Talk:Tea Party movement

Attention!!! This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction: No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large. This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. For more information, see this page.

Add link to Political activities of the Koch family per Talk:Political activities of the Koch family?

Add link to Political activities of the Koch family per Talk:Political activities of the Koch family? 99.181.151.49 (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No such discussion exists on that talk page from what I was able to see. Also, that article appears to have some problems and is possibly a content fork for pushing of a particular POV. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no real connection; all we see in reliable sources are allegations of a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it described as "populist"?

Why does this article describe the Tea Party movement as "populist" or even "libertarian"? It is not.

Can somebody please explain how it is "populist"? Otherwise we should remove that descrip.

In general, we're more concerned with how reliable sources describe something then with how we view it ourselves. If there are sufficient sources for "populist", then we call it "populist". If there are other terms used as well then we add those, even if they're contradictory.   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of too many reliable sources that call it "populist".

They do. Populism is the people vs. the elites. The Tea Party claim to represent the people against the elites. Try a Google book source for "Right-wing populism" to find sources explaining the concept.[1] TFD (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split

there needs to be an entire page for all the racism perpetrated by the Tea Party--99.101.160.159 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, there isn't any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jmanko, 24 February 2011

Edit semi-protected

The Tea Party Movement originated in 2007 with the presidential campaign of Rep Ron Paul, and on November 21, 2007 a full-page ad was placed in USA Today referencing the Tea Party movement and TeaParty07.com.

• http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/images/8aeg65x.jpg
• http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/USA_Today_final.pdf

Jmanko (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but that is not a source for that information, only, at best, that it was used in 2007. Furthermore, the USA Today add would be a reliable source, but your (I mean, Nathaniel Yao's) copy of the ad is not necessarily representative of the ad. (If I had a copy, it wouldn't, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a secondary source which says that's the origin of the term.   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the term, or the actual roots of the current movement? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Either.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No the Tea Party originated following the inauguration of the current U.S. president, although there may be some overlap. Notice that three of Paul's warnings go unheeded by the Tea Party: "foreign entanglements", the war on terror and the Federal Reserve. Elements of two of the remaining warnings - leaving NAFTA and ending the IRS - do not seem to have much traction either. Doubtful too whether the Tea Party could cut government spending substantially. TFD (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the url tp07 proves it was born prior to 08, notice whois records Darkstar1st (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Those two links only show that the words "tea party" may have been used as part of a presidential campaign slogan and campaign website name. They say nothing about the movement. Previous talk page discussions show several other political uses of that phrase even before that, more than a decade ago, also unrelated to the to the movement described in this article. From a source already cited in this Wikipedia article:

"After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party."

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Bloomberg Poll Comparison Statistics

I have made an attempt to correct it but it probably needs a more complete correction. Here is the current quote: "The Bloomberg National Poll showed that, of poll respondents who were adults 18 and over, 40% are 55 or older, 79% are white, 61% are men and 44% identify as "born-again" Christians, compared to 25.1%, 75%, 48.5%, and 34% for the general population, respectively." Previously it did not indicate that the poll was only on those 18 and older. So the comparison is skewed. To take a single example, the total age population 55 and older is 25.1% of the population (from source cited); while the the Tea Party percentage for age 55 and older is listed as 40%. A lot more, huh? BUT the problem is that two different sets are compared: The Tea Party set is from respondents age 18 and older, while the other data set is for all ages. Leaving off everyone 17 and younger. Interestingly enough if you take the ratio of the total population older than 55 compared to the ratio of the total population older than 19 (2nd source calculates from age 19, not 18) you get 34% which is closer to 40% than it is to 25%. I am tempted to simply delete the whole sentence due to the comparisons not being meaningful and in any case violating WP:NOR. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the uses of poll data (and sometimes the particular polls themselves) in this article fall under deceiving (vs. informing) with numbers. You've pointed out one instance of such , and I agree. 13:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The source (Bloomberg) says the following:

Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents.

While the source says, "Responses were weighted by age, race and sex to reflect the general population based on recent census data," it would still be inappropriate (WP:SYNTH) to link to our own census citations to make comparisons to the general population. We should find a second-party reliable source to make those comparisons, or we should remove the "are under the age of 35" and the "are men" comparisons to the general populace. (Note that the poll actually compares poll respondents to other poll respondents, but then weights its findings based on census data.)

Oh, and always remember: any content in this article that appears critical of the movement in any way, or casts it in a less than positive light, was only placed in the article by editors wishing to deceive the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The correlation between the Tea Party and Religion was recently more thoroughly explored (Poll info), with findings indicating Tea Party support correlates to religious affiliation. Some Tea Party supporters insist the movement has nothing to do with religious and other social issues, so why all the research into such ties? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Speculation into WHY some are researching correlation between the TEA party movement (technically there is no such thing as the Tea "party" so we must be careful in our terminology) would violate WP:NOR. However obviously there will be correlations. Regarding the poll you cite, it also states that "About half of Jews say they disagree with the Tea Party movement, while 15% agree with it." In as much the TEA party movement correlates better with "conservative" and "independent" voters than it does to "liberal" voters, and inasmuch as more blacks and Jews vote "liberal", logically they would have a lower correlation with the TEA party movement than the rest of the population. I could also speculate that Catholics, who belong to a massive hierarchical church would be more comfortable with a large Federal government; whereas Evangelicals tend to belong to small independent churches and avoid hierarchies and denominations and therefore might be more comfortable with a strong Federalist structure with the most power local, then state, and last Federal. But pointing out that correlation falls into original research unless cited by a reliable source. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party non centralized? Paragraph 3

the assumption that an organization as large as the Tea Party having no core centralized power is either naive or a social anomoly that sociologists should be studying. Paragraph 3 suggests an omission of a central organization, this should be rewritten to "no publicized centralized system, although hierarchy through time and commitment is recognized, as in members such as Co-Founder Jennie Beth Martin - 2010 Time Mafazines 15th most influentialleader in the world"