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)

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)

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: [7][8] 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".[9] 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.[10] 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 [11]. -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." [12] 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)

That part is already in the article. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:27, 7 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 [13] [14] [15] (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)

This was a relevant comment that was deleted: 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. (Per a 99 IP User) 99.190.91.106 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of those are words, but they don't form sentences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deference? See Talk:Plutocracy 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:26, 6 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 Goethean 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)

You are right that defining "consensus" can be complicated. However, it frequently becomes necessary to remind editors of the not-complicated part of building consensus:

Many of these broader discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Responding YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE is not useful except for moral support. Responding (DIS)AGREE per user X's argument is better, presenting a novel explanation of your own for your opinion is best. The goal is to generate a convincing reason for making one choice or another, not to decide on the mere weight of public expressions of support.

Every time someone starts throwing numbers around, claiming "we have X number of people agreeing, and only Y number of people disagreeing...", they need to be reminded that 'counting' is not part of consensus development, while 'resolving legitimate concerns' is. As for you trying out an edit to see how it flys, go for it. As an aside, I'm puzzled by the implied urgency in your last comment, and the expressed need to do something 'SOON'. Perhaps I can get the deadline extended... ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just meant that speaking only for myself, biting the bullet on "astroturf" was for and conditional upon taking that compromise proposal to the finish line. I'm a "let's get it done" (when appropriate) type, and I'm thinking that now might be that moment. Unanimity will never happen. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, just to recap the version we were discussing above

OK, just to recap the version we were discussing above

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, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

As I indicated, as of today, I'm still willing to bite the bullet on Astroturfing in order to move forward.

I didn't put the above in when I said I was going to, but I'm going to put it in and see what happens. We'll never be unanimous, but maybe we close enough to move forward, or maybe we're the closest we're going to get. Otherwise, back to mediation and unbiting the bullet. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I chickened out for the moment, plus we still have the lay the references into the above. Also clarify, the above to be substituted for the current first paragraph. I'll wait a 1/2 day and then do it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, although I wish that the above passage would constitute the entirety of the lead. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So I moved over the cites from the first paragraph which had a place in the above. The "partially in response to" (which has a lot of cites) is not in the new draft. But rather than lose it, as step 2 we'll move it and it's cites somewhere else in the article. The second two paragraphs need cites (and I think past version of the lead have them)I'll share the fun and leave those for somebody else to put in. So, this is not a new draft, but just a recap of the proposed version of what we have been discussing. I'm going to put it in and see what happens. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Temporary paste of the current first paragraph.

The Tea Party movement is a populist, conservative and libertarian political movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and a series of healthcare reform bills.

suggestions for wording line about populism

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

I'm not sure that I understand the exact issue regarding "populist". From reading the discussion above, it doesn't seem that anyone disputes the statement that the TPM is a populist movement per se. The concern seems to be more that "populist" is an inherently vague term that people may not know how to interpret. But in fact, the various definitions seem to be pretty consistent. "Populist" is a legitimate word with a clear and specific meaning; there's no need to avoid its use as a matter of course. NillaGoon (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nilla, I think I can explain. In fact, there seem to be two different objections, which may be part of the confusion.

My objection is that, while the movement is populist in its explicit "anti-elite" message, the term itself has various connotations and associations that might be confusing, particularly for those with a more global view. This is because, in regions such as South America, populism is more likely to be associated with left-leaning than right-leaning movements. I think this can be easily addressed in a variety of ways. One way would be to link the word "populism" to Right-wing populism instead of populism. Another would be to substitute an equivalent phrase, such as "anti-elite". I suggest the former.

The other objection I've seen floating about is more serious. It's based on the notion that, since the movement has the support of GOP cronies, super-rich Libertarians and so on, it's only populist on the surface. Without endorsing this view, I recently posted some text suggesting that populism is being used by the movement as an effective way to reach out to non-Republicans and non-Conservatives, by giving them a common enemy in Washington. I believe that the best way to address it is to avoid the issue in the lead by using indirect language. We should still describe the movement as having a populist message, which uses the p-word word and is uncontroversially true, without endorsing it as actually being populist.

Does that help? Dylan Flaherty 14:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the following section in Right-wing populism:

Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape "conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s.[13]. The Tea Party movement of 2009-present had been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010) They add, "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."[14]. The New York Times reports, "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent".[15]

Based on this, maybe we could just quote R&S by calling it "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement". This would let us move "conservative" and "libertarian" to the next sentence. After that, we could tackle "grassroots" and "astroturf". Better? Dylan Flaherty 14:19, 2 December 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)

Confidence tricks are perpetrated by a "grifter". 99.190.90.242 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, a book review cannot be used as a reliable source for the accuracy of the material in the book, only for notability and critical response. (For what it's worth, referring to the top 1% as the "grifters" would violate Wikipedia policies, even if from a generally reliable source, which this book doesn't appear to be.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 1 December 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)

Interesting. Perhaps the word "populism" in the lead could be linked to Right-wing populism, to avoid any misconceptions. Dylan Flaherty 14:11, 1 December 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)

If it was only that one person with the sign, then we could claim undue weight and move on. But we also have reliable sources on "white power" groups bragging about how Tea Parties are great recruitment zones, and hard statistics showing that partiers are much more likely to be racist than the average American. It's not a lone data point, it's not undue weight. It's just a well-documented example of something that is demonstrably real. Dylan Flaherty 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about one leader with a sign, or about one leader tweeting about spics, or about one or more protesters shouting nigger (substantiated by eyewitnesses, mind you), or a few protesters shouting "homo commie" and "faggot", or about protesters faxing swaztikas, or about racial signs and slogans at rallies, or about the multiple polls that indicate significantly more racial animosity among TPers than the general public, or about the white supremacists, anti-immigrationists, and fringe militias co-habitating within the movement. It is about public perception, as well as cold hard facts. Having said that, I do agree there are sections of the article that could use considerable work. I also agree that no action by an individual should be construed as representative of all of the tens of thousands in the movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly proportionally more America-haters in the Democratic Party than in the country as a whole, with RS polling data to support it. And probably a few people at DNC rallies with nasty looking signs signs to that effect. (But hating America is not what the DNC is about.) Do you think I could put a few thousand words of such polling data, pictures of guys with nasty signs, and quotations of such accusations into the DNC article? (And make that article as junky as this one?) North8000 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly? I, for one, doubt this very much. I don't know a single American, whether Democrat, Republican or whatever, who is an America hater. I can very much understand disagreeing with the DNC, but that's no license to demonize them. Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, including when I said "But hating America is not what the DNC is about". What I meant is that by pure math, certain miscreants will have a tendency to join certain movements more than others. And that such alone, especially when the group disavows their agenda, and the numbers are small is not germane, in compliance with wp:undue or suitable for WP articles, and so is kept out of better done articles, such as the two proposed as models. But such has been welcomed in this junk article to the tune of about 2,000 words.

I think that some real quality coverage of the issues raised by Xenophrenic WOULD be in order, but not as the junk collection as those sections are now. North8000 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

North, argument by analogy requires there to be some sort of analogy. There isn't one here, so it flops. Dylan Flaherty 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment - the Democratic Party (United States) is probably not a good model. That article is about a formally organized party, while this article is about a popular movement.   Will Beback  talk  04:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I thought the analogy was pretty obvious, but maybe not. North8000 (talk) 04:12, 2 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)

Populism is "left-leaning?" Sounds like more original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I agree. This discussion should be back where it was since it also involves the rest of the lede/lead as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reading an article about populism on this unreliable blog site called "Wikipedia". Maybe you've heard of it? Anyhow, here's what it said about the TPM:

Much of the Tea Party movement has used populist rhetoric, particularly in areas and states where Democrats are in power. For instance, in New York, Carl Paladino and his conservative-populist Taxpayers Party of New York have used the motto "Paladino for the People" and have attempted to woo common people to vote for them by pitting them against the state government and the special interests that have influence in it.

In other words, populism is a way to appeal to people to cross party boundaries, by giving them a common enemy among the "elite". Dylan Flaherty 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...Got a link? —Digiphi (Talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. Dylan Flaherty 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=( I wanna read the blog. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what's your point? —Digiphi (Talk) 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my point was quite clear: we need to describe the TPM as endorsing an explicitly populist platform instead of claiming it "is" populist. Think E′. Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source

I was googling to confirm something when I ran into the following link: http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=135:tea-party-leaders-attack-constitution&Itemid=104

This is from a site that is unfriendly to the movement, which means it's not neutral, despite being a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point. Maybe if we added a link directly to the report, here, it will make everything kosher, or kosher enough. You think?

Also I think you're noticing that the site/organization is pushing an obviously unfriendly campaign against the tea party scene. You're right. But maybe it's alright as a source if it's just reporting on the popular consumption of a new report. I think the question is whether the Institute for Human...whatever is what we'd consider a good source for data referenced anywhere. Also, the site "Teapartynationalism.com" is a product of the Institute for Human whatever, so that may be worth considering. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfriendly doesn't mean nonfactual. If we could only use sympathetic sources, then KKK would be a hagiography. Besides articles, this site has interactive maps of where the Tea Party members are. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. So we both feel the same way. Why have you brought this up? Is there something you think should be done? =Digiphi (Talk) 08:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes: let's use it as a source where appropriate. I haven't seen anyone else providing maps showing the concentration of movement members, have you? Dylan Flaherty 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see how we're not aligning here. I agree at least half-way with your feeling about the source you listed above. However, the report is in article, and a back-up secondary. See footnotes 200 and 201. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions of the Tea Party outside of the United States?

Seems relevant but I don't see that information here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As with anything on Wikiepdia, we should only report what we can find in reliable sources. There are many articles on the TPM in UK and Canadian newspapers. But we have to be careful about engaging in synthesis or original research when summarizing them as a whole. The ideal sources would be those that draw conclusions on their own by saying things like "In Freedonia, the TPM is regarded as..." It's hard to fiond those kinds of sources though.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't run into anything explicitly about how non-Americans see the TPM. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Dylan's name seem to change color every other time he types it? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We could start with what's mentioned here, which is interesting (to me at least) since it's the opinion of a European monarch and current head of state. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A British tea party effort attempting to replicate U.S. efforts is discussed here and here. Both of those sources are indeed blogs, but I think that as "news blogs" by credited news organizations there shouldn't be a sourcing problem. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First, that stuff about Dylan's sig is uncool for this page. Let's just not.

If you get sources about a British (or otherwise) political movement with a "tea party" title, regardless of its ideology, you should make a wiki article for it. I'd help with that. If it's relevant it could show up in the See Also, and if not, then in the Disambiguation. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

uncool for this page. Let's just not It's a honest question as to whether or not the color tone is changing (and if so how do you do it?) I don't see how you or anyone else could interpret it as a personal attack. Please AGF.

It's not that I'm interested in other countries and their own tea parties, I'm interested in what those other countries think of the U.S. That's why I consider the Prince of Liechtenstein's opinion to be notable (of course one can disagree with me on that). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, you could open a new section. I've read about the spread of the Tea Party movement to the U.K. Might be a good idea to add it.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Until I changed it, my signature was the default color; a shade of blue. Since I changed it, it's been a cursive font in green. If you're seeing more than one shade of cursive font, you might want to get your eyes checked, or at least upgrade to a browser that doesn't fool with you by randomly changing colors. It's strange of you to comment about this, but I won't take insult if none was intended. Dylan Flaherty 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The view of the Prince of Lichtenstein is not notable. It is interesting that the richest, least democratic European monarch would identify with them, but we would need a source that explains why this is relevant. TFD (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It may well be notable, but is it representative of anything? Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a current Head of State, which I think by itself makes it notable. I find it interested in an ironic sense-- how can a blue-blooded royal support a movement based off of the American Revolution. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

He is not speaking as a head of state. In any case there are lots of things that foreign heads of state say about many political events in the U.S. and we do not necessarily add them. Do you want to see comments by Gadaffi and others put into all those articles? TFD (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It would come under 'commentaries' and the Prince of Lichtenstein would have to be involved somehow for his comment to be relevant. Queen Elizabeth could well comment, and that doesn't mean it would be added unless she were dealing with an issue that is related. When Newt Gingrich comments, that is notable because he's an American politician who is involved. Whether they are foreign or American commentators, so long as what they say is somehow connected, it's fine. Otherwise, it's trivia and not appropriate. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant

An editor added an {off-topic?} tag to this sentence with the edit summary of Cap and Trade is not strongly related to the TPm,...:[16]

• The AFP's "Hot Air Tour" organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.
  • Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen. Mad As Hell (2010) pp 150

Checking Proquest's newspapr archive, I find these sources which show a connection between the TPM and global warming, etc.:

• Georgia Tea Party hosts 'Hot Air' event: The Georgia Tea Party, along with the Cobb County chapter of Americans for Prosperity, will host an event today highlighting the economic costs of global warming alarmism. The presentation, dubbed a "Hot Air" event, will feature Patti Gettinger discussing research on new federal environmental requirements, followed by a live webcast from Mexico.
  • County by county Janel Davis, Tucker McQueen, Mark Woolsey, D. Aileen Dodd, et al. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Atlanta, Ga.: Dec 2, 2010. pg. B.4
• In September, the Center for American Progress Action Fund surveyed Republican candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races and found that nearly all disputed the scientific consensus on global warming, and none supported measures to mitigate it. For example, Robert Hurt, who won a House seat in Virginia, says clean-energy legislation would fail to "do anything except harm people." The Tea Party's "Contract From America" calls proposed climate policies "costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." Even conservatives who once argued for action on climate change, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, have run for cover.
  • Republicans Make a High-Stakes Bet on Climate Change Bracken Hendricks. Valley News. White River Junction, Vt.: Nov 30, 2010. pg. A.6
• At the national level, efforts by Democratic leaders and the Obama administration to include a cap-and-trade scheme as part of a national energy policy were contested in Congress, with opponents branding it "cap-and-tax" and Tea Party followers singling it out as a symbol of what was wrong with Washington. But the controversy over cap-and-trade has percolated down to the states, where it became fodder for some candidates in the midterm elections and sparked anti-RGGI rallies in New York and New Jersey, organized by Americans for Prosperity.
  • States Diverting Money From Climate Initiative; [Metropolitan Desk] Mireya Navarro. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 29, 2010. pg. A.22
• The [tea party and other like-minded groups]' agenda also includes measures to evade anticipated federal environmental rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming. A bill filed by Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, would exempt residential buildings from federal cap-and-trade legislation, which congressional Democrats have pushed but not passed.
  • tea party takes aim at leveraging its influence JULIAN WALKER. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Nov 29, 2010. pg. A.1
• On the other side, a study of the 98 new Republican Congressmen by a think-tank concluded that almost half were climate change sceptics. Marco Rubio, Florida Senator-elect, typified the attitude of the influential Tea Party group when he said: "I don't think there's scientific evidence to justify it."
  • Don't let US stall progress on climate, world is told [Edition 2] Ben Webster. The Times. London (UK): Nov 27, 2010. pg. 33
• Even before the elections, Virginia's activists plan to push an ambitious agenda during January's legislative session. How incumbents vote on the issues will help determine which face tea party challenges in the months ahead. [..] Some activists will also push for the elimination of the state's corporate income tax and for a bill that would make illegal in the state a federal cap on power plant emissions - the centerpiece of cap-and-trade proposals.
  • Tea party invests at local level in Virginia Rosalind S Helderman, Amy Gardner. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 26, 2010. pg. A.1
• Vigilant conservative voters and "tea party" activists are irked at such companies as General Electric and Johnson & Johnson that buoyed President Obama's agenda by lobbying or through advocacy ads. Sixty percent of the conservatives and 81 percent of tea partiers, in fact, say they are less likely to buy products from companies that actively lobbied to pass health care reform, the stimulus plan or cap and trade, says a new survey of more than 800 voters by the National Center for Public Policy Research and FreedomWorks.
  • INSIDE THE BELTWAY Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Nov 24, 2010. pg. A.2
• "America seems to be drifting backward," Nigel Purvis, a former climate official with the US State Department and now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, wrote in a policy paper. He noted that anti-climate-change policy became a "defining principle" of the conservative Tea Party movement that gained clout in November's elections.
  • FEATURE: Obama's losing battle: Chances drop for US climate action Chris Cermak. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 26, 2010.

And that's just from the past eight days. Baased on these, it seems pretty clear that, as one source says, anti-climate-change policy became a "defining principle" of the conservative Tea Party movement.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirming research. One of the claims I keep bumping into is that the anti-environmental aspect reflects the influence of Koch Industries. Dylan Flaherty 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else, I'll remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes once the lead was unfrozen.

Let's stop doing that, as was just done by one person. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I went through them. Restored one sentence (with a large amount of references in it) plus removed 2 added words. Left most of the changes as-is. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any question about the fact that the original Tea Party involved destruction of goods that were stolen. I qualified this only because I learned that non-Americans were interpreting it to mean that the colonists took the tea which they had legally bought and paid for, and then dumped it in protest. As this is not the case, I am restoring "stole". I am certain that this is consistent with BLP, in that the protesters are long dead and the statement is factual.

I'm also merging in the redundant sentence so that we keep the references but don't repeat ourselves, as well as avoiding repetition and not repeating ourselves repeatedly in repetition. Dylan Flaherty 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes. While I did explain them in edit comments, I would be more than willing to discuss them further here. I'd also like to note that I'm at 1RR on "stole". Dylan Flaherty 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly OK with me. But, so the Americans go aboard a ship and throw the British's tea overboard. And you feel the need to add that such constituted "stealing" the tea? That's not even in compliance with the common meaning of "steal", much less useful for the article. I'm at 1RR too on that. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that they dumped the tea. It wasn't stolen, it was relocated to the water. I think a prosecutor would call it vandalism, not theft. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then let's call it vandalism. Dylan Flaherty 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of the tea party was a protest. It wasn't vandalism per se.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

They took the tea, and dumped it into the water. If someone has a psychological need to restate the obvious, it would be that they DESTROYED the tea. Trying to torture some verbs (e.g. stole, vandalized, pilfered, transported-to-the-water, lowered-to-sea-level, submerged, salinated, raised the water level of the harbor, polluted the harbor, brewed weak tea in the harbor water, changed the color of the water a bit, reduced the availability of tea to the starving children in India, violated future EPA dumping regulations, traumitized the fish etc. ,) are silly and have no place in the article. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. The Boston tea party came about because the colonists were upset, some would say pissed, that the British Parlament was making an end run around them by adding on the tea tax just to prove to the colonists that they could tax them. The colonists said no, albeit perhaps more forcefully than just a simple 'no.' And said they wouldn't be taxed without representation. When we edit out that bit about the representation, we edit out the main point, the heart and soul of the Boston tea party and the starting point for the American Revolution, and by extention, the rationale for the start of the Tea Party movement. The TPm peeps feel that the bailout was against their wishes and that their reps in the house and senate failed them.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this morning the article said "destroyed". I changed it because it was misleading. I did not add anything about "taxation without representation" because the TPM opposes taxes that they do have legislative representation behind, so that can't be the commonality. The commonality, as any Partier will tell you, is in the notion that taxes are too high and/or unfair. Dylan Flaherty 02:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The "taxation without representation" refers specifically to the Boston Tea Party. The commonality is in the minds of the Tea Party movement members. They believe it is the will of the people that is being ignored as there were multiple protests prior to the signing of the bailout. The Tea Party movement takes it name from it, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At this moment, it says:

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."

First, there are some grammar problems due to negation, but those may be fixable. Second, there is the logic problem: nobody can claim with any credibility that current taxation comes without representation. We can argue that our representatives should lower our taxes more, but we can't deny that we have representatives that are freely elected. The success of TP-endorsed candidates shows this quite clearly. Contrast this with taxes set by the British Crown on the other side of the ocean. There is no comparison. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As for stole/destroyed/vandalized, we're back on "destroyed" and I'm not touching it due to 1RR. What I recommend, however, is that we avoid the issue by speaking in terms of actions, not legalities. The colonists "seized British tea and dumped it in the ocean" in protest. Unless there is strong and reasoned disagreement, this is what I'll change it to in a day or so. Dylan Flaherty 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems the spirit of the thing is what they're claiming. Sure they have representatives, but the reps aren't doing the will of the people, according to the TPm peeps, because those 'reps' voted for the bailout of the banks even though the people were saying no. So they're claiming "no taxation without representation." They mean, 'the will of the people.' Or put another way, "No bailout, or we'll vote your asses out." Which they've done. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan. Regarding "no taxation without representation" A statement by others has to be taken by it's intended general meaning, (plus simply the fact that it they often say it.) Plus, slogans are too short (and thus imprecise) to be suitable for logical dissection and then building "compare and contrast" type debating points upon the logical dissection as you are doing. Plus that's not our job here. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to decide whether it fits, and right now, it doesn't. It's logically strained and grammatically awkward. It needs to be fixed, and the easiest way is to remove the slogan. Dylan Flaherty 13:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the content question is here....in the article right now it is not used for the current TPM. In your last post you completely switched your argument from your previous one which I was addressing, so you were misxing my addressing of your previous argument with your new one. But again, I'm not even sure what the content question is here. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll break it down into speaking points:

• The original Boston Tea Party is an inspiration for modern Tea Partiers.
• The reason the BTP is a source of the inspiration is that it was a "direct action" in protest of taxes.
• There are non-analogous elements as well, such as taxation by a government in which we had zero representation.
• In describing the link, we need to emphasize the parts that fit.
• We also need to make sure we explain the nature of the original incident: property destruction.
• Finally, it has to read well.

Clearer? Dylan Flaherty 14:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000/Malke that the Tea Partiers see the no taxation as analogous to their protests. I disgree with Dylan's claim that property destruction is at the heart of the TPM/BTP analogy. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with the view you oppose, too, which is why I never said it.

Yes, Tea Partiers see the rejection of unfair taxes as analogous, but the basis for unfairness cannot be the same. After all, we're full citizens, not colonists, and are therefore represented in the legislatures that pass the tax laws. It may well be that a few partiers are ignorant of history and believe that the old rallying cry still applies; if so, they are simply mistaken.

Likewise, the Boston Tea Party was a "direct action" in the form of property destruction while current Tea Party protests are non-violent, so there is no analogy. Having said that, in describing the BTP, we must be accurate. Dylan Flaherty 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party is both notable and verifiable as being the result of protest against the British Parliament levying a tea tax. Earlier, the colonists had vigorously protested other taxes which the British Parliament in response then reduced or removed. The colonists were upset that they were being made to carry the burden of Britain's war debts which did not in any way involve the colonists. However, the Parlament levied the tea tax, a small pittance, in order to show the colonists that it still reserved the right to tax them at will. There is no notability or verifiability or reliable sources to show otherwise.

It is both notable and verifiable that the Tea Party movement members consider their situation analogous to the colonists. They protested vigorously against the bailout to the banks, etc., believing it was not their place to carry this burden. The Tea Party movement started as a revolt against an unfair tax burden. There is no notability or verifiability or reliable sources to show otherwise.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To Dylan, I had indicted that it was not clear what the issue is with respect to article content. In response, you recapped the points that you are debating, but still never said what the specific question is with respect to article content. You seem to be debating that the modern TPM should not use the phrase "no taxation without representation", which seems two steps removed from what we are doing here. First, at the moment, the article does not have any reference to that phrases being one of the modern TPM, it only uses it to describe what what they said in the 1700's. Second, if the article DID say that the phrase was in wide use by the modern TPM, the question would be whether the statement-of-use is accurate and suitably sourced. It would not be our job to argue that the modern TPM should not use that phrase. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever tried to tell the TPM what it's allowed to do. If some partier were to invoke the "no taxation without representation" slogan, they would be free to do so, and those of us with some knowledge of history and government would be free to point and laugh.

What I have suggested is that this slogan is not the common element that unites the TPM with the BTP, so we have no reason to highlight it in the lead. I would appreciate it if you were to address this specific argument. Dylan Flaherty 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now the content question is clear. I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I do think that, if we are going to put in even one explanatory facoid about the 1700's TP, "no taxation without representation" would be it. This would be just a factoiod about the source of the name, not a claim that the situation is analagous. In fact, it could even be background information that could lead some readers to decide that it is NOT analogous. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained, I don't believe it fits well in the lead. Currently, it isn't even grammatical, but were that fixed, it would still stick out. Dylan Flaherty 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good thing I own land!

Ok, what should we do with this? Dylan Flaherty 06:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably nothing should be done with it. It is not at all clear that this guy is notable. Wikipedia should be better than accepting and amplifying the media fetish of taking people who call themselves leaders of the tea party when they say dumb things. Amy Gardner's wonderful piece in the Washington Post points out how few followers this guy has. About 1.5% of tea party groups claim affiliation with this guy. (and less than 5% claim affiliation with the dreaded Koch family) MBMadmirer (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See, that's clearly the wrong answer. Whether he would be notable on his own is irrelevant given the fact that Tea Party Nation is notable and he was speaking as their founder. As for your interpretation of the significance of his 1.5% share, you should look at your own source and do the math correctly.

Of the 647 groups asked, 272 stated that they were independent and 208 were affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots, leaving only 167 up for grabs. Of these remaining groups, the 27 held by AFP and the 25 by FW are the two largest blocs. Given this, the 9 held by TPN no longer looks insignificant.

Even then, we're missing data and would not be justified in jumping from organizations to head count, as the sizes of these organizations vary from tiny to huge. Given that more than half the groups had fewer than 50 members, while only 39 groups had over a thousand, we can determine that the latter had more people than the former! In short, your argument from statistics is full of holes you could drive a Tea Party Freedom Bus through. :-)

We already mention Phillips' bold statement in Tea Party Nation, so there's no question of whether Wikipedia should report it. The only remaining question is the extent that we should report it in this article. I suggest that it deserves a one-liner in the appropriate place. Dylan Flaherty 10:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Wikipedia should take con-men at face value and promote and amplify them by making them stand for a whole movement. You are right and I was wrong that he is notable for wikipedia purposes. The media writes about idiots and that makes them notable... That's not wikipedia's fault ;) MBMadmirer (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, you were in no position to rule on who is a con man as opposed to a genuine leader, so I'm going to politely continue to disregard your original research. Dylan Flaherty 10:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that you should be accusing people who are trying in good faith -- albeit sometimes frustration -- of being con-men. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia. I am trying to have a constructive conversation about this.MBMadmirer (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, you were the one who accused Phillips of being a con-man, with no stated basis. I've simply noticed that there are newspaper articles about his traditional views regarding voting. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason that this article is 60% junk (vs. enclyclopedic content) is because people have been flooding it with narrow and weak material selected just because it looks negative relative to the TPM. We need to start looking for quality sources with quality analysis and coverage of the a whole lot of major angles, issues and aspects on the TPM, and then start putting in enclyclopedic content and taking out the junk. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the odd impression that you think anything that fails to make the movement look perfect is "junk". The biggest mystery behind the TPM is not its funding, but what it actually stands for. Here, one of their leaders speaks up and gets the attention of newspapers across the country. But, to you, that's just "junk". Dylan Flaherty 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said before, what I am calling junk is narrow and weak material, in severe violation of WP:undue. I mean really, taking the one section as an example, 710 words on vague allegations that somebody said that somebody in the millions of people in the TPM said something racist?! I would like to see the good, the bad and the ugly all covered in a much more enclyclopedic and informative manner. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not factual. The issue isn't that one random person is a racist; that would be undue. The issue is that there is a pattern of racism, and this is hardly my own research. Let's not pretend this is just my imagination. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In a week this will be considered forgotten and insignificant, but more importantly will have not been considered at all relevant to an encyclopedic description of the Tea party. Much of these scandals (don't get me wrong, some may be controversial or outright wrong) make a buzz at the time but seem insignificant after fading away. Think of Riogate in the '92 presidential election; if something like that happened today it would almost certainly be put in the article on the election, but today it just seems trivial. Yaksar (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. But it sounds like some people want it to happen that way. Dylan Flaherty 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In case any one is curious what I really think about the reality of it(not that such is relevant to article content) , it's that anytime you scoop up several million people into an organization you are going to get a few people of every bad type, including racists. It's possible that certain racist types, seen that the TPM is sort of a "reactionary" organization may be trying to make it their home. Some of them rear their heads, along with some "plants" by TPM opponents. Racism is not the part of TPM platform, and TPM leadership always takes a strong stand against racism, including kicking people out who practice it. An opponents of the TPM will, of course, try to find every possible bad incident, even one guy saying something, to amplify and publicize. Such is the way of things. Finally, I think that I'm not really sure of the situation here, and would like to find an intelligent article to learn more about it from, such as this article could be.

With respect to article content, I think that we should find some quality sources that actually reviewed/investigated / overviewed the "racism" angle, and the we should create create good overage of similar type, using them as sources. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are incidents of racism, but they come from fringers, not part of organized, tea party groups. Not part of an organized platform. The Tea Party groups themselves don't espouse racism. Their focus is on the bailout, fiscal policy reform, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can back that up with reliable sources, you are free to add that to the article. Dylan Flaherty 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that's the type of analysis that we need to look for and then build material around. That would also meet WP:undue. A much higher standard than that that let all of the junk into the current article, but let's aim high. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry: I assure you that I will hold your proposed sources to high standards with regard to reliability. Dylan Flaherty 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000: there are reliable sources that show Tea Party members speaking out against the fringers. And I believe Kate Zernike of the New York Times has mentioned that she's attended meetings where nobody knew who she was and she never heard any racist rants, or saw any suggestion that racism was part of the agenda. It's always been about the money.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Dylan Maybe even do it retroactively and do some serious housecleaning!  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold removal may well lead to equally bold restoration. A better path is to dispute things here and gain a consensus. Dylan Flaherty 19:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Koch founded CSE, which was indeed the precursor of both FW and AFP.

I've created this section to give Rubin and others an opportunity to raise any concerns they might have about this. Dylan Flaherty 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, unless I'm seeing it wrong, you removed the direct statement about the founder of FW, and substituted a statement about who founded it's precursor? And that's a "correction"? Shall we "correct" "George Washington was the first president of the USA" to "King George was the King of the precursor organization to the USA"  :-) North8000 18:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

North, you are most definitely seeing it wrong. Rubin removed a statement about Koch from a paragraph that's solely about the Koch's, and substituted a statement about someone who took over later, which is irrelevant. His change would be like replacing "George Washington was the first President of the USA" in a paragraph about the founding of America with "Barack Obama is the current President of the USA". My correction was to restore the focus of the paragraph and remove an intentional distraction.

In short, the stated reason by Rubin was false. Along with edit-warring, this has become something of a pattern. Dylan Flaherty 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the real question is whether it is relevant and whether it is more appropriate to note Dick Armey's role as the current chair. Especially when David Weigel at the Washington Post has reported that the Kochs do not give money to FreedomWorks and Armey. MBMadmirer (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Armey heads FreedomWorks or that we should mention it when appropriate. However, a paragraph about Koch is not the appropriate place. Dylan Flaherty 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So you want the paragraph to just be about Koch? That seems like an WP:UNDUE issue unless we put more information in the section about other groups. It seems to me that there are 4 groups mentioned and candidates. In graf 1 there is TPP and TPE and candidates. In graf 2 there is AFP and FW. What do we know about the funding of FW? (all I know is that Koch says that they haven't given them money since the split). What about a sentence about Campaign for Liberty and Tea Party Nation and other organizations? Would that be reasonable? Then in a paragraph or sentence or two on FW, we can add as a parenthetical that it was founded by Koch. In some ways, I suspect that this focuses the most on Koch because the Koch-AFP relationship is the best understood. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like a paragraph about Dick Armey, feel free to add it. However, this paragraph is about Koch. Dylan Flaherty 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan,I was just looking at the one sentence. You changed "Dick Army founded FreedomWorks" to "...Koch also founded the precursor of FreedomWorks". I think that that says more than I could say. North8000 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's called framing, in that you ignored the history of the paragraph. Try again. Dylan Flaherty 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but it was accidental.....I was just looking at the diff. Now I see...the broader context (e.g.of the paragraph) is to gin up the Koch connection as much as possible, so instead of telling people who founded FreedomWorks, we tell them who founded the precursor organization to FreedomWorks.  :-) North8000 20:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To reply to one of Dylan's assertions above, the paragraph is about the Kochs, even though much of the "information" borders on a BLP violation. However, the association of FreedomWorks with Koch is so tenuous as to constitute an WP:UNDUE violation unless the fact that Koch is not an officer of FreedomWorks, and, in fact, has no discernable connection with FreedomWorks since it's been a separate organization, can be sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubin, we've gone over this a few times now, so I'm just going to remind you that FW did not sprout up from buried teeth. Rather, Koch created CSE, giving it over $5 million before it split into AFP and FW. This is not "tenuous", and I'm hardly the first person to bring it up. We have reliable sources, but ultimately, Koch Industries is at fault for this connection becoming news. They overreacted by spitting out an unsolicited press release denying any connection (and very visibly overstating the lack), which was a fine case of the lady doth protesting too much. You seem to want us to publish that press release as fact, or better yet, obey its commands by omitting any mention of the connection. How is this in any way neutral? I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. Dylan Flaherty 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this exact one should end up, but the general topic of starting to apply a wp:undue lens to content in this article. A person gave money to an organization which was a precursor to an organization that gave money to one of the 1,600 TPM organizations. North8000 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The first step to resolving this is to do good research and stick close to the facts. No, it's not that Koch "gave money", it's that he founded the CSE and gave it millions. After the split, he continued to fund the AFP half, and AFP has directly supported the TPM. It's less clear how much control/funding Koch has for FW, but his company put out a less-than-candid press release proactively, which has raised doubts all around.

No argument that ignores the facts can carry any weight here. Dylan Flaherty 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.198.209.36, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Tea Party is a political movement containing Republican and former Republican party members 12.198.209.36 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? is putting it mildly. North8000 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm untranscluding this, as it seems like a clear no-go, it's a vague unclear statement, unsourced as pointed out, and no clear indication of where it should go. This article is well-watched, so feel free to keep discussing, but I don't think the template and consequent category listing is needed anymore. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's some truth to this, but no basis for this particular statement. I think we've covered the Republican connection quite fairly, so this isn't needed. Dylan Flaherty 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Forbes connection

I haven't seen any mention of Steve Forbes' connection to the Tea Party, here or in the archives. Yet he is on the board of Freedomworks and has been linked to TP politicians like Rand Paul. Oddly enough, Forbes magazine reports Bill Maher's oft-repeated question of late (I first heard it on his HBO show in October) [17] "Why is it everything they want is what Steve Forbes wants? It is a to-do list for a billionaire." And it's either incongruous or disingenuous for Forbes to run articles like [18] "The Misinformed Tea Party Movement ... For an antitax group, they don't know much about taxes." This connection is relevant to the discussion of the group's populist branding, so I thought about posting this above but that thread seems to have gone stale. Note I am also posting this on the Steve Forbes page. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it just means that his magazine has its own editorial board and doesn't simply act as his mouthpiece. I think we've dealt with the populist issue by avoiding endorsement, but there's no reason to omit mention of Forbes from the article. He's certainly showed up in enough articles on the TPM. What, in specific, would you like to add? Dylan Flaherty 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Record the lead discussion / mediation process results for posterity

It looks like we have settled in on the first three paragraphs and the end of our mediation / discussion process. IMHO the fact that this came out of work/discussion by many people for many weeks should give this extra weight and stability. North8000 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is a political movement in the United States that has sponsored locally- and nationally-coordinated protests since 2009. Its platform is explicitly populist and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian. It endorses reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots, but it has so far endorsed Republican candidates. The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and 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, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

The topic of inclusion and context of inclusion of "grass roots" was significantly debated, and the center of the discussion. The topics of inclusion and context of inclusion of "populist", "libertarian", "conservative" and "astroturfing" we also specifically debated. Other areas were not significantly debated but non-controversial changes were made

North8000 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

- - - -

I think that most of the lead is stable, thanks to all the work we put into it, except for the second paragraph. It has three issues:

1. As it stands, the capsule description of the Boston Tea Party is confusing to non-Americans. In specific, it makes it sound as if colonists went into their own kitchens, removed the British tea that they'd bought, and destroyed it as an act of protest. That's highly inaccurate, yet it's what the sentence implies. It would be easy to change it to be unambiguous, and that's what I recommend.
2. The point of bringing up to BTP is to show how it inspired at least the name of the modern TPM. To this end, it's not clear that "No taxation without representation" has anything to do with it. After all, they have representation: the partiers are American citizens who have the right to vote for Sarah Palin, Rand Paul or anyone else who promises to cut their taxes.
3. Even if some argument were made for keeping the quote, the current phrasing is grammatically awkward, to the point of making me cringe. It must be fixed, one way or the other.

Now, it would be less than helpful for me to complain without offering an alternative, so here's a replacement paragraph:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians.

Feedback? Dylan Flaherty 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I added wording to avoid implying that every item in the lead was specifically decided ini the process. So, for example, my "record for posterity" does not imply that the wording about the original Boston Tea Party was specifically decided. Regarding your proposed change, maybe you have a point on that clarification needed, but your revision has less content. I think that a few key factoids about the original BTP are useful and appropriate, including the ones that are in the current lead. The "no taxation....." part doubly so. Once for being a key factoid about the BTP, the other because of the modern TPM having that phrase in mind, even if it is not a fully analogous situation. North8000 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the major issues of the lead have been resolved. As for the quote, I am against strongly against hiding facts. If we can find sources to confirm that "no taxation without representation" is currently a TPM slogan, we could have it read:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians. Their rallying cry of "no taxation without representation" has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement.

Better? Dylan Flaherty 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)