Talk:Tea Party movement

The Tea Party is not libertarian

Libertarianism's defining tenet is the nonintervention of government in personal freedom issues. Can a group that overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war, etc. be considered libertarian? Certainly not. The tea party positions are frequently antithetical to those of Ron Paul and real libertarians. The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism. Therefore, I recommend the article's description of the tea party as conservative and libertarian be amended to simply describe it as conservative. I also suggest references (and photo) implying Ron Paul is a leader or quintessential representative of the movement be removed. Even polling data in the article reveals Ron Paul is not one of the most respected figures among Tea Party supporters.

Respectfully, there's at least 4 things mixed up in that post. Regarding "The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism." libertarianism is certainly not conservatism. The wording was selected by an extensive mediation process. Doubtless it was because the TPM contains both conservatives and libertarians. Where did you get ".... overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war," from? I've not seen those in any TPM agenda. Roughly speaking its agendas have been items where conservatives and libertarians agree, and have mostly avoided items where conservatives and libertarians disagree. Ron Paul has been prominent in the history of the TPM. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Although trying to define libertarianism usually leads to disagreement, it is not too controversial to say that libertarianism's defining tenet is not the nonintervention of government in personal freedom issues, it is minimizing the role of government in everything, not just personal freedom issues. The use of government power at the behest of gay activists to try to impose an acceptance of homosexuality onto society, as in the cases of NJ trying to force the Boy Scouts to allow openly homosexual scoutmasters, of CA schools teaching "gay history", or of trying to use the courts to redefine marriage, is not libertarian, although it is frequently excused by gay activists and their sympathizers by the claim that such use of government power expands personal freedom. Given the opposition of most Americans to the redefinition of marriage, as evidenced by the perfect record of state referendums and ballot initiatives which reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, support for changing the definition of marriage through judicial fiat or through state legislation is an anti-libertarian position since it involves using government power to force a minority political opinion onto the general population. In that sense, there is nothing anti-libertarian about the support of most members of the TPM for the traditional definition of marriage. Don't cite media polls on attitudes about redefining marriage as real evidence. Polls don't carry nearly the weight of referendums, especially given the attitude of most large media organizations wrt gay issues. On the other hand, the TPM certainly does not seem to be libertarian wrt the WOD or wrt international interventionism.75.17.243.139 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange argument- there is no doubt that many, but certainly not all libertarians support the TPM, and than many of the TPM are not libertarians. That does not mean that everyone in the TPM has exactly the same political opinions on anything much at all, but does imply that some of the positions held by TPM members are, indeed, libertarian. In short, have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, did you guys even read this article? 82 percent of tea party supporters oppose same-sex marriage, and virtually all the politicians identified in the article as tea party leaders (Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, etc.) oppose same-sex marriage and most of them have endorsed federal bans. They also tend to be very hawkish on military interventions -- again antithetical to libertarianism. Also, my statement "the only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism" doesn't suggest libertarianism and conservatism are the same. Libertarianism has liberal elements, but the Tea Party shares none of those liberal elements of libertarianism, only conservative elements. Hence, my contention that the Tea Party is essentially conservative and not essentially libertarian. If you disagree, provide examples of libertarian values shared by the Tea Party that aren't conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As a Libertarian Party member, when you look at our National Platform, and compare it against the Tea Party's ultra-conservative agenda, they are polar opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.82 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party and libertarianism are, of course, not synonymous, one being a party a political party and the other being an ideology. Your characterization of the the Tea Party as "ultra-conservative" is unwarranted. Most Americans don't support the legalization of recreational drugs, the redefinition of marriage, corporate bailouts, increased government spending, increased government interference or increased taxation. On those issues, the TPM is completely mainstream. You may have a better case wrt military intervention abroad. Although the TPM's generally positive attempt toward the US military is entirely mainstream, there is some indication of war fatigue amongst the general public regarding military intervention in the ME which seems to be less prevalent in the TPM. I'm not sure that the degree of support for military intervention abroad in the TPM rises to the "ultraconservative level, however.

Your personal POV is clear. The NYT etc. however do not appear to share that POV and specifically note the libertarian influence on the TPM. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT is ideological hostile to the TPM. Trusting it as a legitimate source of information regarding the TPM must be done with care. Certainly, there has been and continues to be a battle over the agenda of the Tea Party which reflects the ongoing culture war in America. The NYT comes down quite firmly against traditional values so it would not be surprising if it were to skew its coverage of the Tea Party in a way which marginalizes cultural conservatives. Honestly, the TPM seemed to me to arise out of opposition to the GM bailouts, the bailouts of the financial sector, TARP and most especially to Obamacare. While the opposition to these specific laws is certainly libertarian, I don't see any evidence that Ron Paul or "movement libertarians" had any real influence in the formation of the TPM. Opposition to tax-and-spend big-government has been a staple of American politics for more than 30 years. The huge electoral victories of Reagan, the "Gingrich revolution" of 1994, the punishment of the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008, and the TPM in 2010 all share the common theme of reigning in the size and scope of the federal government.

Dismissing the diametric opposition of several libertarian and Tea Party values as my "personal POV" seems like a cop-out. Again, please provide examples of Tea Party values that are libertarian in nature but not conservative in nature. If you can't do that, then describing the Tea Party as conservative AND libertarian without qualification is at best controversial and makes no more sense than labeling Merlot a wine AND a beer.

It is not up to anyone to prove that your "truth" - isn't. Rather it is up to you to provide relaible sources for your claims - noting that the NYT, inter alia, has specifically linked the TPM with libertarians as well as other conservatives. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

76.91.74.103, with respect to the article, the main point is that made by Collect, plus that this was extensively discussed and decided in a mediation process. But as a sidebar, you have several things scrambled up in the points that you make. First, stance on gay marriage (marriage being a special status conferred by the government) is a totally different thing than the libertarian stance of openness to homosexuality. Second, views of supporters does not equate to being the agenda of the TPM. If supporters preferred the color red, would you say that the the TPM agenda is to promote the color red? Finally, the inference of your last question is faulty logic. The TPM agend is, roughly speaking, the items in common with conservatives an libertarians (i.e areas where they don't conflict) It is baseless and faulty logic to say that it is required that the TPM have an agenda in conflict with conservatism in order for it to be considered partially libertarian. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources given in the article for the claim that the TPM is "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" (footnotes 4 and 5). The WSJ and Washington Post articles cited both describe the TPM as conservative AND DON'T EVEN MENTION LIBERTARIANISM. The one article that does mention it is a reason.com post suggesting that only a fraction of the party is "libertarian-leaning." I'm sure someone as concerned as you are with reliable sourcing of information agrees that the sources in the article by no means indicate that the TPM is best described as both conservative and libertarian.

And with respect North8000, it is you whose logic is faulty. It's true that if Tea Partiers preferred the color red that wouldn't necessarily make the superiority of the color red part of their agenda, however it would certainly indicate that the superiority of the color green was NOT part of their agenda. And contrary to your claim, if the TPM has many elements in common with conservatism that are not part of libertarianism and no elements that are part of libertarianism that are not part of conservatism, then it most certainly does follow that "conservative" is a more accurate label for the TPM than "libertarian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Try, inter alia, [1] New York Times:

Republicans and Democrats alike may have underestimated the power of the party, a loosely affiliated coalition of libertarians and disaffected Republicans.

Seems to disprove your position readly. Need more? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As before, Collect is making the important points. But as a sidebar, the premise of your final question was incorrect. The TPM agenda in general does not have items that are in conflict with libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: If my position was that the New York Times had never said the Tea Party contained libertarians, then yes, that would disprove my position. However, it does nothing to disprove my actual position, which is that this article's contention that the TPM is "generally recognized" as both conservative and libertarian is a controversial claim, whereas the statement that the TPM is generally recognized as conservative would not be a controversial claim. Even the source cited in the article itself for that very quote emphasizes that libertarianism is NOT a defining element of the movement, only a minority fraction of the movement. And even the title of that piece -- "Is Half the Tea Party Libertarian?" -- suggests there is controversy. It is fair to say there is a libertarian wing of the TPM (as the NYT has done e.g. "Tea Party Finds Power Leads to Policy Splits" 6-29-2011), but to call the movement itself libertarian is extremely misleading and far from generally accepted even among tea partiers themselves. Perhaps the wiki article should address the libertarian end of the TPM spectrum -- but mischaracterizing an overwhelmingly socially conservative movement as libertarian is not the way to do it.

North8000: First of all, the question is whether the article is correct in labeling the TPM libertarian, not whether there is conflict between the TPM and libertarianism. There is no conflict between the TPM and abstract expressionism, or between the TPM and quantum theory, but that doesn't make those things generally accepted as defining the movement. Furthermore, I listed several ways in which the policies advocated by tea party constituents and political figures DO in fact conflict with the social liberalism and noninterventionism that characterize libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Tea Party does not endorse libertarian ideas in many cases. It appears simply to be a right-wing or far-right faction of the traditional Republican voting block.--Drdak (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then get the NYT etc. to change their articles -- we do not use what you know to be the truth -- we use what reliable sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: It seems you are continuing to hold up a NYT article as evidence, while ignoring all other reliable sources -- including, as I have pointed out, sources that are cited in this very article! One line in an article saying the TPM contains some libertarians doesn't come anywhere close to showing that the movement is GENERALLY RECOGNIZED as libertarian. The fact is there is overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is conservative and there is NOT overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is libertarian. Mention that it contains libertarian-leaning factions if that's important, but don't describe the movement itself as "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" because it's simply not true! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually just about all the generally major outlets have used "libertarian" wrt the TPM - your "overwhelming sonsensus" - ain't. See WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not according to the sources referenced by the article. If you disagree with them, as you said: get them to change their articles. I'm not sure what your "overwhelming sonsensus" crack is supposed to mean. Are you now denying there is a consensus that the TPM is conservative? That hardly supports your case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The core points were stated above, and you've not really responded to them. There was a large mediation process that worked out that sentence, and it's sourced; I can't speak for each of the people involved. And you keep (I think inadvertently) setting up a straw man which that it would a unified agenda and that that agenda must be full-scope libertarian in order to make the statement that is made. That is not sound. But I think it's clear where it came from. It clearly has substantial participation by both conservatives and libertarians, and it's platform is things in common with those two. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the statement is NOT adequately sourced. As I pointed out, 2 of the 3 sources for that sentence don't even mention libertarianism and that one that does suggests the libertarian credentials of the TPM are controversial. Thus, the very sources in the article (as well as much of the article itself) indicate the TPM is much more aptly described as conservative than libertarian. It is you that continues to ignore that point and not respond to it. I am making no straw man argument.

Tea Party Decline?

I feel like there should be a section on the Tea Party's decline with articles like these. I think it's obvious to anyone whose looked at the movement that there haven't been any tea party actions since 2010. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an intelligent summary of key items from that article would be good. Don't start out through the lens of "decline", just follow it where it goes; do a quality summary of the key points of what is there. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CartoonDiablo, but I'm not seeing a strong case made in the article you linked that the TP has declined that much. It seems to be describing more of a change of focus and tactics (away from the costumes, silly signs, etc.) while trying to stay relevant and influencial in a more dispersed, local level. I agree with North that there is some good information in that article, but the point you are stressing might be better conveyed by articles like this. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure with quotes like "For the Tea Party movement, the 2012 presidential primaries have been a bust" and “The Tea Party movement is dead. It’s gone,” says Chris Littleton, the cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups in Ohio" it's pretty obvious there is a sheer decline if not dead.

Yes there is a small paragraph on how activists are focusing on smaller grassroots efforts but given the decline in numbers and lead assertion that it's dead, I don't think you can just say it "shifted to grassroots". CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it it where the summary of quality impartial sources takes it. The above looks more like looking for opinions that meet a particular notion. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Beast and Huffington Post both quote reliable sources like the Harvard professor. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very low bar except in a few arbitrary areas. Nevertheless, I found your additions to consist mostly of actual relevant information, in contrast to most of this article which consists of trivia gamed in for a certain (negative) effect. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Invalid Sources for "Use of term "teabagger" section

Footnoted as 312 and 313.

Footnote 312 is purely opinion - an OPINION written about a specific sign. The sign being cited as evidence of the OPINION. There is no proof or fact to back up this opinion. Furthermore this OPINION is contradicted by several other cites which aren't friendly to the Tea Party movement. (Two words on a sign "Tea Bag" do not equal "Teabagger." Just as the words "Way Off" do not equal the word "Wayoffer." The stance made in 312 seems to be biased by political mindset, and if offered as the only evidence, it is important to point out that the words used, in the context they are used, would also indicate those NOT involved in the Tea Party movement are also "teabaggers." Again - this takes a deliberate misreading/misinterpretation, and appears to be politically driven by the author.)

313 - broken link - goes nowhere.

It is possible that no one knows when the word "teabagger" was FIRST used to describe Tea Party members, or its origins, but it is debatable whether the term was self-ascribed, or only entered the vernacular as a derogatory statement. For this reason, I feel there are NO FACTS to support the section entitled, "Use of term 'teabagger'" and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.72 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the broken link (313); it has been replaced. Regarding your statement that (312) "is purely opinion" ... no, it's not. It's a link to a series of photo images. Perhaps you were speaking of a different link? As for your suggestion that the section "should be removed", are you implying that the "teabagger" phrase, in relation to the Tea Partiers, doesn't exist? What of the citations (314), (315), (316) and (317)? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy of "way-off / wayoffer" makes sense because "way off" is not used as a verb. If "teabag" is used as a verb, then the subject of that verb is a teabagger, just as when the word "talk" is used as a verb the subject is a "talker." If one engages in teabagging, one is a teabagger. Period. That's just the way the English language works. That said, I am skeptical about the origin of the term as identified with apparent certainty in the article. My understanding was that "teabag" was first known to be used as a verb in that context when activists circulated messages saying "teabag Obama," "teabag the fools in Washington," etc. as part of a tax protest than involved mailing tea bags to legislators. Furthermore, if the main reason many consider "teabagger" offensive is because the verb "teabag" has a sexual meaning, then the term "teabagger" shouldn't be vastly more offensive than any other usage (e.g. "Let's teabag Obama!") that implies "teabag" as a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

everyone reading this knows tea-bagger is a childish derogatory remark equal to farting in an elevator. the same children insist on making it part of an article about politics. it deserves the exact same coverage the term commie gets on the communism article, none. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It "deserves" the coverage that reliable sources attribute to it. It may be about as derogatory as calling editors children, but if multiple reliable sources give weight to the term, then it doesn't matter if we feel it's derogatory or not. To remove it for purely that reason would run afoul of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - SudoGhost 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

exactly which peer-review scholastic source used the term tea bagger? all li see are columns from pundits selling the electronic blog version of the enquirer. If WP:Due is applicable, why isnt commie featured on the communism page, perhaps you believe that term is less pouplar, or not mentioned in the same rags you claim to be rs here? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are an organic work in progress, so the lack of a term in another article doesn't mean much. Also, there are many types of sources; content does not require a "peer-review scholastic source" to be appropriate, it requires a reliable source. - SudoGhost 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

and those sources have been challenged by several editors. either replace them, or the content will be removed. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are these "several editors"? If you're referring to this discussion, there's nothing here demonstrating that all the sources in the section are not reliable. ABC News, Salon, Fox News are reliable sources for the purposes of verifying the information in that section. So no, the content will not be removed. Not on that reasoning, at any rate. - SudoGhost 15:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

welcome to the article Sudo, peruse the archives to see the past discussion on tea bagger for a list of those opposed. i am glad you listed the sources, and no, none of those are scholarly, peer-reviewed, or in any way appropriate for a political article. Try inserting fox news on Obama's page, LOL! and yes, i will remove it myself after giving others a chance to comment, you are free to revert and defend fox. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it will be reverted the moment you remove the content, because it's properly sourced information, and the reasons you've given for removing it don't fall within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Don't like it? Take it to WP:RSN, and establish some type of consensus that these sources aren't reliable. "Scholarly, peer-reviewed" sources are not the only type of reliable sources, not liking a source or the content is not, and will never be a reason to remove sourced information from an article. - SudoGhost 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Populist?

I know this has been discussed before, but still the primary definition of the topic says that The Tea Party is a “populist” movement, which in my opinion (very humble one, as English is not my first language) is really not a NPOV word. If we cannot use some (in my opinion) less opinionated (e.g., I would vote for “popular”) adjective, couldn't we just drop adjectives altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceplm (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Populist is not a laudatory term, it is a taxonomic political term, albeit with several different meanings. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Populism merely means that they claim to be the voice of the people and to oppose the elites. TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not Populist at all. It was an invented and well crafted movement. This false claim of populist would ignore the beginning of the movement funded by the Koch Bros. and organized by Joe Wurtzbicki as an anti-Obama tactic. Prior to starting the Tea Party cross country bus tours, Joe first organized the 'Stop Obama' tour with the same bus, same group of entertainers, and the same towns on the tours. They targeted Michigan and Wisconsin as they were key states in the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.82 (talk • contribs)

If a "movement" claims to be populist it usually isn't. A claim of populist suitably attributed to a number of sources would be fine. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The NYT has used the term "populist" [2] in a large number of articles - so it is quite likely that it would be deemed an RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the TPM is "an invented and well crafted movement" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is populist. TFD (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that certain editors, such as North8000, have been slipping in ambiguously POV specific material to give the tea party broader credibility than it actually has. It may be that the tea party can legitimately be called populist (even though it often seems pretty esoteric and elitist)but the claim that the tea party is generally recognized as libertarian is just absurd -- unless you think warmongering, gay-hating, Patriot Act loving, Christian fundamentalist establishment Republicans like Sarah Palin are libertarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.26.231 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted this edit, which purports to remove a "POV bomb", but in reality reverts many edits. Could someone please point out this "POV bomb" here so that it may be addressed? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a large entanglement which entangles and obscures the wors part of it, removal of the more neutral & TPM related coverage and replacign with a highly biased selection which implies that the only external was from one side and that the main factor (of al of the large issues involved) that determined the election was external money. Given the issues and that your addition is contested, the minimum would be to first discuss or present them in talk separately. And it's ridiculous to try to keep warring back in that huge entanglement which obscures and entangles the changes that you are trying to make. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a "large entanglement which entangles", whatever that might be; I merely copy-edited the huge entanglement which entangles added by the previous editor, Magicjava (an editor with only a dozen mainspace edits), and made sure that his/her new content conformed to cited sources. My edits actually result in a net-reduction of 2 bytes to the article. I hope that clears up your confusion. Given that you claim you contest Magicjava's "huge" Walker addition, it struck me as odd that you haven't removed it until they were "discussed or presented in talk separately", and instead only reverted the copy editing of that Walker information added by another editor. I know you certainly wouldn't revert-war (including the wiping out of several other editor's edits) like that intentionally, North, unless you were confused or mistaken; I'm glad we were able to clear that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(yep - the CSM opinions are given rather great weight - here, and might be construed as POV - better to leave them out) --Collect

Hi, Collect! I've reviewed your edit with the above edit summary; your edit doesn't "leave out" the Christian Science Monitor content recently added, it only moves it around in the article. Did you intend to remove the CSM Walker content, as your edit summary said, or did you instead intend to undo the formatting of refs, undo the movement of the TP Agenda closer to the top of the article, etc., that your edit actually did? Since your actual edit was nothing like what was described in your edit summary, and was actually unproductive, I've undone it. Clarification on what your actual concern is would be very much appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Specific entanglements which entangle, and other "wors parts"

Our Wikipedia article states:

The Christian Science Monitor reports that large amounts of out-of-state cash and the Tea Party both played parts in Scott Walker's recall election victory in Wisconsin. "Wisconsin was, in fact, flooded with record amounts of donations that helped Mr. Walker defeat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), with some of that outside cash coming from wealthy industrialists and financiers ... Walker’s ground game played a big role in pulling off a win, as he became the first governor in US history to survive a recall election. And like the recent GOP primary victory of Richard Mourdock over veteran US Sen. Dick Lugar in nearby Indiana, that ground game is being pitched by cadres of grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the leaderless tea party movement."

It is cited to the CSM source which states:

Disappointed progressives blame an avalanche of campaign cash from outside Wisconsin for their failed bid to recall tea party favorite Gov. Scott Walker (R), whose controversial gambit to shrink the influence of the public-sector unions became a national cause célèbre for both the right and the left last year. In a way, those critics are spot on: Wisconsin was, in fact, flooded with record amounts of donations that helped Mr. Walker defeat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), with some of that outside cash coming from wealthy industrialists and financiers. But there’s a second part to how Walker won. Walker’s ground game played a big role in pulling off a win, as he became the first governor in US history to survive a recall election. And like the recent GOP primary victory of Richard Mourdock over veteran US Sen. Dick Lugar in nearby Indiana, that ground game is being pitched by cadres of grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the leaderless tea party movement.

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article also states:

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in April, 2012 shows 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold at least a somewhat favorable view of Tea Party activists, while 49% share an unfavorable opinion of them. When asked if the Tea Party movement will help or hurt Republicans in the 2012 elections, 53% of Republicans said they see the Tea Party as a political plus.

It is cited to a Rasmussen Report with these poll questions which state:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold at least a somewhat favorable view of Tea Party activists, while 49% share an unfavorable opinion of them. This includes 23% with a Very Favorable view and 29% with a Very Unfavorable one. Question #5: "Will the Tea Party movement help or hurt the Republican Party in the 2012 Elections?"

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since your edit summaries don't convey anything close to describing the actual edits you've made, perhaps you'll take the time here to explain what your concerns are. I disagree with Collect that the above are "CSM opinions" and are better left out of the article; it appears to me to be a news report piece, and relevant to the Tea Party (and the Poll info has nothing to do with the CSM). I also disagree with North that Magicjava's content additions about the Walker recall election are "huge" or an "entanglement which entangles". It appears to be rather simple and direct information, and it adheres to the cited sources. I'm looking forward to your input on the above matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, please stop your edit warring to force in controversial material. Answering your one question, by entanglement, mean that you entangled the controversial and problematic material with some other innocuous edits, and *(as a sidebar) then mentioned only the innocuous ones in the edit summary. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, North. Please stop edit-warring to force in POV material. Did you have a specific concern with the material in the article, ("problematic material", as you say) and will you please describe that concern here so that it can be adressed and resolved? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And now you are trying to further engangle it by reinserting the tangled bundel and following that with other edits. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice try on the "in the article" crap. I have a concern (expressed above) about the new problematic material that you are trying to war into the article, not about material the is "in the article" . North8000 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please specify what your concern is, so that we can address and rectify it? I've looked "above", and all I can see that might qualify as "concerns" is that I should check my edits with you before making them, and I have added no "new material" -- I've only edited material added by another editor. In the interest of finding a resolution here, please spell out your concern. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(Aside from the process maneuvers concerns described above) Again, the existing material (which you keep trying to delete and substitute) is both germane, lower key, and reasonably neutral. Basically mentioning the election & results, and that the TPM had some involvement/influence. The replacement version that you keep trying to war in is none of the above. Basically substituting a selection that covers only the angle of outside money and only the money that went to one side. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The source does not convey that Walker won only because of TP support; in fact, it lists that as just the "second part" of the reason (see source text above). The previous article version implied the TP was responsible, which actually is contrary to the cited source, which concludes by quoting “solidification of his (Walker's) grasp of the state was much bigger than the tea party coalition and appealed to the broader swath of the public.” Even the source article poses the TP influence as a question. "Reasonably neutral" does not mean mis-convey cited sources. Do you have a suggested re-wording of the content that would satisfy you, but still comply with what cited sources say? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the CSM - all we can say from the story is that "grass-roots activists who identify to a large extent with the ... tea party movement" played a significant role in the two campaigns. The edit draws an implicit connection between the money and the activists, which is synthesis. Also, it is not necessary to say inline which newspaper reports a story. TFD (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning CSM is unnecessary, if it is a news story. As for "synthesis" as to the direct correlation between campaign money and the TP, I was reading that more from the Bennett piece (mentioning Americans for Prosperity, etc.) edited in from the same editor. But that is an opinion piece, so I think you are right on that item as well, pending RS support. Thanks for the clarity. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)