Talk:Tea Party movement

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just some typos

Under Organization:

"...notable politicians Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul,..."

should be

"...notable Republican politicians Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul,..."

for clarity and correctness.

Under Agenda: Delete New York Times definition - They are far left and not factual or credible. NOT "anti-government", but anti "irresponsible" government

The tobacco industry and the Tea Party

• Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaires
• Amanda Fallin, Rachel Grana, Stanton A Glantz, ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third-party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party

“ Background The Tea Party, which gained prominence in the USA in 2009, advocates limited government and low taxes. Tea Party organisations, particularly Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, oppose smoke-free laws and tobacco taxes.

Methods We used the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, the Wayback Machine, Google, LexisNexis, the Center for Media and Democracy and the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) to examine the tobacco companies’ connections to the Tea Party.

Results Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations. As of 2012, the Tea Party was beginning to spread internationally.

Conclusions Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations.

”

— goethean 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The first items is about 6 levels below being a source and credibility. The second one has some real facts in it plus spun statements that don't follow from the facts listed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As usual, your comments are strictly partisan, have no relation to Wikipedia policy, and can be ignored as irrelevant. The academic journal article that the blog post describes and which the abstract summarizes is a reliable source of the highest order and will be used in this article. — goethean 14:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss without the baseless personal insults? More specifically:

1. On the first item, I was commenting on what you linked to (a clearly anti-TPM advocacy blog) not the item which you are now referring to but didn't link to.
2. On the second item, a link to the "TobaccoControl" web site, what I said is that the material on that web page it contained some factual items and some statements that didn't follow from those factual items.

How in your imagination do you get your "strictly partisan" crap out of that? Quit it! North8000 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am being more polite and charitable than your comments warrant. No matter, I have already requested through my local public library a copy of the full text of the academic journal article. I suggest that you do the same. — goethean 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll charitably skip to your second sentence. Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I love these correlation without causation studies. Some anti-TP people think that Big Tobacco must be behind the TP and then go look for anything that confirms their hypothesis. Finding anything then confirms their hypothesis. It might be more believable if the TP had been a notable participant in any big tobacco issues. I would be far more likely to believe that the TP was created by Big Oil, but that is just to passe to be of interest by the MSM. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

agreed, i first heard of the tea party in 2007 and was about income tax. [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole core of the TPM agenda and driving force of the movement is prioritizing less government, lower taxes, lower spending. A reader of this crap-hole attack piece of an article, where every possible piece of negative trivia has been gamed and battled in would think that it is about everything but those things. And a few people have work aggressively and tendentiously to prevent it rising from attack-piece junk status, and people have given up on fixng it. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you can tell that a study is flawed without reading it, then I guess you don't need a copy of it. — goethean 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look up a few lines, I didn't say that. More specifically I said "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material." North8000 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Most Muslims claim their religion goes back to Adam instead of Mohammad. We do not accept this claim but merely note it and go with outside observation. We have outside academic observation that the Tea Party was created by non-profit groups founded and funded by corporate interests. Per NPOV, unless we find academic sources that present them as being a grassroots movement, we cannot present them as such. I've summarized the findings, and only cited the HuffPost article for verification that Citizens for a Sound Economy (mentioned even in the abstract). I could also cite the source that says the same thing at our article on CoaSE, but this source, which is about the study, is the most appropriate secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is that we're not *required* to use any source that comes around, especially if it doesn't pass the smell test. Per WP:V, it seems pretty controversial to add so far, and I would agree with its removal at the moment until we've got more information on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks are not the whole of the tea party, or even a majority. OR at best, POV pushing more likely. Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies is the snippet sniped from the cancer study some unknown blogged about. weasel word alert; associated, ties, is a far cry from the edit you support. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando: Please present any non-Tea Party source finding that the study's conclusions are controversial. We don't do original research, but we do use published original research from peer-reviewed academic journals with editorial oversight ("When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources"). It is nothing but tendentious to deny that a peer-reviewed journal on how big tobacco has affected society is reliable.

Darkstar1st: You clearly didn't see the edit I made, please actually know what you're talking about before posting. I only summarized what was in the two source, and gave those two sources only one sentence, so there wasn't an issue of undue weight. I only summarized what was in the sources (including a secondary source giving professional analysis of the article), so there wasn't OR. As the source points out, Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks are not the Tea Party movement as a whole now, but (as is documented in sources here and in the journal article), were responsible for getting the Tea Party movement started. My edit did not say "associated" and "ties", so your application of WP:WEASEL is incorrect at best and false at worst. The Huffington post article did use those words in summarizing parts of the study, but trying to apply WP:WEASEL to outside sources is nothing but Wikilawyering.

Overall, I'm seeing wikilawyering (bad wikilawyering at that) and tendentious editing in trying to apply BLP to groups, arguing that summarizing published works with no embellishment fails our rules preventing us from doing original research, and arguing that a peer-reviewed journal on how big tobacco has affected society is anything but the best source for one more way the tobacco industry has affected society. That is the shameful POV-pushing going on here, not my addition. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of coverage period yet, which should probably tell us something. As it stands, it appears that the link is "Big Tobacco wants to use 3rd party groups, one third party group that agrees with Big Tobacco also agrees with the Tea Party, thus the Tea Party roots are in Big Tobacco." I don't see how that exactly makes a ton of sense, or why it needs to be in this article. We have enough bad sourcing from both sides of the debate in this article to begin with, I fail to see what this adds at this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. Try reading. — goethean 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did read it. That's functionally what it's saying. I'm not seeing consensus for the addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your (Ian.thomson) source, even if it were reliable, says "associated" and "tied"; if you do not, it's a clear WP:OR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tobacco Control"

Is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about living persons. One eensy indication that it is not a "neutral source" is the bit:

It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations.

Sources which make clearly editorial comments are unlikely to meet Wikipedia requirements about contentious claims. Collect (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It has a LOT of problems. An "F" grade source telling us what the "study" says, and it only talking about a tiny piece of the TPM, not the TPM. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the website of the academic journal Tobacco Control. It is unquestionably a reliable source of the highest caliber. That the article argues about what is important for tobacco advocates to do or to not do in order to be effective has absolutely no bearing on its status as a reliable source. — goethean 15:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The journal is published by BMJ Group. — goethean 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The "study" is based on Google and Wayback - and the journal is not a reliable source on political issues at all -- any more than the JAMA would be a reliable source on economics. No journal is "reliable" when it ventures far outside its actual sphere of expertise. Collect (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies to persons, not to movements or organizations. An imprint of the peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted British Medicinal Journal focused on how the Tobacco industry affects society is an RS for issues relating to how the tobacco industry has affected society. Just because we do not use Google archives and Wayback does not prevent peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted academic journals from doing so. It is tendentious to dispute the validity of undeniably reliable sources, and it is wikilawyering to apply the standards for living individuals to unliving (if active) organizations. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just one of the many problems with that problematic attempted insertion. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As you ignored above, however, WP:V does not require us to use every source available. If the source is generally reliable, but the assertion doesn't really pass the smell test, we don't have to use it. As it stands, I can't tell whether this is a good study or not. I think we should wait until we know whether it is or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was getting to commenting above, and have done so. "We don't have to use it" is meant to prevent original research, not as an excuse for partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not narrowed to that one case, and the last two items you listed (" partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering.") don't exist regarding keeping it out except as you baseless insult/ mis-chacerization. Please quit that crap. Also you violated the 1RR restriction. Let's see if there is any quality stuff in the actual study and stop trying to war in crap from an advocacy blog. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only make 1 revert. Misapplying BLP to this group was wikilawyering, applying WP:WEASEL to the HuffPost article was wikilawyering, rejecting the study for OR is wikilawyering and tendentious, and saying that a peer-reviewed academic journal with editorial oversight on how the tobacco industry has affected society is anything but the best source for how big tobacco has affected society is tendentious, and all those are things that have occurred on this talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you are trying to put in is a faulty construction built upon a faulty construction built by an extreme op ed piece. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I put in a summary of this academic source, and only cited the secondary source for the part saying that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers, something we affirm in our own article about that group. Did you even bother to read my edit? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit was appropriate and support its restoration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

At best, your assessment there was completely mistaken.

My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests

Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."

You are absolutely wrong to claim that what I added was not supported (or even contradicted) by the academic article. I did not have to include the HuffPost article, but only did so for confirming that the Koch brothers founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (and if you want to dispute that that was my intention, read WP:AGF). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The number 1 problem is that your statement (claim regarding the entire movement) is not supported even by your selected references. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and wp:synth, and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion

I've raised the issue of whether or not a peer-reviewed BMJ Group academic journal with editorial oversight concerning how the tobacco industry has affected society is an appropriate source for how the tobacco industry at WP:RSN, at British Medical Journal imprint, "Tobacco Control," on one way how big tobacco has affected society. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If its reviewed by other peers, then no its not RS since it was reviewed by its peers. Borloak (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the argument is that it's not reliable, but whether or not the reference and topic are appropriate for the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that it has been argued that it's not reliable in this instance, and RSN does address whether it's appropriate to use an RS in a particular situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you put there is a mis-statement of the question and issues and so is not relevant to the debate here. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you been reading the above threads and the edit summaries in the article? Your friends have tried applying BLP to a group, they've tried applying WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to sources instead of articles, and they've said that a peer-reviewed academic source on how the tobacco industry affects society is not a reliable source for one way the tobacco industry has affected society. It's not even archived discussion, it's something that anyone keeping up with discussion would know unless they intentionally ignored it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said anything about BLP. Per above, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Will you actually read what I'm saying? I said "your friends have tried applying BLP to a group," it was first brought up here by Collect.

I never said I got the statement from the HuffPost piece, I only said that I got confirmation that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers. If you continue to get that wrong, I will only be able to assume that you're actively lying about things I've said. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about your statement "the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests". Even the "Tobacco Control" website source ("out there" as it is) that you used to cite that does not support that statement. Even the content of the op ed piece from the Huffington doesn't support that, only its title which its body doesn't support says that. Thus my "faulty construction built upon a faulty construction" statement. The biggest problem is even the highly biased sources that you chose don't support the statement that you are trying to put in. The second biggest problem is the low quality of the sources with respect to this. And I've not been discussing BLP. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests

Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."

You said that I put a misstatement of the question over at RSN, I did not misstate your question, I did not say you raised BLP, quit acting like I did because Collect did and you cannot deny that he did.

You accuse Tobacco Control, published by BMJ Group, a highly respected academic journal that is peer-reviewed and has editorial oversight, of being low quality? Ok, are you a corporate shill, or a Tea Partier in denial about being an unwitting lobbyist? Because that kind of tendentious editing cannot come from someone reasonably acting in good faith. A source not giving into the Tobacco company's propaganda is not the same as a biased source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The number 1 problem is that your statement is not supported even by your selected references, and you have just proved me right. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and wp:synth, and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion . North8000 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point, however, whether or not the source is reliable is secondary to the complete lack of consensus for addition. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's clearly something wrong with how this addition is going. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

New US gov't study on origins of Tea Party -- add to article

Someone should incorporate this into the "Organization" section: a new study from the National Institute of Health showing that the Tea Party originated out of a movement started in 2002 by the tobacco industry and the Koch brothers to foment action against taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.74.135 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're trying to cite the academic article that HuffPost piece is about, but some individuals who keep misinterpreting the situation have been removing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HuffPo is not RS for such a claim, and the "source" is not RS for political claims. Health publications are RS for health studies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Anent POV of a source:

was very surprised to be invited to present as part of an FDA-sponsored “Facilitated Dialogue” panel also featuring tobacco industry representatives, which would be focused on the topic of industry-funded research. This very type of industry engagement with senior public health figures is straight out of the tobacco companies’ public relations “corporate social responsibility” playbook and was something that at least one tobacco company anticipated as a favorable result of FDA legislation. [1, 2] Such “dialogues” have long been part of this and earlier industry public relations campaigns. Public health authorities and scientists – to say nothing of the federal agency charged with regulating this industry — should not lend their legitimacy to the tobacco companies’ efforts to position themselves as socially responsible. [2]

The idea of "peer review" is for scientific studies. Political statements are != "scientific studies" as far as I can tell.

. For this very reason, Tobacco Control, the journal that I edit, and other reputable scientific journals including PLoS Medicine no longer publish tobacco industry-funded research. [5, 6] To engage the industry as a legitimate partner in the discussion of how to deal with industry science is to ignore this large body of evidence.

And we are thus to accept a political paper about the topic where the organization appears to have an eensy bit of a POV? Sorry, Charlie. Collect (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control is not a government or academic source; it is solely political, even though published by a professional organization. HuffPo is a reliable source that the claim was made, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And the NCI is apparently not a governmental organization; it's affiliated with NIH, not part of NIH. The article appears to be the individual opinion of the authors; as NIH, NCI, and BMJ are not political experts, reliability would depend on the reliability of the individual authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

News articles on tobacco industry-Tea Party ties

• "Big Tobacco's Tea Party Ties Exposed" Rolling Stone — goethean 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

More proof that the text that you are trying to war in is wrong and violates wp:ver and wp:nor.

When all you have is a hammer... — goethean 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

??? North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The text that you are trying to war in makes claims about the entire tea party movement, which is unsupported by even the cherry-picked sources and in fact in conflict with them. The text is in clear violation of wp:ver, and doubly so of wp:synth (not only is it synthesis, but it is faulty synthesis). And the additional source that you just provided reinforces that point. So mere presence of the material violates wp:ver and wp:synth, putting it in over such objection violates wp:burden, and trying to war it in makes it three-times-over problematic. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

goethean, per policy, where are you seeing the consensus to add this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

the tea party is about income tax, big tobacco is about cigarette tax, the Boston tea party was about tea tax. to draw the three together is beyond synth and approaching delusional. big tobacco is seeking to associate the $1 a pack tax with the tea tax of 1775, the TP is trying to associate the income tax with oppressive statism ala king george, big left is trying to paint a legitimate grassroots movement as manufactured meat puppets of corporatist, which it is anything but and about as true as OWS is the bastard spawn of Soros [3]. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All 'health'/'sin' taxes are oppressive statism. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I guess that you should remove all of the negative material from the article, because that would make a certain group of editors here very, very happy. Is that what you suggest? — goethean 17:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to answer the question? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've answered your question. Your refusal to acknowledge my point does not invalidate it. — goethean 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed the point. If you're saying that there's consensus to remove all the negative information, or to exclude it, I don't see that consensus. I also don't see a consensus to include this information. I don't disagree with you that the source is reliable. I do disagree, at this point, that there's consensus for inclusion. If you see consensus, can you point it out? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There will never be consensus on this talk page to add any negative material about the Tea Party to this article. Is that clear enough for you? — goethean 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. Trying to pretend that it is bias based vs. the clear issues raised. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I am pretending that you have argued against every addition of negative material about the Tea Party that has been suggested in the history of this talk page. That's what I am imagining. How far away from reality is this product of my imagination? — goethean 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that you're adding the information even though you lack the consensus to do so, against policy? Or is the consensus policy not enough of a policy to pay attention to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this article has continued to exist and attain balance despite a group of editors who have opposed the addition of every proposed piece of negative information about the Tea Party. — goethean 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet you seem to be avoiding the key point that you're adding information against policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And you are avoiding he key point that the consensus on this talk page is to completely whitewash the article of all criticism and controversy. — goethean 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be true, actually. If that were the consensus, there would be no criticism or controversy in the article. So, since we've established that you're incorrect on that note as well as unable to demonstrate consensus for inclusion, will you remove the section or should I? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You have proved nothing apart from the depth of your own rhetoric. — goethean 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Answering Goethean's question, a look at the substance of the talk page discussion s will tell you the reality is a million miles from your imagination. For example, if someone would have written something that summarizes what this study actually said, I'd likely support its inclusion. What I said earlier was "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there." Whereupon your team immediately started trying to war in some heavily spun erroneous synthesis. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If that were to happen, that would be the first time that any of you have supported the addition of information which is at odds with the Tea Party's public relations narrative. — goethean 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In my mind I have had you pegged (if you will forgive me) as a rude POV warrior who has only been pretending to not notice that I push for article quality, not article POV. Now I'm starting to think that you genuinely have that misunderstanding, which would be an improvement compared to my previous perception. Which means that if your actions have been based on that misperception, then there is the possibility that you are actually 2 levels better than my perception. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell you how gratifying that is. — goethean 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you really meant that or the reverse or something in between. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow So... what's wrong with the Rolling Stone article? Just asking. Cause they have really good reputation for very solid journalism, yanno ;) I don't have a lot of time for this, but if the real problem is the usual Tea Party allergy to HuffPo, then maybe you guys can try:

• http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/11/documents-reveal-tobacco-companies-funded-their-own-tea-party-first/

or even

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/15/taxpayer-dollars-used-to-fund-study-tying-tea-party-to-tobacco-lobby/

then there is this, which is editorial in nature, but is, I believe, the Tucson daily newspaper, which would probably make it RS even as opinion:

• http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/fitz-blog/fitz-blog-tea-party-s-over/article_97e7da3a-76d9-11e2-bfec-001a4bcf887a.html

I am not familiar with this publication and normally would question it as RS; however given who's complaining here it's interesting to note that even though, like Fox News, it wants to discredit the study, it essentially agrees with HuffPo about what the study *says* and has to complain about the funding in order to find something to be outraged about.

• http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/02/13/new-liberal-claim-tea-party-is-actually-a-front-group-for-big-tobacco/

Then there is what UCSF has to say about it:

• http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13507/study-tea-party-organizations-have-ties-tobacco-industry-dating-back-1980s

That should be enough to be going forward with.... Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The Glantz et al article is now available for free [4]. — goethean 13:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

YES to Gothean: I don't know how editors want to handle it, but the article really ought to reference the free version, not just the paywalled one. BMJ "Tobacco control" is a serious journal and of course in the real world, the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the most authoritative possible sources about what the tobacco companies were doing, although of course it does not have everything and sometimes the tobacco companies used code words to obscure their plans. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

Although not an RS, if people actually want to understand this, it's worth watching Amanda Fallin's presentation, 19 minutes, starting 01:17:45 in http://lecture.ucsf.edu/ETS/Play/2b212ec8c82346f8867647ff293c88ec1d The UCSF people were doing exactly the research proposed into tobacco company tactics, paid by grants renewed yearly, that started in 2001 and 2006, to do exactly the sort of work that generates surprises like this. The grants are: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=6378028&icde=15340674&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=48&csb=default&cs=ASC and http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8316137&icde=15340674&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=50&csb=default&cs=ASC The grants are a direct outcome of the various lawsuits that required tobacco companies to provide documents, i.e., having gotten them, it made sense to start research efforts to understand the tactics. People outraged about funding simply have not the foggiest clue about National Cancer Institute, whose missions certainly include prevention of cancer, not just looking for (very difficult) cures. This work at UCSF, with modest funding, likely has a cost/benefit ratio among the very best of any NIH-funded research, since the cause of most lung cancer is quite well-known. Needless to say, it is impossible for any but a very few Tea party folks to have known about the deep roots in tobacco, sicne the whole point of this and other tobacco tactics was to be "behind the scenes." JohnMashey (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Al Gore

The opinion of a prominent opponent is not a reliable source for the history of his enemies. His criticism might be noted elsewhere if others agree that it is an important opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of a prominent politician, as published in a prominent news piece, the news piece commented upon widely by others, is notable opinion. It does not matter whether he is the political enemy of the Tea Party. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What do people have against consensus building on this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

the center of the earth is several million degrees, Al Gore, actual temp, 9,800 °F, get an actual MD or scientist. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Laugh all you want; Al Gore's opinion is still mainstream and prominent. That is all we are looking for in writing this article. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

it wasn't a joke, mr climate expert really believes the earths core is a few thousand times hotter than the surface of the sun. [5] Darkstar1st (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I could not care less what temperature Gore thinks the core is. You have not addressed any policy reasons why Gore should not be quoted regarding his opinion about the connection between the tobacco industry and the Tea Party. The quote is prominent; that's all we need for the encyclopedia. It is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

wp:weight. Al is neither an expert nor notable in tobacco or tea. this article already has enough about why people dont like it. see if you can find a positive opinion about the tp from someone, and you may add both. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have misinterpreted WP:NPOV to mean that equal time must be given to positive and negative opinions. This is not what NPOV is about; it is about transmitting to the reader the correct balance of positive and negative opinions—a balance that reflects mainstream opinion. If the majority of opinions are positive, our article reflects that. If the majority of opinions are negative, our article reflects that. We should never try to establish an artificial parity. The WP:WEIGHT section of NPOV follows this general rule, of course. It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Al Gore's opinion is a "significant" viewpoint in that it came from a significant politician (a former vice president, a former presidential candidate), it appeared in a significant media publication (Huffington Post) and it was noticed by other media observers and commented upon (Wall Street Journal, Men's News Daily, Newsbusters, Reason.com, Newsmax). As such, we summarize for the reader what Gore said. There is no tit-for-tat wherein a positive opinion must be found to 'balance' Gore's. Binksternet (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of this thread, Al Gore is prominent and notable. What he said is critical opinion not reporting, and certainly not history. To leave his comments at the beginning of the history section is, I think, inappropriate. It should be moved if consensus is to keep it in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The first insertion clearly has to go. It not only violates wp:ver, wp:not/wp:synth, and wp:consensus, but even the synthesis is defective. The second insertion (Gore related) has fewer of these problems. Someday when we finnaly nuke this article and start rebuilding it to get it out of junk status, stuff like the Gore material might be good in a section with commentaries by prominent proponents and opponents, with Gore obviously being one of the latter. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So, based on Binksternet's logic of NPOV I guess we should report what his sources are saying about Gore, namely that he doesn't have a freaking clue what he is talking about with regards to the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I wasn't arguing for putting the Gore piece in. And certainly if it were in it would be under "statements by TPM opponents". Maybe have juxtaposing statements by Gore and Rush Limbaugh. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the content regarding Al Gore's opinion of a study at the top of the history section, has been given undue weight. Furthermore, the study itself should not be at the top of the history section, but listed chronologically down in the Current status section. The alleged ties of the subject of this article and the tabacco industry shouldn't be given undue weight, but I can understand some neutrally worded content somewhere in the section I stated. This article does not to begin to devolve into an attack page by those who oppose the subject; neither should this article be a propaganda piece for the subject either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I see this akin to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is not a citizen; it wouldn't be given heavy weight in the Obama article, and this claim tabacco connection claim shouldn't be given undue weight here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No where in the Barack Obama article is there a link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, nor is there a link on the Template:Barack Obama. So if that is the case, I would argue that the theory of "Big Tabacco" connection to the Tea Party movement should not be given weight here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, really? In what peer-reviewed academic journal was a well-researched article, written by experts in the field published which outlined the evidence for the Obama conspiracy theory? — goethean 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The TPM is a bunch a things, (a movement, an agenda, a metaphor, a rallying concept, an agglomeration of hundreds of organizations and zillions of individuals who support it on an occasion or continuously) but it isn't an entity, nor a specific group of people. Al of the bogus trivia that opponents of the agenda game in here start with a premise that it is an entity. That way they can pretend that what one supporter or unknown supporter did or might have done is "about" the TPM (cut a BBQ line, someone in the crowd saying something bad at a rally, a twitter comment) is "about" the TPM. That's how hey were able to make this article a junk collection of irrelevant trivia / junk attack piece that it is. The same for this most recent bout. Somebody finds some support of someone in tobacco industry for one of the zillions of person or groups in the TPM and tries to gin that up into a statement that implies that the tobacco industry founded the TPM. Prior to that the Koch's "founded" it. Basically, gaming in more crap to a crap article. This thing needs to be nuked to a stub and started over. Meanwhile, lets keep it from descending deeper into crapdom./ North8000 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that someone on the inside of the movement disagrees with the description of the movement given by the media, since (1) the media is not owned by the TPM and (2) feelings of contempt towards the "mainstream media" is one of the central doctrines of the TPM. However, Wikipedia needs to reflect what the media says about the TPM, not just what TPM insiders believe about it. It is perhaps expected that TPM believers will have an origin story which contradicts the mainstream account of the movement's origins. But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for broad discussions about media etc. Let's keep discussion on the article everyone. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Please see WP:NPA. Whether someone is "inside of the movement" is irrelevant to this discussion. No ad hominem.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If North8000 continues to repeat his upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies as if it is fact, I will continue to explain to him how Wikipedia policy actually works. If you don't like the digression, then maybe you can help to alleviate his confusion. — goethean 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Except for that policy about consensus, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I love it how you look the other way when the right-wingers spout their creative interpretations of policy, but then you reference policy in order to block good material from being added to the article. It is a good education in how to use policy in the most cynical way possible. — goethean 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, in the last two threads the only argument you have used is the consensus one. Apparently you think consensus is equivalent to voting—that the weight of numbers is the primary concern here. This is not the case; well-formed debate points can win out over sheer quantity. To have an effect on the outcome here, you must actually have an argument about the issue rather than about the process. Without a relevant argument you are a bystander. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, exactly how (per your allegation) is what I said "upside down" with respect to policies? North8000 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To North8000, far above; actually, they found evidence that the tobacco industry (as a whole), along with Koch, supported organizations which became organizations which became organizations which were active in the TPM ("founded" ia a separate conclusion, not in any reliable source, including the scholarly paper). If written that way, it's not totally inappropriate (even replacing "organzitions which became organizations which became organizations active in the TPM) by organizations connected with the TPM.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as of my most recent post on this, I said that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources. Then you fixed the problem and I have not commented since. Goethean characterized my post as "upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies" and now I'm waiting to hear from Goethean how me saying that it was a problem that that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources constitutes "upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies". North8000 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to this comment, in which you explained how the article is a piece of crap which should be stubified immediately. I attempted to explain that Wikipedia needs to reflect mainstream media coverage of events, not the right-wing media coverage of events, as Wikipedia is not an organ of the right-wing media. One of the central doctrines of the Tea Party is that the mainstream media is biased against the Tea Party. So one would not expect a member of the Tea Party to be pleased with the Wikipedia article on the Tea Party. The issues which you think that you have with this article are issues that you in fact have with Wikipedia policy. — goethean 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not expect any rational person, with familiarity with Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, to want to include critical comments about random statements of random people who may be "members" of the Tea Party (whatever that means), even if the comments are reported in the news media. That doesn't apply to the comments in this section, but it does suggest that much of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section should be removed. I also would not expect anyone to want to misquote sources. That does apply to Gore, in a sense; he misquotes the article in question, and we should point that out. at least indirectly, by accurately reporting what the article says, and what Gore says about it. Furthermore, opinions of the news media should be properly reported as "opinions", if relevant at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess that by now I shouldn't be surprised that you would elide those aspects of the Tea Party that have been most noted. — goethean 12:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Koch Brothers/Citizens for a Sound Economy redundant coverage.

Why are these mentioned in 2 different sections, history AND Influence of Koch Industries? I remove the redundancy only to have it reverted without discussion. Since there are hundreds independent funded and operated tea party groups, with different urls, leaders, credos, creation dates, etc. it is possible the Koch are getting to much credit. RS do mention Koch in relation to a group who formed a group, who made a websites with a list of protests they did plan but knew about and told others who searched for info about where to protest. reading the article may give the average person the impression Koch hired people to build a website, arrange meetings, print pamphlets, rent offices, buy advertising for each of the several hundred tp groups around the world. Koch is mentioned more times than all the politicians who self-identified with the TP. the article is way too long, much is trivia, even more opinion, i suggest we trim the article to focus on what the tp is about rather than its history and what those who do not like it think. wp:weight Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed again; I would agree that the section gives undue weight regarding a recent news story about an article written in a British Journal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets just get whatever objective material that there is in both and get it into one place. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the focus of the more recent information is on how "big tobacco" (and "Big Business" in general) influenced the formation of the movement, whereas the recently removed material (as redundant) says more about funding and ongoing organizational support. Sure, Koch is mentioned in both, but the content doesn't appear to be "redundant", as one editor has suggested. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

new refs for ron paul 07

• [6] without objection, i submit this rs to replace the source removed and will restore the material and suggest we add material to the history about the actual creation of the tea party from when it first makes news, not a vague private memo from a tobacco lawyer 40 years ago about needing public support. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ron Paul's Tea Party Pulls in the Green. Sunday's event honored the Boston Tea Party, which happened Dec. 16, 1773. Paul supporters in Boston staged a re-enactment of the event. [7] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Supporters plan party for Ron Paul-- a Tea Party. Will the Ron Paul campaign turn down Sunday's donations simply because they aren't from an official fundraising drive? [8] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

since there have been no objections to the replacement sources for the material that was removed because of insufficient sources, i will return the material to the article soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The refs establish it multiple times over, but a ref stating the connection is not even a requirement. Assertions made by Geothan and Xenophrenic implied and were based on an "invented" policy that does not exist. The requirement for inclusion is support of the material itself, not of its connection to the article. I would welcome addition of a "degree of relevance" standard to Wikipedia. If a workable one existed, it would support inclusion of the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party but make it easier to get rid of the trivia from this article such as the BBQ grill line cut by an unknown person, twitter comments etc. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You may remove any source which does not mention the Tea Party. I doubt that any of the sources which are referenced in the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section lack a mention of the Tea Party. — goethean 15:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to include sources which mention the "Tea Party", but refer to something completely different? I would say, not, and that's what we seem to have here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

do you have a source claiming it means something else, or a specific policy you are referring to that would exclude sources mentioning the article subject? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tea Party" ≠ contemporary "Tea Party movement" - when did the 'movement' start?

Someone inserted (and recently reinserted) content alleging that a December 2007 fundraising event with the words 'Tea' and 'Party' in the name was an early event in this movement. If we're going to add to this article every political event that references the historical event as if it were related, this article will need to be renamed. A 90-second search of news archives shows that "Tea Party" events have been happening for centuries (some more recent ones: 2003, 2003, 1990, 1957, ...). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird that Darkstar1st would say that there have been no objections, when I see many paragraphs below giving substantial objection. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Arthur Rubin on this: Just because a politician uses the words "Tea Party" in one of their campaign fundraisers, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with a "movement" that would not begin for another year or two. I also agree with Targor Orlando's source reference below that the movement, about which this article is written, began in the early months of 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to Darkstar1st's question, I've no idea what "it" is in this context. As for reliable sources that say that Paul's 2007 fundraisers are part of the current TP movement, those might be fine. Have any? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

it refers to the subject of this section, the replacement ref. above. i have attempted to remove "movement" from this article before as no one in the tea party uses the term, rather mostly its critics, therefore there probably isn't many sources using the word "movement" and "Ron Paul" other than the Juan Williams ref referring to the 2008 Ron Paul campagn as the start and Ron as it's godfather. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for reliable sources that convey the present movement existed before early 2009; then we can work on resolving the conflict between those sources, if any exist, and the multitude of sources that peg this movement's origins at early 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

personal campaigns for president vs TP movement

I'm not clear as to what content you intend to add to this article, supported by the link you just provided. Is the fundraiser for Ron Paul related to the Tea Party movement in some way? How about the links I provided for similar Tea Parties held on matters of Taxes, Spending and Budget concerns? How far back should we go? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

go back to where it became part of the news on a regular basis(dec 07) instead of a few events per decade. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been part of the news a LOT longer than that, as the examples above show. Shall we open a discussion on what time frame this article should cover? Recent reliable sources peg the comtemporary movement origins as early 2009. It sounds like you would like to expand that back into the history of tax protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

if you can find more sources in the ten years before dec 16 2007 than the 10 days after, i will drop it and apologize for my ignorance. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

proposed addition, attributed: "This basically shows that Ron Paul is a viable candidate," said Rachael McIntosh, a spokeswoman for what was dubbed Boston TeaParty07. "People are so engaged in this campaign because it’s coming from the grass-roots." The supporters of the Texas congressman pick anniversaries of such historical events to highlight what they call the "Ron Paul Revolution." we should probably note the lack of news coverage about the tea party prior, and the explosion of the term after December 07. maybe we could phrase it as the practical start of the tea party coverage, expansion, notability, whatever descriptor can stand scrutiny. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in that source to indicate it has anything to do the Tea Party movement (of which this article is about). It's just a fundraising event for Ron Paul's campaign that he happened to name after the Tea Party, just like his other fundraising event was named after Guy Fawkes. The "explosion", according to reliable sources, was in 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

the title of the article is Ron Paul's tea party for dollars, did you even follow the link, if so, how did you miss that part? Most of the 33,000 donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a "money bomb" timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Supporters also re-enacted the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor, by tossing banners that read "tyranny" and "no taxation without representation" into boxes that were placed in front of an image of the harbor. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How much more obvious could it be?North8000 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more obviously appropriate if a book, article, interview, or some other printed or recorded material other than a Wikipedia comment had explicitly connected the Ron Paul event with the movement. There have been dozens of books and hundreds of articles written about the Tea Party Movement. If not a single one of them connects Ron Paul's 2007 moneybomb to the Tea Party, then this article would be the first to do so. That is the very definition of original research. It would be different if we were writing this in 2007 and there was a lack of reliable material on the Tea Party. But it is 2013 and there is an excess of material on it. There is no need to include material which is not clearly appropriate. — goethean 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for a Ron Paul connection, there's a few in the book Boiling Mad by New York Times author Kate Zienike. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just finding a source that mentions Ron Paul does nothing, of course. The material still violates WP:SYNTH. Also falling under the category of "not helping" is the outrageously inappropriate opinion essay that Arthur Rubin has attached to the top of the article (and of course edit-warred to keep in), which summarizes a few disputes in the most one-sided, unsupportable way. Are you trying to settle this dispute, or escalate it? — goethean 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

When you've read the source, you'll see where the relevant passages are. I'm trying to help find sources that support the facts is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, by that non-existent policy that you keep quoting (redefining mere inclusion in an article as synthesis if it doesn't have sourcing explicitly connecting it to the object of the title) it would make it really easy to nuke a whole lotta crap out of this article. Wanna point out where that is in policy? I could really use it at a whole lotta articles, starting with this one. 00:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read that source, Thargor Orlando, and seen the relevant passage: It was Tax Day 2010, and these Tea Partiers young and old were marking it with a seminar ... The Tea Party movement had started out small ... but now, some polls showed that 25 percent of Americans supported it — remarkable growth in just one year. That puts the approximate beginning of this movement around Tax Day 2009, not 2007. Another passage: "How big was it? In April 2010, fourteen months after the first Tea Party rallies, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that..." The first rallies of this movement were in the first few months of 2009. Tea Partiers and Ron Paul share some political views, so you'll likely find him mentioned in this book you've cited as well as our article (I have no problem with that), but his various presidential campaign antics aren't part of the movement this article is about. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

All campaigns for office are "personal campaigns". North8000 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And that comment is relevant or helpful how? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It deflates the false implied premise of the title of this section which was that being an individual campaign is an indicator that it is not relevant to the movement. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not implied at all. The header is: "personal campaigns for president vs TP movement", and speaks to Ron Paul's fundraising events of 2007 and earlier, and editor's misguided attempts to include them in this article as if they relate to the TPm. But you go right on ahead and manufacture your own premesis and then "deflate" them; I prefer stamp collecting.Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious POV work

Behavioral dispute, moved to user talk pages. KillerChihuahua 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) A recent incident has highlighted again the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing long term POV efforts that have brought this article to it's current junk status. Xenophrenic & Goethean have been warrign to remove the following from the history section: "A fundraising event for Ron Paul dubbed "Boston TeaParty07" was held on December 16, 2007. This event included the throwing of boxes labeled "tea" and "IRS" among others, into the bay." A prominent name in the founding of the movement, throws a "tea party", with the title of the reference named "tea party" Xenophrenic's excuse was that something mentioned later in the item was not germane. Goethean's excuse was quoting a non-existent policy that a RS has to state an explicit connection in order to include something in an article. BTW Goethean is the who who was warring in erroneous statements about Ron Paul which made no mention of the TPM; his excuse then was that if an RS said it that was enough for him to force it in. And Xenophrenic was actively warring in things about some unknown person cutting a BBQ grill line, a huge section about a twitter comment by a low level supporter, and a "somebody said that somebody said that someone at a rally said something racist." This tendentious POV work has to stop! North8000 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You have misrepresented "my excuse". Try again, please, so that it can be discussed in the section immediately preceding this one? As for your routine unsubstantiated personal attacks, I'm just going to ignore them again until you actually present something (in the proper venue) that makes any sense whatsoever. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) What I said is based on years of observation here. And I am slow and careful to form conclusions. This is the latest example. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Again, nothing to work with there. No specifics? Latest example indeed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) This time: Trying to remove the item about the 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party. Plus you never even mentioned that you were deleting it in your edit summary, you only mentioned a secondary item from the following sentence. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Incorrect. The edit summary states: (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement"). The so called Ron Paul Tea Party has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement this article is about, any more than the California Tea Party is. You are confusing a movement to get a single person elected president with a national movement against expanding government and taxes. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It appears goethean has violated the editing restriction as well with two reverts today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I mostly want to get the long term picture at this article fixed. Xenophrenic has exhibited the most tendentious behavior here, and Goethean the rudest, with insults and Inventing-Bad-Faith being the norm. But Goethean's actions present an interesting juxtaposition. They warred in a piece about someone saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist, as being relevant to the Tea Party article, but are trying to war out Ron Paul putting on a Tea Party in 2007 as not being relevant to the Tea Party article. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, the best thing to do, if this article as gone outside the quality content we should all be hoping to advance articles towards, (even though non neutral articles have been given FA status) is to create a sandbox alternative to this article, to the point where the sandbox content can easily pass GA, and after review or consensus, replace the content presently in the article space. Just an idea.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I think that is a great idea. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Well, the item of the moment is that the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party material certainly has to go back in. And we need some type of huge rework on the article. The trivia needs to go, the OR constructions from primary sources (polls) need to go, and the comments by outside proponents and opponents need to be identified as such. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The Ron Paul campaign for president needs to go back into this article? Why? What is its relevance? May we also add the Victor Elizaelde 2004 Tea Party material? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Content tag in article

(1) the entire McAllister section is flaky, not just the selected quotes from the interview which we are fighting over. (2) "Boston TeaParty07" is at least nominally part of the origin of the "Tea Party Movement"; unless you can find sources which say it _isn't_, it's a reasonable claim, although including the phrase "Money Bomb" is questionable (3) "Influence of Koch Industries", to the extent it should be in the article, should be under "history" (probably in the subsection "commentaries on origin") rather than under "Fundraising and support"; also, the (clearly false) implication that (any) Koch has ever had anything to do with FreedomWorks after the split, needs to be contradicted by the relevant reliable sources. (This is partially done, but it could be improved) (4) ... any more distputes?

Anyone who wants to place a neutral discussion of the disputes I noted on the content tag, is welcome to do so, provided that the loci of dispute are properly noted. Removing the reason for the {{content}} tag will usually lead to removal of the tag, which I consider unreasonable, as there are some who agree that there are problems in all 4 locations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We should detail those 4 specific problems so that they can be properly addressed. Here, I'll start: Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• entire McAllister section is flaky

I don't see a "McAllister section"; just 4 sentences, in the section on public perception of the TPm, where other conservatives Herman Cain, Brandon Brice, Ward Connerly, Angela McGlowan and Allen West are covered. McAllister is a frequent Tea Party event speaker. Could you give us something more than "flakey" to work with? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Boston TeaParty07" is at least nominally part of the origin of the "Tea Party Movement"

No, it ain't. It's part of a rather impressive presidential fundraising campaign ... arguably a movement in its own right, and could easily find a place in a Ron Paul article, but it has nothing to do with the TPm, which wouldn't start until early 2009. (See above discussions.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Influence of Koch Industries" should be under "history" rather than "Fundraising and support"

Koch brothers involvement appears to be present (to varying extent) in both the origins of the movement, as well as the ongoing fundraising and organizational support, hence the mention in both sections. If you are arguing for a consolidation of all Koch-related activity into one section, that might be fairly large and undue. (See above discussion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• the implication that Koch has anything to do with FreedomWorks after the split needs to be contradicted by sources

I'm not up to speed on what involvement, if any, the Koch bros. may have in FreedomWorks or related organizations; I'll try to look into it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

1. McAllister is only a reliable source for his own opinions, and I question whether they are notable and/or relevant enough for inclusion. IIRC, all the other people referenced around there have some notability independent of the TPM. If not, perhaps their comments aren't relevant, either.
2. More research is need as to whether the TPM might have been influenced by Boston TeaParty07. In the absence of specifics, though, I now think it shouldn't be there.
3. Even if Meyer and sourceforge are reliable sources for the claimed influence of the Kochs on the TPM, many of the statements actually made in those sources do not support the comments that were in this article at one time. For instance, consider FreedomWorks. Meyer asserts that it is a Koch organization and is active in supporting the TPM. In fact, (according to our Wikipedia article, which I have no reason to doubt), it's a spinoff of a merger of a Koch organization with a non-Koch organization, and Armey was the leader of FreedomWorks at the time of the split. (A) Koch denied having anything to do with it (or the TPM), and there is no evidence presented other than bald assertions that any Koch was involved with FreedomWorks after the split. Much of the "information" on sourceforge and in Meyer's articles consists of such assrtions without evidence. Of course, some specifics on the connection between the Kochs and the TPM might be (and probably is) appropriate, but there are a lot of false connections which have been in articles relating to the Kochs for some time. There is little evidence that the Kochs directly funded any TPM organizations, unless you make the assertion that some of the Koch organizations which predate the TPM are part of the TPM now.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

1. The arguments being made about the Koch brothers and the early origins of the movement are the same old arguments being made when I was editing this page. The sources that show the TPM began as a grassroots movement with people who came over from the FEDUp movement (those protesting The FED and it's practices and effects on the economy) are still there in the history. These additions to the article were decimated by several editors who have since been banned from Wikipedia.
2. The agenda from some of these former editors was to paint the TPM as coming about as a "response" (an incredibly overworked word on Wikipedia) to the election of Barack Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bail-out brought protesters out, too. But that was on Bush's watch, a fact that is always conveniently ignored.
3. The actual origins of the TPM began on blog sites by everyday people who were being affected by the crash of the economy. They saw additional government debt as the wrong way to go. Then Rick Santorium made his famous rant on CNBC suggesting what was needed was a tea party, as in Boston Tea Party. There was no conspiracy against Obama. The economy had suddenly tanked in September 2008, taking the average American by surprise. Suddenly, 401Ks were no longer worth anything, meaning people who had retired or where about to retire were now broke. They were also the proud owners of homes that were now worth far less than their mortgages. The financial slide is what brought out the tea party, and many of these same people were already out there, definitely by 2007, protesting government and fed polices.
4. There was a section in the article I put in about a individuals who had joined the tea party movement and what their stories were. That's all been deleted. The truth is, this movement started with average citizens getting fed up. They had lots at stake, that's why they showed up. The fact that other, professional type groups tried to associate themselves with it later on, should not be allowed to carpet over the truth that this was a genuinely grassroots movement focused on fiscal issues.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has been tendinitised farther and farther from actually being informative on the TPM. I think we're going to need a big RFC or something for the major changes that will be needed to fix it. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd write a new article about the fiscal issues. That's what the TPM is all about. Limit the scope of a new article to just that. It would be hard to argue for deletion or merger since the new article wouldn't resemble the kluge that exists right now.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_.28POV.29_forks — goethean 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It would not be a fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material. That is the textbook definition of a POV fork, and it is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. — goethean 19:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I never said that. The sources are there regarding the fiscal origins and agenda of the tea party movement, certainly enough to fill an article. A fork is when an editor decides to write their version of a subject. That's not what I'm proposing. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you are being rude as usual. And missing wp:agf by two levels. Baselessly inventing bad faith. How do you get "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." out of Malke's idea for a subarticle on the economic issues? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

anti-government?

an editor has reverted placing the Bloomberg via nyt opinion piece as lead source for the agenda subverting the much different description by an actual tea party. the article begins with the anti-government descriptor no actual tea party uses. the claim is a odd as the tea party seeks to gain voice in government, often quoting the Constitution. i suggest we remove the source and relegate it to the criticism section should it return. without objection, i make the edit removing the source. please comment as support/oppose, then cite the appropriate policy. diffs[9] Darkstar1st (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The NYT source would be a reliable source regarding what the NYT's opinion is but certainly isn't for what the TPM's agenda is. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I didin't want to start a fight by moving it to a difference section or removing it all together. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that section be moved to the Media Coverage section or removed. There is already a ton of Media Coverage, how much opinion is needed? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think that the NYT article is an opinion piece? Why does Ned Ryun speak for all Tea Party groups? — goethean 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are normally labelled as such, whereas this article appears to be in the news section.

As there are thousands of media outlets which have described the Tea Party, common sense dictates that there is not room for all of them. The New York Times is considered a highly reliable source, at least by those in the reality-based community. — goethean 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Arzel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant. For that matter the media section and all those silly commentaries should be deleted. They are not relevant and are POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentary from highly notable sources on the movement is pertinent, and given fair weight, it is perfectly fine to present POVs. Furious Style (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is fine to do that in a limited way. It's just not fine to make it the only POV, nor to allow one opinion piece to dominate instead of relying on fact based articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, it's an opinion piece, and should not be called an "article". If "New York Times" was removed, or "article" was replaced by "column", and it was moved below the self-description, it would be reasonable. I'm not going to fix it again because of the 1RR on this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You say you want it "attributed as opinion". It's not in the opinion section, it's in the news section. It's written by a 4-decade news reporter and award-winning journalist specializing in politics. And the single sentence appears to be a non-controversial factual statement. What makes you say it is opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Properly we should just make the statement and reference the NYT article, there is no need for any qualification. We need third party material here not internal Tea Party sources. I'll leave it a day but unless some argument aligned with wikipedia policy is raised I will remove the tag. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an article. It may not be in the opinion section, but it's a column, rather than a news article, and should be treated as the opinion of the author, especially since he's not affiliated with the NYT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So its a considered article not a simple news item. Makes it better not worse ----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because an opinion piece is printed in the news section of the NYTs does not mean it is not opinion. And whether or not the journalist has forty years worth of awards doesn't change that. He could be Mohammed come down from the mountain, but it's still his opinion. The fact that it's in the news section should not be used to slip it in. Doing that makes it appear to the casual reader that it is fact-checked news. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a column in the news section of a major newspaper written by an experienced journalist. The NYT did not designate it as an opinion as far as I can see, its a considered judgement in the normal tradition of journalism. You can try and call it something else, but its certainty a better source than one tea party web site ----Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This little section is a perfect example of the problems regarding this article. It is clearly the goal of anti-TPM people to frame the TPM in a negative light, as has been the agenda from the very beginning regarding this article. There is absolutely no reason to use the opinion of an outside source from the TPM to define the movement, particularly when there alread exists a section for the views from the media. What is even worse is the insistance by the TPM Haters that is be listed first! I can accept, at least hesitantly, that it be in this section, but under no sense of good faith can I accept that it must be listed first as well. If simple clear minded decisions like this cannot be made then the entire article will never be fixed. Arzel (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use reliable third party sources (such as the NYT) rather than primary sources. That is basic wikipedia policy. Please refrain from making personal attacks, we are all bound by the same rules here try and respect them ----Snowded ^TALK 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because the writer is an experienced or award winning journalist doesn't mean his opinion should be elevated to news. And saying, "Whatever you want to call it?" It isn't a question of an individual editor wanting to call it anything. Rather, it is what it is. It's an opinion piece. And the NYTs rationale for putting it in the news section does not change the fact that it is an opinion piece. And the reader should be made aware that it is opinion and not fact checked news. It should read something like, "In the opinion of (insert name of experienced and award winning journalist.) Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

• Uninvolved admin here to remind everyone this article is on probation. Be civil. Malke, if you question a source, take it to WP:RSN. North8000, cease attacking other editors. Everyone: Focus on content, not contributors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you are involved; you (and SlimVirgin) were approached by Goethean to get involved in this. Just now I pointed out an extreme violation of wp:agf and wp:civil an asked Goethean how they arrived at their insulting post out of an idea for a sub article on economic issues, and you are calling that an "attack", while overlooking the specifics of what led to that question. My post was to challenge the nastiness exhibited in order to stop such nastiness in this discussion. Let's get this whole discussion on topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Read WP:INVOLVED. An admin is specifically not involved if someone asks them to check out behavior on an article on probation. You can repeat your belief until the cows come home, but it won't hold water. I quote from the policy page: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. Regarding staying on topic: Yes, please do, and stop attacking other editors. KillerChihuahua 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you are being objective, here does saying "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." in response to Malke's idea for a subarticle on the economic issues fit into wp:civil. wp:npa and wp:agf and whether or not such is an "attack" ? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It reads like Gothean is explaining WP:POVFORK. He is either correct in his understanding of Malke's idea, in which case the comment is accurate and Malke would be well advised to heed it; or he is mistaken, in which case Malke can simply say "You are mistaken, that is not what I meant" and then either explain what he did mean, or drop it, or offer a new idea. It is in no way an attack, or incivil, or assuming bad faith. I have known many instances where editors propose a split which to them appears neutral but which upon examination would be a POV fork, and pointing this out is helpful. Your accusation that Goethean is "being rude as usual", however, is a personal attack and you would be wise to avoid such comments in the future. KillerChihuahua 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Goethean's civil comments just a week ago? "But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" It is pretty difficult to assume good faith of anyone that insults an entire religion without any thought whatsoever. Arzel (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a link, readers can see the comment in context[10]. — goethean 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My point was that they baselessly invented bad motives for Malke's idea, and accused Malke of having those bad motives. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt here, but KillerChihuahua I specifically and in a civil manner replied to goethean's uncivil and uncalled for comment about my motives in suggesting an article on TPM fiscal goals. I have to agree with North8000, you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Edit removed by User:Fat&Happy) Jusdafax 03:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments / attacks have no place here. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Claims stated as fact, plus copyvio

A user has cut and paste a large section from the "tea party nation" website into the body of the article. I removed it for obvious reasons, but it has been re-added. Can someone please fix the article again? Also along with the cut and paste job, they also added as fact that "The Tea Party started as a grassroots movement" - a controversial statement like that should not be stated as fact of course. Furious Style (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I had put that material in but will take it back out pending discussion. More in a minute. North8000 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I took it out pending further discussion. A groups stated agenda is what drives their efforts and so is the best source for their actual agenda. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be so controversial, I was trying to improve the article and just didn't think that under Agenda it should say that they don't have a clear agenda. It is also an editorial opinion and not the TP POV and since it's an article about them it only makes sense to come from them. That NYT quote should probably be removed all together since the citation doesn't reflect that anyway. The part about starting as a grassroots movement is exactly what they state in the citation I provided from their page. Have fun with the article, hopefully you can improve it without someone elses agenda.The Hal Apeno (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The NYT quote is a third party one, the other material is from the Tea Party web site. We use third party sources here ----Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Snowed, I'm newbee and learning all the timeThe Hal Apeno (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The NYT piece appears to be a "column", rather than an article, so it's not as well fact-checked. No objection to inclusion as long as it's represented as the author's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What leads you to believe it isn't reliable as an assertion of fact? It's in the NYT News section, not opinion or op-ed section. It's written by Al Hunt, a 4-decade news reporter specializing in politics, award-winning journalist, etc. As for the single sentence itself, is there something you are disputing about it? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My sidebar point is that for a public advocacy organization/movement, a statement of agenda by themselves is likely to be pretty reliable. This is not giving them acolades for reliability, this is is due to the self-serving reason that if you don't put it in your agenda, you aren't going to make people push for it to happen. So for an advocacy organization it would be self-defeating to misstate your agenda. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no one is paying attention; I said the NYT column is not a reliable source, but the writer's opinion. The NYT considered it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a column. It's under NEWS. And the writer is a RS for political news himself. (see above) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As to North's point that an organization's declaration of their own agenda should be a useable source, please keep in mind that TeaParty.org isn't the movement. It is just one competing branch, just like TP Nation, TP Express, etc. Have you looked at TeaParty.org's 15-point non-negotiable core beliefs? You do realize "Illegal aliens are here illegally" appears to be their #1 concern. (Did you know that more than half of polled TPers feel that immigration - yup, the legal kind - is screwing up our American culture for the worse?) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

I expected to see the beliefs on spending, taxes, downsized gov't, budget and deficit ... but guns, English language, "traditional family values" (now there's a popular code phrase)? Looking deeper into their website, I see they have a birther campaign drive, and they proudly claim Jerome Corsi as their head researcher. Hmmmm. Do we really want this "source" heading our 'Agenda' section? I left it in the section, but demoted it after Arthur promoted it to lead sentence. I think that bold move needs to be discussed. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Would some neutral editor determine consensus here as to what the "NYT" source is? We have a clear consensus in this section that it is not a reliable source, and a fairly clear consensus in the section below that it is a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that the sentence is not reliably sourced. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I did see such consensus, until a few minutes ago. It still appears that there was no previous discussion except for your (archived) assertion that it was a news article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I checked out that website. I don't think this is even a legitimate "Tea Party" organization. I'm using Tea Party Patriots as a comparison. It appears to me to exist for the sole purpose of getting money. Jerome Corsi appears to have affiliated himself for the purposes of publicizing his book. I don't think it should be in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Update on NYTs: I emailed the managing editor at the NYTs to ask how they catagorize Al Hunt's "Letter to Washington." An assistant to a senior editor emailed me back and informed me that, "Those columns appear in the International Herald Tribune, which (as of now) is separate from the Times. I've passed your email on to one of our IHT editors."

On the Tea Party.org with it's 'agenda' being used to represent the TPM. I've been looking over the Tea Party Patriots and a few of their state members and they all have the same Mission which is 1) fiscal responsibility 2) constitutionally limited government and 3) free markets. The Tea Party Patriots seem to be the dominant group. They bill themselves as the official home of the tea party movement, so it would be better to use that with a link to the page that has the mission statement. And I'd also mention they call themselves the Official home, etc.

As far as Al Hunt is concerned, I would suggest that the edit just say "Journalist Al Hunt in his Letter from Washington stated. . ." and then put in the cite. But I wouldn't put his quote first. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many issues with the edit that I just reverted. The fact that Tea Party Patriots thinks that its website is the official home of the Tea Party Movement is really neither here nor there, and doesn't establish it as a reliable or a notable source. The "100 Most Influential People in the World" bit (although helping with the notability part) is tangential and does not belong in the first paragraph of the body of this article. And a Time magazine editorial from 2013 is where we are going to source the agenda of a political movement which was important from 2009 to 2012? Doesn't make sense. Also, please format your citations with a little more care. — goethean 22:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To correct my own edit summary, it looks like you were calling teaparty.org non-notable, which is true. You can also call the NYT page a column rather than an article, a change I didn't notice. I would change it, but then I would be accused of violating 1RR. — goethean 22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a NYT column, it's an IHT column reprinted in the NYT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that based on anything other than Malke's freelance reporting work? — goethean 03:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I confirmed that by searching the IHT website. Regardless, it's not an article, but a (probably invited) guest column. The author's opinions are probably notable enough to be reported, but where they were "published" doesn't grant additional reliability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "an IHT column reprinted in the NYT". And yes, NYT does exert editorial control and oversight over it's wholly-owned international IHT outlet, regardless (which share the same website). The question isn't whether it is a column or article, or whether it is expert-opinion or news-reporting. We need to know if Al Hunt is a reliable source for factual assertion. In my opinion, the applicable rule is WP:NEWSORG, which states in part, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." If we want to question his reliability, we can do that at WP:RSN, but for good measure, I added additional non-opinion reliable sourcing to substantiate the "anti-government", etc. descriptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As for TP Patriots referring to itself as "Official Home", I don't think it has done that since they ousted their founder - although he still uses that description on his similarily named website - is that where you got it? TP Express bills itself as, "the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena." As for www.TeaParty.org - they are actually quite notable, but not in a good way. You may recall it's founder of "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar" signage fame. SPLC just loves TeaParty.org:

TeaParty.org, also known as the 1776 Tea Party, is an especially belligerent faction of the Tea Party movement whose founder, Dale Robertson, once showed up at a Houston rally carrying a sign that read, “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar [sic].” Its CEO, Steve Eichler, used to be executive director of the Minuteman Project, a nativist extremist group whose splashiest event was a month-long vigilante gathering on the Arizona border in April 2005. TeaParty.org boasts that it is “the ONLY tea party praised by Dr. Michael Savage,” a radio talk show host who was fired from MSNBC in 2003 after describing an unidentified caller to his show as a “sodomite” who should “get AIDS and die.” Its website proudly features original content by Jerome Corsi, an influential conspiracy theorist best known for proposing, at various times, that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen; that the president’s true father is the late labor activist Frank Marshall Davis; and that Obama is gay and married to a Pakistani man. Really. The site also includes content from WorldNetDaily, an extreme-right online publication that plugs all manner of conpiracist nonsense (the imminent end of the world, the cause of homosexuality is soybean consumption — you get the idea), and from Alex Jones, an antigoverment conspiracy monger whose response to recent calls for gun control has been so unhinged that even Glenn Beck – Glenn Beck! – described him as a “crazy person.”

I left the TeaParty.org stuff in the article, but commented out for the moment. I'm not anxious to include it, but since another editor inserted it, and Arthur elevated it to the lead sentence in the article, I thought we should check with them before removing it totally. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I returned it to the lead sentence because it was the only reliable source available. You've much improved the article, although the non-TP source Malke suggested to me in a draft paragraph could also be added. As an aside, the NYT is left-of-center amoung major US publications; adding sources from the WSJ would provide evidence of balance. Of course, if you have a subscription to the NYT, it's perfectly understandable that you would use those articles as references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit with teaparty.org is using a primary source. It uses the "group's" own website. You can't use it. The teaparty.org edit appears to have been positioned in the same sentence with Al Hunt because it reinforces the POV that the tea party is nothing but a "response" to Obama's election and that they're all just a bunch of truthers and racists. That's why that edit is there. The fact that the only notable group is the Tea Party Patriots is the reason I put them in there. And while one side likes to claim that Al Hunt's opinion carries sooo much weight because he's an "award winning" journalist, I added that Time mag named Jenny Beth Martin one of the 100 most influential people for that very reason. That shows notability for the TTP. And as far as doing my own reporting, an editor claimed that the NYTs considered Al Hunt's column 'news.' That's why I emailed them to find out what they call it. They call it a column.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is noted as the specific organisation's site and used for what that specific organisation says about itself (rather than the general topic of this article), there is an exception allowing usage. In fact, Wikipedia frequently uses organisation sites to say what an organisation says about itself. Look at Southern Poverty Law Center using its own site, the Red Cross, [11] shows the type of SPS material that Wikipedia has always allowed about organisations. That noted, the specific organisation can be distinguished from the general topic (which appears to have no formal organisation at its top). And, as it is not in a position to speak for the entire topic, it does not belong in the lede. Does this cover everything? Collect (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Those are all good points, Collect. But I was referring to the edit I'd made and the rationale. It's moot now as the edit has been changed and hopefully everybody is happy with it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You realize we are talking about the "lead" of the Agenda section, not the article lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he's addressing my comment about the use of teaparty.org's website as the source which is a primary source. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Of possible interest to editors here

I have filed an RFAR at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement. Please do not make a statement unless you wish to become a party to the case; however if you wish to file a statement you may do so there. Remember that if you file a statement, you may become a party to the case, and all parties may be subject to sanctions. If you have evidence of behavioral issues here by any editor, or regarding this topic (including my actions, which have been called into question) such evidence is of far more use to a case than opinion or commentary. KillerChihuahua 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A little correction to KC's comment above. Making a statement has no connection to whether or not one would be named as a party in any opened case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree. You will not necessarily be added, but you may be added, and you are doing readers here no service by misleading them. Puppy (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but readers can be added as a party regardless. One is probably no more likely to be added as a party no matter if they make a statement or not. NW (Talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but there have certainly been instances where editors who otherwise would not have been added, were added because of their posts at RFAR. And certainly we have this very warning once a case is accepted; do not edit this page unless you want to be added to this case, and all editors may be subject to sanction. Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean that in pravtice, when you post on an RFAR you are inviting scrutiny by ArbCom, who otherwise might not even been aware of you. Puppy (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Origins of tea party/Ron Paul

If there are any problems with sources regarding the Ron Paul money bomb and early tea party involvement, I easily found two sources that can be used:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-ronpaul-fundraising_N.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/16/nation/na-moneyman16

Trevor Lyman is the man who helped raise the money and at the time he had a website: www.teaparty07.com

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Malke! Those are excellent examples of what I was talking about here (see the very first paragraph). Note that "Tea Party" is mentioned only once in each of those sources, and only as part of "Boston Tea Party" 239 years ago, not the 2009 movement this Wikipedia article refers to. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, Xenophrenic. Nice to see you. I voted to keep you on Wikipedia at the AN/I. About the edit/sources, yeah, that's fine. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I am trying to establish a fair and accurate page for Steven Crowder, but feel I am being Wiki-bullied by editors who have a personal dislike for him and want to include libelous/POV comments about him. I would appreciate anyone taking a look since we've reached a deadlock and the Wikiguide suggests having a 3rd party look at it to try to find a resolution. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Please see WP:CANVASS. This may be posted on WikiProject talk pages if you see a problem, not on the talk page of an article on which conduct has been brought to WP:ANI and WP:RFAr. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the page of a living individual, I suggest instead the first place you bring this is to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

TPM contributes to grid lock in Congress

It might be a good idea to open a section in the article on how the tea party candidates who won election are now contributing to the grid-lock in Congress. And also mention how Boehner and the Party in general oppose them. There's a lot out there about it. It would show the effect the TPM is having on the country now they've brought their goals to fruition. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask the usual question: Are there reliable sources making the connection and confirm it as an achievement of their goals?TMCk (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

TMCk, hello! There's certainly a lot out there right now about the Republican in-fighting between Tea Party types and Establishment. It isn't just they don't agree with the Democrats. Seems like they can't work amongst themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, when I said "goals" earlier, I meant the goal of getting candidates elected that have promised to follow the TPM agenda. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a source that gridlock in Congress is (or is not, or both) one of the TPm's goals. That the TPC contributes to gridlock in Congress should be properly sourced, but I don't doubt that there is such a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure seems like there's trouble in paradise: [12][13][14] And maybe the folks who helped them get there are watching over their shoulders in a way the rest of the electorate does not. Most people just vote for them and don't keep track. Looks the Tea Party has a different view. [15] Just saying, if they are causing this much discord in their own party, what are they doing when it comes to compromising with the Democrats? Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This one calls it 'grid-lock.' [16]Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed [17]. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Gridlock" is the painful collision of deciding between bigger and smaller government. Non-TPM Republicans are sort of divided or "going with the pressure/flow" on that and TPM Republicans are generally not. Of course, this is just to help sort out terminology, not article material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your idea IS a good idea. And it is at the core of the topic. I was digressing in a direction that might help implement and expand on your idea. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• support. this debunks the "anti-government" claim in the nyt, impossible to be in the government and anti-government. i think it also establishes the tp is really a grassroots movement, quite the opposite of the GOP where the actual corporate support lies. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. Reliable sources describe the TPm as anti-government, on par with various libertarian factions; no one is claiming the TPm espouses anarchy. There is a grassroots component and also a corporate supported and driven component to the movement, but Malke's suggestion to add content about the "anti-compromise politics" quality could prove interesting. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• support . the article currently shows the tea party's progression from protests to getting representatives in the house and senate. Now seems a good time to include the effect those representatives are having. The RS are there.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support My other comments were just sidebar. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not plagarism; but too much WP:ABOUTSELF?

Okay, so, there is mass plagarism in the article, please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism to learn how to cite your edits properly. Any writing that is not your own summarization of a source must be placed inside quotations. WP:Quote should also be read over, particularly the parts on extensive quote use.

I am going to cut out some of the ridiculous text from the article such as the "our God-given individual
freedoms" part (no quotation marks, no source).

The NYT is reliable, so I will remove the tag, if there is any objection please actually bring it up at WP:RSN rather than just doing another drive-by tagging. Furious Style (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That text you removed is not Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the taking of anothers ideas or thoughts and presenting them as your own. Those sections were attributed to the owners of those thoughts. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It may not be plagiarism but it is all propoganda from primary sources. We use third party material here. Please respect that ----Snowded ^TALK 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please undo your addition of the plagarised text immediatedly. Those sections were not attributed properly. Trust me when I state that anytime you see phrases like "our God-given individual
freedoms" or "our Country" in a wikipedia article and they are not inside quotation marks the article either contains plagarism or does not confrom to MOS. Furious Style (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That is clearly not Plagiarism in any sense of the word. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

While Furious Style raises many good points, it is okay to use primary sources in the agenda section. The various tea party groups do have their own agenda. Summarizing what these groups describe as their agenda is fine and using their website as the source is okay, too. If a tea party group has as part of it's agenda a defense of what they are calling their "God given individual freedoms," that can be quoted, too. The only question then, are these groups truly notable, and is the editor failing to use quotation marks where appropriate. The edit that was added by Xenophrenic, and is now deleted, seemed to have settled an argument and everyone seemed happy with it. I recommend putting it back, with appropriate quotations where needed. The article is, afterall, all about the groups that constitute the tea party movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, since this article is about a movement not an organization, I do not see how any primary sources would be acceptable at all. TFD (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Those organizations are what make the movement. That is like saying, here is a description of Cake, what it tastes like, what it looks like, how much it costs, what it is used for, how often it is used....etc.. unfortunately I we can't tell you what any of the ingredients are. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You can explain the ingredients of cake because they are reported in secondary sources. What you cannot do is say anything about the ingredients not found in those sources, because that would be original research. For example, you cannot write about the evils of sugar, battery hen eggs, GMO grains, exploitation of chocolate plantation workers etc. using sources that are not about cake. BTW the discussion is about the Wikipedia guideline plagiarism, not the Wikipedia article plagiarism. The two may differ and if you disagree with the guideline the place to do so is on its talk pages, not here. TFD (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If that is a correct interpretation of the guidelines (which I doubt), we must remove any discussion of the agenda, because of WP:UNDUE weight. If all reliable sources are extremely biased, we cannot say anything. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please self-revert per WP:BRD and await resolution of the issue here. TFD is correct on process here and you need to pay attention to it especially as it looks like Arbcom will be investigating behaviour on this article ----Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the revision of early March 2 (UTC) by Xenophrenic as the appropriate status quo to work from, with technical corrections. Before that, the section was too severely biased to be a basis to work from. And I admit not doing a good job of improving it before then. Mulitple sources are needed to indicate the agenda. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that ----Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The only difference in the "Agenda" section is my assertion that reference 29 (Al Hurt) may be unreliable, and is certainly unnecessary. (I suggested that version without checking the details, although it did appear to have an addition about the size of the sections now removed; it was the first version with more than one TPm source, and the first version with more than one non-TPm source.) I'm willing to remove the {{rs}} tag for the moment, but I don't really see that it is an RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And to a degree that was my main concern. However the Tea Party stuff needs summarising, its more or less cut an paste at the moment and I can't help thinking we need a secondary source rather than this ----Snowded ^TALK 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you question the sources's reliability please do the appropriate thing and take it to RSN already. The current article is unacceptable as it contains plagarism. Text such as "our God-given individual
freedoms" which is both not within quotation marks, even though it is a quote, and does not have the source attached to it, is plagarism. Furious Style (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The notion that a Wikipedia article on a topic as controversial as this would allow a section called "Agenda" to be defined solely by advocacy groups seems to be absurd.

What the members of a decentralized "grass-roots" movement largely funded by multinational corporations portray their "agenda" as is not the way everyone (perhaps not the majority of people) sees their agenda.

Until there are some counterbalancing statements in relation to the "agenda", I think it should be more of a concise overall summary than a collection of verbatim policy platforms of every advocacy group falling under the umbrella of this topic.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1. It's not plagarism. I think the erroneous claim that it is, is sufficient to require an RfC, if not an RfC/U.
2. The section is not, and has never been, solely the TPm member's statements about their agenda. The version you think improper is dominated by the statements. Actually, I think the TPm individual statements should be at the end of the section, now that they have been presented with sufficient weight.
3. The claim that it is not a grass-roots (dis)organization is just that — a claim. It is also completely irrelevant to what should be in this section. (I would have no objection to the section title being changed to Stated agenda, though. There is no possible source for any actual agenda.)
4. The problem with creating a summary of what the individual groups state as their agenda is that the person summarizing will be biased. We all know that. One way to avoid bias would be to let the organizations reveal their own biases.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the NYT column taken from the IHT column is not a reliable source. I don't see how anyone who actually read it could think it was an "article", or intended to be an "article". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussion on the NYT article. Otherwise the charge of plagiarism should be dropped, but equally you should stop arguing for primary sources. I'm amazed an editor of your experience and status is making that basic error. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion on the IHT column did not indicate a consensus or a reasoned argument why it is possibly reliable. On another forum, it was suggested that it was reliable because Hurt is an expert. Submitted to WP:RSN#Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of inherent contradictions in the so-called Tea Party Movement. The two most prominent of which seem relevant here are that it is, on the one hand, a decentralized agglomeration of sometimes somewhat disparate groups, while, on the other hand, it is funded somewhat surreptitiously by wealthy, multinational interests that might be seen to be trying to harness the energy of discontented and disenfranchised segments of the population.

I would not necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of the statements of the groups--even though they are primary sources--so long as there are some secondary sources that make synthetic statements regarding the "agenda" of the TPM. I'm fairly confident that there are quality academic sources that do (though I don't have the time to look into that at present), whereas I doubt that the same can be said with respect to the advocacy groups, because that would-in and of itself-be something that goes against the decentralized ethos of the movement.Ubikwit (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

great point, we seem to have two articles living as one, the Koch brothers organized AstroTurf, and the disorganized, independent, grassroots groups who received no support from Koch. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mix of professionals and grassroots. What they each say about themselves should be allowed. A secondary source would be fine unless it distorts or uses opinion, and they almost all do. If a tea party group says it's agenda is to support candidates who promise to cut spending, then I don't see why we need an outside source to come in and confirm that. And we already have a commentary section where all sorts of types weigh in with their opinion. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Is a split possible? I know we cannot untangle individual groups, but perhaps something could be done. I doubt it, though.

I would be in favor of academic sources over newspaper articles (or columns), but I wouldn't know where to look. (We would also need to be sure we were talking about academic articles, not letters to the editor, editorials, or Op-ed columns. There has been some problem with that in articles related to homeopathy and chiropractic; I see no reason why it would be better, here.)

I also don't see why reporting what a group says its agenda is violates any guidelines other than WP:PRIMARY. It may be biased if the groups we select are a biased selection, but it doesn't seem unduely self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so long as what the group says is not self-serving. For a group to declare something about themselves that on it's face would be self-serving, obviously we don't include that. But when it's a mission statement, that is the group explaining what their purpose for existing is. If a group says we are the largest with 15 million members, like the Tea Party Patriots, there are RS that say they are the largest but they don't confirm the number. So a solution would be to just include their claim at being the largest. That would be reasonable. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the TPm didn't have registered "members", so I would be interested in seeing how this alleged membership is calculated - both by the Patriots as well as outside reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, no I meant that as an example. If the group is claiming something about themselves that seems self-serving, what does an RS say? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, we do not need to remove any discussion of the agenda of various Tea Party groups, merely restrict our sources to sources about the Tea Party. Dozens of books, hundreds of learned articles and thousands of newpaper and magazine articles have been written about the Tea Party. If we decide to include information that they have omitted, then we will wind up with a POV article. TFD (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable argument. However, there is no policy or guideline (other than WP:PRIMARY) which is violated by including the stated agenda of any group which is sufficiently notable to have mainstream articles about it, even if those articles do not include the stated agenda. Again, it's hard to see how a stated agenda could be "unreasonably self-serving". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from another NYT article by Hunt, related to the question of "agenda"

"A major divide is between a smaller group that said 'focus on fiscal conservatism' and a larger group that includes social conservatives," said Judson Phillips, of Tea Party Nation, who is disdainful of the fiscal-issues-only crowd.

That sentiment is returned. “He’s a lunatic," said Mr. Meckler, whose Tea Party Patriots emphasizes the fight against big government. “He has no credibility in the movement."

Mr. Phillips once suggested the solution to illegal immigration was to take a "planeload" of undocumented workers and “dump them in Somalia." He also was a devotee of the anti-Obama birther movement.

On the Tea Party Patriots’ criticism, Mr. Phillips replied, "If I am a fringe Tea Party person, I'm the biggest fringe Tea Party person on the Internet."

Ubikwit (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources (if reliable) are preferred to primary sources, but there is no reason to exclude what the groups say about their own agenda. That Hunt article includes what (at least) Mr. Phillips and Mr. Meckler say about their respective groups, and might not be a bad thing to summarize in "agenda". Although I still don't think Hunt's columns should be considered reliable, they should be considered reliable for direct quotes.

I still say that the primary sources of groups talking about their own agenda is better than having no comment on individual groups' agendas. There is still no possible guideline it violates other than WP:PRIMARY, and possibly WP:UNDUE in the selection of groups. I had not considered WP:UNDUE before, but there should be no objection in reporting what a reliable source says are the major TPm organizations say about themselves, whether or not from an SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel and Arthur about the definition of plagiarism. There has been no plagiarism; Editor Furious Style has misunderstood the concept. I hope we're past that. However, there may be an issue of too much WP:ABOUTSELF-sourced content, and a related issue of whether that content is unduly self-serving (see stipulations 1 & 5). Wow, now I've agreed with Arzel and Arthur, and they have both edit-warred to keep an edit of mine IN the article? These are truly signs that the end times are upon us.

The core of the dispute is over how the "agenda" of the movement is conveyed to our readers. Pro-TP groups within the movement are obviously going to use the most flattering descriptions with the widest public appeal. Critics of the TP are going to emphasize the least appealing qualities of the movement. Uninvolved reliable sources (and hopefully Wikipedia as a result) should be able to provide us with a neutral presentation of what is accurate, regardless of whether that information is considered flattering or critical, positive or negative. Further complicating the matter is the acknowledged fact that the movement doesn't follow one set of rules, leaders, goals or agenda. Arthur wants "groups talking about their own agenda" to have a prominent place in the article, but that raises the problem of which groups? Many groups in the movement, for example, stress the importance of non-fiscal issues (Guns, God, Gays, Immigration, etc.). It would appear some would prefer to have those agendas minimized or squelched. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It could start with what RS appear to identify as the most visible groups. These seem to be Tea Party Patriots, Freedomworks, etc. The ones most in the news. A Google search would turn up that information. Then put in what they call their mission. What you had edited in earlier seemed fine to me. I didn't think it contained plagiarism. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In the areas of agendas, self-statements by advocacy organizations tend to be accurate because agenda statements are an important step towards action on that item. In short, what you define as a goal creates action towards that goal, and leaving it off the list does the reverse. So a mis-statement of agenda would be self-defeating. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, I think that there is informational value in such statements so long as they are balanced with analysis thereof by secondary sources.

The reason being-aside from violations of policy on primary sources, etc.-is that the TPM comprises groups and factions that are funded by multinational corporations that have interests that do not always necessarily jibe with what the platforms promulgated by the groups they are funding represent. Furthermore, those groups have adopted opposing stances on some issues, so they are in competition for followers. High level analysis is required to make sense out of that, and Hunt's articles contribute to that effort for the reading public.

The discussion on the RSN board has slowed, but it doesn't seem that there are valid reasons for questioning Hunt. Questioning his status as an expert is indirectly challenging the choice of the NYT for paying him to publish his articles in their paper, and that doesn't seem to be an appropriate target for WP editors with respect to the editorial prerogatives of the NYT, especially with respect to articles published in the news section as "articles".Ubikwit (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

One of your arguments here is absurd. That the Times (actually, the IHT) considers Hunt an expert would not mean that he's an expert under our definitions, and, anyone who has actually read page six items would realize that there is nothing, other than placement, distinguishing gossip columns from news articles. "Placement" on a web site is problematic. Contrary to common sense, your view seems to be gaining weight at WP:RSN, but this argument is absurd, whereever it is placed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

McAllister revisited

I removed:

During an interview on NPR with Michel Martin, McAllister and columnist Cynthia Tucker discussed racism and the Tea Parties; Tucker wrote about the interview, concluding that McAllister's take on racism was that "he'd seen enough racist signs at other Tea Party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement".< ref> Tucker, Cynthia (May 6, 2010). "A black tea party supporter offers advice on the movement's struggle with racism" (Document). Atlanta Journal-Constitution. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)</ref >< ref>The Tea Party and Race; NPR; April 16, 2010</ref >

for the following reasons:

1. It doesn't add value to McAllister's comments.
2. As all of us who have been interviewed know, interviewees can be (sometimes even inadvertently) tricked into saying something they didn't mean We weould need evidence that Tucker is sufficiently expert at psychology that her believe as to McAllister's views doesn't become a BLP violation. Alternatively, we could write "Tucker opined that" rather than "Tucker concluded that", making it gossip, but not a BLP violation.
3. I've previously made the argument that McAllister's comments already take an WP:UNDUE part of the article; that argument has been ignored, rather than dealt with. This just adds to the weight problem.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget these reasons, too:

4. the entire McAllister section is flaky, not just the selected quotes from the interview which we are fighting over.

5. McAllister is only a reliable source for his own opinions, and I question whether they are notable and/or relevant enough for inclusion. IIRC, all the other people referenced around there have some notability independent of the TPM. If not, perhaps their comments aren't relevant, either.

I think the reason your arguments have been "ignored" is because they keep changing, and morphing as they are addressed and refuted. Excessive? BLP vio? Undue? Flakey? His opinions don't matter? This one sentence of the four sentences doesn't "add value to his comments"? Could it be that you do not want to see a frequent conservative TP speaker acknowledge that there is an issue here, albeit a "fringe" one? Have you read his exact comments in the NPR interview? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be better to use his quotes from the interview, then to use one of the interviewer's interpretation of his quotes from the interview, even though it appears clearly that he sees racism. We're dealing with non-expert interpretation of the opinions of a living person, so we're stuck with WP:BLP. My previous arguments, although adequate for trimming the section, have been ignored, rather than refuted or trumped by other arguments. <justified attack on your "arguments" redacted; to be saved for the RfAr> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)