that the usage here, while not wrong, might still be misleading. If we could say the same thing in clearer terms, I'd favor that. For example, how do you feel about a phrase about having "a stated aversion to what are seen as political elites"? Dylan Flaherty 03:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see above: #Consensus for lede/lead (subsection 10.1: suggestions for wording line about populism)]. We already are having this discussion. It would have helped if the archive discussion above pointed to the ongoing discussion instead of ignoring it. Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's getting a bit unmanageable, so I've combined these two sections, which were on the same topic. Dylan Flaherty 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)