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.

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" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gswalk (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What was/is the centralized power in the Civil Rights movement? The Pro-Life Movement? The Pro-Choice Movement? The Green Movement? Hell, even the origins of Christianity didn't have a single centralized body that was recognized by all as authoritative. Large grass roots organizations do not require a "centralized organization." It is entirely possible to have several competing bodies vying for authority, especially in an organizations formative period.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I guess that TPM is about at the norm (regarding regarding degree of centralization/organization) for a movement. Maybe we / some editors feel it sort of needs saying in this case because the name makes it sound a bit otherwise, like it might be an organization or a political party? North8000 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the "Tea Party" is named after the Boston Tea Party event -- and that TEA is used as an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already". It is not a political party -- it has no hierarchical structure and its distributed networked structure leverages the similarly structured Internet for communications. SunSw0rd (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very true. North8000 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

origin of the word teabagger

i think some discussion of the term Teabagger deserves a bit more mention as something the conservative activists embraced until they realized it was a sexual slang term as well. I've seen references to now deleted websites like "TeaBagPatriots.com" and of course the Santelli Rant or the Maddow Compilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting take, but what's in the article is pretty adequate. It's been given as much attention as its relevance and sourcing implores. Thanks-Digiphi (Talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the activists ever called themselves "tea baggers"? It doesn't really make sense when "tea partiers" is just as easy to say. In any case, I agree, the current coverage in the article is sufficient. –CWenger (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

More intelligent addressing of the implied topics of the material in controversies section

Right now this section is just random POV based selection of items. Articles probably really shouldn't have a "controversy" section, anything worth inclusion will have a topic other than that. But, the big picture aside, we can make a baby step towards better coverage by making a subsection under controversies (with a nice neutral title that doesn't imply validity or non-validity) for the racial related material, moving the current material into that, and make that into a section which intelligently covers that issue. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Schiller Insertion

Answering Xenophrenic's question in their edit summary today, good question. I think that the answer is no. I didn't put it in, I just moved it. I probably should have deleted it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm lukewarm on this. It's a good question. Two weeks ago he wouldn't have been notable. In fact he would have perfectly satisfied the criteria of non-notability as per policy. But I wonder if he has become notable enough since, or rather, the event is notable. Likewise, Sonny Thomas isn't notable, but the controversy of which he is a part is notable, and he appropriately rides that into the article. Let's get some more input on this. -Digiphi (Talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I really thought that this one was too minor to worry about considering the kind of junk that this article is filled with. But IMHO opinions by ardent supporters and opponents are pretty much worthless content that shouldn't be in the article. Just tactics, 0% creditability. Plus, it's really about Schiller, not about the TPM. Wonder if it would fly if I put a new section in the main Obama article to cover Rush Limbaugh's opinions of him?  :-) North8000 (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding balance in the racism controversy section

Xenophrenic, that's twice you removed the attempt to start balancing the witch hunt racial section within 16 hours. I'm not one to go reporting the 1RR violation, but please stop. 710 words on a mere alleged racial slur is relevant to the racial section, and a twitter by one person gets a whole section, but 1600 attendees at a national TPM summit in Phoenix overwhelimngly picking a black for president is not? The controversy is the inferred racism of the TPM. And you want to remove balancing material from that section because the balancing material is not controversial! ?. Huh? Please revert yourself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

North, I think you'd help your case a bit more if you performed some due diligence before making additions. In what some might interpret as a rush to include content for the purpose of offsetting perceived POV in the article, the Cain material was added with incorrect information (dates) and no references. It also fails to mention Paul's plurality when counting internet votes in addition to votes cast in person at the convention. Using it to counteract claims of Tea Party racism is currently pure synthesis, since the reliable source reference I added makes no mention of Cain being black, let alone any contention that the vote for him disproves racial bias on the part of the overall movement. Nor was I able to find such observations in reliable sources following a quick Google search. If such sources can be supplied, moving the material back to the "racism" section would probably be justified; if not, not. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat&Happy has clearly expressed the same sentiments I hold. As for my two edits, one expanded North's content addition and moved it to a newly created, more appropriate subsection -- it was not a revert. My second edit, my only revert for today, undid an edit of North's. If there is another edit I've made of which I am unaware, and an administrator informs me that it is indeed a revert, I will most certainly self-revert. Please be advised, however, that I will simply re-institute the edit again in a few hours, unless a case is made against doing so -- so let's focus on that, shall we? As for Cain, I wasn't aware that he was selected by the Tea Party to counteract the perception of racism; I assumed he was selected for his conservative qualifications. But if you can provide supportive reliable sourcing showing that I am incorrect, I will no longer object. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cain was selected because he was a good candidate. That he is black is just evidence that the TPM is not racist. Removal of the section would imply that those that wish to push the racial meme don't want information in the article which would obviously disprove this accusation. Arzel (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat and Happy, by your standard, (sourcing that establishes or counteracts such claims) we can delete that whole junk inuendo racial section. The items in there fail that test miserably. That's fine with me, but a double standard is not. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, both of those clearly are reverts, but let's move on from that 1RR issue, I have no desire to pursue it. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To Arzel, I don't see anyone proposing removal of the straw poll from the article. However it's not controversial so it shouldn't be in the "controversies" section.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@North8000: I tend to agree in principle [00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) comment]. However, I haven't reviewed the sourcing for the existing "racism" content recently (and don't have time to right now), so can't comment on whether it's also synthesis. I suspect, unfortunately, that any double standard being applied is on the part of MSM, not WP; if the media portrays individual incidents of racism as being representative of the movement in general, but fails to similarly generalize votes supporting a black leader, our sourcing rules more or less compel the article to follow that lead. You can take some solace, at least, in reflecting that the media did not spin the story, as they could have, as "78% of tea-partiers fail to support black candidate". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My point there is that the standard that you are implying exists does not exist, and actually conflicts with the spirit of wp:nor and neutrality. That the sources must make a particular assertion about the meaning of the news (rather than just cover the news) in order for the material to be present there. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, ascribing meaning to an event when no such meaning has been previously ascribed by reliable sources is the very essence of original research. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's basically the same thing that I was saying. But then IMHO you are partially conflicting with yourself, saying that a meaning MUST be ascribed in order for the material to be present there. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Niggar, Monkey God, Teabagger

there is a possibility some of the material on this article is offensive and marginally relevant if at all. would removing the material change the meaning of the article, if so how? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is offensive. However, Wikipedia is not censored and it is all verifiable. How it is presented is of course something that should always be considered but removing it altogether would negatively impact the reader's understanding of the topic as described to a significant enough extent in secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Being offensive is a big part of why those incidents became noteworthy and made the news. I know I was offended when I first learned of them. What meaning do you see being changed? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, being offensive is exactly why those minor aspects are given prominence. The "Monkey God" incident is particualy non-relevant, yet given notice to push the offensive meme. Arzel (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking out that material would reduce the deceptiveness of the article. Putting in big sections covering one twitter of one follower, or of mere allegation s of comments by one or two individuals is a massive wp:npov/wp:undue violation, and irrelevant, with the only effect of false ineundo. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The incident was widely covered in the media. It was widely covered not due to the inherent notability of the individuals involved, but because the individuals were, or were perceived to be significantly connected to the Tea Party. Thus coverage of the incident is relevant to this article. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By that circular those incidents should not be included. Events - not notable. People - not notable. People might be significantly connected to the Tea Party, now suddenly notable because it pushes the racist meme from the left. The fact that these people are not significantly connected only futher illustrates that these are only included in order to frame the TPM as racist. Arzel (talk)

Strongly agree. In addition to those those considerations is relevance for the first two. These are stories about what individuals said or allegedly said, not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you consider the mainstream news media to be "the left", then yes. — goethean ॐ 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Strategic discussion

He's an acknowledged Tea Party LEADER. It's relevant and has been made notable by the media coverage. Wikipedians may want to disavow him, but it's still notable. BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everything that every prominent person does constitutes information about or is relevant to every organization that they participate in. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, we should remove any mention of Carender from the article? Or Palin? Or Paul? Or Santelli or Cramer? These folks have also done or said things, and have been similarly tied to the tea party. Shall we pick and choose what we personally feel is suitable for the article, or shall we go back to conveying what reliable sources have told us? For the record, I'm not a fan of having a bunch of anecdotal examples in the article in lieu of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but I am also not a fan of nitpicking away those examples without replacing them with encyclopedic content. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the ultimate problem is that the Tea Party article is way too long. It is a nascent movement and has little proven notability. If people insist on expanding the article based on media coverage, which suffers from WP:RECENTISM bias, then much of the filler is going to be anecdotal. Additionally, it appears there are some small efforts at creating a subtle POV fork of the US libertarianism material.

I'd guess that the article would probably be all of 5 paragraphs if the recentism were meticulously avoided and high-quality sourcing were strictly used. BigK HeX (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Xeno If you are being absolutely straight on that, then we both want the same thing. If knowing my intent matters to anybody, is simply to have an accurate article with the most useful, informative and relevant information in it, unhindered/unpolluted by POV's. With WP policies/guidelines being (just) a means to that end.

On your earlier question, I would include (only) tea-party-relevant material on those people. And the relevancy has to have more basis than just some political operative striving to associate them. So if Sarah Palin kicks dogs or donates to the poor, those wouldn't be in the article, even if operatives from one side or the other implied a connection. If Palin said something at a TPM rally or in a TPM newsletter, that would have such relevance. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I'm with you on removing anecdotal material, especially narrow anecdotal material. And if by quality sourcing, you include objectivity (rather than just wp:rs criteria) trying to do actual coverage (vs. just repeating political operatives statements) I'm with you on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

...And the relevancy has to have more basis than just some political operative striving to associate them...

Do you consider journalists at major newspapers, writing as authors of articles of major newspapers, to be working as political operatives? — goethean ॐ 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but in the in the cases at hand, the content and implied relevancy consists of repeating statements and releases made by political operatives. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't answer that precisely enough in the context of where you quoted me from. The core question under my proposal would be: Is this info about the TPM? And, if so, who says that it is? North8000 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BigK and Xeno, based on what you said, do you have an idea on a way forward in line with what you said? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article is non-encyclopedic content: we're using polling because the movement is too new to have reliable sourcing on demographics; we're using anecdotes in place of reliable expert opinion on aspects of significance; we're using primary sourcing to discuss their agenda with no notable expert work to draw from.

I would take a major axe to it. But, I know the US-style libertarian Wikipedians won't let the article become nearly a stub. So .... I have no feasible solutions. Even though it's too new for a hearty amount of truly encyclopedic content, it's too popular to be strict with. BigK HeX (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what libertarian has to do with it, unless you are equating that to TPM advocates. But I think that a small good stub to slowly build from is better than the giant garbage pile that we have now. I think that if we get 3 or 4 of the regulars here on board, we could do it. We could save all of the references in a sub page to draw from. What say you all? North8000 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I expected that I would want to revert all of the edits. The I saw them and got it. If it belongs in that guy's BLP then put it over here. Not here. If sources say it reflects on the Teabaggers on the whole then go ahead but make sure you are not scandal mongering. Bias from RS cannot be mirrored here but instead only discussed. For the section headers: doesn't hurt my feelings even though I could go either way. I have no problem saying "nigger" (or err... "niggar") but it has to reflect on the movement as a whole. <ake sure to shows its revelence instead of just saying it and hoping the reader connects your dots.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be that as an article about a movement rather than a structured political party, it is more difficult to identify things which would be "party policy" or attribute actions to "party leaders" - however, notable coverage in the mainstream media with reference to the movement would seem to be a suitable criterion for inclusion of material. Pexise (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above, except about coverage in "RS" 's being a sole (sufficient) criteria for allowing an insertion. That is what led this to becoming a garbage pile. I know that wp:npov says that , but wp:npov has been an absolute, total, complete, abysmal failure on contentious articles. I am working on a proposal to add a relevancy metric to wp:npov for contentious material. E.G., "to what extent is the material / information (established to be) ABOUT the subject of the article, vs. just having some connection to it?" Maybe we could be the groundbreaker here and have the first good, stable Wikipedia article on a contentious topic. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if the article in the RS is about the topic in question then that would qualify it for inclusion. On the other hand, if it mentions something of particular relevance to the subject matter in a wider article, this may also be suitable (e.g. an article about the mid-term elections that specifically mentions the number of Tea Party backed candidates who were elected). Pexise (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As an additional response to the above: I would question whether NPOV is the relevant policy here. It would seem to me that we are establishing what facts are and whether facts are relevant to the topic of the article, rather than discussing way facts are presented. Point of view would not seem relevant for this. Pexise (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit and main themes of your posts, and wished that that the main issues were within them, but IMHO they aren't. So IMHO they do not address with main Pov'ing / junking examples. One is material which is not even directly about the topic, and the other is including people opinions about the topic. Here are the hypothetical examples of these two that I made up in the proposal that I am working on, and IMHO they are both very applicable to this article in its current form:

1. Rush Limbaugh announces that Barack Obama is the worst president in the last 100 years, and many newspapers reported (simply) that he made this announcement. And then a WP editor puts a section on Limbaugh's speech into the main/general Barack Obama article. Technically, the editor is not inserting/citing/having to argue the "worst president in 100 years" statement, they are just saying that Limbaugh said this. They just want the very real impact, and impression of the presence of "worst president" type words, as well as Limbaugh's arguments making that case in the article.
2. If John Smith, a person who is a second cousin of Obama is convicted of child molesting , and the conviction is covered by several newspapers in a matter-of-fact manner. And a WP editor places a section into the general Obama article regarding that topic. They make no other argument that needs defending, they just want the impact of child molestation related material in the Obama article and it's juxtaposition with Obama material.

WP:undue is oriented towards covering opposing views on a particular statement. In these cases, the "statements" are just what was said in the speech, and the facts of the conviction. But/ so at the literal level, there is no debated "issue" in this material that anyone must defend or which wp:undue would give guidance on. The inserter has outmaneuvered everyone, they can cite wp:npov as supporting the insertion, and can say "if you are you have an opposing viewpoint, I.E. if you have sources that say that Limbaugh didn't say that, or that John Smith wasn't convicted of child molesting, you are welcome to put those in". However, if you apply the test of "is the material directly ABOUT the subject of the article?", (vs. just having a connection to it) the answer is no. The first item is info about Limbaugh's speech, and the second item provides info about John Smith, neither provide info about Obama. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how useful these hypothetical examples are, first because rules around BLP are different, and second because the case you are using refers to a single person, rather than a movement something entirely more nebulous (as I alluded to earlier). Also, I was under the impression that we were discussing the relevance of inclusion of certain incidents (referred to in the previous section heading). I think it is far more productive if we deal with these on a case-by-case basis.

Having had a quick look again at the article, I can see that the section: "Racial Issues" could do with some work - not least the title, which I would suggest changing to something along the lines of "Politics of race within the Tea Party movement". The section then starts with a defense against accusations which haven't even been outlined yet, the order here should be changed (though I can see that there is a need to present both sides of this argument fairly). I would suggest starting with paragraph 3, then 1, then 2 for this section. Pexise (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"But I think that a small good stub to slowly build from is better than the giant garbage pile that we have now."

I'm certainly not advocating a rewrite just to get rid of the negative coverage of the Tea Party. There is very little content to draw from high-quality sources on the topic of the Tea Party movement. As such, it should STAY a small article, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I really had no opinion on it growing and did not intend to sound like I was advocating that. I was really addressing the possible objection (that you mentioned) that people might say a stub is too small. But I agree with you 100%. But I think that we both would say that if, 2-3 years from now, much more content from high quality sources becomes available, things could change. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pexise, I agree. That said, I think a big question is whether we should go the "nuke it to a tiny quality article" route vs. trying to get there by editing the existing one, which your comments seem to be implying. I'm thinking that the "nuke it to a tiny quality article" would be the better one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "Racial Issues" (or Politics of Race, if you will) section, I've found that this article addresses some of the isses we've fumbled through in our Wikipedia article. I assume it will make North8000 cringe, since it is written by a liberal in Mother Jones, but the author makes many of the same statements North8000 has been repeatedly making: "No, the Tea Party isn't racist"; "A few racists have shown up at Tea Parties, and are being used to taint the whole movement"; "The Tea Party's agenda has nothing to do with racial issues". However, the author also uses (and links to!) the very same reliable sources, articles, and studies we have used to discuss "race in politics" -- and he doesn't once mention Monkey Gods, Robertson, Niggers & Niggars, etc. That just shows me it can be done without the laundry list of salatious examples.

I'm not for "nuking" anything at this stage; most certainly not without seeing the core set of reliable sources we intend to use, and a proposed "tiny quality article" first. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I would be opposed to the nuclear option - as a Wikipedia reader, I have found the article useful and most of the content relevant. Also, a lot of the sourcing is actually pretty good. That's not to say that I don't think improvements can be made. Pexise (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with the thesis above: that the movement isn't inherently racist, but that some participants are. I would say that this is what ultimately comes across in the Racial Issues section of the article. Some of the examples of controversies are not necessarily racism, rather political incorrectness, others are more sinister. However, most of the examples are notable and relevant, particularly when they relate to leading figures within the movement. Pexise (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to Xeno) Xeno, I think that any feedback on the "nuking' idea this point is really on whether we should take this discussion to the next stage which would be to outline what the article would look like and then decide whether or not to roll with that. Again, if you and BigK were being straight with me in those previous statements (= just want a quality article) we're on the same paqe. I'd be just as happy with you or BigK doing the nuking.

That article looks pretty good. It has the analysis type stuff that we need in sources for this article. I found a similar article in the Economist, but I lost track of it. My one quibble with it was that it seemed to use the terms TPM and "Conservative" interchangeably which IMHO is not accurate. I think that there is much evidence that the TPM has both conservative and libertarian types in it, and its agenda is limited to areas in common with those two schools of thought. 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pexise, while I agree with your statement literally, I don't with it's implications, that such is good content for the article. IMHO what one individual does in their private life (TPM leader or not) is not information about the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar's recent edit was a good start. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It was precisely the slanted type of remove-only-the-negative coverage that the article doesn't need. BigK HeX (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Darkstar's edit, and he/she was not involved in any discussion here before making the edit. Not cool. Pexise (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

North8000: the examples in the controversy section mostly deal with public and political actions by people concerned, as such they are notable. Pexise (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment was overly short. What I most had in mind is, as the unresolved tags suggests, any valid topics should be integrated into the article, the idea of a "controversies" section is POV and bad. North8000 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thise has so far remained unresolved for about 9 months. The "controversies" heading distorts and POV's a wide range of issues and questions. As a baby step in the right direction, after a few days (buried in RL at the moment) , I am going to take the controversies heading , retaining all of the current material under upgraded sub-section headings. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of name

Is the origin of the name Tea party really from the Boston tea party or is it from Taxed Enough Already? A BBC documentary by Andrew Neil claimed it is Taxed Enough Already. Put "Andrew Neil tea party" into YouTube and watch part 1 around 4 mins 40 secs in. Is there any definitive source on this? Pexise (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If such were exclusively the case, it would be the "Tea Movement" instead.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... but is there a source on this? Pexise (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the name actually came from both the acronym and the historical incident. References to the acronym seem to go pretty far back, before the party became a full fledged movement (here's an article from early 2009) but any time the word tea party is used with rebellious connotations I think it can be safely assumed there is a connection to the Boston one, and I'm sure we could find a source to back that up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the BBC documentary - see approximately 4.40 on this video. Of course "party" also has two possible meanings here. Pexise (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the text in the article should reflect these two possible origins of the name? Using the two sources we have posted here as a reference for the "Taxed Enough Already" bacronym. Pexise (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Add The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism

Add The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy: What Populism Means for Globalism by Walter Russell Mead in the March/April 2011 Foreign Affairs. 99.181.130.209 (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a subscriber. Could some trusted editor describe the content? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading the article this evening. Mead describes two main poles of foreign affairs views within the TPM: one exemplified by Ron Paul, which is strongly isolationist, and the other by Sarah Palin, which is also isolationist but with a proviso that America remain victorious or dominant on the world stage. He broadly considers both views to be "Jacksonian" and populist, though he indicates the Paulist view may be almost "Jeffersonian". He briefly contrasts those to the two other views, which he labels "Hamiltonian"(commercial and pragmatic) and "Wilsonian" (multilateral interventionism). It's an interesting opinion piece by a noteworthy observer, but I'm not sure we should use it as a direct source. If it's significant then other commentators will cite it and then we might use it in the section on "Agenda", but perhaps balanced with other sources as well.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

will, ron paul is not an isolationist, rather a non interventionist. "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That phrase wa off the top of my head - I wasn't looking at the source. I'll use whichever term Mead uses.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps we should use ron paul instead of mead as a rs on ron paul. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. For one thing, secondary sources are better than primary sources. For another, this article isn't about Paul, it's about the Tea Party. So if we find a secondary source that talks about Paul's foreign policy views withing the context of the TPM, then that'd be a suitable addition. But a speech or article written by him without reference to the TPM would not be suitable.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

sis ( I think that they chose sidebar aspects to analyze by) but least it IS an analysis that attempts to be intelligent and objective. Integrating material and cites from it into the article would be a baby step in the right direction out of junk status for this article. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't go on my summary. It's a readable essay. Give us your opinion of the source.   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't currently have it, but I just sunk in that they had defined their piece as being (only) about foreign policy, and so I have struck a portion of my comment. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And let's remember that it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with a source. Nobody cares what we think, just what the reliable sources think.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just said that to make the point...opinions have to be set aside, we have a higher calling here, to make a good article. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that sources can be reliable for some purposes, and not for others. For example, Mayer's interview is certainly not reliable in a WP:BLP context, although it could be reliable for her opinions in some other context. Similarly, essays are rarely reliable in a WP:BLP context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree "1000%" Also, that the wp:rs criteria often has nothing to do with reliability on that topic. Very common for an unreliable source to meet wp:rs criteria, or a very reliable source to fail wp:rs criteria. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We're drifting here. Getting back to the question at hand, would editors like me to add a summary of this essay to the article?   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Scholar Professor Walter Russell Mead analyzed the foreign policy views of the TPM in a 2011 essay published in Foreign Affairs. Mead says that Jacksonian populists, such as the Tea Party, combine a belief in "American exceptionalism" and its role in the world with skepticism of American's "ability to create a liberal world order". When war is necessary they favor the goal of forcing unconditional surrender over "limited wars for limited goals". Mead identifies two main trends, one personified by Ron Paul and the other by Sarah Palin. "Paulists" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach that seeks to avoid foreign involvement. "Palinists", while seeking to avoid being drawn into unnecessary conflicts, favor a more aggressive response to maintaining America's primacy in international relations. Mead says that both groups share a distaste for "liberal internationalism". and their opposition make the ratification of many internationalist treaties unlikely in the near future.

That's a little longer than it probably deserves, weight-wise. Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably falls into the I just don't like it category, but the unexplained use of "scholar" as a description sort of grates on me. Even if we don't spell out Mead's qualifications, thus lengthening the blurb even more, could we simply substitute "professor"? Beyond that, I agree it may be a bit long, but I may only have that reaction because of the lack of detailed academic treatment of topics elsewhere in the article. I don't see much that I'd recommend cutting. Perhaps the last clause of the final sentence ("and their opposition...}? Fat&Happy (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I struggled to find a short way of introducing Mead. "Foreign policy professor" was my first choice, but it was repetitive with the other "foreign policy" usages. Plain old "professor" is fine with me. I dn't mind leaving off the final clause either. I've made those changes.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Too buried in RL to review it in depth, but I'm all for the general direction of putting intellignet analysis (imperfect or otherwise) in vs. the junk that is in the article now. So I have no problem with the length. Darkstar's idea for Paul position info should also be followed, but it need not displace this material. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no further comments I'll go ahead and post it.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Tea Party membership is very small in the U.S.

Add Tea Party membership is very small in the U.S.: the County (United States) with the highest membership rate is only 27.7/10,000 = about a quarter of 1%. the lowest is zero percent ... per Dante Chinni and James Gimpel (2010). Our Patchwork Nation: The Surprising Truth About the "Real" America. Gotham. p. 180 Figure 14. ISBN 978-1592405732. 99.181.134.247 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a valid source. It says much more about the TPM than just that one statistic. Membership is a tricky issue with political parties. I doubt there are all that many "members" of the Democratic or Republican parties either. Instead, there are many people who simply regard themselves as belonging to those parties and who register as one or the other for the purposes of voting in primaries. So we need to be careful about taking apparently surprising bits of info out of context. But again, the book itself is probably a good source and we should try to properly summarize its views on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would seriously question those statistics. For one there is no clear central structure which would allow someone to be a registered Tea Party Member. For another, the small county I grew up in has less than 10k residents and according to the map, 1 Tea Party Member, which I know for a fact to be false, at least by how they classify themselves. And a border county has zero, which I also know for a fact to be false. Arzel (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Our own personal knowledge and opinions don't matter. If there are other sources which question this proposed source then we can discuss that. However the authors are a veteran journalist[1] and a professor of poli-sci,[2] and the publisher is a mainstream publishing house. By any measure, this qualifies as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide more information on what the source says - how do they for example define membership in the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So I need the people I know that are in the county that this source claims they don't exist to prove it? Sorry, but those results simply don't pass the smell test. We already have relibale sources from polls that put the number much higher. Arzel (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That comment is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Have you ever read WP:NOR? If there are sources with other views we can include those too. As I wrote initially, this fact isn't necessarily the only or even the most interesting information contained in the source. I don't have the book in hand and have only glanced at the Google Books version. If someone has the time perhaps they could provide a summary of its relevant contents.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the TPM is not a party and generally does not have "members", any discussion about "membership" levels would be very misleading at best. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, people refer to members of the movement. We even have a section titled "Membership and demographics".   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a Political party with candidates on a unified ticket has proven true (mostly just indirect feeder organization to the Republican Party (United States)), but there are members to these groups. The title of Figure 14 is "Geographic Distribution of Membership of 67,000 Tea Party Members in March 2010, by County." 99.181.145.133 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I meant that most TP'er are in by participation, agreement, and other things, not by membership, so membership is not a useful or informative measure. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a PBS report that explains the map. It says, "Patchwork Nation has combed through online directories to find people who have registered with tea party organizations...." TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying my previous note, most TP'ers are in by participation, agreement, and other things, not by registered membership, so registered membership is not a useful or informative measure and implying such is deceptive. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly addition of an intelligent, well done section using this data would be good. That would include clarification that we are talking about registered membership, that most TPM folks are no registered members etc. All with good quality overview sources. Without an out-of-context-misleading "take" on it. North8000 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Note how http://www.pbs.org/newshour/patchworknation/staticmaps/teaparty.html (Updated: April 16, 2010) and Figure 14 shown in Google Books are different, in particular northern Idaho and Montana, western Maine, and northern Florida; curious differences in demographic statistics. Maybe it is because the percentages are so low, maybe variations in current membership, maybe Confidence in statistical conclusions/Statistical significance/I don't know. 99.19.46.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

The membership figures appear to be reasonable. Right-wing parties in other countries, even where they get 15-20% of the vote, have similar numbers and the Tea Party Patriots website shows that it probably has fewer than 20,000 members.[3] TFD (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone draft a summary of this material?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. The problem here is that strictly speaking the "TEA Party" is not a political party -- therefore there is no such thing as membership. Now there are multiple groups (hundreds) who are local "TEA party groups" -- they do have members, but often this is very informal. I have no idea how anyone could realistically claim to have some kind of count of TEA party membership when it is not a formal party and therefore cannot have formal members. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)