Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.10.215.230 (talk) at 20:26, 31 August 2009 (→Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reliable sources.

Please remember to only use reliable sources for factual claims. Specifically, we never use Youtube clips as reliable sources. Further, just because a commentator (especially a particularly unreliable one like Michelle Malkin) makes a claim in an interview, doesn't mean it is sourced. Michelle Malkin repeating a dubious claim on a panel show on Fox News does not mean that Fox News "reported" that fact. Far from it. We need verifiability. Also, we never use editorials as sources for factual claims. Please, discuss here if there are any question about sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, YouTube is not a RS. There are exceptions, but the one under discussion, doesn't fit the exception. If that same video could be found on Fox's own web site, that would be a RS, or if Fox had an official YouTube channel (I'm all but certain they do not), that would be a RS. The problem with that video, like almost all YT videos, is that the publisher is unknown, is not a RS. In theory, the video could have been doctored. Now, if the video is accurate, it is not only Michelle Malkin, but Fox News personnel who state the 37,000 number of attendees at that Tea Party, and they also state the number 1500 for TPs nationwide. (As for Michelle Malkin, I have not seen any evidence that she is particularly unreliable, but she is a commentator, not a reporter, and that probably makes her less reliable for our purposes.) But until the video can be verified as published by a RS, it cannot be used. As for editorials, I find nothing in WP:RS specifically excluding them, and I have certainly seen a great many editorials cited as RS. One may not like a particular editorial source, but that doesn't necessarily make it not-RS.Sbowers3 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, liking or disliking has nothing to do with it. Editorials are not allowed for factual claims. Per WP:RS "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Wikipedia Article Ever?

I visited this page for information on the 2009 tea party protests and found myself leaving dumber about the subject than before I came here. I'm not even going to make suggestions because most hot-headed wiki editors will gawk at the idea that their work is pathetic. But it's true... this page wreaks of immature, baseless claims and comments made for comedy hour and not as a encyclopedic source of information. This page should be deleted or completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.7.103 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what you hoped to find here and on which claims and comments you disparage? Many of us would like to improve it but it has been difficult. Specific suggestions would help more than general complaints. Or feel free to jump in and edit yourself. Even as an anonymous IP you can edit, but it would be better if you got an account. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

Please explain why an NBC-affiliate TV station is not a WP:RS. See here and here. I suggest that rather than delete a sourced statement, if you doubt the reliability of the source, the proper thing to do is add a {{verify credibility}} tag. And I further suggest that there is no good reason for deleting a hidden comment and no reason to delete a reference that is used for the rest of the paragraph just because you don't like one statement. I am restoring the reference and hidden comment. I will omit for now the statement you don't like until we have discussed this further. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Timeline of Tea Party protests

I would like to merge Timeline of Tea Party protests into this article. The textual part of the other article (the lede and History sections) is very similar to this article. The tabular part uses the same references that are used in this article. It's a lot of work to add the same material into the table of the other article and into inline references in this article. I want to make it much easier to add references. There are hundreds and hundreds of RS that should be added to this article and the other but it's not easy to format each ref for the table or for an inline ref. So I'd like to add the refs in a simple list format:

July 17 events

These would be in an Appendix section or in the References section after the inline references. The format above makes it very easy to add a reference, which will encourage editors to add references. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content should be merged, and then I think it should be trimmed. Do we really need to mention every time 50 or 60 yahoo teabaggers get together? No. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, merge and trim. There should be some criteria. When I see some of these I think 'well, that wasn't very impressive, if that's all they could get to attend'. These are really trivial demonstrations in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a very good idea, since it appears to me that this has less and less to do with the Tea Party Protests Feb-April and more and more to do with health care reform. The connection here that these protests are a continuation of that appears tenuous, in my opinion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll likely see "Tea Party" protests against immigration reform, Don't Ask, Don't Tell civil rights legislation, or whatever else the Obama administration focuses on in the future. Today, it's all about stifling any meaningful dialog about health care. If we're going to include every tea party protest for the next 4 to 8 years, the definition will need to be broadened greatly. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) These are indeed Tea Party protests because the protesters self-identify as and reliable sources identify them as Tea Partiers. The common thread between the February-April protests and today is opposition to big government and taxes, and favoring limited government and more liberty. (Read the references as to what the protesters themselves say and the signs they carry.) The reason for including small protests is to demonstrate that they are continuing to this day. We give the wrong impression if we imply that they ended in April. But I do plan to trim down the text even while adding refs. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. We do not need a list of everytime two teabaggers get together. It fails WP:N. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put aside your POV for a moment and pretend that you are a reader looking for information about the Tea Parties. Pretend you're neutral about their POV; you just want to know who, what, when, where, and why. Those are the questions that a good article should answer. And they should be presented in inverted pyramid fashion with a summary of the most important information at the top, then less important info, then details at the bottom. So let's take the "when" question: Are the Tea Parties a one-time thing last April 15, a two-time thing including July 4; did they occur many times and then fade away, or are they ongoing? The answer is that they continue to this day, and show every likelihood of continuing for some time. They are occurring almost weekly, sometimes several times a week. Okay, "where" are they occurring? The answer is pretty much all over the country. Then there is the "what" question: What are they protesting? Is it one issue or a set of issues? Do the various groups show some cohesion in their choice of issues or does each group pick a different issue? Those are some of the Five Ws that a good article should try to answer.
The list of events helps answer those questions. They show a pattern of protests continuing beyond the big two days. They show that they are happening all over the country. They (can) show that the focus of the protests has changed over time but that the various groups are on the same agenda page.
This is far too much detail to put into the earlier text. I intend to shorten the text and summarize the pattern of protests. The details will be at the very bottom (before the references) out of the way of most readers but available like a reference for those who want more detail and might want to verify the earlier summary text. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you attempt to shorten the text and make it into actual prose before adding to the article? As it stands now it is entirely POV as it consists of arbitarily cherry picking which teabag events to list. Also one of the other users mentioned above, we are going to see the same teabaggers show up at healthcare reform, cap and trade, banking reform, DADT, gay marriage, and on and on. We already have a pages to discuss the context of those issues. Lets keep this article focused on the tea bag events of April 15h and a general background information on that. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Isn't the merging of the Tea Party timeline into this article under discussion? If so, why is there a (poor) attempt to recreate it here? TeaParty1 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a Wikibreak except for popping in now and then. So I don't really have the time and energy to do the merge. But while scanning the news I occasionally come across stories about TPs that I think should be part of the WP story. It is much easier to add these refs to WP on the spot than to try to find them much later, so I've been adding them to the list in a quick and dirty manner. But as you noted that results in a poorly formatted and incomplete list. So I'll gather the refs elsewhere just to have a record of them, then when the list is more complete and better formatted we can decide what to do with them. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've at least for now removed the Merge suggestion from the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, about 7,000 people protested August 19 in Akron, Ohio.[1] And several thousand protested August 15 in Atlanta, GA.[2] One of the reasons I wanted to put the list in this article is to alert editors to recent events. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Ron Paul Tea Parties

I had added a blurb about the Ron Paul Tea Parties in 2007 in the "History" section. The premise for the undoing of my edits for the individual who reverted my edits was that they're "not the same thing." I would like some clarification and a bit of public debate here on the discussion board. The Ron Paul Tea Parties are indeed an early example of tea parties (it almost seems ridiculous that I have to point out that a tea party is, in fact, a tea party). The ideology is the same (small government), even if the events themselves are not hosted by exactly the same individuals/groups. That's why I added the qualifier "An early example of...". -- 76.105.15.70 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Locally organized" vs. "astroturfing"

The first line of the entry describes the Tea Party protests as "locally organized." Yet later in the article there are multiple references to allegations that they are actually organized by national-level political-action committtees. Recommend removing the "locally organized" phrase as a means of avoiding arguments regarding NPOV and, even though it's a stretch, weasel-wording. Alan (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations over astroturfing are just that, allegations. The locally organized should stay. Soxwon (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and there's my point proven. There's too much controversy over the designation.. Alan (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also allegations held by a lot of ppl that Obama is Kenyan, does that make them question his citizenship? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur. There is documentary proof of President Obama's citizenship. No proof either way has been produced regarding whether the Tea Party protests are in fact locally organized or "corporate astroturf". Alan (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article is so biased. It looks like half the article is talking about negative response to the protests. The article should actually talk about the tea parties, and not focus primarily on attacking the tea parties.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_protests&oldid=311144220"