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 Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:

And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.

Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.

This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.

99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest

But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.

Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul is an isolationist?

the same guy who opposed the trade embargo on iraq, pre-oil war is an isolationist, are you sure? dr paul has many times stated his foreign policy clearly, mead displays his ignorance of paulites with the following: Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" (def. a revival of isolationism arising from increased anti-Soviet and anti-European sentiment and a reluctance to involve the nation in further political and military commitments abroad.) approach that seeks to avoid foreign involvement. paul is a non-interventionist, which is vastly different from an isolationist. one seeks trade, the other does not. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

so i will correct the verbiage again to reflect the reality that paulites are actually non-interventionist, not isolationist as mead incorrectly states. here is my source 24hr in advance of my 2nd attempt at the edit. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. And the source looks good for that, getting into the details behind it. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

By "correct the verbiage again", I assume you mean you intend to include Gregory Scoblete's opinion of the Tea Party's views on Foreign Policy alongside Mead's opinion of the Tea Party's views on Foreign Policy - because we can't make Mead say something he didn't. This related article by Mead (a summary of the longer source) has him basing his definition of "Paulites" on Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, which may be the source of some of the descrepancies Darkstar1st is noticing. Or it may just be a typo in the NYTimes source. Our TPM article presently mentions Ron in this role; will the real Paulite please stand up? (I can't view that full source to verify which Paul until I get back to my main system). Xenophrenic (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

no, this is not a rand/ron error, this is a mead rs error. xeno, are you sure much distance separates ron and rand politically? dr paul used the word non-interventionist in the fox tv debate 2008. mead did not source his comment, perhaps it was simply an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Darkstar1st's edits that were just reverted by Fat&Happy: Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. An isolationist is more like Pat Buchanan. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He indeed is not an isolationist. That sentence should be changed. J390 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it should be changed. He is not an isolationist. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit reversed

In one of my recent edits, I tried to tighten up some of the messy background section and it was reversed. I wanted to bring it up here to see if I really have any substantial objection to making this change, because I can't imagine that to be the case. I don't think any proper encylopedic entry could even be conceived to include the following text:

On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes", over 100 other taxes proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out-of-control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes.

The most obvious objection is that this is clearly WP:UNDUE and if we are to try to fashion any kind of clean, organized, properly-sized article this small local protest that has seemingly never been referred to in any Tea Party movement article can not be a part of such an article. I realize this article is about a hot button topic, but it's EXTREMELY messy for a two+ year old article, and it will remain so if we continue undoing attempts to clean things up.

I can not think of what one might find important or worth detailing in the information above. I find it not worth a mention, much less the first paragraph concerning early tea party protests, because it was clearly not a tea party protest. Like the Ron Paul events, it occurred before the Tea Party movement existed, and before the phrase itself was coined or conceived. Surely no one has ever posited tat Trevor Leach is in any way important to the TPm or in understanding it and its growth. In the absence of continued objection here, I will offer the contribution once again. Izauze (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Izauze My revert of the removal was initially based on the edit summary and the higher degree relevance of material compared to the not-about-the-TPM stuff that constitutes about half of this article. I feel that a closer view reinforces that even further. An organized protest, self-named as "Tea Party", on the exact agenda of the current TPM....what else could one ask for.....a still-non-existent TPM membership card? And I agree with your assessment of the article, except that it think it is too mild. I would call the majority of it to be a total mess. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So if you were to write this article, you'd include an entire paragraph about some random pre-TPm protest that only received any apparent notice in the local press and does not seem to have contributed to the formation of the current movement in any way shape or form? I have a hard time believing that. I have a hard time believing that anyone here, if they were to craft their own encyclopedia entry, would include that wee bit of non-notable trivia within it. It simply adds nothing to the article or our understanding of the movement.

At most it can be said to demonstrate how many different people were utilizing Boston Tea Party related imagery before the modern TP protests came about. But that would make it only 1 out of hundreds if not thousands of such instances that utilized that same imagery/iconography. Certainly, the Ron Paul events must take precedence over this obscure Trevor Leach fellow if that's the case. If Trevor Leech deserves a Paragraph, then Dave Ramsay appearing on a national news station actually calling for a Tea Party movement on Fox (in Feb., 2009) must deserve an entire section, right?

And I don't think our mutual agreement that the rest of the article is kind of trashy should be used as an argument to cling to a piece (that never should have been contributed in the first place) just because you find that it's slightly less trashy than some of it. That's my view. I'm interested to see if anyone else has anything to offer so we can see if there's some sort of consensus here. Izauze (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One idea...a more thorough discussion on what constitutes material being "about the TPM", and whether or not to apply such a "about the TPM" criteria for inclusion of material in the article. And apply that to this particular item. If the result were to delete the material, that would be fine with me. I think that this would be very useful to resolve this particular item and many others. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea if we can get some participation. I haven't been around to see what previous arguments may have existed about what makes something worthy of inclusion and "about" the TPm, but I suppose that can be a strength depending on your POV.

I would say that something is "about" the TPm, if it the data: A) Concerns events which have been credited with leading to the formation of the TPm (or the people credited) B) Invokes the general political climate/background and the the forces that made the moment ripe for such a movement to spring up. C) Details the various major TP leaders, events, sponsors. D) Describes demonstrable collective attitudes and beliefs of self-identified tea party members. E) Concerns the concrete political affects of this movement (elections, etc.) F) Explores the more abstract affects of the movement (political climate, criticisms of the movement, etc.) G) Notes the perspective of their opponents/critics.

Or perhaps more simply, as a reader, I want to know -how they got here -who they are and what they believe/want -what their affect is, has been, and may potentially be -and finally who are their critics and what are their criticisms/counter-arguments. It seems like that's about what you'd want in any movement article, no? Hope I'm not forgetting something. Izauze (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What excellent work! Could you expand a bit on "C".....specifically, which material about a leader or sponsor is sufficiently "about" the TPM to be in the article? North8000 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me think... I guess what I, as a supposed layperson, would want to know about someone/something that is considered to be a sponsor of a movement (or expect to see in an encyclopedic entry) is briefly who they are and then what they have done to direct or to utilize the movement (or what they are considered to have done). For instance - if we're looking at Martin Luther King in relation to HIS movement, I want to know what he did, how he affected the movement, what actions he took, marches he led, speeches he gave, what kind of spirit and messages he gave to the movement. I don't know if you're looking for something specific, or if this answers your question... Izauze (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think that you wrote an excellent portion of a roadmap out of the mess that this article is. And what I hoping to have fleshed out is a statement broad enough so that it could reasonably be used to exclude/take out other material. I didn't want to influence you, but was thinking that in an article about a movement, that the only things relevant when talking about an individual are the things relating to that movement. My first case in point in this article would be the section about the twitter comment.

On the narrower topic, I would be quite happy if you made a decision on whether or not your edit complies with your scope standard and proceed accordingly. Based on your judgment, either way would be fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

removing mead's incorrect analysis of the tp policy

dr paul himself has proved mead is wrong in his essay. perhaps there are more errors as well given this oversight. i suggest we remove the flawed essay in its entirety. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

missing from the section is pauls view on trade. rp would trade with NK, syria, libya, and anyone else still in the axis of evil. rp feels isolating the people ruled by dictators only makes them more likely to follow a tyranny as it is the only source of food and medicine. instead we should continue trade and the people themselves will overthrow corrupt governments. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we quote Mead, we must use his terminology. TFD (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I read Darkstar1st's comment as a suggestion that we should completely remove Mead's comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition to the section quoted Ron Paul as to what he thinks should be important foreign policy issues for the Tea Party. That would be a fine source for rebutting comments about his policies in those areas; it does nothing to disprove an analysis of what his followers (in general) seem to believe. In both religion and politics, people are notorious for voicing belief in and support for a concept or specific leader while simultaneously performing and supporting specific actions and positions diametrically opposed to some of the leader's positions. E.g., the current and previous chairmen of the Republican National Committee have both voiced disagreement with theories of Obama's non-Hawaiian birth; that in no way means that sourced comments such as "many [most?] Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the U.S." have been proven false. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

you are correct, i am for removing mead entirely. mead either does not know the difference between the terms, or the voting record of rp. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good. There's also a more general challenge here. In reality, once you get off of the main "platform" of the TPM, you have a diverse bunch of people (mostly conservatives and libertarians, with each of those terms themselves being diverse) with an equally diverse range of opinions on other topics. Attempts to say "they think this about XXXX" are likely to be problematic unless XXXX is one of the tenets clearly on their agenda. I suppose talking about it as a dicotomy is less problematic and at least hints at the diversity, but again, not in a manner that was clearly erroneous as this was. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph. Mead is a notable and qualified commentator. the claims here that the material is erroneous is unsourced and is just the opinion of Wikipedia editors. Below, North8000 writes: "We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives." I agree which is why this material is important to keep.   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could just drop the erroneous parts about Ron Paul. ? North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mead refers to "trends" by large groups of people, not specifically to Paul's politics, although he does choose to name subgroups after Paul and Palin -- probably not a good practice in the long-run. Politicians are known, individually, for their shifting stances — especially on foreign policy — while large groups tend to be more stable in their defined demographic. Mead's essay studies large subsections of the tea party movement, not a particular politician. Does anyone know if Paul has responded directly to Mead's analysis yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is correct, in that Mead is not talking about Paul, per se, but rather about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Since this is a view attributed to a distinguished expert, we need to be careful about asserting that it's erroneous.   Will Beback  talk  18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It says "personified by Ron Paul". Is this written by the Wikipedia editor or by Mead? Besides accuracy issues we have BLP issues. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. Mead is a highly respectable source, writing about the TPM. No one has shown that he is incorrect. It's fine to add other views of the TPM's foreign policy. However this article is not about Ron Paul. While Paul may be an important ideological leader of the movement, he is not the movement. Even if we found conclusive proof that he is not isolationist, which we haven't, that would not alter the Mead material on the "Paulist" wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Will, first we have the question of whether or not those statements are from Mead or from the Wikipedia editor. You have to pay to see the article which I didn't do, so that's why I asked if somebody knows the answer to that question.North8000 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If only we knew.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

are ron pauls own words not proof enough? do you have any proof he is an isolationist. his voting record of opposing trade embargoes should be proof enough. regardless of your opinion of the sources relevance, many here have objected to its inclusion. would you be willing to remove it until a replacement source or additional source be located? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First, no, Paul's words are not sufficient to determine his own stance, much less the views of the TPM. Politicians often say one thing and do another so they are not definitive sources for their own policy positions and activites. Second, this is not about Paul himself but rather about the TPM. We can add more sources if we have other views of the TPM foreign policy, but simply adding material about Paul's foreign policy views would be inappropriate for this article. That material would belong in the Paul biography or in Political positions of Ron Paul.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul may prefer the term non-interventionism and it may be more accurate/neutral. But we should stick with what the source says if we are reporting it. TFD (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to my previous question, and, I feel, an important point. Is there ANYBODY here who can answer the question.....did Mead actually say that....particularly the strong statement "one personified by Ron Paul "  ?

I answered you above, obtusely. See this.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I read that whole section and I don't think that it answers my question. Narrowing it even further to help sort this out, my question is were the specific words "one personified by Ron Paul" written by Mead, or by a Wikipedia editor. I'm not out to criticize anybody, I just thought that if those were written by a Wikipedia editor, we could solve this by scaling back the wp:editor-written summary, and leave the overall material in. I might just assume that and do that, don't hesitate to revert me (no hard feelings) if someone does not like it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I added one word to soften it up. Then I did some checking. Ron Paul even advocates ending our trade embargo with Cuba! The implied "isolationist" statement about Paul is clearly wrong. And no, we don't have to put in stuff that we all know is wrong. The world is full of clearly wrong stuff in "RS's" that is not in Wikipedia. I think that the Mead source and material is good for this article. Will, you have access to the source.....what do you think of rewriting this to use Mead material other then the Ron Paul stuff? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not about Paul. It's about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Show me which trade embargoes the TPM has policies on and we can add that.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this has any relevance whatsoever. The fact is that Mead called the Paulite wing of the TPM 'neo-isolationist', and User:North8000's opinions about Cuba, and User:Darkstar1st's opinions about Ron Paul, have exactly zero bearing on that fact. The dubious template needs to be removed immediately. I've already removed it once, but was of course immediately reverted by one of our resident foreign policy experts. — goethean ॐ 22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone provide any sources which dispute Mead's characterization of the Paulite wing of the TPM. Since it's presented as an opinion of Mead's, I'm not sure how the "dubious" tag applies. Is the dispute whether Mead said that, or whether Mead's opinion is correct? If the latter then that's a non-starter since it's the opinion of an expert.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will scroll up to view the primary source RP, stating in the 2008 fox debate he is an non-interventionist. since the two terms have such a degree of variance, meads opinion should be reconsidered in favor of a different source. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If we were writing about Paul that might be informative. We're not. We're writing about the Paulite wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

so a paulite operates contrary to paul? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not something we need to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

is rp not a rs about paulites? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Ron Paul say about the Paulite wing of the TPM? I haven't seen any sources for that.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, please review the definition of isolationist, and rp voting record, no rs needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't about Ron Paul.

I think it would be acceptable to add a parenthetical comment to explain. something like "(Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.)" What would we use as a source for that? I saw a mention of a 2008 debate, but I don't see a link.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds good to me. thx for meeting in the middle, kudos in the true spirit of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, addressing only older statements. Will, you are making up stuff. Specifically, what you are saying is that something being said in a "RS" mandates inclusion unless a explicitly says that it is wrong. That is faulty on several levels. Nowhere in WP does it say that. Second, source typically don't spend their time explicitly7 addressing false statements. Finally, NOBODY has come forward to even say that the words in question were even written by Mead vs a WP editor. As it stand currently, the faulty argument is built upon a faulty argument that is built upon a faulty argument. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making up anything, and I consider that an uncivil accusation. I don't see where anyone has provided sources which show that the cited article is an incorrect source for the author's opinion, or that the author's opinion of the Paulite wing of the TPM is incorrect. If I've missed it please provide it again. As for the accuracy of the summary of the source, which exact phrase are you questioning?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the one I've explicitly asked about about 4 times, and, after multiple requests, you won't even answer whether or not the source actually said it. It's "one personified by Ron Paul" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the author does not use the word "personify". The relevant passage may be this: "The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. Ron Paul represents an inward-looking, neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy that has more in common with classic Jeffersonian ideas than with assertive Jacksonian nationalism." If there's another word that's better feel free to suggest it.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's good material, and even making a good point, but he erred in his choice of words (neo-isolationist) with respect to both Ron Paul and the libertarian types within the TPM. Non-interventionist would have been more accurate. Still have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least it's about the TPM, and an attempt at summarization/analysis, which makes it better than the crap that 70% of this article consists of. My gut feel is to tweak the wording a bit to emphasize that these are Mead's opinions. And leave it in. But if we're going to have incorrect statements about Ron Paul in here, then correct ones on that topic are also appropriate. Then I think we need to find some more quality material for that section so that this isn't nearly the only thing in it as is presently the case. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is Mead's view. I don't buy the assertion that he is mistaken. Let me suggest an analogy. Let's say Senator Jones calls himself a progressive. A political science scholar writes that the "Jonesian" wing of the Democratic Party is liberal. Would we say that the scholar is mistaken, since Jones calls himself a progressive rather than a liberal? I don't think so.

There are a number of newspaper op-eds and and commentaries on the TPM foreign policy. It'd be great to add more views.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on folks, I was told there was a source for Paul calling himself a "non-interventionist". Does it exist or not? If we can't find a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been asking for this since the 13th. If 30 days pass without a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Racial issues

An editor removed the racial issues section, saying "this whole section is a debate between rs, one side says yes racist, other side says no, lacks consensus. the tp members themselves polled said not racist, removed as npov".[1] If there are valid or notable opinions presenting both sides, neutrality requires that we report both, not that we remove the section. TFD (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But I also agree with comments made in the past that much of the section consisted of content that was not noteworthy and only marginally related to the Tea Party movement, if at all. Perhaps this would be a good time to move that content here to the talk page and try to develop a consensus on what parts have relevance and their due weight instead of leaving the section that obviously just "growed like Topsy" out there. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the above isn't directly about the TPM, it's about peoples stated opinions about the TPM. We gotta get this article moving out of the junk hole.

Darkstar didn't take the worst wp:undue stuff out which is that massive stories which aren't even directly about TPM. All of this "racism" stuff should get condensed down to about three paragraphs carrying the analysis of some objective sources. In a few days I'm going to start taking out the worst most blatant wp:undue violations unless someone has a better plan. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We would be better off using better sources so that we could ensure that the opinions are either informed or notable, and readers would be able to see the weight that the various opinions have. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except I'd look for informed and objective. We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You will not find objective sources - it is up to us to ensure that this article is objective. What we should find is sources that explain weight applied to different points of view. TFD (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We could debate that one later. Right now even what you described is a step above what we have now which a lot of stuff that is not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can each of you cite just a couple of these sources that would meet your collective requirements of "objective, informed and notable", as a starting point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the hard part :-) I found one a few months ago which was an article in The Economist, I put it in talk here and think I could find it again. I think that what I really most had in mind is that the material is written by someone who is trying to analyze and cover the topic, not somebody who is just reporting on what Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelozi or a political operative said about it. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/17361396?story_id=17361396 from 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections (the twitter one and the "somebody claimed that some unknown person said something bad" section. Massive wp:undue violations, and they they aren't even directly about the TPM. And then evolve the racial issues section. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to start. This wp:undue disaster has existed long enough. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I took out the "controversies" heading and promoted the items under it up one level. Start to resolve the long tagged NPOV violation of that heading. Also took out the section the twitter comment. A TPM-disclaimed twitter comment by a person who happened to be one of zillions of local TP leaders is NOT material about the TPM. Big wp:npov:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't in their edit summary, Xeno just put the twitter item back in. This is just the worst of the worst of what needs to come out, and we can't seem to make any progress. If we can't start getting rid of this based on talk page discussions, then broader RFC about the huge amount of junk / wp:npov via wp:undue violations that are in here that need to go. What say you all? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, North, it's right there in my edit summary - please check again - and yes, I did put the racial slur incident back into the "racial issues" section. You removed it, claiming it "...is not material about the TPM" in your edit summary. Well, yes North, it is. Racial slurs by a TP leader and organizer, that resulted in cancellations of appearances by various politicos and candidates at a Tea Party rally. It is very relevant to that annoying little part of the movement's history that has gotten so much press play: the racism issues. I'm sure many of us would like to see the "worst of the worst" racism incidents expunged from the article, but the fact remains that the whole racism association subject needs to be neutrally presented and explained. It isn't going to just go away if we just scrub all the events, incidents, commentary, studies, polls, analysis and examples from our article. Simply nitpicking away at personally selected mentions of it in the article, one after another, isn't moving us toward solving the real problem: the lack of an encyclopedic treatment of the whole race issue plaguing the movement since its inception.

Let's work on developing that encyclopedic treatment of the issue. Do that first, and you'll find the need for the present disjointed laundry list of examples and anecdotes will disappear, and we won't need them anymore. Removing them now without first properly addressing the whole issue is inappropriate, and might be misconstrued as leaving the article in a POV state. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought that those events do not merit mention. I don't see how you can address the larger issue if you cannot even agree that these minor incidents have no relevance. 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Xeno's comment, why don't you try to come up with some real sources (I.E. real summary or analysis) that discusses the issue or even that such an issues exists? Not talking points quoted from operatives of their political opponents....real quality sources? The fact that this article is so full of 100% crap / wp:undue violations on that putative issue (I.E. a whole section in the article on each time somebody who is in the TPM movement says something dumb on the topic, or makes an unsubstantiated claim that some mystery person in the TPM said it) makes it look like a desperate attempt to manufacture an "issue" where there is none. But don't take my word for it, can anybody find a source which substantively summarizers or analyizes this putative issue to even say that it really even exists anywhere except in the claims of political operatives of it's opponents? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I, and other editors, have posted good sources here many times over the past two years. However, I'm as guilty as the next editor of not finding the motivation to do the heavy-lifting required to improve the article. Also, comments like "...or even that such an issues exists", tend to dampen any optimism one may have that a serious, intelligent collaboration might finally be undertaken.

Let me ask you this: Of the sources that I have seen that "summarizers or analyizes (sic)" the issue, to use your phrase, how shall I evaluate them to determine which come from "operatives of their political opponents" and which do not? Shall we just assume that any source that says anything critical or unflattering about the movement has obviously come from political opponents? Please define the necessary criteria to be met (in addition to Wikipedia's requirements) to qualify for use here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM. And drop the 2,000 words of this article that is not ABOUT the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which 2000 words would those be? And, again, what are your criteria for such sources? The only thing you've offered as a source of analysis was your one piece by the opinion columnist in the Lexington blog printed at the Economist link you mentioned above. That opinion piece devotes a mere two sentences to the issue, in this paragraph:

Some call the tea parties an “Astroturf” phenomenon—not grass-roots types at all but the dupes of big business. To others they are merely the most recent incarnation of an ugly right-wing and sometimes racist populism that has surfaced before when times are hard. Such allegations are misplaced. Corporate money has indeed found its way into tea-party coffers, but if you attend a tea-party event you will generally find that it is indeed a self-organised gathering of citizens dismayed by what they see as the irresponsible behaviour of an out-of-control government. Strands of racism can be found on the movement’s fringe, but most tea-party groups have done their best to snip these off.

Not exactly a scholarly, in-depth analysis of a complex issue that has dogged the TP for two years now; one that has filled countless news cycles, spawned debates, prompted national polls, and been the catalyst for university studies. Am I to understand that is representative of the kind of sources you would like to use as a foundation? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my post, it said "I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM." What you are inferring that I said is a modified straw-man version, implying that I said "scholarly" in there and that I offered that piece as a scholarly example. I never said either. And then you are responding to your straw man version of what I said instead of responding to what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my response to you; I never inferred that you called the opinion piece in TheEconimist.com a "scholarly" example. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll note that it was I calling that opinion piece 'not scholarly'. Implying the use of straw men is itself a straw man assertion, allowing you to avoid my still unanswered question about what your criteria is for usable sources. When I asked for examples of "objective, informed and notable" sources, your only submission was this opinion piece. Back to the question now, North? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A start on the 2,000 words would be the section on the twitter comment that you put back in. A twitter comment by a local leader that was not on behalf of the TPM, and which the TPM said has nothing to do with them is not material ABOUT the TPM, and, on top of that, a massive wp:undue violation. This is a nice first example. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Racial slurs by a Tea Party leader and organizer on a Tea Party website that caused cancellations from a Tea Party rally has nothing to do with the TP movement? I'm not sure I follow you. The politicians intending to speak at the rally, but then cancelled, disagree. The coverage in local papers on up to a whole segment on CNN also indicates otherwise. I do see that another local leader of a Dayton TP chapter disagreed with the Springboro leader's statements, but that seems to be par for the course. For every Thomas, Williams, Robertson, etc., expressing certain sentiments, you can always find another TPer to step up and say, "Doh! That's not really representative of the movement!" Viva la diversitie!

I agree with you that no single TPer individual speaks for the movement, but it is disingenuous to suggest that content about racial issues related to its members, leaders and policies is not material ABOUT the TPM. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opening changed my words again. I never said "nothing to do with the TPM"; I said it is not ABOUT the TPM. I can see that if you are going to make it a 2 hour job to even get one item that is one of the worst wp:npov/undue out of this article, then it is going to require a different approach to get this article out of junk status. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet again you are confusing my original choice of words with a quotation of your words, and yet again you are mistaken: I was not quoting you. I hope you are clear on that now; if not, I will patiently explain it to you yet again until there are no more misconceptions. I will also patiently continue to await your answer to questions (we're up to 3 now) you've been avoiding while diverting down these tangents. (1) What criteria should our sources meet, and (2) How is the "spics" slur content not about the TPm? (Note that at least one quoted TPer even felt the need to speak in defense of the movement because of that very event.) (3) If you're goal is to get items out of the article that you find objectionable, and you can't suggest source criteria (or sources) we should use for this project, and you are having difficulty clearly explaining why TPm-relevant content should be purged as "not ABOUT the TPM", should we instead try to bring some fresh perspective on the article through an RFC? It seems we haven't progressed very far beyond our mutual agreement that this article could use some serious rework. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The first two I already answered and this is the first time I've seen the third so some of those comments are out of line. But happy to recap and expand on the first two and and answer the third. 1. In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife. 2. First I now noticed that that section has even more problems. It is reporting a twitter tweet as something posted on the organizations web site; a conflict with one of the sources, and the other source had no details on the basis for making it sound like something more than a twitter tweet by an individual. But, answering your question directly, this material is about what an individual did, not ABOUT the TPM. A more direct way to achieve ending wp:undue violations is to say, on controversial material, limit it to things that are directly ABOUT the TPM, not things that are just SOMEHOW RELATED to TPM. 3. Your question #3 started with two false implied premises making it unanswerable without writing a book. But the fresh prospective / RFC is a good idea. We should mutually structure it well so that it actually resolves the issue. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess to make it specific, my proposed RFC question is a proposal to completely remove the twitter section and the possible-slur at health care protests section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that makes it more specific, or less specific. First, I should reiterate that my hopes for the RFC is to address the section presently titled "Racial issues", with an eye toward treating all of that subject matter (including your identified sections) in a more encyclopedic manner. My proposal might achieve your desired results anyway, as I expect many of those specific events will be at least reduced to mere footnotes, if they remain at all, as content is summarized and information is presented in encyclopedic rather than anecdotal-example format. We've been sparring recently because you've been pushing to simply excise relevant material outright, while I've been pushing to map out a plan to properly replace it. I know you've argued against the relevance of some of this content, but not convincingly. I'm sure you can find support for content removal simply because some editors will find it unflattering, but I think an actual policy-compliant reason will need to be presented during an RFC.

When you say "possible-slur at health care protests", I assume you mean the protests in Washington, DC during the weekend of March 20-21, 2010, when the health care reform votes were taking place? The naming of that section is a little problematic. Just to be sure we're on the same page, that is the same protest where:

• Protesters called Frank multiple anti-gay slurs like 'Faggot'?
• Protesters called Hispanics spics and threatened gun violence (yeah, our boy Sonny was there in DC)?
• A protester spat on Cleaver (intentionally, or accidentally but refused to apologize - no difference to most of us)?
• Rep. Anthony Weiner was called "Schlomo Weiner" and had notes left in the hallways about him & Rahm Emanuel in the shower, signed with swastikas?
• Protesters called Waxman a liar and a crook?
• CBS described the protesters as loud and furious, and reported "anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them"?

Is that the same protest where some partisan whacks say its absurd (and even a fabricated conspiracy!) that some black congressmen could have heard the n-word, despite several eyewitnesses saying they did, simply because the protesters haven't coughed up a video recording of themselves saying it? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, sincerely, your post is quite impressive. I mean this sincerely that it gives me hope that you want a good process and a good article vs. just pov'ing. And, in context, it is a sincere relief that now I'm not sure what to think. What do you think about first trying the new thread at the bottom? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What a curious response, considering my post is just a reiteration of the position I've held and expressed many, many times over the past months. I am encouraged to see your expression that you are pro-good article and against POV'ing the article; now let's see if we can put those good intentions into practice. See you in the discussion thread below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Brice, Lenny McAllister, and Jean Howard-Hill have expressed concerns about racism in the TP

have you ever heard of any of them, me either. then why does their OPINION of the tp belong here? i do not see any opinions in like pages, perhaps this is an effort to smear the tp, npov? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC) would these people be here if they were not classified as "black"? are we past categorizing people by skin color? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of all three of them. It appears they are included in this article because Brice is a TPer that is a keynote speaker at tea party events; Lenny McAllister is a TPer politician and commentator, and Howard-Hill is a Republican politician — probably to show that the criticism also comes from within, and not just from the usual critics of the movement. I have not read anything that indicates they are trying to smear the TP; do you have a source conveying that? Perhaps if we were "past categorizing people by skin color" we would not be having this discussion.

Just a passing observation: I've never heard of Keli Carender, but for some reason she does have a 2-sentence Wikipedia article saying she is a math teacher who organized a small protest. Trevor Leach who? Ryan Hecker who? I doubt any of you have heard of them, so we should probably remove them as wp:undue; any objections? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Brice self-describes himself as many things. I'm curious as to why an editor would select the "hip hop republican" description to add to the TPm article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) I see now that this subject is being addressed in another section below. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

removing jaun williams as a reliable source?

Juan Williams (born April 10, 1954[citation needed]) is a American journalist and political analyst for Fox News Channel. He also writes for several newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal and has been published in magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Time. He was a senior news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) from 1999 until October 2010. At The Washington Post for 23 years, Williams has worked as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist, White House correspondent and national correspondent. seeking support to remove the tag questioning his reliability Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that that source certainly meets wp:RS criteria. I also just noticed that you changed the lead and the change is what this supports. IMHO the added statement is a bit of a reach. Also the first half of the lead was pretty heavily worked on by a lot of people. What do you think of the idea dialing back that sentence a bit (e.g. "according to Jaun Williams..........", & moving it a few sentences later, and removing the tag on the source? North8000 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

i am fine with those changes. Juan is not the only one who attributes the tea party to ron paul maybe if i added more sources we could word it better? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. The following is actually less un-wikipedian than some would claim, but what to y'all think is the most accurate way to characterize to what extent the TPM is attributable to him? (whatever the answer is is going to be sourceable) Also maybe add a few related events / mileposts etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Williams article is clearly labeled as an opinion. Op-ed articles are good sources for the opinions of their writers, but not for facts given without attribution.

I'm not sure why that opinion needs to be in the first sentence of the article. While some people may say that Paul was the founder of the TPM, that's not the only view and Paul is not the leader in any formal way.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will did you see the part about RP raising more than any US politician in a single day, on the anniversary of the Boston tea party? ($6+ million, average donation, $25) Darkstar1st (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the connection? Did he give the money to the TPM?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

unless there are further objections, i will remove the tag on rs Juan Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No objection. I'll remove it myself. I'd placed it to highlight the problem of using an opinion column for an asserted fact.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case

this quote from an already quoted rs "Macallistar" was removed, why? unless their is any objection, i will replace it. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which quote? Diff?   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the section title is the quote. i didn't include difs as i do wish to drawn attention to the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording was inserted into an existing quotation as if it were spoken as a single phrase, which it was not. I reverted it primarily for that reason, but also because you had removed the word "black", which was the descriptive word forming the basis of the source article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

would you object to me adding the qoute in it's entirety? how do you feel the meaning was changed with my abbreviated version? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to you properly adding quotes. There is quite a bit more we can add from that source article to expand that section of our article, if that is the intent. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Source? Could editors please be more helpful in their posts - some of us edit articles besides this one and it's hard to follow obscure references like this.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, it simply part of the same sourced already used, its actually the rest of the quote already used. why an editor choose to leave it out, or why when i added it, the passage was removed is a mystery. unless someone will expand on what else they would like here, i will simply add the above back as before. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The same source already used for what? If you're going to post a request then please add enough context that other editors know what you're talking about without having to spend 20 minutes searching through deleted edits.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

there is only one reference to rs mcallistar, and the source has not been deleted, no search required, the current version includes mcallistar. i would just like to add a few more words from the rest of the sentence, would you object? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched for "mcallistar" and "Macallistar" but didn't find anything. So I don't know what you're asking about.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From this Washington Post article, and more specifically, this text from that article:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.

"I feel like the tea party movement is at its core a good thing for America. It is a group of citizens that have not been previously involved," McAllister said. "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

McAllister, who has spoken at several tea party gatherings, said the movement is more diverse than news clips show. "There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case," he said.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

xeno thx for the update, but you haven't explained why you deleted that line, or what other words you felt were missing for me to add it back? do you still object to the words being added? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I did explain. Start from the bold print directly above. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i will make the delineation. in the future, please do so yourself rather than delete a rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I never deleted a RS. I returned a quote to it's actual structure. If you wish to add more quotes in the future, please do so properly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i see the difference. in the future, please help preserve relevant content instead of delete it, especially when it is from the same exact interview. thx in advance for just correcting my poor grammar, rather than deleting it, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

except last time you deleted the words instead of correct the format, why? next time, just and the cooma or whatever it was you did and leave the text plz, thanks for your help in advance! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

but you didnt, you deleted the words, what am i missing here? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But I did, as always, and I wasn't the one that deleted 'black'. All I did was a revert. Be more descriptive, and I'll help you find what you are missing. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not over-quote a minor figure. It might be better to summarize this view rather than to quote it verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, please see the other section, i suggested all of these are minor figures whose opinions would not be included except some people characterization of their skin color makes them relevant somehow. to me, that is racist, determining a persons relevance not based on words, but skin color, a shame. this whole section is a mistake. racism exist in all political spectrums, including every known event here smacks of npov gaming. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to the quotes, the difference is between a quotation which appeared in one newspaper article, and comments which have themselves become newsworthy and have been repeated in multiple sources. The two issues, the composition of the movement and it's policies and rhetoric, are separate. It's possible to have a multi-ethnic group which holds racist views and it's also possible to have a mono-ethnic group which does not. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources, giving weight proportional to views according to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, we have to do more than that. We need to write a quality, sourcable article and source it. And making a section on each time any TPM person says anything bad is definitely both npov gaming and contributing to the current junk article status. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The way to write a "quality, sourcable article" is by verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view, with weight according to prominence. If individual remarks get significant attention in the context of the TPM, then they are appropriate to discuss here.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What you just said is included, but it takes more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What "more" are you thinking about, specifically?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

something more than hymietown and loot the jews which is absent the democrat party article, as well as the kkk and members. the article is not about the past, but the current tp platform. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the KKK is already there. As for the other two examples, exactly how would you word them, what reliable sources would you cite, and in which section would you put them? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean Howard-Hill, leader of the National Republican African American Caucus

why isn't Brandon Brice described by his most notable achievement like the others here? he owns, i meant writes on a blog called hiphoprepublican.com. yet he only gets "black speaker at a tea party rally" title? i added it once, it was removed, i will add it back unless there is objection. “One of the best examples I have found of the growing diversity in the resurgent Republican movement has been Hip Hop Republicans” - Brandon Greife – Political Director of the College Republican National Committee. “While some blacks lean conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, Web sites like HipHopRepublican.com raise issues important to blacks that many Americans are concerned about health care, affordable housing, the economy, the environment and education” -The New York Times Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that his blog is his most notable achievement? Strange that he doesn't include it on his resume or website. The description used was from the cited source. We could, I suppose, add in your other sources you just mentioned and create a mini-bio of him in this article about the TP movement, including his scout merit badges, his teaching creds from Rutgers, his FOX News appearances, etc. On second thought, let's not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

here is a better description that describes him as the spokesperson: http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/07/21/hhr-radio-exclusive-interview-with-brandon-brice/ Brandon is a long time active blogger and spokesperson for HipHopRepublican.com Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above descriptions (including your most recent link, which itself just provides the description and link to an old 2009 version of his personal website) provide interesting content for a Brandon Brice article. Was there a question here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

yes plz scroll up. i asked why you deleted a notable achieve on the order of receiving praise from the times and other rs, as we as being known as the spokesperson. i am a bit confused why you deleted this title and replaced it with "a black speaker at rally", not a note worthy title at all, agreed? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He was a blogger, and a spokesperson for a website -- you are saying that is a "notable achievement" you wish to add to the TPm article? Why? He doesn't even reference those hobbies on his resume or website anymore. One would assume being a Policy Intern for the Speaker of the House, or an Economics teacher at Rutgers, or a regular political contributor at FOX News would be a bit higher up on his "achievement" list. Like I said, that is content better suited for an article about him. He is referred to in our article as "a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally" because that is how the source article refers to him: he's African American; a black conservative TPer (the very subject of the article, by the way). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

would you be ok with including he is both a black speaker and spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

unless there be further opposition, i will re-add hiphoprepublican and leave the word black. a shame given the age we live a mans accomplishments come after his skin color when describing him. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably address the concerns already raised before asking for "further opposition". And you haven't said anything about adding his accomplishments. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, if he did a twitter comment, THAT would be the basis for a huge section in this article! But only if the comment sounds bad.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your animosity toward Twitter is duly noted. Not understood, but noted. ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

it was an allusion to the fact a 130 character text ranks below a blog post and lolcats. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. So the animosity is not directed toward the medium used, Twitter, but toward the 130 character brevity of the racial slur? Strange, as it is one of the longer expressions of racist sentiment I've seen; usually it is just a caustic word or two. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons it's rates so low is that it is so so spontaneous and instantaneous (per WP 78% pointless babble or conversational) that it is the bottom of the bottom of the barrel regarding being a meaningful indicator of anything. But at the moment I was chiding you about a double standard about suitability of material for the article. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons you rate it so low, you mean? While the fact that it tends to be "spontaneous and instantaneous" may reduce its value in your eyes, those very same qualities also mean the communication is likely to be more truthful, less guarded, and far less nuanced and prepared. In other words, closer to his actual thoughts, rather than what he might vocalize in polite company -- and that speaks volumes about the broader racism issue we've been discussing. By the way, your "78% pointless babble or conversational" is not "per WP". Per actual WP, those percentages are from a single study of 2000 tweets a couple years ago, and are refuted by by Dr. Boyd, who explains that the tweets are only "pointless babble" when read by those for whom the tweets were not intended. But we stray...

You lost me with your reference about "suitability of material for the article." Above, DS1 suggested adding "spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com" as a further description of Brice. That baffles me because Brice is no longer one of the spokespersons for that website, Brice no longer lists that as one of his interests on his resume, and Brice no longer mentions HHR on his personal website. In addition, when I asked DS1 what motivation he had for adding that, he says because it is Brice's "most notable achievement". Yeah, I LOL'd too. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Partiers gaining support from whom?

The following text was added to the Public Opinion section of our article:

A CBS News/New York Times poll in April 2011 showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling. 63% oppose raising the debt ceiling.

I checked the CBS poll, located here, and it says nothing about the TP gaining or losing support on anything. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it says nothing about the Tea Party at all. Why was this added?   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

you clicked the wrong link, view the actual source listed on wp. Opposition doesn’t just come from “extremist” Tea Party members Will, the poll does mention the tea party a few times, read the original poll here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056239-503544.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the debt ceiling and the TPM appears to come from a partisan blog, Hot Air. This is the CBS page on the debt ceiling, it doesn't mention the TPM.[2] The view that the poll "showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling" does not come from the pollsters. It comes from Ed Morrissey. Considering how much grief we had over citing the opinion of a distinguished professor, this doesn't seem like the kind of source we should be using, especially for assertions that are not clearly factual.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

then you did not view the cbs link above which mentions the tp a few times. why is there so much opposition to a poll about the debt ceiling that mentions the tp? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is linking the two, which CBS does not do but which Morrissey does. IOW, it's his opinion that they're linked and he's just a partisan blogger - his piece is lower than an Op-Ed column on the reliability scale.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

which still lies miles above a tweet. consider balance here, and allow some public opinion that reflects the tp beliefs such as the debt ceiling, not just polls about how many people are not in the tp. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we don't cite 'tweets' as reliable sources for statements of fact, either. No one has disallowed content on TP beliefs, numbers of TP supporters or public opinions. I brought up your content addition to the Public Opinion section here for discussion because you made factual assertions that were not supported by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

i have tried to add more recent polls, from the same polling sources and have been deleted and reported for warring. why is it so hard to present positive info about the tp, and so hard to remove negative info about tp even when many question it's relevance. is there support for outside help, if so, who is willing to begin the process, as i may not be on wp for awhile, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really that hard to add and remove content, if you follow Wikipedia rules (or "use the system", as some call it). However, there are quite a few rules, and learning to edit within the constraints of all of them does take some time and practice. There are a number of noticeboards and dispute resolution facilities dedicated to helping resolve various editing issues. For issues generally about content 'relevance', you might submit a request for comment (As North8000 and I are considering above), or if you have a more specific and defined content relevance issue, you might post it at the NPOV Noticeboard. Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Darkstar's comment

It's going to take some work and/ or several more neutral people involved to rise this article out of junk POV status. The people who want to keep it that way know how to use the system to make it so that every tiny step out of the hole would take dozens of hours of work; at the moment my life is too short for that. Not sure what is next here. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a general list of what you feel is specifically making it junk POV. If you could give an idea of what you want, then others can work on it when you're busy.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I'm particularly busy at the moment, I meant that I've gotten to the point in life where I realized it's too short to go spending dozens of painful hours for each tiny step out of the hole that this junk article is in, an equation that the skillful pov warriors have created.

The first thing to go should be the twitter section. It's not about nor informative about the TPM. And even if it was (which it isn't) putting a whole section in an article about a national movement about one local leader's personal tweet is a massive wp:undue violation.

Second is removal the 710 words about "somebody claimed that somebody in the crowd said something bad" at that health care protest. Has all of the above problems plus two more. It's unsubstantiated that anybody said anything, and also of course, nothing about who allegedly said it.

Again, thanks for asking. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I took a brief look at it (doing some other stuff right now), but here are my current thoughts. The reasoning for the Twitter section, from my understanding, is a bit sketchy, but might have precedent. I need to look into it a bit more, but the reasoning seems to be that the actions of a prominent member, which had an effect on how it was treated, it thus, notable in the section. While Notability isn't inherited (everything that the politicians say isn't necessarily notable, and neither is everything that happens within the Tea Party), it is worth looking into. I'll be happy to do that once I get a chance (should be later today).

The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated". That's not quite right, or necessarily what we should be looking at. It has been addressed by many high profile politicians, of both parties. Remember, we aren't looking for the Truth, as awful as that may be. We are looking for verifiability. It is VERY well sourced that there was a controversy regarding the incident.

My suggestion is to reorganize the section so that we have those who confirm it occurred, such as Emanuel Cleaver, Barney Frank, Andre Carson, John Lewis, Heath Shuler, Andrew Alexander, Richard Trumka, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and counter point it with the people who have expressed doubt, like Andrew Breitbart, Bill O'Reilly and Thomas Sowell. That way, we show them the controversy, and allow them to make up their own minds as to whether it occurred or not. That sound good?

Homo Logica (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any improvement would be nice. My one thought that comes to mind is: Wp:verifiability is a condition for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. A main reason should be that it is informative about the TPM, while meeting wp:undue criteria for being in an article with a topic of this scale/scope. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you do think it should be mentioned, but that it shouldn't have as long of a section as it has? Homo Logica (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

given the balance here, perhaps one less negative comment on the tp would right the vessel? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to Homo Logica To be honest, I think that both of those two should be completely dropped. I didn't include the Dale Robertson one because that person is or was a prominent TP'er vs. one of the countless local leaders. But I forgot to include the propane grill damage committed by some mystery person conjectured to have been maybe motivated by a tp'er comment...that should also go. To say anything else would be disingenuous, but I'm ready, willing and eager to compromise ANYWHERE to finally start some forward progress out of junk status. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so (I want to be certain I understand your objection, so please bear with me), you are objecting to the material on grounds of WP:EVENT, or is because that it is Notable, but being included in this article gives WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would have to answer from two perspectives. One is trying to create a quality article which is to try to be informative and not misleading, not distorted by pov goals, with limited space/reader time in this article with a large scale topic. And taking that from two angles, something that one nobody or near-nobody in the organization said serves absolutely no purpose under any of the above. It not ABOUT the TPM, is ABOUT what a near-nobody or mystery-person said or did. The flip side is that the ONLY reason it's in there is to provide the impression that such nastiness is a party of the TPM agenda, or is even tolerated by it. The other perspective is looking for Wikipedia policies/guidelines to support that. And that is it is a massive wp:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As a general principle and not in reference to any specific issue, if a non-notable person makes a comment and it gets picked up by multiple news sources with headlines like "TP member makes newsworthy statement", then at some point it becomes about the Tea Party movement. That's just a fact of how politics works.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North, before we continue, remember to keep cool :-). I know that you have put in a lot of effort, and I want to help. Frustration is understandable. Remember, we all just want to make it better.

So, focusing on the article, you're talking about WP:EVENT, if I understand correctly. Now, the criteria for an event are:

• WP:EFFECT -- The long-term effects of the event.
• WP:GEOSCOPE -- The area effected.
• WP:INDEPTH -- How thorough the coverage is/was.
• WP:PERSISTENCE -- How long the coverage is/was.
• WP:DIVERSITY -- The variety in coverage.

Now, an event can be very difficult to assess, specifically because it's nearly impossible to know long-term effects. Since the section doesn't go into the effects, let's assume there are none. The scope of the coverage is as wide as the article (the entire US). There were quite a few in-depth reports on the matter, as sourced in the article. The persistence is hard to determine: while the event itself is no longer covered, it is referenced still. The diversity of the coverage has been quite wide, as represented by the 14 sources provided for the section. This is why it would be difficult to remove right now.

My personal opinion is that the long-term effects will be negligible, and thus, it will be relegated to a sentence or two, if it is mentioned at all. However, that isn't right now. For the moment, it seems as though it is relevant enough to be included. A good way to think about it (in my odd way of thinking), is that if everybody in the US started declaring the Democratic Party was made of poopie-heads, including an analysis of how it could be, it doesn't matter that it is childish, stupid, and patently wrong. It is still notable. (See: told you I have an odd way of looking at it.)

An alternate option, that might be more efficient, and a better compromise between the two stances, would be to make a separate article for the controversies. A bigger undertaking, but it would take it out of the article, and make room for things that specifically deal with the Tea Party, and not any of the controversies.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

i like the idea for a second article about controversies. the democratic party was and is full of racist, yet no mention in the wp article, because that is not the party platform. a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me, Corrine Brown (D-FL), Hymietown. Jackson, loot the Jews., Sharpton, Dick Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization. This is all about the Jews, Billy McKinney. undue, plain and simple. without outside help, the tp article will continue to be maligned, possibly by editors pushing a pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Darkstar1st, as is immediately evident by the supporting examples you struggled to find (Corrine was calling the Bush policies racist, [3] but nice try; Sharpton never said that, nice try; McKinney reliable source? ...) While it is true that racism can be found everywhere, there is no mention of it in the Democratic Party Wikipedia article because there is no relationship between racism and the Democratic Party. In fact, to the contrary, comparing the Dem article to, say, the Republican Party article, we see that it is officially part of the Dem's platform to support Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, and favor more immigration and cultural diversity -- stances antithetical to those taken by racists. The parent party of the TPers, by contrast, is against affirmative action, views immigration less favorably and (if their representatives are any indication) is less diverse. The reason the article about a 2 year old movement mentions racism while the article about a 200 year old political party does not is because of the weight of the existing reliably sourced content covering that issue. You see, the new TP movement is still struggling to define itself, so that void of defining information is presently being filled by whatever limited reliable sources we presently have. Right now that includes a very significant amount on this stuff related to race. As Homo Logica noted above, this race-related content may indeed wither in relevance (and consequently weight and presence in this article) over time — but that doesn't mean we need to suffer what is, IMO, unencyclopedic presentation of that content right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you realize the kkk was started by democrats who had members(alleged ex-members) sitting in the US house only a few years ago? the civil rights movement was opposed by democrats. none of this has anything to do with less tax, which is the tea partyz only agenda. have you contributed anything to this article about the tea party that is neutral or even positive? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the actual history of the KKK, and I know that there are Democrats in the US House of Representatives, and I know there have been folks from all political parties that opposed the civil rights movement. Yes, I've contributed a lot that is neutral, even and positive. Have you made contributions to any article that accurately conveyed content from cited sources, utilized proper grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation? ;-) I consider all of those to be positives. We're straying from article-relevant discussion, but feel free to continue on our personal talk pages if you wish. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you are advocating OR of the worst kind. You are basically saying "I know this (your controversial opinion) about the TPM, and so I am going to find and select situations that build the picture / opinion that you pre-determined.North8000 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. I'd ask you to substantiate that ludicrous statement by pointing out exactly where, but I've been through that unproductive tedious exercise with you before, and I'd rather not waste all that time getting to your inevetible retractions. Instead, I'll cut&paste exactly what I said -- to refute your "You are basically saying..." typical misrepresentation crap. Please try to apply at least a minimum amount of basic reading comprehension this time around, North: "I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues." Got it now? "My" opinions (controversial, pre-determined, or otherwise) have nothing to do with what I advocate. I'm advocating for the replacement of that list of examples previously added by editors, "select situations" if you prefer, with an encyclopedic treatment of the issue based on reliably sourced scientific studies and polls and objective examinations of the issue. We have some sources already cited that convey certain correlations and findings, but not many, so I've even been (unsuccessfully) prodding you to help me identify more sources. Now enough with the unsubstantiated attacks already, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Homo Logica. First and foremost, thank you so much for the work that you are doing here! And just to emphasize, I have 100% thankfulness and zero frustration with you. I had wp:npov rather than wp:event in mind, but wp:event is a good place to find some guidance, even if not specifically a content guideline. There are thousands of things that have been said by TP'res that have been covered by the media. Selecting just a particular few bad sounding ones out of the thousands for this article represents creation of an artificial construction by pov editors. Per Darkstar's examples, you don't see even a mention of any of the in the Democratic party article. I think that your 2nd article idea is a pragmatic way to a solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North8000 and I share a dislike for the series of "This TPer said/did this bad thing" example list in the article, but for markedly different reasons. If I understand North's position correctly, he feels the list of examples is a POV attempt to create an "artificial construction", or a false narrative about the movement, implying that the movement is racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc., — and he would like to see much of that content removed outright. I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As with other parts of the article, I don't think there is enough quality sourcing to effect such a replacement. The TPM article is likely to remain clumsy while the topic itself is so new. BigK HeX (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically on the suggestion of moving controversies into a separate daughter article, I'm torn between the obvious benefits and the potential pitfalls. One concern that I have is that merely critical or unflattering information might be misdescribed as "controversial" just so that it can be scrubbed from this article and hidden away in a less trafficked article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is zero reason to separate out the coverage that some Tea Party supporters may find disparaging. The fundamental problem is that this article is based almost entirely on recent events. It will be quite some time before proper weighting can be judged less controversially. BigK HeX (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That was addressed further down. That's why I proposed altering the name, so that it doesn't come off that way. The intent, is to leave the material that relates to the Tea Party Movement's official policies, and general positions. Then, we have the other article for perceptions of the Tea Party Movement. That way, this article doesn't put WP:UNDUE on the perceptions and controversies, and the other article can go into more depth on the issues, so that a full picture is given.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is the entire problem. There are zero "official" policies. Pretty much every stated goal of the Tea Party represents only a singular opinion. Once you open the door to include those opinions in an article, then WP:NPOV requires that we consider including an entire range of opinions with comparable notability. BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Controversies

No problem. So, I'm thinking that we should move over the following sections:

1. Fundraising and support
2. Public Opinion
3. A good portion of Obama administration
4. Commentaries
5. Media Coverage
6. Tea Party's view of media coverage
7. Racial Issues
8. Mark Williams Islam Comments
9. Use of term teabagger
10. Other Controversies

Then, we condense them into a smaller section in this article (I haven't done a thorough review of everything, so it's hard for me to determine exactly what that should be.)

Homo Logica (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are all the sections that focus on controversies (from my cursory check). Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, don't forget that we'd need to leave behind a summary of the material moved. Second, Fundraising and public opinion are core issues and should [not] be moved wholesale.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [amended]   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. That's what I was addressing with the latter part. In that it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article.

Fundraising and Public Opinion, from my first glace, shouldn't be moved. The reason I added them, was because of the contents. Fundraising and support focuses almost entirely on the Koch brothers, as an accusation, which has been disputed by the Koch brothers. Public Opinion, I'm a little more leery on, but again, it seems to focus mostly on how people approve or disapprove, and how it shows they do not represent the average American.

I fully agree that those sections are relevant. The current content of them, though, is more towards it as criticism. I meant the contents of the sections. Not anything that would be in said sections.

Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If we remove all of the critical material and keep everything else then it would be a POV fork and a violation of [[WP::NPOV]]. Just about everything in the article could be considered a controversy one way or another, so it's important to only move those self-contained incidents which are not core to the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referencing just the things that were unflattering. I was talking, specifically, about material that represents something for which there is a controversy, in the truest sense of the word. Under Fundraising, for example, the Koch brothers were accused of funding the Tea Party. So, we present both sides. The accusations, and the responses. Just as with the racism claims. Accusations and counterpoint. Let them make their own decisions, we just present the controversy. Looking at WP:POVFORK, though, it occurs to me that Perceptions of the Tea Party would be a more NPOV way to do it (this is also a response to Xenophrenic). I definitely didn't want to limit it to just pulling out the critical stuff.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up as far as potential duplication: Tea Party protests also touches on the issues of racism allegations, early Koch involvement, etc., and the National Tea Party Federation article was created about the organization formed as a result of "unflattering" events. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll try to make the rounds to similar articles, catch everything up together, put in similar stubs, and link to the new one. Any more concerns on the matter from anybody before I go through them?

Homo Logica (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I wasn't out to remove topics where there is criticism, I was just out to remove junk that doesn't belong the article. My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved. The new article is a pragmatic way to get there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it appear that you seem to use the term "junk" to reference material that may be disparaging to the Tea Party, regardless of the coverage and sourcing? BigK HeX (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

North's concern (correct me if I'm wrong, obviously :-P), is that the amount of material in this article, puts WP:UNDUE on some of the more sensationalist events, which detracts from the rest of the article, making it not WP:NPOV.

Also, North, I'm in definite agreement that the sections should still be there. I was specifically talking about the material that is currently in the sections, as it relates mostly to the perceptions about the Tea Party Movement, and not the Movement itself.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly think that is related to the problem where there is little other than (perhaps) sensationalist material to cover because the subject of the article is really too new to have settled, stable assessments. When we have to rely on newspapers as the dominant source, there are going to be issues in weighting, but I don't think anyone has tried to make the case that the "controversial" material covered in the article has not had comparable coverage and exposure to the material describing certain people's view on the Tea Party's goals. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BigK, you misunderstand me. By "junk" I mean (primarily those three sections) material that isn't ABOUT and the subject of the article, basically those three subsections. And sourcing is irrelevant to that question.

BigK, I think that you hit the nail on the head. Except that the issue is related to newness but goes beyond newness. IT IS NOT AN ENTITY, right now it is just a phenomena, we keep trying to cover it as if it was an entity and the people within it as if they were an organization or an entity. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Socialism or just plain antisocial?

Some comments on a few of the points made above:

• "The first thing to go should be the twitter section." --North8000

I've seen reference made to a "twitter section". There isn't one. There is, however, an incident where a TP leader and organizer expressed racist sentiments while attending the health care reform protests. While he did use Twitter as his media selection to post the slurs on a Springboro Tea party site, the media vehicle he used isn't at all germane to the issue. In my opinion, misdescribing it as a 'twitter section' is merely one part of a multi-pronged attack routine attempting to minimize the relevance of content (usually followed by descrediting the source, and finally by trying to distance the source from the "real" TP movement). We also do not have a "cardboard sign drawn with crayons section", but we do have another expression of racist sentiments by a TP leader/organizer. We don't have a "lol blog post on teh interwebs section", but we do have another expression of bigoted and racist sentiment by a TP leader/organizer. The reason these are issues is because of the message, not the choice of media used to convey it.

• "My first case in point in this article would be the section about the twitter comment." --North8000, but then we added the N-word slur incident,
• "A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections..." --North8000, but then we added the cut gas line incident,
• "But I forgot to include the propane grill damage..." and "My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved." --North8000

Okay, so we're up to 3 incidents and counting. Am I to understand these to be North's candidates for transferral to the proposed Criticism and/or Perceptions sub-article? Homo Logica, on the otherhand, has listed at least 10 — not just incidents, but whole sections — to move over, but adds, "it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article."

I may need a little help to understand the direction of the discussion, as well as any shared goals we are trying to achieve. Are we discussing moving just 3 incidents over, and "improving" the other content here? Or if we are discussing a massive transferral of content, do you intend to retain but "summarize" individual incident content here, such as the Thomas, Robertson, Williams, etc., sentiments? I don't see either of those as actual solutions to the real problems outlined above, just a relocation of the problems.

• "The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated"." --Homo Logica

A little clarification seems to be needed: All three of the "incidents" ("spic" slur, "nigger" slur, and the severed gas line) are from the health care protest part. As are the "homo" slur, the "schlomo" slur, the "liar and crook" slur, the "faggot" slur, the swastikas notes, the spitting incident, the “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can” gun violence threats; the brick through Rep. Slaughter's window, etc. While they are all from the 72-hour period of protests surrounding the March 20-22, 2010 Health Care Reform votes, some confusion has been generated by giving some incidents their very own sub-header in the article. As for the "unsubstantiated" misnomer, all of the incidents do have multiple first-hand eyewitness corroboration; but I think the label is supposed to allude to the lack of additional audio/photo/video recording evidence, which all of the other incidents have, to support the "nigger" slur incident. (Because just that one particular slur would be so out of character at those protests, right?)

• "In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife." --North8000

'Or wrote something racist', like Sonny Thomas did about "spics"? Looking at the presently cited source entitled Racial slur by Tea Party leader hits home, I can see why you might feel the source is only talking about that one bad apple, and not about the Tea Party. Would it satisfy your concerns if we replaced that source with a more detailed follow-up report source by the same award-winning investigative reporter, and more broadly titled it, Springboro Tea Party tries to weather controversy, where it explains the relevancy by detailing the following about the movement:

National group tries to organize — While the local controversy unraveled, officials from Tea Party groups around the country met in Minnesota to form a federation designed to coordinate the messages communicated by local groups such as the Springboro Tea Party and counteract charges of racism and disorganization undermining the national message. John Green, director of the Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, pointed to the Reform Party, formed by Texan Ross Perot, as another grass-roots political group that encountered problems because of its decentralized organization. “There’s no control,” Green said. Still, Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. In 1998, Jessie Ventura was elected Minnesota’s governor as a Reform Party candidate. Can the Tea Party overcome controversies such as the one in Springboro and match or surpass the Reform Party’s accomplishments? “Nobody knows if the Tea Party will be that strong,” Green said, looking ahead to November. “If the economy continued to perform poorly, the Tea Party may be a factor in the fall elections.”

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)