Talk:Tea Party movement

Another useful article

Looks like a useful article about the movement: Tea party goes for big-tent strategy Sbowers3 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We can use quotes from it.Malke2010 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: Face of the tea party is female.

• "Many of the tea party’s most influential grass-roots and national leaders are women"
• "Generalizations about such a decentralized assortment of local groups are difficult" but "women might make up a majority of the movement"
• “Most of the women do not want a large, top-down movement,” Walker said. “We like the local flavor and independence of the tea parties. We don't need anyone to tell us what to do from D.C. or a large organization to lead us. We're capable of handling most of it on our own.”
• “There’s something happening here (in the tea party movement) in the same way which is bypassing the parties and I think women are comfortable with that type of organizing, because it’s community organizing”
• A linked article observed that "The tea partiers would not, however, commit to supporting GOP candidates or to holding off from savaging Republican candidates in primaries."

Sbowers3 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting overview of the TPm: Tea partiers embrace liberty not big government "Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government." "The opposition [to the expansion of government] has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls." "The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government -- and its threat to the independence of citizens." "Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government." Sbowers3 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, they sound just like Glenn Beck. Mookie likey. MookieG (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Tea Party and Re-Org of History section (Original Thread)

I restored this section down below. Then RedThoreau restored it here. This caused problems because of the two, identical headings. So I've changed this one. Please consider this talk section archived and add whatever comments you like on the active section below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.

Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."

I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.

The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.

I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.

I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.

This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.

Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:

1. Etymology and the 1773 Boston Tea Party: in the lead section
2. 1990’s Tax Days and Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign: in the Background subsection
3. Tea bags: in its own section
4. Anti-stimulus, anti-tax “Porkulus” complaints: starting the First Rallies subsection
5. Competing claims paragraph, Rakovich
6. Carender
7. Malkin
8. Santelli and Chicago: in the First national Tea Party protests subsection.

I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.

Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you wish to restrict the earliest mention to "2009 or thereafter"? See 2007 Video for 2007 event, complete with little teabags hanging from signs and hats. Obviously, better sources would be needed, but I haven't checked local news sources for that day yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick search produced Chicago Business News and Water and Wastes Digest. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions, but I'll be adding a Carender and Santelli section. It has to be made plain that Keli Carender and Rick Santelli got things rolling. And since the material is well sourced and the majority in the tea party movement give them credit for getting things going, they deserve a prominent place in the history section.Malke2010 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, events prior to 2009 are dealt with in Background. Your reference to tea parties/bags in Oct 2007 is to a protest against the mayor of Chicago, not the federal government. However, do you want me to add it to the list of citations for the second Background sentence (which includes similar references)? Something like: "[This theme] was part of Tax Day [and other] protests held [as far back as] the 1980s.[4][5][6][7][8]." (There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of stories in local newspapers about "tea" protests prior to 2009. We can't include them all.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Roy - adding just the link to the Background section isn't necessary. My concern was actually with all the emphasis being placed on the "birth of the movement" being in early 2009 with Carender and Santelli, while many protestor spokespeople bend over backwards to stress they were also concerned about the spending excesses of the previous administration, too. Did the "movement" actually begin with the Obama administration, and the "pre-2009 expressed concern" is just a facade generated to divert criticism of the movement as anti-Obama?? In reality, the "Tea Party" theme existed before 2009 (as the article already vaguely indicates); protests against taxes and fiscal irresponsibility existed before 2009; so why try to pin down the date of the "movement" to early 2009? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the update's subsection on Carender is named "Precursor protests in Seattle"; the subsection on Santelli is named "Birth of the Tea Party movement". "Precursor protests in Seattle" and "Birth of the Tea Party movement" total 8 paragraphs while the rest of the History section is only 3 paragraphs. So Carander and Santelli account for over 70% of History. In addition, I hope you will edit additional material in the sub-article (see below).

Right now, the article is about 70 kilobytes long. WP:SIZE recommends 35 to 50 KB or even less than 30 KB for smartphones and dial-ups. My intention was to pare down all sections in the existing article as summaries and make room for detail sub-articles: to wit, "History of the Tea Party movement". I hope to do this for each section and bring the total size of the main article down to less than 20 KB (so that we'll have room for further expansion).

Anybody who wishes to help would be welcomed with open arms. I would write down the section you intend to summarize on this talk page so that we don't have two people working on the same section at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith: I think one way to cut down the KB's is to reduce the media section and the astroturfing to just one paragraph each. They are certainly undue. I will check the sandbox and read through all the suggestions there. I didn't have time yesterday.Malke2010 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comments above, you or anybody are more than welcome to summarize any section you like. I'd recommend you make these changes via a user subpage (or some equivalent mechanism) like I did and wait for 24 to 48 hours before implementing, rather than just being bold and subjecting yourself to reversion. If anyone would like to know the details of creating a public user subpage, contact me on my talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've switched out the previous cite for the one mentioned above in the article--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I have substituted your new citation for the one in my update and moved the paragraph about Rakovich down to the section on Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle. HSO, would you take a look at my subpage to make sure that all the other citations from that paragraph are correct. (I'm trying to make the least changes I can so that other editors can make more changes, but not necessarily additions, after my update.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.

The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.

Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.

I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the replacement of the History section (Original Thread)

Sure, Roy. One slightly-more macro thing than you'd be comfortable with changing right away is the difference in treatment for Rakovich and Carender. IMHO there is no substantive difference in their weight. They both have RS saying "their protest was the first in what would become called a "tea party" protest & you could easily contrast Zernike's reporting with Bennett's, e.g. (The Feb. 10 protest) "a little-noticed sneak preview of the tea party protests that have since altered that landscape." It's erroneous to separate the two.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice but my update didn't distinguish between Rakovich and Carender. They both were grouped under the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Malke came along three hours later and divided the heading into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, First Tea Party in Seattle".

I therefore ask for consensus to revert this one change: to put Rakovich and Carender together again under one heading until we, collectively, decide (or do not decide) that Carender deserves a separate heading.

Support the reversion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Rakovich has only one, very-interested advocate (Freedomworks' Steinhauser) who's willing to state that she was the originator of the first Tea Party. (Bennett was only quoting Steinhauser's statement.) Carender has three, presumably-independent mainstream reporters (NY Times, The Atlantic and NPR) willing to say the same for her. (Zernike and Good attribute it to weasel-worded "other people" but not in a quote; Kaste says it outright.) That's why I only allocated one paragraph for Rakovich but four for Carendar. I was thinking about trying for a consensus: either to remove Rakovich entirely or to add something about the possible bias of Steinhauser. But I'll wait. No sense in having two consensus votes on the same topic at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal Conservatives?

What is the definition of "fiscal conservative"?

According to Wikipedia: Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other classical liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

The tea party movement has shown by it's actions that it is anti-government, NOT fiscally conservative. A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it, not leave the status quo, which would cause taxpayers to shell out billions and would ultimately bankrupt the country. They would also want to reorganize other areas of government to save money. What do they propose and where are their numbers to back it up? This movement seeks to cripple the government, has no solutions to anything, and tries to intimidate duly elected members of congress and promote hate and fear with their "this time we came unarmed" bulls**t. Wiki should not allow them to adopt terms that do not apply, if you want to change it to "self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives" that would at least be more accurate. --Nanmwls (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

When something is bad, is every reform an improvement or is it possible that some reforms will just make a bad situation worse? I know that some/many Tea Partiers favor reform - just a different reform that they think will make things better instead of this reform that they think will make things worse. That's just something for you to think about because all of this is idle speculation or WP:Original research. There are many WP:Reliable sources that label the TPers as fiscal conservative. Whether you or I agree is irrelevant - we go with what the sources say.

And here is a RS that is on topic: A new poll found that:

• Tea Party activists may be ardent supporters of economic conservatism but are similar to the overall electorate when it comes to economic priorities
• 17% of the people polled considered themselves “part of the Tea Party movement” and more than four in ten Tea Party members said they were either Independents or Democrats.
• Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal
• Tea Party activists espouse a strong economic conservatism.
• Tea Party activists’ top concern – economy and jobs — mirrors the majority of voters in the country.
• they value economically conservative policies because they view them as a means to reducing unemployment and improving the economy.

Sbowers3 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A protest movement is by definition (more-or-less) one that does not offer solutions but addresses the problems. Can't we agree that, as of right now, the Tea Party movement is primarily about protests and so, if the article addresses solutions, it should be made clear that those solutions are only held by a minority of TP participants? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it," Someone's been drinking the Koolaid. Tea Party is just as much for reform as everyone else, specifically Tout reform(the ability of judges to throw out frivolous law suits which currently add significantly to the price of healthcare) as well as interstate competition of health insurance companies. The Obama administration has stated that they have a moral agenda to provide more healthcare to more people which is at the core of their Bill, and that is what the Tea Party is against, giving healthcare to millions more people during poor economic times when we can't afford it. Their not against reform of the current system. Wise up. 169.231.22.185 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to debate without all the personal attacks? Just because Obama feels a moral obligation doesn't mean his policy isn't fiscally responsible. In addition tort reform is a small part of the problem which should also be addressed and any bill presented to congress will be considered, that's the way democracy works, not everybody will be happy. The Bush administration practically desimated the US and you didn't hear members of congress encouraging violence from a balcony or a pulpet! Healthcare passed in the House and the Senate. If there is fine-tuning that will make it better, cost less, etc., the tea partiers should go ahead and get their congressman to submit it. Disrespecting our President, who was voted for OVERWHELMINGLY and whose policy included not only health insurance reform, but single-payer healthcare, especially with the violent overtones is UNAMERICAN and TREASONOUS! Healthcare has been talked about for over 50 years and has been the cornerstone of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The tea party movement has overshadowed any real policy changes they have because of their mob mentality. Those are the facts. --Nanmwls (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of fiscal conservatism, health care reform, or any other subject that Tea Partiers support or oppose. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a forum, and perhaps that discussion went a little too far, but I often think such discussions are quite valuable. While they obviously cannot be used as sources, the comments of those editors in fact highlight the difficulties of documenting such issues. In rapidly evolving movements like this, the real goals cannot be simply defined. They commence as opportunities for people with all sorts of beefs with the government to gather, feeling they are among people thinking the same as they do, Later, the movement will be forced to more clearly define itself. Right now, we have to be very careful saying "The Tea Party stands for X". Some of its members might, but chances are some of them don't. The discussion above is a warning to us to not try to suggest that the goals of the movement are 100% clear at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for getting off topic a little. HiLo48 thank you for explaining my original point, I couldn't have done it better.--Nanmwls (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are the Tea Partiers

Two more interesting articles: Obama takes care in sizing up 'tea party' movement, Tea party movement makes mark on Nebraska

• A typical tea party activist is older, white, has conservative fiscal beliefs and consumes a lot of news. Many say they were called to action after watching the federal deficit grow over the past 10 years.
• The tea party movement grew in early 2009 as concerns mounted over the growing national deficit fueled first by the passage of the bank bailout and then by the passage of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill.
• Some tea partiers pride themselves on not having a single leader or group of leaders.
• tea partiers are not altogether happy with Republicans. They believe the GOP abandoned most of its principles when it was in power in the 2000s.
• The group is decidedly conservative and libertarian, but otherwise diverse, divided over most everything except the need for limited government, less spending and an end to Obama's policies. Those in the coalition have allegiance to no political party, with independent voters and even moderate Democrats among their ranks.

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American, and don't get to vote in the USA (something most Tea Partiers can do) but I think the first two points above are very telling. It says to me that most Tea Partiers are white conservatives who don't like seeing a black Democrat in the White House. And I doubt if many really have a grasp of the true scale and/or significance of the national deficit. I know we're not supposed to do our own analysis, but, since we also shouldn't copy others' work verbatim, a little interpretation is always required. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the black members of the TPs also racists? Are the white people who voted for Obama and now turned against his policies racists? Are the TPers who complain about the policies of white Nancy Pelosi and white Harry Reid (as a non-American you may not know that they are the Democrat leaders of the House and Senate) doing so because of race? Sbowers3 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article from CNN: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party

• They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he's a "phenomenal speaker." Another who said she was a "knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal."
• Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said "I feel lied to, cheated and raped." Lewis criticized the taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, which began under former President George W. Bush, and the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.
• Saucedo also said that most of his family voted for the president but now support the Tea Party. He said his sister in law's views sum up the family sentiment. "She regrets voting for Barack Obama," he said.

Democrats such as these make up only 4% of TPers, according to CNN's poll. I bring it up because it dispels the notion that the TPm is nothing but Republicans, and also dispels the notion that all the TPers are racists - these people voted for Obama and they still like him personally; it's just his policies they don't like. The movement is driven by political philosophy, not by race. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Sbowers. The Tea Party peeps are upset with the policies that began in the Bush Administration. They were originally protesting the Federal Reserve Bank. They called their protests "FedUp" and wanted to get rid of it. They said the fiscal policies at the Fed were creating the financial crisis. And then of course, there were always groups protesting taxes. They seem to have fallen in together more by accident than design. And if you listen to interviews, a lot of them say they voted for Obama. They believed he was going to change things. Remember that was his campaign slogan. But so far he's just repeating the Bush stuff.Malke2010 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Health?

That some Teapartiers voted for Obama is no doubt true. That the vast majority didn't is also true. I would be interested to know how many didn't vote at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting to know but I haven't seen any polls asking that question. What I do know is that many of the TPers have said that never before were they active in politics. Some organizers had never done anything like that previously. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that is the case, and strengthens the view that at least part of the Tea Party movement is a grass roots one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a column by Juan Williams, a black guy and generally considered a liberal:

• There is danger for Democrats in recent attempts to dismiss the tea party movement as violent racists deserving of contempt. ... it is a big turnoff to voters who have problems with the Democratic agenda that have nothing to do with racism.
• The tea party outrage over health-care reform, deficit spending and entitlements run amok is no fringe concern. And it is insulting to all voters to suggest that criticism of President Obama ... is motivated by racism.
• The tea party is not the problem. Whether you like them or not they do seem to have captured the political angst in the electorate, without regard to skin color.
• the relevant point to critics white and black is not his skin color but the persistent high unemployment rate and the government's focus on Wall Street bailouts and health-care reform.

Sbowers3 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Quinnipiac poll and Nation/NY Review of Books remarks

User:ThinkEnemies has violated WP:3RR in a span of 18 minutes (1, 2, and 3) and removed both a Quinnipiac University poll from Politico on views of Tea Partiers and a statement by Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban of The New York Review of Books on the composition of the Tea Party movement. Seeing as how User:ThinkEnemies has already 3RR'd (once rudely declaring "What the hell do you think you are doing?" and then instead of WP:AGF declared "I can also assume you're lost when it comes to Talk Pages") --- I figured I would give him the opportunity here to explain his rationale for exclusion of both additions.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum] The 3 refs for the disputed edits are:

* At the Tea Party by Jonathan Raban, The New York Review of Books, March 25, 2010

* The Mad Tea Party by Richard Kim, The Nation, March 25, 2010

* Poll: Tea Partiers Like GOP by Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico, March 23, 2010

While the 2 areas of content that User:ThinkEnemies has 3RR reverted were (verbatim) as follows

(# 1) As Jonathan Raban pointed out in The New York Review of Books, the tea party is an uneasy conclave of Ayn Rand secular libertarians and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals; it contains birthers, Birchers, racists, xenophobes, Ron Paulites, cold warriors, Zionists, constitutionalists, vanilla Republicans looking for a high and militia-style survivalists.

— Richard Kim, The Nation

(# 2) A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,900 adult Americans conducted in March of 2010, found that of those who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement:

• 88 % were white
• 77 % voted for 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain
• 74 % identified themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican
• 16 % said they are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents
• 60 % have a favorable impression of the Republican Party
• 82 % have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party

  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, you beat me to it. I was watching that exchange with interest. I too would be interested in reading what ThinkEnemies' real concerns are. Your additions (now thrice reverted) do seem well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you understand that this talk page section is a personal attack on me. Now that this is understood, we can move on. Your quote from "Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban" is laughable at best. Are their opinions worth something? Better yet, are they notable enough to opine on an entire movement? Of course not. Like it or not, this is where controversial edits are made. I appreciate your desire. Stick with us. †TE†Talk 05:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, [1] How exactly is my above post "a personal attack" on you? I have been nothing but WP:civil despite your confrontational posture and comments from the outset. [2] I hope you understand that merely dismissing the issue with "Now ... we can move on" is not sufficient to resolve the matter. You have yet to show how any of the above material violates WP:RS or other content-related wiki policies. [3] Your diagnosis of "laughable" is interesting, but unfortunately WP:OR and irrelevant. [4] "Are they relevant or notable?" I would posit that they are. Raban is an award-winning writer who has published for an array of reliable publications and whose ruminations came from attending the Tea Party convention personally --- furthermore, while although liberal, The Nation has not been banned as a WP:RS on wikipedia. [5] Moreover, you have yet to provide any justification for removing the Quinnipiac University poll cited to Politico? [6] I am not going to report you for 3RR as I understand how the "heat of the moment" and political passion can cloud one's actions - but you are not really making this process of WP:Concensus easy with your refusal to address any specifics.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So, would you like to start with the highly opinionated quote? Maybe we should start with a poll that counters another poll that I opposed. It's your choice. †TE†Talk 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally not a great fan of polls, but I see no problem with publishing poll results, so long as the source and background of the poll is clearly shown. Publish those details and leave conclusions to the readers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm against these types of polls in general, they're to arbitrary. That being said, my main objection was that ridiculous and extremely partisan quote. Forget about the quote, we'll talk about Quinnipiac University. I'm not sure if they poll all 50 states yet. I'd like to know since they were mainly the east coast a few years back. †TE†Talk 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found that if someone wanting to include here what I see as a pretty doubtful poll is forced to show that the pollsters asked very loaded questions of too small or too biased a sample, it does more harm to their cause than refusing to allow it to be published at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, if your objection was the "partisan quote" then you should have removed that specifically. However, you reverted both of them together 3 times. As for you being against "these types of polls in general", that's nice, but you are not the sole arbiter on what should be included on Wikipedia. Lastly, do you have any published sources that contradict the quote you deem "ridiculous"? It was derived from Raban's descriptions of those people he met at the Tea Party convention.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale does not compute. Neither does you refactoring of other editors' comments. †TE†Talk 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My concerns with Redthoreau's edit is that information from the self described flagship of the left is given prominence with the quotebox and it has an inflammatory tone. I suspect it is more opinion than anything. Figure out another way for inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind too much. I do think we can hammer out something for that quote and would [refer it not to get bogged down in the other part of the revert. Maybe "Dude who writes for the lefty magazine went and described what he saw as x,y, and z." in the text. Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, seeing as how the article currently relies on sources such as Fox News, World Net Daily, and Michelle Malkin - I didn't think that a countering opinion by The Nation was out of the question. As for the quotebox, I am open to ideas, my objection was to TE's initial outright removal with no TP rationale.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just provided you with one. I also didn't say the source was off limits. Pay more attention.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, something along those lines (without the Wp:Weasel "lefty" description) could work. Such as just stating the author and source and what he found. As for the poll, I have yet to see any credible evidence for its removal. As for "paying attention", my reply was written prior to seeing your post, + please see Wp:Civil   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Weighing in my opinion here: #1 is a quote that, even if true, is heavily loaded. It is also an indirect accusation ("Well, SoandSo thinks Tea Partiers are dirty scumbags. Not my opinion, just sayin'!") Wikipedia tries to avoid loaded language. Therefore, I feel it should not be included. As for #2, it seems to be, by and large, a decent poll, although I didn't look for the actual source data or anything.

RE: "Cptnono, seeing as how the article currently relies on..." WP:Point applies here; if you think it's wrong, try to improve it. (I realize this may be hard; everyone has their own view of what is "neutral, fair, and balanced" on political issues, you, me, and Sarah Palin included. With an opinion comes the desire to "correct" things that don't fit with that opinion. All parties are guilty of it.) Riffraffselbow (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I get you on the other sources issue. Those should be brought up in another discussion on this page if they are not used correctly. I don;t mind the heavy language since so many in the blogosphere/coffeehouses/bars/around the water cooler/whatever say those exact things. We still need to put it forward in a neutral as a manner as possible (not a quotbox not explaining it is the opinion of someone who writes for a heavily biased periodical). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 3 April 2010, 09:17 (UTC)

I have undone TE's reverts simply because I do not like the way they were done. Not only were they, as I said in my edit summary, gaming the system and confrontational ("What the hell do you think you are doing?" is totally unacceptable in an edit summary) but there was a failure to assume good faith or to follow bold, revert, discuss - the discussion should have taken place before edit-warring. Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of points about the edits:

• About the cquote: not only is it rather strident, but it is rather long. Either before or after the semi-colon would give a flavor of Raban's view, but the whole lot together as a cquote is a bit overwhelming. Also, it doesn't inform about the actual composition of the movement. How do you measure the number of "vanilla Republicans looking for a high", for instance? Despite the "undercover reporting" tag, it really represents Raban's (or Kim's) view of the movement. I suggest including it - as text, not a cquote - in the Views of the movement section instead of where it is.
• About the poll, to my mind it brings up more questions about the section than about this particular poll. First, why is it in the Responses section? None of the polls seem to have asked what peoples response to the movement was. They only tell us who the respondents would vote for or, in some cases, what color they were. Maybe this should be moved to the "Composition" section, or maybe it should be on its own. Second, if there is to be a "Public opinion polls" section at all, it can't include all the polls ever conducted, and it shouldn't just have individual polls added at random. There needs to be discussion to decide (1) how many polls to include at a maximum and (2) what the inclusion criteria should be. That way, something like the Quinnipiac poll can be measured against the criteria instead of of subjective views.

Scolaire (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, don't I get a pass since I haven't edited in a month? It's true the edit summary was combative, my bad. The quote that I reverted was pretty damn shocking. I may have overreacted a wee bit, though. †TE†Talk 15:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My revert wasn't meant as an f-u by the way. I agree the edit summaries were a little off. I real haven't looked into the poll thing. If anyone has any suggestions on the quote it might be cool in a separate subsection on this talk page just to get that bit worked out.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way :-) I'm happy to have it reverted by a neutral editor who has engaged in discussion. We should try to get a consensus before anything is added back. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish I was called neutral more often (that is the goal)! So my thoughts above on the line was clearly laying it out within the text. I think it should be mentioned that the periodical has a slant ("lefty" isn't needed of course) but I am not chained to the idea. Any thoughts on how to do it from anyone else would be cool. I don't believe it deserves a quotation box and I would expect that others might have an issue if it is given "top billing" in the section. Having such inflammatory labels in a quote might even prevent IPs from continuing to bring up the charges over and over on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole poll section should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a news service. The polls would have to be updated. And then what? What happens when Quinnipiac doesn't have a new poll? Do we substitute a CNN poll? Who decides if the methodology is neutral? Who decides when to update the section? It's not relevant to anything unless you poll everybody in the country.Malke2010 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Quinnipiac poll has a lot better case for inclusion than a lot of stuff that's already in the article. Wikipedia should favor empiricism. It's a scientific public opinion poll. The article should merely included characterizations by supporters, opponents, and participants of who the Tea Partiers are and what they stand for. That risks reducing everything to being a war of the spinmeisters. Public opinion adds actually with the weight of social science methods behind it. Frankly, I think when people are making race or education or partisan affiliation based arguments about who the Tea Partiers are, it's a good thing if they're arguments are constrained by the data. I don't think were near the polling data overkill point yet. How could we be when the Quinnipiac poll presents data (who they voted for in 2008, how favorably they view the major partiers) that isn't included anywhere else? It's hard to have overkill when something isn't even addressed without including Quinnipiac. Now, if we reach a point where there are a whole slew of polls, then there could be a good point-by-point discussion of how to condense it. Quinnipiac is a respected pollsters. The sources say it's a poll of Americans and on the Quinnipiac site it's called a national poll. Unless someone comes up with a reliable source stating that it was a non-representative sample, I don't think there's a good basis for assuming otherwise. --JamesAM (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to poll everyone in the country. Just briefly, from a mathematical perspective, a poll sample size is generally seen as valid if it is roughly equal to the square root of the population you are interested in studying. For a US voting age population of 220 million (generously), that would require a sample size of around 15,000 (again, generously). Obviously it also needs to be a representative sample. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have to poll everyone in the country. I think you're misinterpreting my words as disagreement with you, when I actually agree with you. I was responding to innuendo by an editor earlier in this section that maybe Quinnipiac only polled certain regions and thus has an unrepresentative. My point is that we have reliable sources describing it as a poll of Americans and a national poll. So I think we should give absolutely zero weight to an assertion that Quinnipiac merely polled the east coast in its national poll until the editor making that assertion can come up with reliable sources in support of that assertion. --JamesAM (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Simmer down now. It was an honest question based on a valid concern. †TE†Talk 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to avoid imperatives. I'm not yours to command. If you've got a valid concern, it helps to offer evidence rather than bald assertion. I was accurately characterizing a bald assertion as such. I'm not going to misportray your argument as having more weight than it has. I take it since you've offered no rebuttal that you retract your objection about the Quinnipiac poll. --JamesAM (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Skimming through the poll, it does appear that minorities are somewhat underrepresented while white folks are overrepresented. †TE†Talk 03:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I stand corrected. †TE†Talk 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Section Redux

I propose we keep the first three paragraphs and delete everything after that. It's not relevant.Malke2010 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing

This section could be reduced to one paragraph and added under "composition of the movement." This would make it more relevant. As the section stands now it is over the top and makes it seem like all the information that comes before it is doubtful since so much space is being given over to it.Malke2010 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

views of the movement section moved

I put the "Views of the Movement" section after the first protests, etc. It just reads better that way.Malke2010 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also put Positions and goals after History, possible re-combining it with Views of the movement. In most Wikipedia articles that have a History section, it goes first, 'tho possibly after Etymology, which we take care of in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Keli Carender 2nd Tea Party

The recent edit on the Keli Carender 2nd tea party she organized in Seattle, does not support the claim that her second party was part of a national organization. The citation does not mention Carender, nor does it name these so-called national parties. The edit should be removed since it's OR.Malke2010 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the original edit does have a reliable source that covers her actions. This section is about her and what she did.Malke2010 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't difficult information to find, especially at her own blog. She's embedded a link from Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT) on talking points and has essentially cut and pasted parts of a press release-style blog post from Republican strategist Michael Patrick Leahy (TCOT co-founder). According to Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group, also sponsored a number of the Feb. 27 events.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit makes it sound as though she was part of these conservative groups. What she did was organize her own rally to occur on the same day. It was in conjunction with the call for rallies on this specific day, February 27th. She wanted to be part of that, to garner more enthusiam, get a bigger turnout. The way you've written it makes it sound otherwise. The wording should be changed to reflect that, and better citations can be found.Malke2010 19:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone: where exactly does this citation show that Keli Carender "helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign" as you call it. [1]. This Fox News article that you are citing seems to be referring to subsequent protests and not Carender's second protest which was on February 27th. Also, your edit doesn't identify this 'nationally organized' group. Your edit makes it sound as though there is this monolithic organization that all the protesters are rallying around, that is directing them and telling them what to do. There isn't a monolithic organization directing protesters.Malke2010 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, again in Carender's own words, titled 'Seattle Tea Party on 2/27': "Don't worry Seattle Action Network, we WILL be a part of this nation-wide tea party!!" Therefore, "part of a nationally organized campaign" is accurate, as described in her own words.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You also appear to be misreading the information in the Fox cite. The relevant section is this: "Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican activist who's helping organize one of the higher-profile tea parties in Atlanta, said Santelli's rant led shortly afterward to a conference call of 22 activists, including herself. From there, she said, organizers put together 48 tea parties -- from St. Louis to San Antonio to Chicago -- on Feb. 27."(bolded mine)"

It clearly refers to the Feb. 27 protests. I'd be happy, BTW, to add a cite for just who the organizers are, as I've done for you above, but in the article. Just put a tag next to where you think it should go.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Which proves my point. There is no monolithic national organization. It was just, as I've said, individuals putting together tea parties to all happen on February 27th. That's what Carender did. She organized it, she emailed people, she did it. It wasn't some national organization telling her what to do which it what the edit that is there now suggests. There is no national organization. The Tea Party Movement is made up of various groups using different names like Tea Party Patriots, etc. And the majority of these groups were founded after the Carender's tea party and Santelli's rant, and most of them weren't even given names before the April 15th nationwide rallies. 'Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized.' It means, there were tea parties by individual groups all over the country. They did it themselves in response to Santelli's rant, and not to instructions from some Mothership. XD Malke2010 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First, she helped organize it. On her blog she herself is careful to give credit where credit is due, and goes out of her way to recognize the role the Feb. 27 Nationwide Tea Party is playing, and in another post directly links Tea Party talking points from Michael Patrick Leahy's advocacy blog TCOT Report. Second, a "nationally organized campaign" does not by definition require a "monolithic" organization. Asserting it's a "monolithic organization" seems like a strawman argument. As I explained before, according to Feb. 27 organizer Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group. It's generally accepted that these folks are national conservative voices. Some of them also happen to be the same organizations or voices behind the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Patriots, among others (such as Nationwide Tea Party Coalition). I disagree with saying "Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized". If that's true, then why did they all take place on the same day, with virtually the same message (e.g. Carender linking to the TCOP talking points, suggested sign slogans, ect.)??? --Happysomeone (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop harassing editors with your edit warring and false noticeboard reports and learn to get along with others who do not share your negative POV. Malke2010 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that tone, Malke, nor the accusation that I'm edit warring. Consider that a warning.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

Recent edits had made nearly all of the article a part of "History", and reduced some subsections to level 4, which is a bit excessive. I have put them back to the way they were. I really do feel it makes the article much more readable. Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it gives too much weight to the media bias claims and other sections you've done that to.Malke2010 23:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I don't understand. Could you give us a detailed example here on the talk page of why you think the level of subsectioning gives too much weight to the media bias claims and other sections? Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's fix this 2009 nonsense

This movement didn't start in early 2009. I was being invited to "tea parties" in the runup to the 2008 election. And someone on this page was pointing out a 2007 example. The second sentence of this article is claiming:

The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[2][3] as well as the 2008 bailouts[4].

Isn't it obvious how the wording of this article is in error? I'm not saying we should focus strongly on the time when they were Ron Paul supporter events, but I'm saying that we should carefully word it whenever talking about the origination of the movement and the blatantly wrong statements need to be fixed. Or does someone want to try to correct me? Did the first tea parties in 2009 somehow go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the libertarian tea parties that were just going on months before? It just doesn't make any sense. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Throughout American history there have been LOTS of events labeled Tea Party. But having the same name does not mean that they are related any more than two people having the same name means they are related. The current Tea Party movement is not descended from the Ron Paul Tea Parties or any other Tea Parties. Conversely, there are some early events, though not labeled Tea Party events, that could be viewed as "bloodline" ancestors of the current movement. It is a judgment call of the editors as to when the movement began. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive Bot not working correctly

Resolved

Miszabot, the software robot that has been archiving old sections of this talk page for us, is not working correctly. For the past few days, it seems to have been archiving after just one day or it may be only leaving the four of five most recent sections unarchived. At any rate, many of the discussions we have been having have been abruptly cut short.

In looking at the template (User:MiszaBot in Talk:Tea Party movement's lead) that controls our archiving, I found that User:Redthoreau changed the days-old parameter from 15d to 30 at 04:27 on 3 April 2010. The instructions for Miszabot say that you must include either the d (for days) or an h (for hours). I have changed it to 30d but, since this is my first exposure to Miszabot, it may be something else that has to be fixed. I've left an urgent message for Redthoreau and emailed him as well.

What this means for us is that discussions we were having yesterday may be archived (probably in Archive 4) today. If you have not finished with any section that has been improperly archived, you should bring it back to the main talk page here by accessing Archive 4 (or whatever) and cut-and-pasting it into this page.

I hope this doesn't disturb your operations too much and I'll inform you of future developments with Redthoreau. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was surprised to see so much of the Talk page disappear all at once. (I think the Miszabot is working correctly as designed by its programmer, but not as intended by its user.) Sbowers3 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roy for catching this. I forgot the "d" which caused them to be archived quickly. I since have restored those threads.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Earliest Tea Party and Re-Org of History section

This section was improperly archived by Miszabot on April 4th and has been restored.

Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.

Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."

I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.

The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.

I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.

I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.

This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.

Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:

1. Etymology and the 1773 Boston Tea Party: in the lead section
2. 1990’s Tax Days and Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign: in the Background subsection
3. Tea bags: in its own section
4. Anti-stimulus, anti-tax “Porkulus” complaints: starting the First Rallies subsection
5. Competing claims paragraph, Rakovich
6. Carender
7. Malkin
8. Santelli and Chicago: in the First national Tea Party protests subsection.

I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.

Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you wish to restrict the earliest mention to "2009 or thereafter"? See 2007 Video for 2007 event, complete with little teabags hanging from signs and hats. Obviously, better sources would be needed, but I haven't checked local news sources for that day yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick search produced Chicago Business News and Water and Wastes Digest. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions, but I'll be adding a Carender and Santelli section. It has to be made plain that Keli Carender and Rick Santelli got things rolling. And since the material is well sourced and the majority in the tea party movement give them credit for getting things going, they deserve a prominent place in the history section.Malke2010 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, events prior to 2009 are dealt with in Background. Your reference to tea parties/bags in Oct 2007 is to a protest against the mayor of Chicago, not the federal government. However, do you want me to add it to the list of citations for the second Background sentence (which includes similar references)? Something like: "[This theme] was part of Tax Day [and other] protests held [as far back as] the 1980s.[4][5][6][7][8]." (There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of stories in local newspapers about "tea" protests prior to 2009. We can't include them all.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Roy - adding just the link to the Background section isn't necessary. My concern was actually with all the emphasis being placed on the "birth of the movement" being in early 2009 with Carender and Santelli, while many protestor spokespeople bend over backwards to stress they were also concerned about the spending excesses of the previous administration, too. Did the "movement" actually begin with the Obama administration, and the "pre-2009 expressed concern" is just a facade generated to divert criticism of the movement as anti-Obama?? In reality, the "Tea Party" theme existed before 2009 (as the article already vaguely indicates); protests against taxes and fiscal irresponsibility existed before 2009; so why try to pin down the date of the "movement" to early 2009? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the update's subsection on Carender is named "Precursor protests in Seattle"; the subsection on Santelli is named "Birth of the Tea Party movement". "Precursor protests in Seattle" and "Birth of the Tea Party movement" total 8 paragraphs while the rest of the History section is only 3 paragraphs. So Carander and Santelli account for over 70% of History. In addition, I hope you will edit additional material in the sub-article (see below).

Right now, the article is about 70 kilobytes long. WP:SIZE recommends 35 to 50 KB or even less than 30 KB for smartphones and dial-ups. My intention was to pare down all sections in the existing article as summaries and make room for detail sub-articles: to wit, "History of the Tea Party movement". I hope to do this for each section and bring the total size of the main article down to less than 20 KB (so that we'll have room for further expansion).

Anybody who wishes to help would be welcomed with open arms. I would write down the section you intend to summarize on this talk page so that we don't have two people working on the same section at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith: I think one way to cut down the KB's is to reduce the media section and the astroturfing to just one paragraph each. They are certainly undue. I will check the sandbox and read through all the suggestions there. I didn't have time yesterday.Malke2010 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comments above, you or anybody are more than welcome to summarize any section you like. I'd recommend you make these changes via a user subpage (or some equivalent mechanism) like I did and wait for 24 to 48 hours before implementing, rather than just being bold and subjecting yourself to reversion. If anyone would like to know the details of creating a public user subpage, contact me on my talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've switched out the previous cite for the one mentioned above in the article--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I have substituted your new citation for the one in my update and moved the paragraph about Rakovich down to the section on Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle. HSO, would you take a look at my subpage to make sure that all the other citations from that paragraph are correct. (I'm trying to make the least changes I can so that other editors can make more changes, but not necessarily additions, after my update.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.

The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.

Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.

I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the replacement of the History section

Sure, Roy. One slightly-more macro thing than you'd be comfortable with changing right away is the difference in treatment for Rakovich and Carender. IMHO there is no substantive difference in their weight. They both have RS saying "their protest was the first in what would become called a "tea party" protest & you could easily contrast Zernike's reporting with Bennett's, e.g. (The Feb. 10 protest) "a little-noticed sneak preview of the tea party protests that have since altered that landscape." It's erroneous to separate the two.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice but my update didn't distinguish between Rakovich and Carender. They both were grouped under the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Malke came along three hours later and divided the heading into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, First Tea Party in Seattle".

I therefore ask for consensus to revert this one change: to put Rakovich and Carender together again under one heading until we, collectively, decide (or do not decide) that Carender deserves a separate heading.

Support the reversion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Support the reversion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody from the tea party movement claiming Rakovich is the first for anything. And I don't see articles written about her like I see them written about Carender. This is a grassroots movement. It's not a movement created in a corporate office. And please don't embed my name in edits in the article again. You did not have my permission to do such a thing.Malke2010 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I left your name hidden in the article because you edited my subpage update and I didn't want your comments to disappear. Sheesh, you try to do someone a favor and they come along and berate you.

Steinhauser made the statement about Rakovich as reported by Bennett. Please look at the reference for the quote and my comments below starting with "However, Rakovich has only one...". If you look above here, HSO considers Rakovich and Carender the same. I devoted four paragraphs to Carender but only one for Rakovich because of the difference in the quality of their sources. And I don't know what you're saying about grassroots vs. corporate. Did my summarization do anything about this??? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there some special reason you've written: "Malke came along three hours later. . ." Am I not allowed to edit here?Malke2010 13:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked everyone to allow the History section to settle down for a day or two. You made your first edit an hour after I had completed my update. Now that's certainly your right but I think it's my right to comment on that.

As long as we're at it, why do you constantly edit the article with things you must realize are contentious, rather than exploring them first in the talk page? This is not a jab at you specifically; I really would like to know. For example, you added to the Carender quotes even though you must have known that I was against it. What made you do that rather than discussing it first? And it seems to me (and anyone chime in on this point) that, if anyone reverts your changes or additions, he has a good chance of starting another edit war.

Please correct me if you feel I'm mistaken. I really want to hear your views. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've use the talk page regularly. I didn't see your note about letting the history section settle for a day or two. I thought it was a good edit and I mentioned that to you. I didn't know we weren't suppose to edit a subpage. I was under the impression you had put the subpage there so people could edit it (like MakeBelieveMonster has done). And as far as editing, editors come along all the time and add and delete. They may or may not have looked at the talk page, so putting a message there about not editing for a while doesn't guarantee people won't edit. As for the Carender quotes, I actually didn't know you were against it. The quotes help explain something about how things got started. She's credited with being the tipping point. I think she's the point where the FedUp movement morphed into the Tea Party Movement. Not en masse, per se, but some people who showed up for those FedUp rallies are showing up for the tea party rallies, and some of them, since the tea party movement got underway, have become active to the point of going to Washington to see congressman/senators, putting up blogs, using social networking sites, etc. There should definitely be more FedUp mention here.Malke2010 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

However, Rakovich has only one, very-interested advocate (Freedomworks' Steinhauser) who's willing to state that she was the originator of the first Tea Party. (Bennett was only quoting Steinhauser's statement.) Carender has three, presumably-independent mainstream reporters (NY Times, The Atlantic and NPR) willing to say the same for her. (Zernike and Good attribute it to weasel-worded "other people" but not in a quote; Kaste says it outright.) That's why I only allocated one paragraph for Rakovich but four for Carendar. I was thinking about trying for a consensus: either to remove Rakovich entirely or to add something about the possible bias of Steinhauser. But I'll wait. No sense in having two consensus votes on the same topic at once. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I think the way you've balanced that (by giving a description of Carender's organized protest more content) adequately addresses this concern. I'd point out, however, that Good says "One of the first". That's not the same as Zernike, who says "other people" consider her "the first", or Kaste who says "organized some of the earliest". In other words, those three sources are each informed by carefully-placed caveats. I'd say that's consistent with what you were proposing before it was altered.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to inclusion of the following: " "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[43] [44]" It's not really adding anything & it's WP:UNDUE overkill. I'd like to remove it and replace it with RoyGoldsmith's previously proposed "Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law[40]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated." That really says all that is noteworthy.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

“ Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law[40]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated. ”

That is a beautiful summary. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And so now we're essentially back where we started. I might add that it would help if the "preview" function was used (something I neglect to do at times) more often, but it seems we've got more pressing issues at hand. So what exactly is there consensus for here? We've been focused on this off-and-on for the better part of a month and directly for the last week. I would say the present content isn't acceptable.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And again, we've been at this for a week and there is no consensus for the present content. I do see consensus at a minumum for moving the material back to what RoyGoldsmith proposes, re-merging the Rakovich and Carender sections under the previous title, ""Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle". Beyond that, I don't see any consensus for editing what Roy had edited in the sandbox. Instead, it was altered without consensus in a way that is WP:UNDUE. I'd simply note that this is unfortunately part of a familiar pattern that has emerged here. It should stop.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary style

As long as we're debating a reduction of the history section, I will reiterate my proposal to move the history section to Tea Party protests and only retain a summary. Currently we have most of the same content duplicated in both articles. But if TPM is really the main article and TPP is really the sub-article focused on the protests themselves... the details of specific protests should go in TPP. TPM should be focused instead on political views & impacts, who the movement is, reactions, etc. I had a proposed summary in the archives somewhere. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. (If you can get consensus from two groups of editors.) Perhaps some parts of our History section don't belong in TPp. I'm thinking of Background, Limbaugh's porkulus and even Santelli's rant. And the Responses section only makes sense if you know what they are responding to. Could you write that summary and insert it on this talk page so that we can see what you're actually talking about? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Here's the (admittedly too brief) draft I created earlier. All are welcome to work on it: User:MakeBelieveMonster/History section

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MakeBelieveMonster: I saw in an edit summary of yours that you wrote: Malke removed it. :(. Please tell me what you think I removed.Malke2010 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will answer that because MBM was responding to me. In [2] you inserted new text but that had the effect of separating a reference from an earlier statement so that it appeared to have been removed. The fix was to copy the ref from the Rove statement and add that ref to the earlier statement. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It underscores how easy it is to misinterpret what an editor has done.Malke2010 13:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As a casual observer of this exchange, I just can't help but comment how this reminds me of a similar problem from about a month ago. Apparently, the lesson went unheeded. It will save everyone a lot of time if all your edits are fully described in the Edit Summary. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You read too much into things.Malke2010 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another poll

I tend not to like opinion polls and wouldn't mind if they all disappeared, but I think factual polls can be interesting. This is a demographic poll by Gallup of Tea Party supporters:

• Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large.
• they are about 40% Independent and 8% Democrat
• age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.
  • about 6% non-hispanic black

Sbowers3 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I wanted to introduce this poll. You beat me to it, Sbowers. It appears that of voting age Americans, Whites are approx. 75% and Non-Hispanic Blacks are approx. 11%, meaning the Quinnipiac sampling wasn't off in that aspect. When it comes to pollsters, we can all agree Gallup is the standard-bearer, which is why their results are more demographically viable. †TE†Talk 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's an article that describes an important Obama voting block. [3]. Malke2010 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party's Contract From America

This might be worth mentioning. Some Tea Party activists have created a "crowd-sourced" Contract From America. Some 360,000 people have contributed to drafting a legislative agenda for this coming year. Here are some of many RS about the Contract:

• Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'
• Tea party: 'Intellectual reform movement?'
• Contract FROM America: Giving the People a Voice in Congress
• Conservatives draw up a new 'Contract'
• Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoids divisive issues? Really? As an outsider to America, it seems that TeaPartiers are fairly consistently against Obama's health reforms, and that, surely, is a divisive issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the title the NY Times put on an article. But forget the titles. Those articles are RS about the TP's Contract. It is the Contract that is worth looking into. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Five things to know about the tea party movement

From the Associated Press:

• 1. THERE ISN'T ONE ACTUAL "TEA PARTY," AND THERE MIGHT NEVER BE
• 2. DEMOCRATS THEY ARE NOT, AND TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS ARE HARDLY HAPPY WITH REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS
• 3. THE TEA PARTY DOESN'T HAVE A LEADER — AND THAT'S JUST FINE
• 4. TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS HAVE NO DEFINING ISSUE
• 5. THE TEA PARTY IS AMPLIFYING VOTER ANGER BUT ISN'T A UNIVERSAL PRESENCE

Sbowers3 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Malke2010 01:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that fourth point. I think that concern over the size and scope of the federal government - and its level of debt - is very much a defining issue. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RS History source for Tea Party Movement

From Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism program, a "A brief history of the Tea Party movement"--Happysomeone (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Carender content

This editor keeps reverting and/or deleting my edits on the Keli Carender tea party. This edit is well cited and accurate. Happysomeone has repeatedly come back and deleted this material and added original research with a citation that did not support his edit at all. I engaged him on the talk page, but instead of working toward a reasonable compromise, he just came along and reverted the entire edit.

I would appreciate it if there could be a discussion about this section with a call for consensus about how to handle this in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks.Malke2010 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you engage the discussion above, instead of engaging in this? All I see is our discussion and consensus and your unsupported interventions.

I'd appreciate it if you backed away from this accusation, as it isn't accurate nor productive in my view.

If you've got a valid WP:EW complaint, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If not, then knock it off. You've been warned repeatedly about this unproductive behaviour before, I'm sad to say, and this appears to be a continuation of that.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Happysomeone, you are a disruptive editor. Your recent past behavior proves that beyond any doubt. I've attempted to engage you several times on this edit and then today you come along, with no discussion, and just revert everything. It's time for other editors to weigh in on this so we can move on to other concerns on this article. If you would learn to compromise instead of abusing noticeboards to try and force your way, then this page would be a much happier place to edit.Malke2010 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss edits (i.e. content), not editors. This is not the place to talk about an editor's behavior. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this being discussed a couple sections above, here? Has consensus been reached? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was attempting to discuss this section, but Happysomeone came along and reverted everything without engaging in discussion or seeking any sort of compromise.Malke2010 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See my reply above--Happysomeone (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue?

Is there just one issue or more? Can someone present the two proposals for the issue(s)? Sbowers3 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See this section and the proposed history version in the sandbox.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone is edit warring on the history section. Earlier, he repeatedly deleted/reverted a well sourced edit and replaced it with OR that was definitely not supported by the citation he gave. So I opened up a section above and tried to engage him but today he went and reverted all of my edits. I've opened this section right above so we can reach a consensus on whether or not to give Keli Carender her own heading with her paragraphs below. Happysomeone is not cooperating in that effort.Malke2010 18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sbowers: My original discussion to address Happysomeone's edits and subsequent warring is under, "Keli Carender, 2nd Tea Party."Malke2010 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons.

Could one or both of you please just humor a tired old man and show me the two wordings here so I don't have to wade through lots of Talk discussions or histories? And I don't seen any mention on this page of where the sandbox is; perhaps that got archived away. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Below here are three different versions of one subsection from History, apparently all entered on the talk page by Happysomeone. Please note that the section levels on this talk page are reversed. In order to preserve the heading level of the material from the article, the originator of this has chosen to put the version headings at a lower level than the actual text from the article.

Thus, in the TOC you'll see this:
.1 What is the issue?

.1.1 Version 1.0

.2 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.2.1 Version 1.2

.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.3.1 Version 2

.4 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
.5 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

when it actually should be more like this:
.1 What is the issue?
.2 Version 1.0

.2.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.3 Version 1.2

3.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.4 Version 2

.4.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers

.4.2 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

Sorry for the interruption. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.0

I'll call this "Roy Goldsmith's proposal", since he largely crafted this with input from others over the course of a few days (please also note hidden text he used to preserve proposed changes reserved for discussion). The small change I made to this section is what I suspect Malke is referring to. I'll call that "Version 1.2" so as not to confuse the two. Here's an edit history diff, for your reference. Here's the "sandbox". -- this was by Happysomeone

(Sandbox = my user subpage.) --by RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.

Carender had contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin in order to gain her support and publicize her event. Malkin promoted the protest in several posts on her blog, saying that "There should be one of these in every town in America," and that she would be supplying the crowd with a meal of pulled pork. Malkin encouraged her readers to stage similar events in Denver on February 17 where President Obama planned to sign the stimulus bill into law. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one.". By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

Version 1.2

This is the change I was seeking, changing the fourth paragraph.

Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.

Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. Carender then helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign put together by several politically conservative groups on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one.". By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

--Happysomeone (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Version 2

I'll call this the "current edit" because that's what's presently there, and I don't agree with this edit. It's WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR in my view, and it appears to be redundant, as well.

Precursor protests in Fort Myers

According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents' Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."

Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one.". By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

--Happysomeone (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments about the two (and a half) versions

Thanks for posting them. Malke, do you agree that these are the two (plus a variation) versions? After reading them I have my own opinion as to which I like better, but would either of you like to add any comments as to why you think one or the other is better? And then after we've heard the pros and cons perhaps we should have a !vote. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sbowers: The Version 2 is actually the version that came next after RoyGoldsmith's edit. The one Happysomeone did is the 1.2. His paragraph was the one we were discussing when he just came back and reverted everything. Version 2 is well cited and simple. Version 1.2 is not well cited in the Happysomeone paragraph and is OR. He makes it seem like Carender is part of some national organization when in fact no such monolithic organization exists in the tea party.Malke2010 01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to mention that the Version 2 paragraph 4 is cited from a direct interview with her by the New York Times. She did organize the second rally by using the emails and contact information she collected at the first rally, plus her blog, to promote it. She didn't have any help from any so-called 'nationally organized' tea party. The tea parties were held all over by individuals and groups putting together rallies, all to take place on February 27th. Carender wanted to be part of that. It came from the Rick Santelli thing.Malke2010 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been no edit war that I can see. TeaParty1 and mostly HSO made changes to the History section from 4 to 7 (UTC) yesterday. Malke reverted those changes at 16:40 and that’s where the article sits currently. That’s one, complete edit-cycle and the start of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which we’re having here.

To put my two-cents in (actually five cents at the rate of one penny per paragraph :), I think it important that Rakovich and Carender should be grouped together because, in my mind, there really is no difference between what they actually did. (Really what reliable sources report that they did.)

According to reliable sources, (a) they both led anti-tax and/or anti-big-government protests in February of 2009, (b) someone (or many someones) claimed that Rakovich or Carender was the first and (c) neither one used the term "Tea Party". Therefore I considered them both "precursors" to the first true Tea Party protests on Feb 27. Because Carender was much better sourced, I gave her four paragraphs rather than the one for Rakovich. If Rakovich hadn't happened before Carender, I wouldn't have given her any space at all.

Also, I believe that the most important statement in all of the History section is contained in the last paragraph. In my mind, the February 27th "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" was the first ever Tea Party protest because (a) it was a protest and (b) the organizers called it a Tea Party protest. If think those two prerequisites are the necessary and sufficient conditions for determining whether an event is or is not a TPp. As a matter of fact, it’s only one condition: that the organizers advertize it before the event as a Tea Party protest.

Santelli, while he did say tea party, in my mind, his rant was not a protest. Therefore I do not believe he deserves prominence in the subsection heading. My choice was Birth of the "Tea Party" movement.

Sbower3, I’m sorry but this leaves you three versions to merge. More than that: because I don’t like the current heading of the last subsection (either Birth of the "Tea Party" movement or Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"), the material we have to decide upon is greater than what’s contained in Versions 1.0, 1.2 and 2.0. Sorry. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with RoyGoldsmith. Further, it's an error to attribute Carender with organizing a second protest in a vacuum, when we have considerable RS that tells us otherwise. Also, see here.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying she organized in a vacuum. She collected emails from the people who came to her first rally. She promoted it on her blog, but there was no national organization helping her. The tea parties all across the country on Feb 27th were made by individuals and groups. They were not one group. You're saying Carender was being directed by outsiders. She was not.Malke2010 16:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"You're saying Carender was being directed by outsiders" No, I'm not.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what you're trying to say. The idea to hold tea parties all over the country apparently came out of Rick Santelli's so-called 'rant,' and Keli Carender had already organized an rally, so she wanted to do another one and join in. But there was no group sponsoring her. She did it herself. If you will make an edit that makes that plain, then change it.Malke2010 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, first off, please remember WP:AGF. When I directly tell you that is not my intention, you should heed my words. If you disagree, then say that. Please don't say "yes, (you are so)" If you can't abide that, then simply do not assume my intent. The edit that I advocate makes the organizational structure of the Feb. 27 protests plain enough and has the RS to back that up. Address the edit, not the editor.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that goes both ways.Malke2010 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be aided considerably if you struck through the various personal attacks leveled by you against me out here in Wikiland. Just a suggestion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody is saying she organized in a vacuum." This is what is currently stated (IMHO, "in a vacuum"): "Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."" By omission, the appearance is that Carender solely organized the Feb. 27 protest. Combined with the following sentence immediately following, "On Tax Day, six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest," is WP:OR.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't sound like she solely organized the nationwide February 27th protests. It just says she organized a rally on that day. If you want to add that there were other protests being done that same day, nationwide, by individuals and groups because of Santelli's broadcast, that's fine. But it can't be written in such a way that it makes it appear this was some national organization sponsoring it. Which the edit you had makes it sound like. The last sentence about the tax day protests could be deleted or it could be expanded with a source.Malke2010 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from above) Ok, again in Carender's own words, titled 'Seattle Tea Party on 2/27': "Don't worry Seattle Action Network, we WILL be a part of this nation-wide tea party!!" Therefore, "part of a nationally organized campaign" is accurate, as described in her own words.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sponsored is in fact an fairly accurate description of the Feb. 27 protest organizers, in that they sponsored the organization, date and message of the protest. In many cases, they did this financially as well, although I don't see RS for that financial aspect one way or the other for the Seattle event. See the Wiktionary entry for "sponsor"--Happysomeone (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reading too much into this. You're not hearing what I'm saying. This edit needs to be worked out in a compromise. So what's your compromise edit?Malke2010 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what the other editors have to say first before making another proposal.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess is they're probably hoping we'll work this out.Malke2010 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What about something along these lines, "Carender organized a second rally to coincide with Rick Santelli's call for a Chicago Tea Party. Protests were organized nationwide by various groups. . .etc. Carender said, "We more than doubled, etc..."Malke2010 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the subsection headings help direct the reader. Keli Carender and Rick Santelli are both in the news for this. They are both part of the start of the Tea Party Movement. It's not really undue weight, especially if you consider that the Media bias section has 10 paragraphs of mostly redundant or irrelevant material. Carender and Santelli are important because they are the tipping point, the groundswell of what coalesced into the Tea Party Movement. And I actually think there should also be inclusion of the FEDUp Movement because it seems that a lot of people from that movement have now joined the Tea Party Movement. So to then turn around and devote all that space to the media and the astroturfing, but not to the actual players in the TPm seems like the article is taking off in the wrong direction.Malke2010 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a European trying to understand contemporary American politics, and I can tell you straight off that the subsection headings do not help direct the reader. On the contrary, I have the feeling of swimming through treacle before I even attempt the article text! Headings should have titles like "Background", "Early protests", "Chicago Tea Party" or whatever - titles that entice the reader - instead of "'Porkulus', tea bags and early mention of tea party" and such-like that put this reader right off!

This current discussion has my head spinning. It's clear to me that Keli Carender did something, Michelle Malkin did something and Rick Santelli did something, and also that there are reliable sources for what they did. Why is it not possible to say "Carender decided to hold a protest, Malkin advertised it, Santelli went on a rant" or whatever it was? One of the headings above is "What is the issue?", but nobody has clarified, at least for me, what the issue here actually is. I can't help feeling it has more to do with ownership than anything else. Can the two of you maybe spell out the issues in the interest of reaching some sort of consensus. Scolaire (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing that was tried a while back was to move the history below the composition and views section. Then it got moved to the top. Maybe it could be moved again.Malke2010 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which of my points does that answer? Scolaire (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting Back to the Subject

As Sbowers3 said above "this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons."

To get back to the subject at hand, do you Happysomeone, Malke, Scolaire (and anyone else who’s interested) agree that the three versions above list the essential similarities and differences among the material about Rakovich, Carender and Malkin? (Scolaire, Version 2 is the current content of the article, at least so far as headings are concerned.) This is a minimum basis of agreement before we can proceed to building consensus about the headings. Please limit yourself in the space below to answering this specific question. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree (that the three versions above fairly represent all significant views among the editors that I’m aware of). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Thank you for moving things along.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree, if that's what it takes. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what the "essential similarities and differences" are. They all look the same to me. Scolaire (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For example, versions 1.0 and 1.2 both use the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle" while version 1.2 splits the section into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger". There were other changes too. 1.2 added to the 4th paragraph; 2.0 greatly extended paragraph 3. And other things as well. All I meant was that we didn’t have to enumerate each and every difference. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree.Malke2010 21:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we’re still waiting for Sbowers3.

• agreed. I thought you were looking for agreement only from the direct participants in those sections. But yes, I agree, that those three (two and a half) versions are the objects of discussion. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Headings

However, while we’re waiting, I think we could start off by talking about the subsection headings used in the History section. In thinking over what Scolaire said about using simple, easy to understand headings, I think I agree with him.

Right now, we have the following headings:

• 2.1 Background
• 2.2 "Porkulus", tea bags and early mention of tea party
• 2.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

or

• 2.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
• 2.4 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

and

• 2.4 Birth of the "Tea Party" movement

or

• 2.5 Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"

Following Scolaire's advice, I think the headings should be more like this:

• 2.1 Background [everything before Rakovich]
• 2.2 First protest events [Rakovich and Carender]
• 2.3 First protests described events identified as "Tea Party" protests [Santelli and Feb 27th]

You can see this version as the new first section of my user subpage. Right now I’m not talking about the content of the subsections (we’ll get to that later); I’m only talking about the headings. And I don’t know if "described as" is the proper wording for the third heading. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "identified as" instead of "described as"? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm voting yes below, but I still have problems with the third heading. One, it's still rather ponderous; two, it's one too many "firsts"; and three, "events", although it's strictly correct, carries the connotation of "gatherings" or "demonstrations", while the paragraph actually deals more with radio and TV broadcasts, websites and organization. I'd prefer something concise, like "Nationwide organization". Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard from youse guys for 3 or 4 days. What do you think of my three, simple sub-headings for History? Check the first section here for details. Can I replace the subheadings in the article with these three? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, replace 'em with your three. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, but see above. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think one full week is enough to allow for discussion. Since there are no dissenting votes, I am changing the section headings now. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article about composition of Tea Party Movement

Saw this today. [4]. Malke2010 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Related: [5] - A record number of African-American candidates are running for Congress this year - and they're running as Republicans. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

'Views of the movement' section heading

When I created the "Views of the movement" section[6] I meant it in the sense of "how the movement is viewed". It's now clear to me that it's more likely to be read as "what the movement's views are", and in fact none of the quotes tell us what the movement's views are. So I'm changing the heading to "Commentaries on the movement". I don't really like that as a heading so if anybody can think of a better heading I'll be grateful. But it couldn't stay as it was. Scolaire (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what's the difference. If you try to answer "how the movement is viewed", by Wikipedia policy you must answer by citing reliable sources. That's why everything is in constant flux. I think that you believe we have access to some authority that will say pontifically "how the movement is viewed". We don't. So "Views of the movement", "how the movement is viewed", "what the movement's views are" and "Commentaries on the movement" all pretty much say the same thing. "Commentaries on the movement" is probably better for new readers who may think that Wikipedia has access to some overriding authority. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. How you view me has nothing at all to do with what my views are. You may agree or disagree with me, or think I express my views well or poorly, or even completely misunderstand me. Similarly, this section does not tell us what the movement "thinks", as the former heading would suggest, but rather some quite general remarks about the movement from some people within it, and some people outside. Hence the percieved ambiguity. It's not a question of "authoritative source". Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When did the movement become a movement?

A year ago, I don't think anyone called the Tea Parties a "movement". Even in late summer I don't think it was called a movement. But at some time the phrase "Tea Party movement" became commonplace. When was that? Did something trigger the change? It might be useful for us to document it. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised the opening doesn't say "racist populist teabagger" movement

Not that I think it should, but there are numerous other factual errors (the tea party movement started in 200*8* not 2009) so why not include this factual error too? ---- 205.175.225.22 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to ignore that possibly inflammatory and unnecessary new section heading, and say to our IP (205.....), firstly, you seem to want to make serious contributions here, so please register. It makes it much easier to have a meaningful conversation. Secondly, the question above was about when it became a movement (rather than just a bunch of meetings, I presume). The reference you added, while appearing to be a very useful one, doesn't mention the word movement. I think the question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a correlation between that one protest and the movement or did they both pick a historically relevant and catchy name? That source provided is not acceptable for Wikipedia as far as I can tell (it looks like a blog) but googling some keywords from it might show if it is connected with a decent source.Cptnono (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've lost count of how many times someone has come along and tried to insert additional information about how Ron Paul started the "Tea Party movement". The cite mentioned here, however, says nothing of the sort. There is a mention in the article 1) of Paul and how he used the "Tea Party" imagery for his political campaign to become president and 2) their claim that they started it, but no independent RS that says "Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement in 2008". That's why it says 2009.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, what source are you talking about? Agree, Ron Paul didn't start the tea party movement. Ron Paul was probably more tapping into the FEDUp protests. People from the FEDUp movement are in the tea party movement now. Some of them have said it was because this covered more than just the Fed's policies, etc. But I don't see anything called tea party movement before 2009.Malke2010 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[7] Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally joined the Tea Party in December 2008, because I was angry that Bush signed the Tarp Bailout bill. Therefore claims that it "began in 2009" are simply wrong. It began sometime prior to 2009. Thanks. :-) ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this a million times. While Ron Paul and others held "Tea Party" protests prior to 2009, the current movement did not begin until 2009, when issues of the bailouts, stimulus, and health reform came to the fore. Earlier stuff is mentioned in the history section. Therefore, I'm reverting the changes to the lead. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To pick up on the Racist label......

As an Australian, I find a close parallel between the major appearance of Sarah Palin on the USA's political stage, closely followed by the Tea Party movement, and a lady called Pauline Hanson and the One Nation political party here. While obviously not identical, they tap into similar political sentiments.

What happened here was that, while they were not overtly racist (Hanson was pretty naive, IMHO), Hanson and One Nation (Australia) did attract the more racist voters. That is not to imply that all supporters were racist. Most probably were quite the opposite. But such movements do tend to attract the racists out there who are looking for a body that will oppose what they see as major parties being too liberal in these areas.

This leaves such bodies open to the racist tag from outsiders.

To sum up, my view is that the Tea Party movement is not explicitly racist, but it will attract racist voters.

It's a real image problem for such movements.

HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the purpose of this talk page is not to talk about the Tea Party movement itself, but to talk about the Wikipedia article on it. CopaceticThought (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 211.26.205.160, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "The movement emerged in early 2008 [2], partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[3][4]" er what are they, fortune tellers? re-word the sentence to make it make sense. e.g. "The movement emerged in early 2008, partially in response to the 2008 Bailouts, and later gained momentum as a result of the 2009 stimulus package."

211.26.205.160 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Twas done before I got here. diff  Chzz  ►  07:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from CSJscience, 9 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi the part that says the Tea Party is "anti-health reform" is inaccurate. They are against Obama's version of federal insurance mandates, not against health care reform.

Also the referenced article related to that statement is not a "reliable resource".

CSJscience (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party members agree that healthcare is a right. When you get sick, you have the "right" to visit the doctor, and he does his professional duty to heal you. Where we disagree is how the Bill should be paid. - We don't think you have a "right" to suck money from your neighbors' wallets, in order to pay your private bills (whether it's your doctor bill, cable bill, rent, or other). We consider that theft of the neighbors' labor. - However we do support safety nets (welfare, food stamps) for the homeless, hungry, et cetera. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that really a universal view of all Tea Party members? If so, it makes the Tea Party extreme or fringe by the standards of most other "advanced" nations, where sharing the costs of health care is almost universal. (I say this as a non-American, to clarify the situation, not to score any political point.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be discussing this. There's no point. Find reliable sources and make changes if necessary. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No more extreme than if I said I shouldn't have to pay the Bill for your new car, or your new boat, or your new storage shed. You have the right to buy these things, but Not the right to suck the money from your neighbors' wallets to pay the bill. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ease up on the emotional language please. We're only talking health. I agree that buying a new car, boat or storage shed or having cable TV, is not a right in most places. I wouldn't expect it to be. But getting health care without the threat of bankruptcy is. And for those arguing that this is not a forum, with the intention of somehow stopping this discussion, I'm not expressing a POV here, I'm stating facts. Facts, which to me as a non-American, seem highly relevant. What happens in the USA should, at least sometimes, be seen in the context of what happens elsewhere in the world. I haven't yet chased up sources on this, but it wouldn't be too difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

not a forum

Given a few of the threads above, please keep in mind, this talk page is not a forum for unsourced opinions or posts about the Tea Party movement. Rather, it is meant as a means for talking about ways to make the article more helpful to readers. Hence, posts here should deal with what are taken on en.Wikipedia as reliable sources and how to echo them in the article text. Since all article text must at least be verifiable, please don't post unsourced opinions or thoughts on this talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion polls

It appears that this Gallup poll is next in line for the ballooning sub-section. As it stands, we have polls from

• Rassmussen
• WSJ/NBC
• Fox News
• CBS/NYT
• CNN
• Bloomberg
• Quinnipiac

For the Gallup poll, are we going to mock the list format used to present the CNN and Quinnipiac polls?.. Wouldn't it be overkill?

In what order should they appear?.. Date?.. Prominence?.. Personal favorites?

Should we cut some of them down to size?.. Remove older ones as the movement has progressed and demographics changed?

So many questions. When do we concede that these polls are taking over the article and attempt to summarize them in a NPOV way? †TE†Talk 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Polls are fleeting and easy to warp. Hence their encyclopedic worth is at best dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It should be interesting to see how this plays out. †TE†Talk 21:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If possible (that is, if verifiable in RSs), our subsection on Polls should reflect not the polls themselves, but the effect of the polls on the movement. Of course, you'd have to find an analytical piece, in say some Sunday supplement, that might say, for example "Because polls have been saying for the past few months that 25 to 35% of voters believe strongly in the goals of the Tea Parties, politicians, especially in the red states, have pushed their anti-tax positions far more than they did at this time in the previous election." (This is just an example.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a polls section. I'll go along with whatever the majority want on this, but I think it's not relevant. There are too many variables in polls for them to be included in an encyclopedia. A poll would be useful in a situation that has a conclusion, like an election. Then after the election, you could look back and gauge how accurate the polls were, etc. But the Tea Party Movement is an ongoing thing, there's no end point, as yet anyway, so what is the point of these polls? Where's the goal the poll is measuring?Malke2010 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Polls can be useful if carefully used. Up above, we've made obvious the difficulty of stating exactly what the Tea Party movement stands for. People with all sorts of objections to what the government and/or major parties stand for are coming along to Tea Party events. But these people themselves have very diverse views. The movement has very few 100% clear goals at the moment, apart from being against the government. A good poll can tell us more about the current spread of views within the movement. Individuals generally can't. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the next poll to consider (Gallup poll still not included). It looks like we all agree that these polls need to be summarized, and maybe we can include some additional detail on how they effect the movement and the perception thereof. The real question is... who wants to take this on? †TE†Talk 23:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA

We need a section invlving Anabel Park's Coffee Party

Discussion of 2010 Tea Party Candidates

Here's a list of current 2010 Tea Party candidates (as of March 20th, 2010). The wiki page should have a section on them, or a new page should be created.

Adam Kokesh - New Mexico (Congress) http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/ Bill Hunt - Orange County, California (Sheriff) http://billhuntforsheriff.com/ Bill Connor - South Carolina (Governor) http://www.voteconnor.com/ BJ Lawson - North Carolina (Congress) http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/ Carl Bruning - Colorado (Larimer County Sheriff) http://carlbruning.com/ Chelene Nightingale - California (Governor) http://nightingaleforgovernor.com/ Chris Simcox - Arizona (Senate) https://www.simcoxforsenate.com/ David Hedrick - Washington (Congress) http://www.davidwhedrick.com/ David Ratowitz - Illinois (Congress) http://www.ratowitzforcongress.com/ Debra Medina - Texas (Governor) http://www.medinafortexas.com/ Dennis Steele - Vermont (Governor) http://www.governorsteele.com/ Glen Bradley - North Carolina (State House) http://glenbradley.net/

Heidi Munson - Washington (State Representative)

http://www.munson2010.com/index.htm Jake Towne - Pennsylvania (Congress) http://towneforcongress.com/ Jaynee Germond - Oregon (Congress) http://www.germond2010.com/

Jim Deakin - Arizona (Senate) GET RID OF JOHN McCAIN!!!

http://jimdeakin.com/ Jim Forsythe - New Hampshire (State Senate) http://www.jimforsythe.com/

Joe Walsh - Illinois (Congress)

http://walshforcongress.com/

John Dennis - California (Congress) http://www.johndennis2010.com/ Justin Amash - Michigan (Congress) http://amashforcongress.com/ Mike Beitler - North Carolina (Senate) http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/ Mike Vasovski - South Carolina (Congress) http://vasovskiforcongress.com/

Patrick Henry Sellers - Pennsylvania (Congress)

http://www.patsellers.org/

Patrick Ziegler - New York (Congress)

http://www.ziegler2010.com/ Paul Lambert - Alabama (Congress) http://www.southtek.com/votelambert2/ Peter Schiff - Connecticut (Senate) http://schiffforsenate.com/ Rand Paul - Kentucky (Senate) http://www.randpaul2010.com/ Randy Brogdon - Oklahoma (Governor) http://www.randybrogdon.com/ Ray McBerry - Georgia (Governor) http://georgiafirst.org/governor/enter.shtml RJ Harris - Oklahoma (Congress) http://www.rjharris2010.com/ Robert Broadus - Maryland (Congress) http://www.darkenergypolitics.com/ Robert Lowry - Texas (Congress) http://lowryforcongress.com/ Ron Paul - Texas (Congress) http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/ Valerie Meyers - Georgia (Congress) http://www.valerieforcongress.com/ Van Irion - Tennessee (Congress) http://www.van4congress.org/

Source :

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/tea-party-candidates-2010?commentId=2490084%3AComment%3A192802&xg_source=activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.64.72 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we need better coverage of the movement's political endorsements and influence. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

These candidates "support limited government, limited spending, personal liberty, and lower taxes. These individuals represent conservative principals. No Liberal-leaning Neo-Cons or RINO's will be found on this list. And certainly no fake Tea-O-Cons like Sarah Palin!". This according to one man called "Jason" of Franklin Square, NY. He doesn't even give his last name!

I May Be Wrong but I strongly doubt if this lone individual is what we at Wikipedia would call a reliable source. Even backed by an outfit called Rebuild the Party -- "A network of grassroots activists shaping the future of the Republican party". Anybody ever heard of them before?

I agree we may be able to use this list as a starting point. But who's to judge "the movement's political endorsements" since the movement as a whole has no overarching organizers? (See Tea Party movement#Composition of the movement.) Even if the candidate's website claims to be endorsed or infulenced by Tea Partiers, what does that actually mean? Again, we need a reliable source who has done the analysis. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the idea, not the sourcing. Here are some better citations:

• [8] Opposing Harry Reid
• [9] Support for Rand Paul
• [10] Support for Sam Rohrer
• [11] Support for Debra Medina
• [12] Support for Carl Paladino
• [13] John McCain and J.D. Hayworth both courting Tea Party
• [14] More generally, pushing republicans right

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations from Bloggers are not valid citations

I have twice removed a reference that came from a Blogger (a person like you or me), but it keeps getting put back. PER WIKI RULES citations from bloggers are not allowed. If you want to find an alternate citation, from an actual professional reporter, that would be okay. ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

CBS News is not a blog. And if you remove it again, you will be in violation of your 1RR restriction. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I support TheRealFennShysa.

Theaveng, CBS News' "blogs" are really articles by CBS News reporters. (See "Political Hotsheet: Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.") This source is not a personal blog and Spencer Magloff is not what's usually considered a blogger. (Theaveng, just out of curiousity, could you direct me to the policy or guideline that states that "citations from bloggers are not allowed"?)

TheRealFennShysa, you have cited the phrase "anti-bailout" for your reference. Magloff does not mention bailouts in his piece. Instead Reichert was at an anti-health care reform rally. And the article was really about Reichert apoligizing for his attack on a man with Parkinson's, not the protest itself. Because of this, you might consider removing your citation or finding a better one that deals with bailouts. Just a suggestion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

This is an excellent article. Kudos to the editors. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting development

Saw this today surfing the news outlets. [15]. Malke2010 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wow. Well I propose the following:

• A subsection under Controversy titled "Allegations of racism and homophobia"
• Start it with something like "Critics have accused members of being racist and homophobic."
• Add lines regarding the supposed racist and antigay remarks towards legislatures.
• Follow that up with a line saying that members there challenge the allegation (there is a source in an above section to pull from)
• Finish it off with a line regarding the "infiltration" or whatever you want to call it.

Cptnono (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: So someone expanded the "fag" line but besides this there has been no activity in the section. Just wanted to see if there were any thoughts since it is contentious. If I recall correctly there was another accusation (someone said something at the convention or something?) so that might fit in too.Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark williams?

Some news outlets (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/tea.party/index.html?hpt=T1) seem to associate Mark Williams as being some kind of "Tea Party Leader". Is there any truth to this? I was surprised he wasn't mentioned at all in this article, since his name comes up pretty often in association with the tea party. I would at least expect a brief mention, if nothing else, just debunking the idea that there is a single party with a single leader. Poobslag (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he's with the Tea Party Express. Maybe he founded that group.Malke2010 22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a mention of Mark Williams to Tea Party Express. Feel free to change. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Erichemmen, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the article refrences CNN and CBS polls about the composition of the TEA parties. I am a TEA party activist, and I do not see the makeup that they describe. yes, I am a white male, but I am not married or wealthy. i am 15 years of age. there were black men and women, asian men and women, latina men and women, as well as children. there were married couples but also single people. there were wealthy but also not so wealthy. the article implies that the TEA party is racist old white wealthy men. I have seen no racism at these Events except by LaRouche followers, who are not associated with the movement, merely trying to mooch off the political fervor within them. it is an unfair and biased depiction of the composition of the tea parties and I suggest that it be remarked on the page that the polls depicted are from stations who are generally bised against the movement because they oppose liberalism. look at which stations they are. MSNBC. CNBC. CNN. CBS. are any of those stations in favor of the movement? are any of them even unbiased? no. it is darn near impossible to remove bais, so i also suggest that a poll from Fox news be added to show the differing numbers based on bias. Erichemmen (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Erichemmen (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In defense of CNN, they have published articles defending the tea party, describing the diverse makeup of the tea party attendees ([[16]]) It's entirely possible they conducted the poll in an attempt to discredit the stereotype. Poobslag (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging?

Nobody has noticed that? I mean... really?!