Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

corporate

It's not disputed (although it's probably misleading) that some organizations in the movement have received corporate funding. It's not accurate to say that the movement has received corporate funding, nor that there has been "heavy support and interest" from multinational(s) corporations.. It's accurate to say that the movement has been reported to have received support from multinational corporations, but that doesn't seem notable enough for the lead. I'm not going to revert it now, per the WP:1RR which may still be in effect, but that addition is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

But it isn't... not by a longshot. It has received endorsements and support from corporate sources including Steve Forbes. I'll find the info later.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 20:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Steve Forbes" is not a multinational corporation. Non-financial endorsements should be in another section, and financial support needs specific sources. Still disputed, but something like that would be appropriate if sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole unsourced POV wording addition should be reversed. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged origin

This edit introduces material previously agreed to be irrelevant, misquoted, or misleading from Tobacco Control, among others. I as Plumber (talk · contribs) to justify (at least) those changes which have been previously disproven. I also suggest that he be warned not to make major changes to the article without some attempt at consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Tobacco Control information was already there. What is the problem with the contribution I actually made? Plumber (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

One teensy problem is the fact that the usage of "Tea Party" for tax protests in the modern era antedates the origin claimed in that article, that the article does not provide any clear link that the other foundations founded the Tea Party, or that the foundations created any substantial segment of the Tea Party movement. Or that some of the sources (Kochs et al) were involved in any way with the Tobacco Industry. Other than that, the article proves the Tea Party movement was created by the tobacco industry. Not. The earliest usages for the term are fully unconnected by any source with any corporate interests according to fairly strong sources, such as calendars. Collect (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

BRD

Please get a consensus before making major edits - the idea that since the moderation is in a stasis for now does not mean discussion is not needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note ... moderation is no longer in stasis. We have a new moderator. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Which does not obviate my concerns. At such time as a new moderator actually takes firm rein , I might rejoin. Right now it is a group of cooks each adding five or six spices to the soup and insisting their spices must be in it. The results are clear when looking at actual readability and usability of the article. No added spices should be used unless and until there is a clear and unquestioned consensus to add them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request -- add a picture of Allen West to the "racism" section

For example this one. It makes a key point quite eloquently.William Jockusch (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Favorite Allen West

The more I think about this, the more I like it. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, umm, I'm a little unclear on the edit request template. Am I supposed to put that in here somewhere?William Jockusch (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All of these gentlemen shown immediately below are mentioned in the racism section, and any or all of their images would improve the section and article.

Minority figures who defend Tea Party from allegations of racism

• 
  Herman Cain, 2012 national candidate.
• 
  Ward Connerly, chairman of American Civil Rights Institute
• 
  Allen West, former Congressman from Florida

Again, these are Minority figures who defend Tea Party from allegations of racism

--→gab 24dot grab← 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Legoktm (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The "racism" section has been removed from this article, and currently resides in a spin-off article called Perceptions of the Tea Party movement. If no one objects during the next couple of days, I'd like to add the three photos there, since the article currently is rather sparsely populated regarding photos. Understanding all statements here as statements of support, except for Legoktm who spoke as a neutral admin. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't object, but I think at least one of them should go into this article, if the accusation is mentioned at all here, which it currently is.

It's been twelve days and there are no objections. I would prefer to add a picture of Herman Cain to the article mainspace, since he received some Tea Party support as a presidential candidate last year. But the original proposal was for a picture of Allen West so I'll go with that. The three photos for the Perceptions spin-off article will be posted on the Perceptions article Talk page for 24 hours in case anyone is lurking there, then those will be added to the Perceptions article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The question has been asked on the Perceptions article's Talk page — just waiting to see if there are any replies. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

as an editor not previously involved here, I must say that I would regard the attention of the photographs as promotional overbalance. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

subarticles

Where a WP:Subarticle exists, this article should not contain the entire subarticle. It should be placed in WP:Summary style here - not in its entirety or, heaven forfend, be expanded here. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I think it was on our To-Do List to trim that section (and do something with "Foreign Policy" too), but we haven't gotten to it yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

the origins, dates and information referring to koch bros are incorrect. The koch bros started a tea party website in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/

dates of origin are incorrect

the origins, dates and information referring to koch bros are incorrect. The koch bros started a tea party website in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party has been used as symbol by various people throughout history. The current movement began in 2009. TFD (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous nonsense. The clear relationship between the movement of the 21st century and the koch bros is blindingly obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling that organization part of the TPm is disingenuous nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Roll call

I have it on good authority there's a whole slew of editors just waiting in the wings to fix up this article soon as an arbitrarily constructed list of previous contributors to TPM and/or current participants in moderated discussion of TPM are topic-banned. Can we get a head count, please. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get a head count on how many of them are the same editors while Checkuser evidence is still available to verify. (I am not naming names, but some of them seem to have previous incarnations, and ArbCom needs to be informed of future incarnations.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Add merge request to article

Please add {{mergefrom|Agenda of the Tea Party movement|discuss=Talk:Tea Party movement#Proposed merge with Agenda of the Tea Party movement}}

I don't think the merge is appropriate, but it's being discussed without the necessary pointer on this article in place. If this is not done, the merge discussion (above) should be closed as "inappropriate while the article is locked". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

some ?able terminology?

[nervous infrequent editor terrified of dipping toe into shark-infested waters---please don't eat me] The end of the first paragraph of the "Agenda" section includes the phrase "and opposed amnesty for illegals." Would there be objection to changing it to read "and opposed amnesty for illegal aliens"? I know some think the former offensive; I (personally) am more bothered by the imprecision of the term. Nitsua60 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In the next paragraph we see reference to "Obamacare." While I know both detractors and and proponents have used this term, I think an encyclopedia would be better be served by something like "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially: 'Obamacare')" or "the Affordable Care Act (hereafter 'Obamacare')".

With that I'll stop reading and wait to hear some opinions. (On the terminology, not political, if you please.) Thanks. Nitsua60 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got a good approach. I'm not sure about "Obamacare"; if the TPm uses "Obamacare", then it might be a good idea to keep it in the qrticle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, Nitsua. Both are fairly common terms used in the United States, but may be unfamiliar to English-speaking people from other countries. I think we may need to be more sensitive to the needs of such readers. I think the term "unlawful immigrants" might work for the former, and "the new health insurance law" for the latter. (It doesn't have much of an impact on health care — it affects who's going to pay for the health care.) regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I think the frequency of the use of "Obamacare" on all sides---as well as innumerable mentions of "[President] Obama's signature health care law" would argue for use of the term "Obamacare" for most of the article; I just think first mention should be formally correct. Could an editor with privileges then change the first instance of "Obamacare" to something more formal, and the instance of "illegals" to "illegal aliens" or "unlawful immigrants", whatever your preference? Nitsua60 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, let's get a proposal going. I propose that we change the word "illegals" at the end of the first paragraph of the Agenda section to read, "unlawful immigrants." And I propose that we change the word "Obamacare" in the second paragraph of that section to read, "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" — remaining uses of the term "Obamacare" throughout the article should be left undisturbed — and if anybody was going to object, they've had five days to do it. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The main article on the subject is Illegal immigration, not "unlawful immigration". As for Obamacare, I am not sure how many Americans are actually familiar with the official name of the law. While reading online news, I came across some statistics where people reacted favorably to direct quotes from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but reacted negatively to the mere mention of Obamacare. As if there were two different concepts. Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I went for "illegal immigrants" per Dimadick's suggestion, and for "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called Obamacare)" per the first sentence of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If anyone thinks that these wordings are unsatisfactory, or that I have overstepped my remit here, just let me know and I will change it, or revert and reopen this request for further discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)