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

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)

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 [1]. 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 [2]. — 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)

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, [3] 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)

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: [4][5][6] 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. [7] 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.' [8]Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed [9]. 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)

Since I don't follow your reasoning for attempting to disqualify Mr. Hunt, I'm simply going to blockquote passages from the WP article Al_Hunt for you to reference and refute point-by-point, if you care to, his qualifications with respect to his being cited in this WP article as an expert/reliable source, etc.

Prior to joining Bloomberg News in January 2005, Hunt worked for the Wall Street Journal. During his 35 years in the newspaper’s Washington bureau, he was a congressional and national political reporter, a bureau chief and, most recently, executive Washington editor. For 11 years, Hunt wrote the weekly column, "Politics & People." Hunt also directed the paper's political polls for 20 years

Hunt has also served as a periodic panelist on NBC's Meet the Press and PBS' Washington Week in Review, as well as a political analyst on CBS Morning News, and a weekly panelist on CNN's Capital Gang. He was also a panelist on Evans, Novak, Hunt, & Shields. He is co-author of a series of books published by the American Enterprise Institute, including The American Elections of 1980, The American Elections of 1982 and The American Elections of 1984. In 1987, he co-authored Elections American Style for the Brookings Institution. In 2002, he contributed an essay about campaign finance reform for Caroline Kennedy's Profiles in Courage for Our Time.

Hunt is a member of the Wake Forest board of trustees; the board of the Children's Charities in Washington; and the advisory board of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. He teaches a course on the press and politics at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications.

Ubikwit (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I said your argument was absurd, not necessarily the conclusion. You have asserted the following (probably false) claims:

1. The IHT column "Letters from Washington" reprinted in the NYT contains NYT articles.
   • Clarly false. It might contain IHT articles, but we don't yet know where IHT reprinted it from
2. If the NYT times considers him an expert, then Wikipedia should consider him an expert.
   • Our requirement is the he must have published in reliable sources in the field. Their requirement could be only that he has written material which they consider interesting and correct, without any requirement it could be published.
3. The NYT times considers him an expert.
   • Actually, we don't even know that, although it's probably correct. All we know is that they consider his work interesting enough to publish. There need not be a belief that it's correct. We can be fairly sure that it doesn't contain libelous material, although Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does offer the NYT protection if it were only published in their online edition.

And, until now, no one, either here or at WP:RSN, brought up the argument that he should be considered an expert. At RSN, I brought it up as a possibiity, but no one wanted to support it. I'd have to say that, assuming our Wikipedia article on him is correct, he is almost certain an expert on politics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I assume you would be in agreement with withdrawing your opposition to characterizing his articles (writings) as WP:RS. Correct?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Until now, no one brought up the argument that he should be considered an expert? If only someone had said something like:

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 only. I agree with Arthur that he qualifies as an expert on politics. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 9 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. --Arthur Rubin

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. --Arthur Rubin

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)

She wasn't one of the interviewers. She also isn't interpreting opinions from the interview. We're citing a journalist with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution who is referencing his written work as well as his interview comments, so there is no BLP issue there. I don't see the merit in your other arguments; "tricked into saying something they didn't mean" huh? I'm going to have to ask you once again if you've actually reviewed the cited sources. Was he tricked into writing what he didn't mean, too? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Might the solution be to ask, Where exactly does Lenny McAllister, a black conservative, actually say that "he's seen enough racist signs at other Tea Party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement,"? It seems to me that if you want McAllister to claim that racism is associated with the Tea Party movement, you could simply quote him directly. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We could add direct quotes in addition to the outside reporting, true. There are plenty applicable ones in his writings, TP speeches and his interviews like the one with NPR. Would that get excessive? And I don't "want McAllister to claim that racism is associated with the Tea Party", just so we're clear, he's already done that. My concern is that our article content be conveyed with appropriate weight and sourcing. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that's good news. So just get the quote and add it in. This same issue has been argued before, as you probably remember. It will be nice to put it to rest. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this same issue has been argued before; do you feel a more substantive effort has been made this time around? (The last argument was that a source violated WP:OR, an argument that fell flat on its face.) Here's a quote, by the way:

"I can still go back to incidents when I've been at Tea Parties and have seen images of President Barack Obama with a bone through his nose. I've seen images where they had Barack Obama standing in front of the White House and on the back of the inscription of the White House it says: da crib. Would you have done that with George W. Bush? And, again, they're not common, but they have happened."

Specifically about the incident of the N-word heard by congressmen, he continued, "It is not that far of a stretch to say, okay, now if I've seen that among 5,000, out of 50,000 people did one person possibly cross the line? It's definitely possible." Another quote of his:

"Well, my take is there are some people that have taken it too far and they have used this movement, a good movement at its core, to justify some of their underlying hatred. There are some people out there. I've seen the signs and I've said this on other interviews and I've said this in other articles where when I see the signs, I confronted, I've confronted it from the podium. I confronted people face to face."

Some of this is already summarized in our article, but if you think piling in more direct quotes would improve the article, we can do that if there is consensus. But as I've stressed before, it's not my preferred way to handle public perception in an article. Oh, and as to Arthur's contention above that McAllister isn't notable, I just read somewhere that he's throwing his hat in as the only Republican challenger for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s vacant seat in April. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

McAllister is going after Jesse Jr's seat? Interesting. I looked at McAllister's wiki bio and also thought he wasn't really notable, but if he's running for Congress, that will raise his profile. But since he's going from relative unknown to known, I'd like to see a real quote from him and not Ms. Tucker's opinion of what he said. And something newer, as opposed to old. He'll certainly get grilled on any tea party support and no doubt someone will ask him about racism in the tea party, so we'll have that. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a syndicated columnist, frequent TP speaker, author and frequent political contributor to several top-rung media outlets as well (CNN, for instance) -- so he's not unknown, not even relatively. (Maybe I should update his bio.) Outside secondary assessments like those from AJC are preferred by Wikipedia over primary quotes; here's another one from WaPo:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue. "I feel like the tea party movement is at its core a good thing for America. It is a group of citizens that have not been previously involved," McAllister said. "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

...but we can certainly add as many direct quotes as consensus agrees is warranted. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. And I agree his bio needs an update. It would be great if you could update it. I don't have time at all this week. I'm working on a legal article for the wiki. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism, Resignation of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller

Out of context version:

In 2011, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller resigned after NPR's top fundraiser called Tea Partiers "xenophobic" and "seriously racist people" who are "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."Ref

Version with context:

Meanwhile, in 2011, NPR's top fundraiser, after clarifying that he was giving his personal opinion and not speaking for NPR, contrasted the fiscally conservative Republican party of old that didn't get involved in people's personal and family lives with "the current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, that is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian—I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."Ref, Ref Schiller expressed pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism, and said some highly-placed Republicans believed the Republican Party had been hijacked by this radical group, and they characterized them as "Islamophobic" and "xenophobic ... seriously racist, racist people".Ref, Ref

There are two points related to the relevant contested edit content. First, the preceding statement relates to a countervailing statement regarding accusations of racism and the TPM, attributing them to liberals and the media. Therefore the statement of the NPR chief fund raiser is pertinent because it offers a different viewpoint, attributing some of them to mainstream republicans. Second, the resignation of the CEO is said to be related to the statements of the fundraiser, but the context and content of the statement itself is glossed over in a manner that denies the reader information necessary to arrive at a reasoned assessment of the situation based on facts. What are the specific allegations relating to WP:UNDUE?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The out of context version misleads the reader into thinking that Vivian resigned because of those specific remarks, which is not true. There were other remarks, and other events, which culminated in her resignation. It also misleads the reader into thinking those characterizations were all Schiller's, and that he was speaking on behalf of NPR, also not true. Am I to understand that certain editors consider context to be "irrelevant" and "UNDUE", and would prefer that the reader be mislead? I recall that there was quite a dust-up over what people first saw in the misleadingly edited videos of those remarks, versus what was really said. Are we reliving that here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My first inclination is to leave the new content out completely, as it consists of opinions expressed by someone who is neither a TPer, nor an outside reliable source on the TP (he's not with NPR's news division; he's just a money-moocher raising funds for NPR). But if there is consensus to include the material, it will need to be presented accurately. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

His statements are quoted as the reason for the resignation, so the relevant context has to be filled out, otherwise it seems to be presented as a biased POV. I don't think it is a question of him being a RS for anything other than his statements in the events surrounding the resignation, which itself is presented in relation to racism in the TPM (as per the preceding sentence).

If the NPR CEO's resignation is notable, and the NPR fund raisers statements are notable in relation thereto, then the whole picture has to be presented.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What you call "the whole picture" is not accurate; if it were, the statement wouldn't be relevant to this article. That he was speaking for himself is not relevant; if it were, we would have to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members. Some information that the fund-raiser was contrasting the "TP" and current Republicans to past Republicans, and that the CEO's resignation was not entirely due to the fund-raiser's statement should be included, if the matter should be included, at all. I think the fund-raiser's statement probably fits under "media views" here, and the incident should be covered in more detail at NPR and at biographies of the unrelated Schillers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• That he was speaking for himself is not relevant; if it were, we would have to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members.

No, Arthur. He specifically emphasized that he was speaking only for himself, and not as an NPR person, just before the cherry-picked quotes. That makes it relevant. You are welcome and encouraged "to add similar comments to all the events attributed to individual TPm members" who likewise specifically stated that they were not speaking as TPers.

Schiller didn't make a "statement", by the way. We're discussing a surreptitiously recorded private conversation that was then deceptively edited, so there is no "media view" here, and it's already covered in more detail at more relevant Wikipedia articles. The CEO resigned after a series of incidents, and after comments besides the ones we're trying to include in this article. Is the intent of the proposed content to misleadingly convey to our readers, "NPR said nasty stuff about the TP, then the CEO resigned for it"? Since that's not what happened, I am curious about the flurry of objections ("irrelevant", "UNDUE") to conveying what actually happened. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The "version with context" above does not accurately reflect what actually happened. Now, I'm not sure anything about it should appear in this article; if it should, we should give the fund-raiser's name and probably not the NPR CEO's name. I'm saying that most of the arguments given for inclusion of the long version are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very interested in hearing exactly what "arguments given for inclusion of the long version" are not consistent with exactly which specific "policies and guidelines". Please explain, Arthur. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should leaven some of this with weight issues. The TPM has matured a bit and whether or not someone on the outside has called them bad names, is that relevant? Does it make it true? I'm not seeing a need for any of this in the article. Not saying it can't be there, just not convinced in light of what is happening in congress today with tea party elected reps. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The "context" version is very confusing. Who is this "He" person? Shiller appears to be referenced as a guy multiple times, yet Shiller is a she. The "context" version doesn't make any sense at all. Arzel (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two unrelated Schillers; the fund-raiser is a "he", and the CEO is a "she". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that will have to be made more clear. Unless you know the exact story behind the paragraph it makes no sense. Arzel (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very interested in hearing exactly what "arguments given for inclusion of the long version" are not consistent with exactly which specific "policies and guidelines". Please explain, Arthur. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul and other recent edits

I've seen recent edit summaries that present some interesting claims:

• Ron Paul is not part of the Tea Party...

Is this true? The article presently states, "The Tea Party movement's membership includes notable Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, ... has become the 'intellectual godfather' of the movement as many now agree with his long-held beliefs." Our article also displays a prominent image of Paul, and states that Ron Paul was a runner-up (behind Herman Cain) in the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit poll. There appears to be a conflict here.

• giving [Paul] the first paragraph in this section gives him far too much WP:WEIGHT

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why, and where you think the proper positioning in that section should be — but did you intend to delete the content completely?

• Far too much WP:WEIGHT given to commentary criticism by political opponents, particularly the anti-smoking lobby. Moved it to the end of the section...

You also re-named the section from 'Commentary' to 'Criticism'; that is inaccurate, as not all the commentary in that section is critical. You also added verbiage that asserts HuffPo was "publicizing" something, when the sources indicate only a report on a news story. Can we get an explanation for that? (It was previously reported here.)

• appropriately identified their political motives...

Who's "political motives", what are they, and from what source did you derive these political motives? They appear to be unsourced at present. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The poll I'm reading shows Sarah Palin with more than twice as much support as Ron Paul from within the Tea Party. If anyone deserves such a prominently placed and lengthy statement defining the Tea Party's position on foreign policy, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's Sarah Palin. Find an equivalent statement by Sarah Palin and I would be more than happy to support placing it in such a prominent position with so much WP:WEIGHT. In the alternative, I would support a statement by Herman Cain in that space, although more recently he has receded from his former position of prominence. On this topic, both Palin and Cain are in sharp disagreement with Ron Paul, who represents a tiny but vocal and very well-organized minority. If a similar poll were taken today, I suspect the leaders would be Ted Cruz, Palin, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, in that order.
• If such adjectives as "liberal" for Juan Williams and "left-wing" for the Huffington Post really need to be sourced, perhaps you haven't read their stuff or the Wikipedia articles about them. These are well-known as liberal and left-wing sources. If you'd like to substitute the word "reported" for "publicized," I have no problem with that. But the fact is that most people hadn't heard of the study when it was published by "Tobacco Control," and most people still hadn't heard of it when it was mentioned on the UCSF website, but HuffPo was what gave the story "legs." After that, a lot of people had heard about it.
• If you want to split the section into one titled "Criticism" and another entitled "Commentary," be my guest. Most of it is criticism, and any other label for criticism is inaccurate; and all of it comes from liberal or left-wing sources, so let's identify their political leanings and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about motives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Would that poll in relation to Palin be the one from 2010? That hardly seems very current for a current events related topic. It seems to me an effort to homogenize the party line by eliminating the statements by Paul, which date from the same period, apparently.--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 09:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to the three bullet-points above: (1) I don't see a problem with adding a statement from Palin or Cain on foreign policy. (2) I acknowledge your opinions that Juan Williams is a "liberal", or that HuffPo "gave the story legs", but such opinions shouldn't be conveyed as fact by our article -- and wouldn't be relevant even had they been factual. (3) I didn't say that I wanted to split the section. The reporting in that section is not "all from liberal or left-wing sources", but thank you for admitting your intent is to leave readers with the impression that there is some secret "motive" behind the reporting of facts. That appears to me to go contrary to our WP:NPOV policies. If you have concerns about the information conveyed by the cited sources, why not bring forth additional reliable sources that would help illustrate those concerns, so that we can discuss them? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In a subsequent edit, I removed a non-RS cite to a blog (supporting an unnecessary identifier) -- you cited a characterization of a living person to theprogressiveprofessor.com?! There was an unexplained change of sourced wording on immigration, a weird unexplained insertion of a link to 'Social Democrats'(?) in addition to the above listed edits.

I looked at your addition of the interview with Palin about Foreign Policy; are you very sure you want that specific source, rather than one that is a little more ...um... polished and substantive? I noticed that source never mentions the Tea Party, unlike each of the other sources in that section, but she is one of the TP darlings. Do you feel the opinions she expressed are in line with those of Tea Partiers in general? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-illegal immigration only vs broader Anti-immigration

WARNING: Claiming that the Tea Party, which is composed of living persons, is "anti-immigration" is a not so subtle way to call them racists. That is derogatory, and it is unsourced. The next source cited in the mainspace (NY Times) doesn't even mention immigration at all. I have removed this unsourced, derogatory information twice in the past few hours due to the obvious WP:BLP violation and Jimbo Wales would do the same thing. Please exercise greater caution when writing about living persons. We have a genuine love for the truth here at Wikipedia. Claiming that the Tea Party is racist is untrue and defamatory. It is accurate to state that they are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. I hope you understand the distinction since it is a very important one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Reposting this warning on the talk pages of User:Xenophrenic and User:AzureCitizen. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party in general has been accused of racism through its views on immigration. Matt Kibbe has even responded to such accusations. In April 2010, The Daily Beast printed an article pointing to a poll by the University of Washington which shows that "supporters of the Tea Party appear racially intolerant." Very recently, NBC Latino pointed to a new survey by the Brookings Institute and the Public Religion Research Institute. The new survey is analyzed by NBC Latino as showing "that Americans who identify with the Tea Party are far more likely than other Republicans to oppose comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship". I see no reason to try and bat away any hint of the Tea Party being anti-immigrant. Rather, I think the nuances of the various Tea Party positions on immigration could be discussed. As well, Tea Party and racism can be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are 4 sources and at least 2 have the exact phrase in it. Look closer.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The first 2 sources refer to the non-randomly sampled WISER poll. The WISER poll took a non-random sample of states. Any information from that poll cannot be extrapolated to the entire Tea Party movement. The WISER poll has been misused many times within this article in the past. It is distressing to see it be still being misused. The second 2 sources refer to the PRRI poll which is clearly discussing illegal immigration and a pathway for illegal immigrants. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Misused" would be if I had used it as you describe. I have only suggested it as a source, a purpose for which it is still useful. It can be used to describe the viewpoints of those who were surveyed. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• You put it forward for the generalized statement of anti-immigration. Thus you misused the study in your example. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't be forced to search for it. Put the reference citation immediately after the word "anti-immigrant" or I will continue to delete it the second I see it. WP:BLP is chiseled in granite. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not here for your convenience so no, the citations stay at the end as it's common practice.TMCk (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are misapplying the BLP guideline, which cannot be stretched so far as to apply to the whole Tea Party movement. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is owned by Newsweek, which in turn is owned by the husband of former Democratic Rep. Jane Harmon. It has a very liberal, pro-Obama slant. The Tea Party has a very conservative, anti-Obama slant. "Oppose comprehensive immigration reform" is not the same as "anti-immigration" and I hope you understand the distinction. It means that they're opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. "The Tea Party and racism" is already discussed in detail later in the article. And no, I'm not misapplying the BLP policy (it's not merely a guideline). Read it. It refers to groups as well as individuals. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith here, but there was quite a bit more to Phoenix and Winslow's repeated reverts than just changing "anti-immigration" to "opposed to illegal immigration". Have a look at the rest of the content of the revert, which involved changing the article back to Phoenix and Winslow's preferred new version again, against the objections of other editors here in this Talk Page section. Responsible editors know that they shouldn't be trying to stretch a BLP revert exemption into getting around the Tea Party Movement article's 1RR restriction. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here for your convenience either. The very first line that had been changed in that edit said "anti-immigration," so I just reverted it. I am not going to waste my valuable time going through a detailed edit line by line, trying to determine what is a BLP violation and what isn't, when the very first line that's been changed is a BLP violation. I suggest that the three of you read WP:BLP very thoroughly and proceed with greater caution. I also suggest that responsible editors shouldn't be tag teaming to get around the 1RR restriction. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to "caution" editors here to read WP:BLP as there was never a BLP violation to begin with (consider the point that Binksternet and TMCk understand WP:BLP much better than you think). Suggesting that we're trying to get around 1RR as a "team" is disingenuous given your reverts exceeded the article's restriction. Maybe you should try returning to engage the issues that were being discussed above? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the already existing reliable sources for the description of the Tea Party movement as "anti-immigration" or "opposed to immigration", I've added a couple more (recommended by an Arbitrator at the present TPm-related ArbCom). Please read Anti-immigration; it already includes as a subset opposition to "Illegal immigration", but also covers the TPers nativism and notable opposition to reform, amnesty, "birthright citizenship" (see Anchor baby), and immigration in general (54% of TPers polled feel that immigration is changing the culture in the U.S. for the worse).

I've reverted recent edits which appear to be made in bad faith. Broad reverts of several legitimate edits were implemented based on a misapplication of WP:BLP, with the excuse by the editor, "I am not going to waste my valuable time going through a detailed edit...". He apparently prefers to waste everyone else's valuable time instead. The editor misdescribed WP:BLP as somehow applicable to a reliable sourced description of a movement, not a living person. The editor misdescribed "anti-immigration" as derogatory, when it is no more derogatory than "anti-tax", "anti-spending", etc. The editor demands, "I shouldn't be forced to search for it. Put the reference citation immediately after the word", but then fails to do so himself with his addition of "illegal immigration". The editor cites supposed concern for WP:BLP to justify his edit, yet in that same edit he reinstates a non-RS previously removed due to BLP concerns, suggesting a different motivation. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference citations have been provided immediately after the words "illegal immigration." There are literally thousands of sources confirming that the TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. There are two sources (one of them a partisan left-wing source, The Independent) claiming that the TPM is opposed to ALL immigration. This defines the latter as WP:FRINGE. Couple that fact with the WP:BLP implications of smearing an entire group of people, no matter how large, as racists when using Wikipedia's voice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ten minutes after I made this exquisitely-sourced edit, User:Snowded reverted me. The tag team protecting this WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE violation is running like a Swiss watch tonight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see agreement here to your changes or to your view of sources. "Exquisite" seems a misuse of the English language to me ----Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

illegal immigration is the correct term based on the weight of sources. several tp groups have made this clarification prior to the articles claiming otherwise. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

From reading the thread above that is not agreed ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why this article has been such a flashpoint. The TPM is not against legal immigration, they are against ILLEGAL immigration, as the vast majority of sources state. This however, does not fit the narrative that the left has been trying to make against the movement since the beginning. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a divide between TPMers on that issue; they disagree on what to do with those illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Some are in favor of reform measures leading to citizenship, others are not. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

indeed, however there is no tea party group against legal immigration, only unfounded accusations, perhaps a result of poor journalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Putnam article from the NYT referred to in the article is discussed on this conservative newsite here, which quotes it as saying

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

It seems that there are sources that describe a xenophobic dimension as opposed to simply opposition to illegal immigration. Here's a very recent article on a book by an academic including an interview [10], and another [11], but it is pay-walled.

On the other hand, in light of the pending immigrant reform policy, maybe you will find something more current from someone associated with the TPM to counter that argument.--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

low regard is not anti-immigration, additionally they make the distinction between those who believe such and the leaders of the movement. one could find people with low regard in any group for any other group. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I took the time to watch the msnbc Hardball interview with two African Americans, one of whom is the author of the book that is being published in May by Princeton University Press Amazon and the other a pro-TPM author.

The author of the book is a political science professor at the University of Washington, and the book is being published by a prominent academic publisher, so there is no question that it is RS.

What arguments would there be against this source?--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

could you provide the edit you wish to include from the source and the page number? since it is yet to be published, perhaps we should wait? would you like to instead include the interview as a rs, if so, would you provide the transcript supporting your edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an advance copy of the source and don't intend to make any edits based on the source--as I don't intend to buy it and read it. It was just something that I happened upon after deciding to see what sources were mentioned on the Web, but it is undoubtedly RS, so I thought introducing it might refocus the discussion in a more productive direction, oriented toward incorporating all of the viewpoints in RS.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, we have reliably sourced descriptions describing the movement as "anti-immigration" and also specifically "anti-illegal immigration". I haven't seen any reliable sources that refute either of those. Editor P&W did provide sources that also show one TP-favorite politician (Rand Paul) going contrary to some TPers in his support for Immigration Reform, and sources showing that some TP groups refuse to discuss Immigration (FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity), while the head of the TP Patriots has said "illegal immigration is not an issue". So once again, the movement has shown that it can be all over the board as far as its stance on specific issues.

Looking closer at the sources suggested by P&W, I see one that does indicate some TPers are against "illegal" immigration, but also notes that TPers have trouble justifying their "often intolerant hailing done by anti-immigration activists" with the notion of America as a nation of immigrants. I also see that another of his sources doesn't say TPers are against "illegal immigration", but instead only says that the TPers "should be" against it, and this comes from an immigration-reduction advocate for the Center for Immigration Studies. Maybe these were oversights by P&W. Like the citing of an opinion piece in Forbes, that was followed by a Forbes disclaimer that it was only opinion and not backed by Forbes? Of "thousands" of sources, we should be able to find quality ones. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, we have two or three (count them, two or three) sources describing the movement as "anti-immigration." A lot of the alleged sourcing for this claim amounts to WP:SYNTH — for example, holding immigrants in low regard is not the same thing as being anti-immigration. And in the survey by the University of Washington professor, sympathy with the goals of TPm is not the same thing as being a member of TPm. So that professor is guilty of WP:SYNTH — a fact which is being carefully glossed over here.

All of this pales in comparison, however, to the enormous multitude of reliable sources — New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, Huffington Post, National Journal, Christian Science Monitor, you name it — that identify TPm as being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. I posted eight of them. That edit lasted exactly ten minutes. So far,. Xeno has tried to poke holes in two or three of them. I can post many, many, MANY more. This defines the "Tea Party is anti-immigration" claim as WP:FRINGE. When you have two or three sources on one side, and literally thousands of sources on the other, it's WP:FRINGE and the "anti-immigration" claim doesn't even deserve to be mentioned here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That appears incorrect. I haven't "tried to poke holes in" any of them; the ones I mentioned poked holes in themselves (by being non-RS), or conveyed more than what you claimed they did. Your counting also appears faulty. We have thousands of sources (using your standards) supporting the anti-immigration description, and thousands of sources supporting the anti-illegal immigration subset of that -- and none of the reliable sources (indicated thus far) refute those descriptions. You've mischaracterized the anti-immigration description as a fringe theory. Have you raised your opinion at the fringe theory noticeboard for broader input? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As a side note P&W, that edit which lasted for ten minutes changed considerably more again than just changing "anti-immigration" to "opposed to illegal immigration". You would do well to help yourself out here by switching to individual edits rather than grouping everything into one mass edit/revert which is likely to draw fire within minutes. Perhaps start with fixing the carriage return spacings and wikilinks that are non-contentious, then work your way up. Secondly, the more contentious changes are moves away from the established state of the text and have drawn reverts with corresponding comments from opposition editors posting their reasoning here on the Talk Page. When that happens, you should work towards consensus here instead of discussing while also re-reverting your changes into the article every 24+ hours or so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, could we all please keep this discussion on an intelligent level and refrain from mistating Wikipedia policies? (i.e., "WP:BLP applies to movements like the TP" -- no, it doesn't; "WP:SYNTH applies to reliable sources like Newspapers, Professors, etc." -- no, it doesn't, it applies to Wikipedia editors only.) While we should strive to adhere to Wikipedia policy, misrepresenting policy to advance an argument doesn't serve a useful purpose, and is actually disruptive. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a general consensus on the reliability of the following sources for assertion of fact?

• Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America by Christopher S. Parker and Matt A. Barreto
• The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism by Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson
• Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party by Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Trost
• Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America by Kate Zernike

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

that last source especially, now we can finally remove the part about the Kochs organizing it and it was about tobacco laws. The tea party started out organized by young libertarian-leaning activists who were concerned about the stimulus and the bailouts. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

and What brought most people out for the tea party was real concern about the economy, about the [national] debt. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning to immigration: none of the sources provided, reliable or not, have said the TPm was anti-immigration. Some have said it was perceived as anti-immigration. Some of the reliable sources have said the TPm was/were xenophobic, which might rationally be construed as being against immigrants, but not against immigration. Please restore "against illegal immigration", or remove references to immigration entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the dispute over sources I don't see that qualification being applied to other political party articles here, the 'illegal' label seems to be an attempt at imposing a Tea Party approved linguistic form. Neither do I see a resolution to the issue here as yet so making the change is disruptive. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove it entirely, then. No source which actually says a significant part of the TPm is "anti-immigration" has been provided. Under those circumstances, it is disruptive to attempt to include the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, other editors are disputing that. Your making the change before its resolved on the talk page is an issue and you really should self-revert (using a tag or similar if needed) pending resolution. The use of "significant" is worrying as well, if a statement is sourced and the contradictions are just those from the Tea Party its a dubious statement. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So statements from TPM groups are to be considered dubious while opinions about the movement (largely from those which dislike the movement) should be accepted as fact? Not sure I can accept that argument, especially since the sourcing for anti-legal immigration is very lacking, while sourcing for anti-ILLEGAL immigration is easily found. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the policy. For example we do not consider statements by the North Korean government to be on the same level as news reports in the New York Times. If you oppose the policy then discuss it at the policy pages, not here. TFD (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

the source says low regard" for immigrants, not anti-immigrant, so indeed wp:syn would apply here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The burden of establishing consensus is on the persons seeking to insert or keep the material in the article. There is no consensus to continue calling TPm "anti-immigration." Currently it's roughly a 50/50 split. However we do have consensus that TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

i find this claim dubious as if it were such an important component of the TP why do all the groups go out of their way to make it clear illegal immigration. perhaps part of the problem is many consider the term a misnomer, and all immigrants hold the same status, after all did everyone on the Mayflower have a green card? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, those sources are as far as I can see not reliable ones (see TFD comment) and I repeat the normal phrase on all other political articles I know is anti-immigration without any qualification. What we seem to have here is a form a phrasing which is part of Tea Party propaganda and an attempt to impose it. Neither of you should be editing the article until there is agreement ----Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, your statement above

...that professor is guilty of WP:SYNTH — a fact which is being carefully glossed over here.

would seem to indicate that you need to review several policies relating to sources.

First, professors and other researches perform what amounts to WP:Synth as a normal part of their activity, that is why their work are published by academic presses. Editors on Wikipedia are not permitted to combine the statements of more than RS into a synthetic statement as that violates WP:OR.

Second, you seem to have missed the discussions on primary sources vs secondary sources, of which an example is described above by TFD.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And equally important, we are neutral as to the reliable souces (ideally third party) not neutral as to the subject ----Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Ubikit in principle; we prefer reliable secondary sources, and the source being guilty of "synthesis" is only relevant if it is not reliable. However, no source has said "anti-immigration", although enough reliable sources have said "xenophobic" that it should be included in the article; and published sources, even in peer-reviewed journals, can be unreliable if contradicted by other secondary sources. For the moment, "against illegal immigration" should clearly be in the article, and "against immigration" (or anti-immigration) should be also included if in a reliable source. None has yet been provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. One of the sources found to be reliable despite evidence to the contrary, has stated that the TPm is "anti-immigration". Most sources that mention "anti-immigration" only imply that the TPm is "anti-immigration", because it's associated with another movement which is "anti-immigration, and other sources clearly say the TPm is against "excessive" and/or "illegal" immigration. Still, the sentence should probably note separately that the TPm is generally against "immigration" and against illegal immigration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

For anyone still numerically-challenged or prone to frequent mistakes, the fact that the TP movement is anti-immigration is supported by at least 4 reliable sources presently cited in our article (regardless of how you try to play with semantics):

...Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration.

...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector.

...it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics.

...within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates

And that is from a pool of thousands, without trying -- even more if you want to lower the bar to include non-RS opinion pieces and non-RS blogs as another editor has recently done. Saying the movement is against immigration "and" illegal immigration sounds redundant, like saying "I'm against smoking marijuana and illegal marijuana". Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary page break

Once again, this seems to be another case in which all of the above-described positions are accounted for in the RS, so it is a question of presenting them in accordance with WP:DUE. P&W, if you include the book that is to be published in May, there are more than one example of sources for each characterization of the TPM (or an affiliated group thereof) as "anti-illegal immigration", "xenophobic", and "anti-immigration". Since you seem to think that describing the TPM as "anti-immigration" is a libelous statement, maybe a proposed text integrating those sources and their content should be worked out on the Talk page, in advance. Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 11:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A common tactic by opponents of opponents of illegal immigration is to mis-state their "anti-illegal-immigration" stance as being "anti-immigration". The fact that the TPM has 1 or 4 opponent-writers who have said this does not make the opponent-writers claim something to be stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could just note that TPM opponents are claiming this. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, refs 2 and 4 of the list do not directly support the assertion that the TPM is against immigration;

2. "... generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector." There are many different ways to parse that, none of support the statement that the TPm is anti-immigration. It might support the statement htat the TPm is generally opposed to immigration, but even that requires further research.

4. "... Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates". Doesn't say at all that the TPm is anti-immigration, any more than it says that the TPm is a militia group.

Unfortunately, North8000's statement, although logical and obvious, is not comptable with Wikipedia policies. Hence, it doesn't seem helpful. I think "xenophobic" is probably the best-sourced of the three, if someone wants to avoid duplication, such as the apparent duplication between the sourced statements that the TPm is generally anti-immigration and almost completely anti-illegal-immigration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see Arthur Rubins' comments when I reverted P&W and tried to make it clear that the TP is anti-illegal immigration and has been described as anti-immigration. There is no violation of our BLP policy or fringe guidelines, and giving editors final warnings or any warnings for vandalism is not a good idea. Xenophobic - I like that. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that all three should be mentioned, because it is of course possible and not illogical or immoral to be against illegal immigration and not be against immigration. The factions of the TPM that are against immigration could be described as xenophobic, but that does not necessarily apply to people in general that are opposed to illegal immigration.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The accurate Wikipedia way to say this is to use Wikipedia's voice early in the article, when describing the TPM's agenda in general terms, to describe that agenda as "opposed to illegal immigration." Much later in the article, when discussing the allegations of racism, we can carefully attribute the "Tea Party is anti-immigration" argument to the left-wing partisans (and the pair of university professors of unknown, but fairly predictable politics) who are making it, without providing Wikipedia's voice to support the claim. "Xenophobic" is another way of saying "anti-immigration." Let's be very careful about WP:WEIGHT, avoid giving this minority/fringe opinion any more weight than it deserves, and avoid using Wikipedia's voice to lend credibility to the smear campaign by a tiny handful of partisans who are claiming that the Tea Party is racist. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

But what tea party would that be? Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the "tea party." When I looked into Tea Party Patriots, they don't have any agenda other than fiscal and beating any candidate Karl Rove supports. I did come across a tea party group in Florida that includes immigration as an agenda item. I don't see any RS claiming that the entire, so-called 'movement' is anti-immigration. And is there really any such thing as a movement? If so, which group or groups speak for the movement? Who is their leader? Or is it really that anti-immigration sentiment is being attributed to the 'tea party movement?' Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A "movement" is really a phenomena, not an entity. For the TPM, it's really a slogan, a feeling, hundreds of independent organizations (a few of which are national and can speak about the agenda a bit more than others) a series of events, a metaphor and a theme for action, and little things done in support by millions of different people (voted a certain way, showed up at a rally, siad that they are a TP'er). Politically it's a mix of conservatives and libertarians, and any real worked-out agenda ends up being the overlap between the two. Prioritizing smaller government, smaller taxes, smaller deficit. And avoiding areas where conservatives and libertarians conflict. So you can't characterize the movement as an entity, and it is defined by it's agenda, which means that it's agenda is it's defined agenda, where such has been done of elucidated on a larger scale. It may be that a review of participants in the civil rights movement shows that the vast majority of them like potatoes, and one could find published stories of some of them kicking dogs. But that does not mean that "promoting potatoes" was a part of the agenda of the civil right movement, and nor is the dog kicking story useful for a civil rights movement story, even if a hostile newspaper sought to imply a connection. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember some Tea Party immigration rallies in Florida, back in 2009, and in Arizona and California in subsequent years (they are more frequent in border states). You say you haven't found a reliable source claiming the "entire" movement is anti-immigrant, and I doubt that you will, and that's why our article doesn't convey that. The "entire" movement isn't "entirely" anything (and sometimes the positions of one segment of the movement will completely contradict the positions of another segment), so our article makes clear that the movement can and does "adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue" but "not uniformly so" and that the movement "tends to be", but isn't 100% "entirely" anything. While some factions of the movement try to avoid issues like immigration (as you noted with TP Patriots), most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance. This source, after detailing very strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the Tea Party as it relates specifically to "illegals" or "undocumented immigrants", goes on to describe the TPer's anti-immigrant sentiment toward legal immigration as well:

Such fears are, of course, wrapped up with anxieties about immigration and America's changing links to the larger world beyond the nation's borders. Telling us about her revelation that America had somehow changed, Bonnie plaintively asks, "What's happening in this country? What's happening with immigration?" Tea Partiers see immigrants and young people as harbingers of cultural decline. Even Stanley, whose views on immigration were among the most moderate of any Tea Partier we interviewed, felt that immigration is a "threat to our culture." Though rates of immigration have been high in recent decades, sociologists looking at typical measures of immigrant incorporation--educational attainment, language assimilation, and intermarriage--find that the most recent generations of immigrants from Asia and Latin America are "being successfully incorporated into American society," just as European immigrants were in the past. But this is not believable to many Tea Partiers, who perceive that today's immigrants are unwilling to integrate as previous generations did.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And also from the exact same source: while some of them are socially conservative on family issues and immigration matters, others are actually fairly secular libertarians ... (page 36), a whopping 82% of Tea Party supporters said that illegal immigration is a 'very serious' problem, compared to 60% of Americans overall IOW, not even remotely unanimous in the movement, and not all that far from the general populace.(page 57). In short, your nice use of a single snippet is belied by the rest of the book you wish to cite. Unfortunately, Wikipedia uses the entire source, not snippets <g>. The fact is that only about 4 out of 5 TPM adherents view "illegal immigration" as "very serious" and no value at all is given for any number opposing all immigration. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You should read my post again, Collect. You just restated exactly what I did. Long day? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You appeared to assert most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance which is not only not supported by the source given, but appears actually antithetical to it. Nor does the source assert in any way that the movement qua movement takes any position on general immigration. Did I misread the wprds I copied from your post? Collect (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, Collect. You should stop fiddling with what I actually say to make me "appear to assert" something else. What I actually said is, While some factions of the movement try to avoid issues like immigration (as you noted with TP Patriots), most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance. Now if you'd like to inflate my "most" characterization to a full 82% based on your additional research, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend it. Also from the source, They reserve their hostility for programs that fund the 'undeserving,' which puts the movement squarely in line with the long tradition of postwar American conservatism. Perhaps most interestingly, they have found that the movement resents illegal immigration more than any other social or economic phenomenon--even in places like Massachusetts, which is not a gateway for undocumented aliens. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I quoted you exactly. And the source does not support that claim. Now if you believe you can use a source to say what it does not say, then we are in Monty Python territory and not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has this really weird rule that using a source to say what it does not say is actually a teensy bit iffy. Find a source which says the TPM qua TPM is "anti-immigration". I sincerely doubt you can find such a source. As for saying I "fiddled" with what you precisely wrote - that is the path of Dali. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am curious about the sources selected. The three which are easily readable are clearly in regards to Illegal Immigration. Arzel (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources that claim anti-immigration rallies were held by tea party groups. But even if then, the tea parties came about because of the fiscal crisis. This isn't a "anti-immigration movement." And is it really about being anti-immigration, or is it really about being pro legal immigration? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Which three sources would those be, Arzel? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus

While fixing deadlinks, I noticed that Bachmann has scrubbed all mention of the Tea Party Caucus from her website (the original source of the "membership" of this caucus). The "Official Website" for the caucus is rather sparse, and doesn't seem to list who the present members of the caucus are ... can someone find a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the Tea Party Caucus never existed. [12] But according to Slate it will get a reboot April 15. [13]. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging up that info, Malke. April 15 is just around the corner, so I'll keep an eye on it to see what happens. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

pro gay marriage

perhaps we can find room for this in the article, [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 March 2013

Not a reliable source, not a significant story. TFD (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

here is a better source. how did you determine this is insignificant? [15] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a "dog bites man" story and you need to demonstrate that it has received widespread coverage, that it is important. We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage. They should have run with the headline "Tea Party Boycotts Coffee". TFD (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin

Xenophrenic has uncovered an excellent source [16] concerning the origins of the TP. the NYT journalist covering conservatives since 2003. Kate Zernike directly contradicts the current article which reads, the tobacco industry and the Tea Party could be traced to a 1971 memo, with The tea party started out organized by young libertarian-leaning activists who were concerned about the stimulus and the bailouts. i suggest we rewrite the commentaries on origin section removing weasely text like, Others have argued, were connected with, provided funding for, an extension of. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The weasely text in regard the tobacco industry is in the source. We could argue that the source is unreliable, but I am not sure as to the relative reliability of Tobacco Control and Kate Zernike. Perhaps both statements should be included, noting the contradictions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit, but I didn't "uncover" that source. I mentioned it above (along with several others) and asked what other editors think about its reliability (or lack thereof). It was recently "uncovered" by ThargorOrlando (see archive 20), and before that by some IPs. I'm not sure those two sources contradict each other as much as they cover two different but related aspects. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

2 different aspects, plz explain? one claims a tobacco lawyer invented the tp to manipulate tobacco tax, the other claims young libertarians did 40 years later in response to big bank bailouts. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- the tobacco lawyer used the term -- as did hundreds or thousands of non-tobacco people over a great many years. This whole thing has become ludicrous indeed! [17] (American Patriotism, American Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties By Simon Hall; University of Pennsylvania Press, Jun 6, 2011, 224 pages, pp 109-110) lists a bunch of totally independent usages - dating back to 1965 at least. And not related in any way to tobacco. I decline to believe in tachyons, so suggest 1965 was actually temporally before the 1970s. YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)