Talk:Tea Party movement

Current Pro-Tea Party bias

This article seems extremely biased in favor of the tea party movement. I see no images of the hundreds of recorded racist signs and slogans or the various audio available of racial slurs being used in chants. This article is vary hush hush on the darker side of this movement. There is also no mention in this article of any of the arrests of tea party members for assault or harassment. There is little mention of the tea party's collaboration with scientology, or any mention of the ludicrous amounts of money scientology has given the tea party. Wikipedia is way better then this and is by their own words committed to neutrality and this article is just anything but neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because they don't exist??? Andrew Breibart has offered a $10,000 reward for hard evidence of the alleged "racist slogans" and so far nobody has collected. Breitbart's article exposing the race baiting tactics you are espousing, and his announcement of the reward can be found here: 2010: A Race Odyssey - Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes, or How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark

OMG! Andrew Breitbart?? Really? This Andrew Breibart?: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/01/rnc-cancels-breitbart-fundraiser/?fbid=fI3vSfBraBh The guy who admitted to manipulating the video to smear Shirley Sherrod? That in itself was a racist move to generate white resentment. I can't believe you are quoting him to defend the teabaggers.

PS.. how come no information of the slavery letter in this article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/mcconnell-on-tea-party-racism.html155.95.80.253 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have hard evidence, you can make yourself a cool 10 grand...DrHenley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

henley are you for real? Really? no racist slogans? Have you actualy been to one of these events or god forbid did a image search?

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/teapartypic.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRJ2UmyHhxI http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/14/tea-party-racism/

There I would like my "cool 10 grand" Or was that part of your pathetic attempt to troll this article as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg Here is another racist sign, calling obama a monkey. My argument is that because the over whelming majority of the tea party has rather extreme and often racist and hateful slogans, there should at least be mention of that in the article. This article reads like its heavily policed by actual tea party people, much like the scientology article was very one sided before people started to take notice. I am not saying this article is of the same magnitude, however I am saying if somebody who knows little about the tea party where to read this article they would still not know very much about what they really are. The whole anti-tax stuff they go on about despite the fact that 90% of them are in a tax bracket that has the most tax cuts BECAUSE of obama. That is something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So why is it the pictures of President Bush morphed into a chimpanzee and the far left commonly referring to the President as "the chimp" is protected political speech. Not just protected free speech but an act of patriotic duty to be admired by all. But when President Obama gets the same treatment it is racism. In fact just disagreeing with the President or his policies can win that label for your very own. I've covered a number of Tea Party gatherings. The racist signs and comments are from a very tiny minority of those present. In a couple cases I saw event organizers remove the offending people from the event. Yes, there are probably some racists among those supporting the Tea Party. Yes, that may well be something worthy of note in the article. But that does not make tea party supporters racists anymore then Rev. Wright makes President Obama a racist. In fairness, if the racist angle is to be included, then that is the way it should be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalRiverWhiskey (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most incendiary that I've seen. (Picture is uncensored on this site.) BigK HeX (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's one illiterate and racist bastard. Why is he on this talk page? Hate to point out the obvious, but every organization or movement has uneducated racists. Hell, sometimes they're well-educated (I live near a popular Black Liberation Theology church on the south side of Chicago). Anyways, I hope we're not pushing inclusion in some way (guessing if the photo was not already copyrighted, it would be here). We should try not to deface halfway decent wiki articles for kicks, or POV. Don't you agree? †TE†Talk 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Deface"? Even ignoring WP:NOT#CENSORED, are you trying to say that apparent racist themes within the Tea Party haven't been a notable part of the Tea Party coverage??? BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that our profound knowledge shouldn't be used to disparage organizations and/or movements. Apparent racist themes can be found in any and all of them. Call it lazy, call it ethical, but I don't think we should focus on it. Whatever you believe it is, we should avoid it for the sake of the project. Like I said before, I have somewhat personal knowledge on articles that I've never touched. Imagine if I did. Imagine 10 more people lacking my restraint. Do you think wikipedia would be better off? I don't think so. †TE†Talk 07:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

think enemies you need to realise that wikipedia is about neutrality and full documentation of a given subject, not just the portion of it that is appealing or easy to stomach. If everybody took your attitude then half of wikipedia would not exist. There is the simple and documented fact that a large portion of the tea party is driven not by political goals or ideals but instead by fear and hate. Anybody who has been to one of these things will back me up on this. The movement has no real practical way of policing itself other then kicking out different branches or leaders. They do not have the ability or at least have not demonstrated the ability to specifically discredit or disapprove of these racist or cultish elements. There are people in the tea party that swear on their mother that obama is a space alien or the anti-Christ. These people are not in any way addressed by the internal forms of moderation the tea party claims to employ. If this article fails to mention these things then the article is grossly violating POV and neutrality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.159.28 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is the simple and documented fact that a large portion of the tea party is driven not by political goals or ideals but instead by fear and hate. Anybody who has been to one of these things will back me up on this." I have, and I don't. I have found the majority are kind, friendly, and if not color-blind, very supportive of minorities. Unless you are defining "large portion" as 1% or 2%, you have a clear bias. Please recuse yourself from further discussion or editing of this topic. Thank you. Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize much and edit in a very neutral way. All political, religious, and civil rights movements have those who harbor fringe views and theories. They shouldn't dominate the narrative of the article and don't on any comparables from any ideology. You may believe these people are driven by fear and hate, but that's just your opinion. You may think kicking out racist or unruly protestors from events and dropping branches/leaders that exhibit similar behavior isn't effective policing, that's also your opinion. Try reading up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. You don't want this article to be an attack page, do you? †TE†Talk 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What a snooooooze! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.153.35 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the "racist" signs and proof there of? There are certainly more than one isolated case. While the majority of Tea Party folks are likely honest and culturally competent people, you can't honestly deny the examples.

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lionafrican.jpg

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/TeaParty/jews.jpg

http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploads/teapartysign1sm.jpg

http://www.myvoiceoverguy.com/voice-over/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/tea-party-racist-signs-04-back-to-kenya2.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.112.97 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Tea party agent provocateurs? A simple Google search returns About 88,500 results. Doesn't this deserve some kind of mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.21.59 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Really? You guys thought that those were racist? Maybe if you guys stop being too sensitive and actually tried to discern their point or what they're trying to say you would actually understand what those posters mean. For example, the Jews one were not an attack on Jews. It didn't say Jews should be killed in the Holocaust. It's basically comparing the American taxpayers today to Jews in the Holocaust. Whether it is true or not, that's not the point. The point is that that poster isn't racist. The Obama monkey thing, no one said that black people are monkeys. Nowhere. It's just an old phrase of "monkey see, monkey do" with a little bit of change in it. The REAL racists are those who think that very poster are racist. Think about it, if you guys see monkey and quickly associate it with black people, I think you really need to ask yourselves about YOUR racism. 67.85.190.202 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Teh racism section displays a ridiculous amount of Pro-Tea Party bias. 92.11.174.68 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

I am not familiar with the Tea Party Movement. However when reading the article I noticed that it sounds biased towards the tea party movement, until one reads the statistics for it. There are a lot of statistics saying the same things, but different numbers. I have taken enough statistics classes to know that all of those statistics are unnecessary. The inordinate amount of statistics also lend no credibility to the article as there is no standard deviation presented. Hughesdepayen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

agreed - the article as whole is tilted slightly pro-TP and the statistics have gotten a little unwieldy. The neutrality is a longer term goal which will always be tough while the TP is still a current phenomenon. But the statistics can be dealt with now. The problem seems to be that once one set of statistics is posted (that may be DUE), the "other side" wants to go dig up their own statistics to reinforce their point under the banner of objectivity. And then back and forth till you have way more stats than any simple encyclopedic entry should ever need. Izauze (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I separated most of them into -general demographics-, -teapartier opinions-, and a section about race since so many polls seemed to ask about that. I removed the bullet point format and moved to a prose format. I also didn't keep a few assorted stats that were about how others feel about the tea party, rather than bout who the tea party is or how they feel about things. I think it reads better now, anyway... still maybe takes up too much space, but what else is new around here? Izauze (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You left in primarily the limited scope statistics which cannot be applied to the population as a whole. It is a highly NPOV presentation of the statistics. Either they should all stay or all go per MOS, but you cannot cherry pick the ones you think belong. The first UW study you left in was limited to the State of Washington. Basically you are defining the entire movement by one state, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for that section. The other UW study is limited to 7 states, but it is undue weight to include one limited study or even focus on any study or poll in general. I will agree that there were too many statistics, but it is not pro-TP people putting them in. It is anti-TP people putting them in to highly the negatives from the polls. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No organization has yet polled the entire "population as a whole". Only subsets have been polled; usually a sampling numbering fewer than one thousand respondents. Choosing to select and represent your favored subsets in the article, while excluding other subsets, is a highly POV presentation of the statistics. Either they should all stay or all go per MOS, but you cannot cherry pick the ones you think belong -- so I agree, too. I have returned the selectively deleted polling information. The relevance and the validity of these polls was previously discussed here. Each of the sets of polling data are valid and are of equal WP:WEIGHT in that section. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand statistics. A sample from a subset of a population can ONLY be used to describe the subset. This is not me making this statement, this is the whole entirety of the body of Statistics making this statement. To present the information as you are, is a synthesis of material. You are making a conclusion which is not explicitly made from the sourcing, and could never be made because is a basic violation of statistical methods. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am returning content derived from reliable sources. If you have an issue with the way the content is conveyed, you are encouraged to improve upon it. You are correct, I do not understand statistics. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we don't need to. BTW, I'm not synthesizing or adding anything here, just undoing a mass delete. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it solve everyone's problems if we just added something which explicitly stated the limited reach of the poll - like "A Blahblah University poll was conducted in 7 states, and while not a nationwide poll, it did show that in those seven states....." ? I say either we discuss a way to phrase it differently in order to keep it, or make a case for why its not useful information on its own accord (and not just because its not nationwide). My 2 cents. Izauze (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Prior to your efforts to condense the polling data, some of the polls were briefly described thusly:

*According to a University of Washington poll of 1695 registered voters in the state of Washington...

*A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found:...

This wording was descriptive, without falsely implying there is some defect in the polling results because of the sample they used. Adding words like "and while not a nationwide poll" or "in those seven states" adds the originally researched implication that the findings only apply to self-described tea partiers from just those states, and self-described TPers from the other 43 states are actually somehow different. The study results do not specify that its conclusions apply only to a special subset of tea partiers, and neither do the reliable sources that reported on the study -- so we shouldn't, either. All polls are limited samples in one way or another; i.e., will we also explicitely describe the Angus-Reid poll like — "An Angus-Reid poll of 1,021 paid, pre-screened poll-takers, while not at all random, showed that blah blah blah..."? No, we shouldn't, unless reliable reporting on that poll specifically conveys that the sample limitations have skewed the results (beyond the obvious "margin of error" every poll claims).

I think the poll data summarizing you have done so far is good, and remains true to what the cited sources have conveyed. If you intend to now re-expand the polling content, I caution you against straying into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when looking at primary-source poll information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand statistics, and you should really stop this non-sense. It is imperitive that the methods be clearly stated so that people do not make the erroneous conclusions that you have just stated. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I do not understand statistics. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we don't need to. It is imperative that we convey only what is contained in reliable sources, so that we do not make and include erroneous conclusions of our own. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The first study is limited to the state of Washington. Less then 2.2% of the population were sampled from. From a sample of subset which is less than 2.2% of the total you are going to frame the rest of the country? Not only is this undue weight, but it is a fringe view as well. Under no circumstances can the 1st UW study be used in a limited capacity. The violations to WP policies are staggering to say the least. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement. What noticeboard would you suggest as being most appropriate to discuss your concerns with a wider audience? Or would opening an RFC on this page suffice? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Xenophrenic was right when he pointed out it was fine when the wording was only descriptive and did not add POV qualifiers. It used to say "According to a University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington," which told the reader exactly what kind of poll they were looking at and left it to the read to draw their own conclusions. That was not WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or undue weight previously, so I don't see why it should be a problem now provided that the exact descriptive wording is put back in place. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Put back in the language briefly contextualizing the poll and leave it to the reader to decide how they want to interpret it and what kind of weight to give it. Izauze (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How widley was the Washington State poll reported/covered. Right now the citation is from a partisan source, HP, could that be improved/changed? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

personally, I don't think a poll's value changes much based on who used it. If it was a partisan polling place, that'd be another story. And HP is a pretty major source anyway - it's not like a small unreliable blog or something. I'd just focus on wording it in a way that addresses both sides concerns. Izauze (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed as NPOV violation and Undue Weight. There have been several polls taken by many sources, so please explain the rational of included two from the same source, one of which is from one state, a sample from less than 2.5% of the population of then entire US. The results of that poll have almost no relevance to the Tea Party movement in general. It would be like me polling the demographics of my neighborhood and somehow thinking that it was representative of my entire city. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The results of that poll have almost no relevance to the Tea Party movement in general.

The reliable sources reporting on those poll results would seem to disagree. Can you direct us to the reliably sourced reporting that indicate that poll has no relevance? Would the views and positions of a self-described tea partier from your neighborhood not be elligible for inclusion in a study about tea partiers in general, for some reason, and would there be reliable sources explaining why? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they would be, but if I only polled my neighbor hood it wouldn't say anything about the rest of my city. If you polled people living in Chicago's Chinatown, do you think they you would get a similar base of people as if you polled the people living in around Wrigley Park? Neither group would be able to tell you about the city of Chicago in general because they only polled a small subset of the city's poplulation. What is it that you don't understand about this basic priciple of survey sampling? Arzel (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying the self-described tea partiers in Chicago's Chinatown would hold a completely different set of Tea Party values and positions than those of the self-described tea partiers from around Wrigley Park? Interesting. You are right that their views about Chicago may differ, but no one is asking them about Chicago. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they would be different or not, but I certainly have no evidence to make the claim that they would. Basic statistical methodology. It is not possible to make any statistical inference about a population that is outside the sampling frame. A good example to consider is in agriculture. Say you want to test the effectiveness of a new fertilizer on a crop. You wouldn't want to use the new fertilizer everywhere because it may be less effective or cause other unintended outcomes. So you randomly select small sections (a few acres) from a large grid which inluded the nominal range for which a particular crop is grown. (say Beets in ND and MN). You might assume that the land around the Red River valley is the same everywhere, but you don't know for sure. There may be differences in soil that might cause a difference in the effectiveness of the fertilizer. If you only randomly selected one county of the 15 to 20 counties in the area for the study you would come to some conclusion about the fertilizer that may or may not also apply to the surrounding counties. However, if you randomnly select from all areas then you can come to a conclusion that would apply to all areas. Or if you like diving (like I do) and you wanted a rough count of sea life around the coast of Cozumel and you randomnly selected one area there is a chance you would hit a reef, sand, or a combination of both. A count per sqare foot (even if randomly done) in that area could not be extrapolated out to the entire coast, or even if you were on a reef, the average life on a reef (reefs can vary greatly) could not be extrapolated out to other reefs. Just remember this, you can never make conclusions about a population that is outside of the sampling frame (ie had no probability of being selected for study).Arzel (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"I don't know if they would be different or not, but I certainly have no evidence to make the claim that they would."

Exactly! Which is why we shouldn't insert such claims into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What claims are you talking about? The AUTHOR of the study has stated that these results CANNOT be extrapolated out. You don't know anything about statistics and your continue to show your lack of knowledge about how survey sampling is done and what can and cannot be implied from the results. The Study Methodolgy states the sourcing that YOU claim I need. They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again."

I just re-checked all 5 sources that are cited after the content you inserted, and none of them convey what you assert in your edit. I'm not being obtuse here -- I really do not see it. Could you (or anyone else reading this) please specifically point out the source? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported to the NPOV message board [1] Arzel (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post that on the NPOV board. Hopefully additional eyes on the matter will help speed us to a resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to the polls section

I have reverted this edit, which was given with this edit summary: (Now you are just being disruptive. That information is contained within the study methods)

Regarding the personal attack, I'll only request that you, Arzel, please not take us down that road. As for the edit itself, you have changed this statement from reliable sources stating the pollsters reported:

• 73% of Tea Party backers disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries

to read, instead, that they reported this:

• 73% of Washington State Tea Party supporters disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries

They did not report that. The poll did not determine that Washington State TPers were somehow different from TPers in general, nor was the polling focused on determining if such a difference existed. The sources indicate the sample was taken from Washington State (and so does our article); the sources do not indicate the poll findings are uniquely applicable only to Washington State citizens, or only to respondents with telephones, or only to those 1695 individuals, etc. To say so is original research, and also contradicts the sources, which discusses the findings in terms of "Tea Partiers" and "the Tea Party movement", not Washington State folks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of juxtaposing a poll on a racial issue which has nothing to do with the topic with the content of this article is pure OR and an attempt at Ad hominem smear tactics. That's like including, in an article on the Democratic Party, a poll on the acceptance of the concept of sex with animals in Democrats vs. the population as a whole, and then looking for percentage differences to cover. Again, in Wikipedia terms, it's pure OR and an attempt at Ad Hominmen smear tactics; the whole concept has no place in the article and should be dropped. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources have reported the results of polls and the concomitant interests regarding the perspectives and opinions of tea party supporters with regard to political and racial issues. Analogizing this to polls on attitudes regarding sex with animals doesn't make much sense, nor has an explanation been provided as to how tea these polls are "pure OR" or "Ad Hominem smear tactics" in Wikipedia terms. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Both my example and point were one and the same. Ad Hominem tactics of polling, and publishing polling and accusations on unrelated topics have been one of the main tactics of persons /groups who do not want the Tea Party Movement to gain additional traction, with racial topics being the most often chosen area. From an NPOV standpoint, it's OK for the article to report on such activities, but it should not be participating in such activities. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From an OR standpoint, the article is currently participating in such tactics rather than covering them. The insertion / juxtaposition of such material is an unsupported implied statement of relevance, = OR. There was a substantial discussion about this type of inclusion in the wp:nor policy discussion section. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia participation in "ad hominem smear tactics" here in the way the polling information is phrased, cited, and positioned. The polling information on Muslim countries, gays and lesbians, and race appears near the bottom of the section "Public opinion polls and demographics", one of many sections in the article. The statements are reliably sourced, reflect what was reported in the news, and do not distort the facts or findings of the research polls. In my opinion, their inclusion does not overstate their relevance or imply original research. As you've referenced WP:NOR policy discussion, however, and have indicated that there was substantial discussion about this very type of inclusion, perhaps you'd like to post reference to those specific points you feel make the case that this is actually pure OR. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But they do distort the facts. The two polls I have called into question have a limited sampling frame, therefore cannot be extrapolated out to frame the entire movement. I find it ironic that Xenophrenic included the 538 link which specificaly notes that the results are limited to those people in those states for the second poll, yet still claims that the poll limited to one state can be applied to everyone. I would ask how he or anyone else can come to this conclusion. As it is now, the NPOV board has spoken. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out specifically where Xenophrenic is stating that the poll limited to one state can be applied to everyone? Looking at his postings, I don't see that. Secondly, on the NPOV board I see a few postings by yourself and Xenophrenic, along with a comment by North8000 (identical the one posted here), so I must ask, what exactly do you mean when you say "the NPOV board has spoken"? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Arzel: there is no irony in my (and Wikipedia policy) requiring source citations to back up the edits you made. As noted in my edit summaries, you are welcome to put your edits back in when they are accompanied by sources. Saying "They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again." when they clearly are not cited in the article, seems a bit curious -- why not simply provide cite the requested sources? You finally did mention on another noticeboard the source (FiveThirtyEight.com) supporting one of your three edits, so I returned that edit (with that citation) to the article. The 538 source, however, does not support your edits to the later UofW single-state poll content.

@AzureCitizen: No one has yet spoken to the actual issue on the NPOV noticeboard, so I believe Arzel simply made a mistake. Perhaps more time is needed (although, looking again at the postings by Arzel and myself on the NPOV board, the issue isn't as concisely defined as it should be, and doesn't really invite outside comment). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Poll results are always dicey business to begin with. How much weight in the article should we give them? And how should we reconcile obvious contradictions between poll results, for instance, the Times/CBS poll stating (as included in our aticle) that TPers are more educated, yet the Quinnipiac Poll concluding, "They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters"? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Update (for North8000/Arzel): If by "juxtaposition" you were referring to the way the Washington State poll was mentioned in the first paragraph with it's demographic description, then with the racial "equal opportunity" poll question in the second paragraph, I've re-flowed the paragraph so it's more obvious to the reader now that those findings are from the same poll, lest there be confusion as to what the sample set was (i.e., 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington). --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Repharasing it in less Wikipedian terms, the idea of polling, and then trolling through the results hoping to find and highlight a higher incidence of an unpopular or un-PC opinion unrelated to the movement is a bogus smear tactic that has no place in Wikipedia. Going back to my clarity -by-absurdity analogy, if a reliable source polled and found that there was a higher incidence of acceptance of sex with animals within the Democratic Party than the population as a whole, by your reasoning, I should put that into the article on the Democratic Party. My point would be that it has no relevance and is just an ad hominem smear tactic which also violates various wp policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"If a reliable source polled and found that there was a higher incidence of acceptance of sex with animals within the Democratic Party than the population as a whole, by your reasoning, I should put that into the article on the Democratic Party."

Yes, you should, if many reliable sources reporting on many different polls reaching similar conclusions exist, and if it becomes such a very significant point of public discourse and contention that inclusion in a Wikipedia article is justified. Much like how the issue of racism & the TP movement has, for good or for bad, been a very significant issue in public discourse over the past two years. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were put into a different context such as saying that opponents of the Tea Party Movement have been engaging in such poll-use related tactics, then it would be suitable. But this section of the article is engaging in such tactics rather than reporting on them. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your theory about "poll-use related tactics" falls apart when you realize the public discourse about racist elements associated with the tea party movement had peaked long before the first poll tried to scientifically address the contentious issue. Claiming as you did that TP opponents did polling and then trolled through those poll results hoping to find and highlight "unpopular" characteristics about the TP movement gets it backwards. The various bigotry issues were already being observed and significantly discussed, which then prompted scientific polling to be done to look further into it. And by the way, the "opponents & the media are making this stuff up to smear the TP movement" viewpoint is already expressed several times in our article -- what "suitable" additions are you suggesting? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have finally agreed that the polling statistics cannot be extrapolated out toward the entire population, perhaps you could explain why it is not undue weight to use limited sampling frame polls. Per the NPOV message board you have not presented a viable rational for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have indicated no such agreement. As for the polls, to which of the 9 "limited sampling frame polls" do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are only 2 limited sampling frame polls, both of those from UW, one of which is extremely problematic. Per the NPOV board this has been resolved, what is your current reasoning for including them? Arzel (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All polls presently in the article are limited samples, none of them more problematic than the others. Per the NPOV noticeboard, there is no reason for not including any of these polls. My reasoning for not deleting a poll result is the same for each of the polls: they are relevant, significant and well sourced. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no understanding of statistics it is not suprising that you don't know what "limited" means within the framework of statistical sampling. I see no further reason for explaining how statistics work to you since you seem to have no desire to understand how they work when you can use your own flawed understanding justify your POV editing. The NPOV board has spoken and you simply don't like the answer, and now you simply can't hear anything that doesn't agree with your line of thought. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just exactly what do you think the NPOV Board has "said" Arzel? --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Populist

In the Astroturfing section (at the very end of the article) is the following:

Group members often claim it to be a populist movement when their message is diametrically opposed to the Populist Party, also known as The People's Party, which favored wealth redistribution and a minimum wage.

What is the basis of this statement? The reference is to a description of The People's Party. The word "populist" does not equate to Populist Party (which one? there have been several, including two current US parties, one of which is libertarian), just as democrat, republican, and libertarian (small "d", "r", and "l" respectively) do not necessarily equate Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian Party. This statement feels like it falls into the original research category, and mistaken/faulty research, at that. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, I'd just strike it. Izauze (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• obama is populist.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.63 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

article length/teabagging section

This section was WP:UNDUE and I scaled it down. It isn't called The Teabagger Movement. The first paragraph explains the term sufficiently. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:UNDUE is relevant in relation to your edits. The use of the term has garnered enough media attention for the section that is currently there. Can it be cleaned up? Sure. But outrightly removing content under the pretense that you are following policy is not the way to go about this. Besides the point that a section should never be just 2 sentences when it can be more, with the only reference not even being that great of an WP:RS. If you feel it needs condensed even more, then please do so. But do not remove perfectly valid citations when you do so. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Layout#Paragraphs. §hep^Talk 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Stepshep You are making assumptions about my intentions. I've edited this page for a very long time and I made it plain why I deleted the material. I had no "pretense" as you claim and the other editors who edit here on a regular basis know that I have been working to keep the size of the article manageable. The entire article "can be more" as you put it, but this is a dynamic process and there is a great deal more to add to the article. The additional paragraphs do not add to the quality of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't making assumptions about your intentions, just noting mine; sorry for the confusion about that. You did not make it plain why you deleted the material. You said you deleted it for a reason that wasn't true. This is a medium sized article. Looking through the archives of this page's talk it seems many things are removed to keep it "manageable" when it could do with some beefing up. Just because "there is a great deal more to add to the article" does not mean that certain additions should wait until other things are added. I do agree that the section would benefit from a clean-up. I just don't think wiping away everything but two sentences is the way to do it. §hep^Talk 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how well sourced something is. It isn't relevant. The first paragraph explains it all. Continuing to re-add it is silly. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph makes no mention of the term "TeaBagger" (or any of its derivatives) but focuses solely on where "Tea Party" came from. Therefore your current argument is false. §hep^Talk 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted Malke 2010's deletion and recommended to them to possibly use more discretion when deleting other editors' work in the future - especially for controversial articles such as this.

And while this section continues to undergo revision and be refined, one cannot ignore the amount of usage and attention the term has gotten -- and the controversy it has provoked. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The original term was "teabagging." I've corrected the section. There is no 'controversy,' about the use of the term which has fallen out of use. It is not called the "The Teabagging Movement" and does not require more than one paragraph.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, the article seems bloated enough without name calling ho ho type additions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and what with the November elections coming, there's going to be a great deal more to add.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the article in its current state is bloated. Picture-heavy? Sure. But I don't see bloated. §hep^Talk 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is no 'controversy,' about the use of the term which has fallen out of use."

Source? Thanks. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the rest of you - there are better ways to do things than just removing content like this. To me, it looks like the op just didn't like the use of the word "teabagger" and was trying to do whatever they could to remove it. Any neutral editor should know better. And unfortunately, now the page has apparently been locked because of it. Hopefully lesson learned. 76.208.147.124 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did the block come from? If there was a discussion, it certainly wasn't noted here. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about the ancient one. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello North8000, check the history.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised to see the first lock I've seen in ages and Malke's first day back happen at the same time. Just when I thought the article was getting better and everyone was working together well, too.  :/ Well... I guess that's my cue. Good luck guys. Izauze (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem with the first paragraph hiding the fact that this party was created by Murdoch, the first mention of the tea party is by a fox news personality!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.11.60 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sroc, 6 September 2010

Under the heading Use of term "Teabagger," "Teabagging", the first para reads:

The use of "Teabagging" as a verb was seen early on in Tea Party protest signage at the first national Tea Party protest. Shortly after the idea of mailing tea bags to congress was first proposed, one of the participants used the slang term "teabagging" as a double entendre referring to a sexual act.

Can we please edit the placement of the second link to break up the links (so that they don't appear to be one long link) thus:

The use of "Teabagging" as a verb was seen early on in Tea Party protest signage at the first national Tea Party protest. Shortly after the idea of mailing tea bags to congress was first proposed, one of the participants used the slang term "teabagging" as a double entendre referring to a sexual act.

Thanks. —sroc (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.23.202.153, 7 September 2010

{{edit protected}} Add link to serbian wikipedia article sr:Ти парти покрет —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.202.153 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait until tomorrow when the page will be open?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Uncontroversial change, so  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Polls/Demographics/Washington University Study

As many of the regular editors here are aware, there was a great deal of work put into this section and it generated a great deal of back and forth, but in the end things were settled. Apparently, this has been changed entirely and without any discussion on the talk page to seek consensus first. I propose we restore the version before the edit was made and then discuss any changes.

I, for one, think that the bullet format makes for easy reading. Rolling the statistics into prose format doesn't seem wise as it, I think everyone can agree, statistics and studies are hard enough to decipher and are meant to be presented in chart type format.

As we all know, the contention over the Washington University study was intense, but in the end a good result came out of it and the editors involved did a wonderful job resolving that. I believe BigK HeX worked on it, as did ThinkEnemies, Xenophrenic, Arzel, et al. Sorry if I've left off anyone's name. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate here for consensus to restore this version [2]:

Return edit prior to change

Support

Don't Support

Needs a complete re-write The polling topic is coverage of activities by persons and organizations who oppose the tea party movement. The article should be COVERING those activities as such, NOT PARTICIPATING in those activities, as it currently is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart again

I think the Breitbart is WP:UNDUE. He wasn't there. It's an ancillary story. Maybe we could sort out all the racial incidents and the other incidents and make entries with bullets, so that the reader can easily identify the incidents. Then we could get rid of all the talking heads saying how they just know these things never happened, etc. I think if they weren't there, it's just opinion, and right now the opinions seem to be outweighing everything else. Thoughts?Malke 2010 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Example

• On March 21, 2010, Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted racist slurs against Hispanics on the group's Twitter webpage, including one post that said, "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?".
• Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as a "Monkey God".
• Williams came under further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams claimed the letter was a "satirical" response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to "'repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement."
• On March 22, 2010, a severed gas line was found at the home of Congressman Tom Perriello's brother.

Of course it would have citations, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gadsden flag is not flown at rallies as "an alternative to the Stars and Stripes". Citing an obscure article by a second string journalist as the reference does not make POV any more true.

"Tea Party activists have embraced the "Don't Tread on Me" flag and its message.[40] Nationwide it serves as an alternative to the stars and stripes[41] for Tea Party protesters upset at the current government yet still feeling patriotic."

This is nonsense. The Gadsden is flown as an expression of disapproval and defiance of what is viewed by participants as over-reaching by the Federal government, but it is in no way viewed as an alternative to the flag of the United States. If whoever inserted this line bothered to attend a rally or at the very least reviewed photographs, they would find just as many Stars and Stripes, if not more. The statement cited is nothing more than a subjective opinion of an inconsequential journalist and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.135.213 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but I've seen it in photos from different rallies and a news article about sales of the flag have gone way up.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which means somehow that people at rallies consider it an alternative to the Stars and Stripes and not simply an expression of disapproval with the state of the Federal government? Based on what? Sales? Care to speculate on the sales numbers of U.S. flags versus Gadsdens? Any first-hand quotes? Anyone bother to actually ask a person at a rally if they considered it an alternative to the Stars and Stripes? Anyone bother to ask a tea-partier if they consider the U.S flag a symbol of the Federal government instead of a symbol of the nation? The statement by the author is nothing but a subjective assumption. If I go to an Earth Day rally and fly an Eco flag, does that mean I fly it as an alternative to the Stars and Stripes? It is a logical fallacy and certainly nothing resembling objectivity.

I just noticed this in the article and I agree with the OP. Copying the language by Diane Macedo in an online news article does not suffice. Can you cite any known Tea Party participants making such a statement? The unknown OP is correct. That you have seen the flag in photographs of Tea Party events is insufficient to deduce that "it serves as an alternative to the stars and stripes for Tea Party protesters". It is a logical fallacy and has no place in an impartial article. Please find some real cites for this assertion. Otherwise, it needs to go. Thanks. Digiphi (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls focusing on Tea Party supporters

Initially, I objected to this section because the "Opinions of the Tea Party supporters" heading lead me to believe that the article section was going to let individual members characterize the movement (e.g., some guy wears a white jacket with a "white hood" to a gathering of 2,000 and that wearing of the "white hood" is the opinion of the Tea Party becuse it is an opinion of a tea party supporter.) I change the title of this section to "Opinion polls focusing on Tea Party supporters" since it seemed more neutral and it was based on the structure of the headline "New York Times/CBS News poll focusing on Tea Party supporters" (google it). "focusing on" implies that the poll attempts to interview only Tea Party supporters, but allows for errors. I thought of using the broader title "Collective opinions or views of Tea Party supporters", but that is merely another way of characterizing most of the article. Opinion polls are merely a piece of the collective views of Tea Party supporters. The issue regarding using opinion polls from biased sources is discussed above in Statistics -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While biased sources are a part of the issue, the whole idea of polling on issues unrelated to any Tea Party objectives, ideology, platforms etc. and trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize is a tactic of Tea Party opponents. The article should report on such efforts as such, not participate in them. Otherwise the injection (juxtaposition) of non-germane material is OR. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the article to report your theory that polling is just "trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize", you would need reliable sources conveying that as a fact. Lack of such sources is probably why you don't see your theory in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Xenophrenic. Actually, there are reliable sources that can show polling is used to do just that. It's actually often seen as 'push polling.' Politicians do it all the time. "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John Doe if you knew he had an illegitimate child?" Happens all the time and not by the actual politicians people, but rather by his "supporters." So if an agency or group, etc., want to come up with some numbers to favor their guy, they do this.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Like any other information, polls need to be from reliable sources. The fact that some are not reliable doesn't prevent us from using ones that are reliable. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But North8000 has a point there.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000's "point" is that the polls in this article are "trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize". He has asserted it several time on this talk page. He has yet to substantiate his theory with citations to reliable sources. If you, Malke, know of some reliable sources that he can use to validate his theory, perhaps you could help him out and provide them? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you have it backwards. You (or someone) needs to establish that insertion of polling on unrelated topics belongs in the article in order for it to stay in. It's personal insertion of unrelated primary source material, and the juxtaposition is OR and synthesis. Similar situation have been discussed extensively at the wp:nor talk, and, except for the person who wanted to do the insertion, the decision was unanimous. The inclusion here is in violation. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The polling of tea partiers about tea partier views is certainly related to the Tea Party movement. If you think you see examples of OR or synthesis, please don't hesitate to detail the exact violations here; personally, I do not see them. A link to any previous extensive discussions you feel directly pertain to this situation would be helpful, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the polls aren't polling tea party movement members. It's polling what is being called 'tea party supporters.' Here's how you define that, "Do you agree or disagree with the way Congress has handled the bailout?" "Do you agree or disagree with the government takeover of General Motors?" "Do you agree or disagree with a tax increase to pay for the bailout?" It's all in how you phrase something. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is something that I have been trying to make explicit since the beginning. The defense against this argument seems to be that since there is no official Tea Party then you can use Tea Party Supporters as a proxy for the view of supposed Tea Party Members. This is the OR to which North8000 alludes. Interestingly, when people poll Republicans or Democrats, those doing the polling have no way to know if someone really is a Republican or a Democrat. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000 never said anything about "Supporters" versus "Members"; s/he never played that silly semantics game. North8000's complaint, as I understand it, and as s/he has expressed it, concerns some of the questions the polls are asking. S/he feels that poll questions asking the TPers about issues related to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., are not only "non-germane" to the TP platform, but are also specifically developed by "Tea Party opponents" as a tactic to dig up and publicize unpopular trends among TPers. I disagree, and I have asked North8000 to provide links (reliable sources, mind you, not partisan blog echo-chamber sites) to support his/her conspiracy theory.

There is no such thing as an all-encompassing, formal Tea Party Movement Membership ... yet. Sure, you can formally join as a "member" of any number of the TP groups (i.e.; Tea Party Patriots, Express, etc.), but there are just as many that do not have a formal membership process. "Supporter", "Member", "Adherent", "Proponent", "Activist", are not "proxies" for anything, and are all descriptive expressions of people in agreement with the Tea Party -- and organizations have begun conducting polls to help define and understand these folks. I'm sure most TPers would rather the polling just focus on issues of taxes, bailouts, stimulus and deficit spending, but when TP groups start mobilizing around issues of gay marriage, immigration reform and women's rights, people start to ask questions. When TPers start mobilizing, only now that Obama is president, around fiscal issues that started and existed many years ago, people start to ask questions. When the "fringe" element in the movement, and every movement has its regrettable fringe elements, expresses itself, people start to examine what form that expression takes in this movement. When such questions are asked, polls are conducted to help answer them -- not the other way around, as North8000 theorizes, that the polls were formulated just to raise questions about the TPers. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But the polls make it appear as if there is a defined tea party movement. You can't say there isn't a defined movement and then allow polls that define these "supporters" when clearly the people taking the polls are starting from the false premise that there is a clearly defined movement with a membership whose collective beliefs and action are being polled against.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The polls do not make it appear as if there is a defined TP movement; quite the contrary, if it was well defined, then the polling would be unnecessary. The people taking the polls start with no premise, and begin specifically by asking the respondents where they stand with regard to the TP movement. People claiming support for the TP movement, and especially those claiming "strong" support for the movement, tend to hold certain views on certain issues. Polls, by their nature, indicate trends, not "collective beliefs". When poll results indicate that "92% of TP supporter respondents disagree that the bailouts were necessary", that indicates a trend, albeit a strong one - but not a "collective belief". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They use the collective "tea party supporters." What tea party? A specific tea party or the tea party movement? Did they use the Contract from America to ask questions? Or did they gather questions from reading articles about rallies and what the speakers said? The pollsters are defining it as movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The UW poll clearly is using supporter as a proxy for a member, they even state as much in their methodology. But I am confused, you say that supporter is not being used as a proxy, yet you later say that they are being used as a proxy. In fact if there was no implied proxy then the inclusion of those polls would be completely meaningless within this article. Either you agree that the UW poll is being used as a proxy for the views of a hypothetical Tea Party Member in order to validate the use of the poll in this article, or you don't in which case the poll has no meaning in this article because it doesn't say anything about a hypothetical Tea Party Member. BTW, when you make statements that could be interpreted as a correlation between a Tea Party Supporter and a Tea Party Member, then you are by definition using the views of a supporter as a proxy for the views of a member. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an all-encompassing, formal Tea Party Movement Membership ... yet. Sure, you can formally join as a "member" of any number of the TP groups (i.e.; Tea Party Patriots, Express, etc.), but there are just as many that do not have a formal membership process. "Supporter", "Member", "Adherent", "Proponent", "Activist", are not "proxies" for anything, and are all descriptive expressions of people in agreement with the Tea Party, as far as the polling goes. By the way, you are incorrect as to what I said, and what I later said. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat, the UW poll used Supporter as a proxy of a Member, and they stated as such in their methdology. That you fail to grasp what you are saying is not my fault, but given your lack of understanding of statistics it is not suprising. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You may repeat all you want. The UW poll referred to "Supporters", not as a proxy, but because they recognized there wasn't a formal "Membership" item to use to count membership (as I explained above), and they stated as much in their methodology. That you now feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks summarizes the conclusion of this discussion nicely. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sara Palin?

Shouldn't Palin be mentioned somewhere in here? richrakh````

I think she selectively associates herself with people most likely to win and I think there's WP:RS out there to show it, and I'd like to include it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A lengthy, informative reference

Lots of good info: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20100911_8855.php Sbowers3 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Political Agenda

I am very concerned with this article. It lacks organization, and more specifically, I find it rather difficult to find any concrete information about the group's political agenda; therefore I propose we:

A) Protect this article from corporate editing and biased editing. Just the facts, please.

B) Focus on providing readers with brief, factual information about the group's agenda, upfront. Right now, there seems to be a lot of information marginalizing and "information jamming" going on in this article, which is why I believe this article deserves only the most rigorous investigation. --Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First Tea Party

http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/ This is recognized as the first Tea Party of 2009 and needs to be added to the background/history or early local protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.255.50 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Tea Party was truly 100% LIBERTARIAN, and has CITATIONS over on the ARTICLE for "BOSTON TEA PARTY" which began in 2006. PLEASE CORRECT THIS ARTICLE'S MALFEASANCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.162.145 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The tea party began before 2008, and is not a reaction to obama. Here is just one example from 2007. (skip to the final 10 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb4HW3I82lg --A^xcess (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

TEA Party eponymous of Taxed Enough Already(not attributing to 1773 organization)

As heard on NPR News and Diane Rehm Show on NPR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.71.70 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See Backronym. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 22:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Election Effect

Some notable "tea party" candidates are missing from this section. Where is Marco Rubio in Florida, Pat Toommey in Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Ken Buck in Colorado, Carl Paladino in New York, and plenty of other house candidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.208.27 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. We might need to create an article to cover all of them. This section is already becoming too large, not to mention 2012 might see the same effects.

Right now the page protection is set for 2 weeks. If you can post some refs and content here, the auto-confirmed users would be happy to add them for you. †TE†Talk 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The section seems to be one of the of the most relevant parts of the article. The Tea Party Movement is apparently having an effect on the mid-terms and most likely will continue on with 2012. As that gets closer, we can condense the mid-term entries into one sentence each, but it should stay here.

Also, I wanted to add a section on Sarah Palin. I think she finds areas where the Tea Party candidate can't lose and then goes there to campaign for the candidate, the candidate wins, and she takes credit. That's an old political trick and I was thinking it might be worth a mention.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joelhirsch, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

To be referred as the Conservative Hysteriarchy''Italic text. Joelhirsch (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama quote

I think adding the Claire McGaskill bit weakens the force of the sentence after it, "But let's not play games here." When he'd just been talking about the Social Security. Going through an audit with Claire, seems to stop the impact.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

Why exactly is some unotable houston lawyer credited with creation of what was orginally the idea of GOP members of the House in '94 mostly with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey taking the charge. With this new contract Armey picked the top 10 from a pool of 50, shouldn't Dick Armey get most of the credit here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafizzle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

First sentences

I know this has been discussed in the past, but I was hoping for some feedback. It has recently been changed from this:

The Tea Party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.

To this:

The Tea Party movement has been described as a political movement in the United States for populist Constitutionalism. It emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.

Thoughts? I'm a fan of the former. †TE†Talk 22:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I changed it but have changed it back as you recommend. My concern was that "populist" could imply politically left as well as right, but adding either "conservative" or "libertarian" is problematic, as, no doubt, has been discussed in the past. Hence the idea of referring to the Constitution, which seems to be an important reference point for the movement. But it may be too awkward and/or bordering on WP:Original Research to used "Constitution" derived terminology in the first sentence. As time has gone by since the movement's founding, I think "populist" would be more generally agreeable to editors, because recent news has seen media stories about "establishment" conservatives becoming increasingly frustrated with the movement's influence, in particular with respect to Republican Congressional nominations. If conservative "elites" have expressed concern about the movement's influence, it is difficult to content that they represent the movement or control the movement in a significant way, in my view.Bdell555 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, but I was just looking for some dialogue. Adherence to the Constitution probably belongs in the lead, and I'm surprised it's not really represented in the article. These are problems that need to be addressed. †TE†Talk 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Populist -- I'm probably with you on that and previously opposed it as troublesome. †TE†Talk 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Populist was the subject of previous lengthy discussion and consensus last winter. I agree with Bdell555 that if the conservative elites are complaining, then the movement isn't really coming from them. Also, the CREW people, who seem to only go after Democrats, are now going after Christine O'Donnell regarding her use of campaign funds to cover personal expenses. The Republicans are howling about her win because she soundly beat an establishment Republican. She's apparently saying all the things the Tea Party want to hear. I think the TPM is becoming like a third political party, although they didn't seem to start off that way. They just wanted the Fed policy changed, and were against the bail-out, etc. I'd keep the "political movement," in the lead.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would definately remove the 2009 part in that paragraph. Whoever added that obviously has only done original research, or has clearly done biased research (this article is obviously biased against the Tea Party) and I contest the factual accuracy of this article. The REAL Tea Party began in 2006 as the "Boston Tea Party" and began as a LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.162.145 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• citations please? Sochwa (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Christine O'Donnell is supported by the Tea Party movement and this story is true, it doesn't sound particularly libertarian.Bdell555 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Borowitz Report seems to be a joke site as the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Post don't seem aware of this 'protest.' Also, the tea party movement does have antecedents from as early as 2007 that I know of when the first round of mortgage failures began to make news. And the anti-tax groups had tea parties even earlier. That doesn't even account for the FedUpUSA people. I think the article had mentions of these things at the beginning of the summer, but not now.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been tea party movements from December 16, 1773 on. This article is about the tea party movement as it is known as of now (September 2010). Rick Santelli's diatribe against the bank bailout on February 19, 2009 clearly was a significant event in present tea party movement. Before February 19, 2009, Ron Paul and Ron Paul's followers were the ones focused on the tea party idea. The present tea party movement doesn't go back to 2006. Obama won the presidency on November 4, 2008 and I don't see how aspects of the present tea party movement - the one the article is about - could have originated before November 4, 2008. In short, the first aspects of the present tea party movement likely occured some where between November 4, 2008 and February 19, 2009. The 2009 in the first sentence is reflective of Rick Santelli's diatribe and the events that occured shortly after that - all of which were in 2009.JeffreyBillings (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies liked this comment. :-) †TE†Talk 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph - what does this mean?

"attempted to establish a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies by giving a cut on re-importation tax imposed on the East India Company."

• Who got the cut?
• Are some words missing?

Uncle uncle uncle 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the description of the original Boston Tea Party be similar to what is on the "Boston Tea Party" page:

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

• As the sentence is currently - it is confusing. Uncle uncle uncle 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm all for using it. We can probably get away with a simple copy & paste. †TE†Talk 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Major changes

I tried to make the article less biased by bringing the actual policy agenda of the group to the forefront and by reducing redundancy. The neutrality and composition of this article both concern me greatly. I really believe that the mods should be more involved with attaining (and maintaining) that high Wikipedia standard of quality. Please tell me what you think.--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed this last night before creating new section. My fault. †TE†Talk 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lede

For an article of this length and complexity, the lede needs to be expanded.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say...

I propose a sandbox version to work on with newer editors. Who's with me? †TE†Talk 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox, created using the latest article revision. This was the version prior to my massive reverts. If anyone cares to compare them and let me know if I made the right moves, I'd appreciate it. I understand alot of work went into the good faith edits, but I have many issues with them. Thanks. †TE†Talk 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I'm all for working out the kinks. I really do believe this article should be frank and informative about the goals, composition, action, and history of the group. No matter how many people vandalize and sugar coat these things by marginalizing, disorganizing, and putting up pro-tea party imagery in random places, it's still biased... so let's fix it together (sorry for being kind of a dick)--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm all with you on "this article should be frank and informative about the goals, composition, action, and history of the group." However, I'm not sure about the "marginalizing, disorganizing, and putting up pro-tea party imagery in random places." Neutrality is the goal, and this article should conform to any other WP:BLP. I will try to post relevant policy links in the sandbox article. I envision us discussing those things and changes there. It can be a learning experience for all involved, as I am far from being an expert. †TE†Talk 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Let's get started. Please elaborate on "I'm sorry but this restructuring, added content, unfree pic, new bullet scheme, see also, etc. are not improvements, IMHO."--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little short on time right now. I've explained the 'see also' in a previous revert made on your minor edits, the image is unfree (I believe), the bullet scheme refers to the changes you made in the 'polling and demographics' section (whatever it's named, it is the result of talk page consensus), the restructuring is completely out of order and against MOS, there is some added content that might needs scrutiny and the quote boxes were overkill (for such small quotes). There is plenty of previous conversation regarding some of the changes. You might want to peruse the archives, if you're interested in mostly pointless, mind-numbing debate. Now I must call it a night. †TE†Talk 06:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dale Robertson sign section citations are just just blogs or non-notable media cites

I'm a political moderate and when I read articles on a subject, especially on political topics, I do look at the cited sources to gauge for myself if the allegations have merit or are partisan in nature.

Each of the four citations in the Dale Robertson sign section are links to non-professional blogs or lower tier media sites that in no way can be considered notable, reliable sources.

147. http://www.washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader ‘N-Word’ Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader

148. http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-leader-that-claimed-no-slurs-now-famous-for-n-word-sign Tea Party Leader Who Claimed No Slurs? Now Famous For Holding N-word Sign

149. http://www.tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/tea_partiers_site_shows_photoshopped_image_of_raci.php Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign

150. http://www.mediaite.com/online/analysis-was-the-notorious-racist-tea-party-sign-forged-we-believe-not/ Analysis: Was The Notorious Racist Tea Party Sign Forged? We Believe Not

Unless notable, reliable sources can be found to replace these citations the entire section will need to go away since it involves serious allegations and speculations of motive against a living person. I'm not insinuating that the incident didn't happen but if it's not properly cited there is a serious issue with it's inclusion. I will tag the entire subsection as poorly sourced and/or having POV issues when until there is a consensus. Veriss (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the train wreck called wikipedia :). Its really sad that you have to self identify as "neutral" in order to point out poorly sourced material and question its inclusion. Political articles are easily the worst POV types on this project due to the partisan militants. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the invalid sources which then required a major rewrite of the subsection using lots of weasel words to try to keep it NPOV. I also placed an unreferenced section banner on it. Inevitably it needs to be properly sourced or removed though. Veriss (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a problem for the article in that I just searched the New York Times and the Washington Post and I couldn't find any articles about this. Last spring I found several websites that showed altered tea party photos, the before and after, so I went looking, but I couldn't find before and after photos of the Dale Robertson sign.

Points to think about:

• who took this picture?
• Why doesn't Dale Robertson show the original sign to reporters so they can see that it was photoshopped?
• Why aren't there reliable sources?
• If this is a credible story, why not report on it?

Points to think in asking whether or not to delete this section:

• Is this widely reported?
• Does it have reliable sources?
• Can it be written, using reliable sources, in neutral language?
• If no reliable sources can be found, does this constitute a violation of rules about living persons?Malke 2010 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section and the image as it lacks reliable sources and is a BLP vio. If you want it back, you need to provide reliable sources. RE Malke's question about why not "show the original sign to reporters"---simple, per the description, the bruhaha broke out 10 months after the event. Most people would not keep a cheaply made sign like that for 10 months.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RE the sign, I didn't realize it was that long ago. I see it's been readded, but might this still be a violation as this fellow is denying it?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• By reverse picture searching I found this article at mediamatters which led me to usatoday: "Meanwhile, Dale Robertson, who owns the website TeaParty.org, has filed papers to run as an independent. He was repudiated by the Houston Tea Party Society after being photographed holding up a sign with a racial epithet. He does not deny carrying the sign.". Maybe that helps.TMCk (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MediaMatters is definitely not a neutral source and they are doing something that I would call synthesis with the USA Today article. First, not denying something is not the same as admitting to it. Second, the USA Today piece is rather vague on details. The assumption is that the sign being referenced is the sign in MediaMatters, but we don't know that. To tie that simple statement to the specific image would be synth.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section and added reliable sources from USA Today and CBS News. A quick search reveals several other reliable sources. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The BET cite is the one that seals the deal for me... the CBS and (especially) USA Today references are too vague, but conjuctively along with the BET reference, this covers my BLP concerns.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Balloonman Did I say anything about including this to the article? I don't think so. I placed some links/info that might help further searches to get to the bottom of this and seems like someone did.TMCk (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything appears to meet the standards now. Veriss (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead/Lede tag

We need to get around to dealing with this tag about the lead. Any suggestions for rewriting it? I was thinking:

• Four paragraphs to include:
• origins
• what they're protesting
• influencing elections
• encompasses multiple groups, but no single leadership
• have an agenda
• criticisms that rallies attract racists

Please add/suggest. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation no longer active

Citation #27 ([3]) is no longer working, and one of the quotes used in the article is taken from it. Is there another source that can take its place? A dullard (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shame. It doesn't seem to be archived at archive.org. It's a primary source, so not a great loss. Where it is not used in conjunction with another source, the information should be important enough to be verifiable from other sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Funding section within Astroturf removed

I've looked into all these citations. First, the Tea Party movement is amorphous. So claims that Koch or anybody else is giving money to the "tea party movement" can't be used. There's no such organized group.

Koch gives money to something called Americans for Prosperity which is not a tea party organization.

Here are the citations used to support the edit:

New York Observer (the first citation) says this: "Mainstream America is finally getting to know the billionaire brothers backing the libertarian movement, thanks to a pair of dueling profiles in New York and The New Yorker. Now that we've heard about their charitable giving, David's 240-foot mega-yacht and role as patrons of the Tea Party movement, it's time to ask a more serious question: How libertarian are they?"

This just comments on the New Yorker piece, which says:

"In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”

There's no specific mention of funds changing hands with a specific tea party group. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=2#ixzz10r6Meor2

And this last citation is a synthesis of the New Yorker, again, no specifics of money changing hands.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/koch-brothers-accused-of-funding-supposedly-grass-roots-tea-party-movement-102010803.html

"As for the Tea Party, Hess points out that it hasn't needed billions to thrive in the midst of a devastating recession. 'The movement is not really the product of raising money from billionaires. You don't suddenly have almost 30 per cent of Americans feeling comfortable with the Tea Party because there's some billionaire pulling the strings,' he said. 'They're the flavour of the year in a country that's cyclically in the midst of religious revivals or populist movements. We've lived this before; it often comes in times of economic upheaval when people are frustrated, scared or, worse, unemployed. The real question is where would the Tea Party be if unemployment suddenly went down to five per cent?'"

I've not found anything in a Google search that comes up with anything to support any claim that the Koch brothers have specifically given money to a tea party group. Nor is there listed anywhere, a group calling itself "The Tea Party Movement." Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of presentation so we don't violation WP:OR. There's plenty of reliable coverage that indicates that the connection between the Koch's and the Tea Party Movement should be included. The question is how to do it properly so we don't violate WP:OR. Looks like we could describe them as "patrons" or the like. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and it needs to be very specific. Even the New Yorker writer was not able to show any funds changing hands. It might be more appropriate to point out that they have something called Americans for Prosperity, but then again, what does that do other than give out lists of politicians names to tea parties. But of course, the question then becomes, what tea parties receive these lists, and do these tea parties then follow up? It might even be that Americans for Prosperity, if it's a non-profit, is nothing more than a tax deduction for the guy.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the wikilink: Americans for ProsperityMalke 2010 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malke and all. I apologize for the heading and anything else that was construed from my two edits (I did not add any citations, only made subjects in two sentences for what was already here). I think that you've scalped the article now though, if you'll pardon the expression. Here for example is a source that would indicate that Koch Industries belongs here, Kevin Freking of The Associated Press in BusinessWeek via Bloomberg. Thanks if you'd please restore Koch in some capacity.

"The company's owners, David and Charles Koch, were the subject of a recent article in the New Yorker highlighting their financial support for Americans for Prosperity, an organization that has worked closely with tea party groups since the movement's inception."

-SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Financial support" is more descriptive than "patrons," but we can use both. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Malke, "Tea-Party Movement Gathers Strength" in today's Wall Street Journal seems to say that the tea party is a movement and is quite a lot more than an "amorphous" group.

"The tea party has emerged as a potent force in American politics and a center of gravity within the Republican Party, with a large majority of Republicans showing an affinity for the movement that has repeatedly bucked the GOP leadership this year, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found."

-SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article hasn't been scalped. Unsourced, original research has been deleted. The Tea Party is amorphous. There is no central leadership, it is comprised of various groups all across the country that are not connected. Some tea parties provide financial backing to local politicians, others do not, such as Tea Party Patriots. They no longer backed candidates. Instead, they go to Washington and visit/harass congressman to change the laws on the stimulus, health care, etc.

You want to say that Koch is directly supporting the Tea party movement. He's doing no such thing. He's supporting Americans for Prosperity. You want to take quotes such as the one you placed above and use that to say Koch is financially supporting "the tea party movement." He supports Americans for Prosperty, which claims it provides lists of names of politicians to tea party groups, and "other support," that is not clearly defined. We can't take these various quotes and build them into "Koch provides financial support for the tea party movement." He does not.

Nor can you make the claim that the central core of the Tea Party movement is the Republican Party. If anything, the local Tea Party support has devastated the Republican field. Many Tea Party members are self-described independents. There is no reliable source so far that says Americans for Prosperity provides financial backing to tea parties. Nor has anyone defined Koch's political agenda.

What we can put in the article right now is that Americans for Prosperity claims it supports tea party groups, but haven't named any such groups. And that Koch has donated money to Americans for Prosperity.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the edit was put back and I removed it. This needs to be worked out here first, especially as regards the citations. The New York Observer is just repeating, it doesn't do the level of reporting that the New York Times does. And the use of "mainstream American media," to start off the sentence, is not informative to the reader. Use the source. "The New York Times reported," etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malke. I think that you should make these changes to the article because you are the only person here with specific objections and ideas. Nobody else can say what you'd like them to say. Would you please add Koch to this article in some capacity? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually just working out something.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll finish writing up something and put in the edit tonight, as I'm working right at the moment and there are two reliable sources I want check on. In the meantime, if anyone can locate other reliable sources, I'd appreciate it.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, what I've discovered is that Americans for Prosperity has two organizations, one is AFP and the other is AFP Foundation. Apparently, the Koch family trusts donate money to the AFP Foundation. Also, a lot of their money seems to go into cancer research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is probably why Jane Mayer in the New Yorker couldn't find anything except this:

"In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”

To claim that the Koch brothers personally or their foundations are donating money to the tea parties will need reliable sources, and I can't find any. It sounds like this is one of those rumors and since the Koch brothers are living persons, there are BLP issues to consider. Maybe we should run it by Ballonman as he's an admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Malke. I've tried to be patient with you. But no source will satisfy somebody who reads so selectively. You're welcome to call in your friends. (Balloonman has made three edits here so I don't know why else he'd be selected.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched for reliable sources and could not find any. Also, I do not need to "call in your friends," as you've suggested. Instead, I tried to call in reliable sources. I've not found any. My suggestion to run this by Balloonman was only because he is an admin and might have a better knowledge on whether this would okay to include. I still do not believe it is. As I explained above, after a very thorough effort at finding a direct connection, there is none.

An opinion by Yasha Levine in the New York Observer is not reliable. The New Yorker Magazine piece makes it clear there is no evidence of Koch or the family or the company or their foundations making donations to any tea parties.

Why you want to include this appears to be merely a desire to drape this mantel on this family. Websites, etc. are not reliable sources. If it's to be put here, it needs to be reliable. I've no care either way only that the edit be reliably sourced. It is not, as I made quite a bit of effort to find out.

As it is, I've learned a great deal about this people, more than I ever wanted to know, and the gist of all their giving (from reliable sources) is that they give their money to think tanks in order to influence government regulation of the industries they run. With the rest of their money they seem to be intent on curing prostrate cancer, as one of the brothers is suffering from it. All of this is reliably sourced and well known, notable even, but not a wit is out there to support the claim that this family et al is supporting the tea party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Malke 2010's efforts, there's no reasons why we can't simply report what is presented in the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, this is why I suggested we run it by Balloonman. See above reply to Susan L.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that he/she is agreeing with your ostensible statement (report what is in RS's) but not with your implied one (that this is reported in RS's)North8000 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the sourced content. You are free to propose an alternative wording. I am not going to put any more effort on this now. However I do believe that this issue (astoturfing and financing) should go into the lede. I may also need to include the 2009 reporting on the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No it won't go into the lead. It's not notable in any way, and it's not likely to stay in the article without reliable sources. If you want it here, please do the work and find the sources to back it up rather than putting it back into the article and leaving it for others to look after. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't think I can make this any clearer but again, these are the so-called sources:

• first one: http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/how-libertarian-koch-bros-benefit-corporate-welfare This is one nothing more than a note by Yasha Levine in the "Daily Transom" (aka gossip section) of the New York Observer (not known for it's hard news reporting) which is not reliable especially as it does not mention at all anything about the Koch brothers/family/foundation backing any tea party movement.

• What it does say, at the bottom of the article under the bit about the author is that Levine wrote about the Koch brothers and their supposed connection to the tea party movement for Playboy. However, the author blurb fails to also provide the important detail that because the piece contained libelous claims, Playboy retracted it entirely and removed all evidence of it from it's website.

• Next comes the op-ed piece from Frank Rich in the New York Times. We don't use op-eds because they tend to just report gossip because they can. They're opinions. Note the lack of a story anyway in the New York Times about the Koch bros/family/foundation giving money to the tea party movement. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1&hp

• This one just provides a quick erraneous mention of the contents of the New Yorker piece: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/koch-brothers-accused-of-funding-supposedly-grass-roots-tea-party-movement-102010803.htm

• The last one also comments on the New Yorker piece. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IE96M80.htm

My suggestion to run this by Balloonman, as I think he's neutral, knows the rules presumably better than the average editor otherwise, why give him the tools, could offer some advice. And SusanL. please note, yes, Balloonman has only made a few edits, but then so have you. So what? If you want to mention the Koch brothers/family/foundation, here's about all you can say:

• They deny giving money to the tea party, and I'd use their quote directly from the New Yorker.
• They give money to the Amerians for Prosperity Foundation, not the AFP, which also apparently doesn't give money, it sends out lists of policies it wants changed, and then they hope the hell the tea party will take them up on it.
• They do give their money to Massachusetts Institute of Technology for cancer research and
• They do give money to think tanks in order to influence white papers on what should and/or should not become public policy regarding government regulation of the industries they control. Another word for that is paying lobbyists to get them what they want.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubly so because this is BLP. Making unsupported or weakly supported statements about what a living person purportedly did is the subject of one of the most stringently enforced WP policies. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. It seems a BLP to me as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We've plenty of sources to draw from. We just need to be careful with the presentation.

I agree that we there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to mention in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malke, Balloonman's cool. I'll check back in a couple days to see what he thinks. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Per request Balloonman's thoughts

Ok, I have taken the request to review this discussion seriously. When I was first approached on my talk page, I wasn't sure about getting involved (I tend to avoid political dhramas here at WP), but when I saw Susan's comment, that I was "cool" and thus had the respect of both "sides" of the controversy, I decided to take this a little more seriously. I decided to look at this as if I were closing a controversial RfC/AFD. To address Susan's concerns, the limit of involvement here dealt with a single BLP concern that I removed because it wasn't adequately sourced. As soon as a valid source was provided, I no longer cared about the statement---the manner I handled the situation appears to have caught Malke's attention. Prior to this past week, I don't think we've ever dealt with each other (I know you Susan and would consider you a wikifriend before I would Malke.) This page entered my watchlist after I found myself in a discussion on Tea bag, wherein I argued that despite the pejuorative/sexual nature of the term, that Tea Bagger was a term used by both supporters and detractors of the Tea Party movement, thus was appropriate for inclusion on that dab page. For the record, there are others who know and understand the BLP policy better than myself. That being said, I've spent over four hours reviewing the articles and links provided here and elsewhere. I've tried to be fair and impartial in my analysis.

From what I see, the allegations that the Koch's funded the Tea Pary boil down to two articles. The first being an article on playboy.com which has since been removed as potentially libel---the author of that article then attempts to paint the removal as being strong armed by Koch. Playboy, unlike other adult magazines, has garnered a reputation as a reliable source and it likes to be somewhat controversial as that drives sales (well despite the obvious sales driver). Based upon their reputation, I personally find it unlikely that they would kowtow to a legal threat unless the legal threat has legs. The second article is the New Yorker article. The New Yorker tends to be a liberal source but is deemed to be a reliable source. While a source may be reliable, our policy reads, Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. So lets take a look at the New Yorker article dealing with the Tea Party Movement.

• It starts out by saying that there was a fund raiser "Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence." It makes the statement in the manner of trying to say, "but this isn't true." The article uses this summit, which there was no evidence that the Koch's were involved with, to tie the next five paragraphs together through the summit's organizer.
• It then cites a Koch spokesperson/Koch denying involvement with the tea parties in 2009. The presentation again is designed to make people question the validity of the statements. I mean, the implication is, if there is no truth, then why was the statement made? Perhaps because of the playboy.com article which had recently been published?
• It then quotes a White House spokesman making allegations that unnamed billionaires are behind the tea party. But the White House doesn't mention them---but the implication in the article is clear it's the Kochs (if this were Wikipedia we would call that synthesis.)
• It then quote a "longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups." Political operative is a clearly charged term, but beyond that, what does it matter? The fact that a person who has at some point in time (since 1994) worked for an organization that Koch founded said something ties Koch to that person? No, the "political operative" may associate herself with Koch, but that does not mean that it is a two way street or that she is authoritative for Koch. That is hardly compelling evidence.
• The article then spends the next three paragraphs tying the "political operative" to various people, who are thus linked to Koch? Again, if this were Wikipedia, we would have have challenged the inclusion of those paragraphs as WP:UNDUE. The author is trying to draw lines and create an impression based upon a person who used to work for an organization that at one time had connections to Koch? I mean, the person who organized the summit that Koch was not affiliated with, gave an award to somebody who called Obama the "cokehead in chief"? Please. Drawing a line between Koch to that blogger is tenuous at best.
• The article then talks about Americans for Prosperity and how that group has supported Tea Party movements... it does not show that the tea party has accepted their advice or guidance. Rush Limbaugh regularly offers up advice to the Democrats, that does not mean that the Democrats recognize Rush. The KKK, Black Panthers, Christian Coalition, Rainbow Coalition, ACORN routinely offer advice to various parties and might have voter registrations. That does not prove a connection or tie-in. Again, the connection here is flimsy at best. Lets use another comparison. Through my former employer, I could give money to the United Way. The United Way has a history of working with Planned Parenthood that goes back 40 years. According to logic used here, if I gave money to United Way, I was then supporting Planned Parenthood, and thus contributing to abortions! Faulty logic.
• The article then states, "The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs." Again, Wikipedia would have called that WP:NPOV and unsupported. And even if the Koch's rejoice, so does Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and millions of others---that doesn't mean they funded the tea party movement.
• The most daming material comes from, "Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis." Bartlett has some highly critical words for Koch. But Bartlett was fired from the NCPA, which means that he might not be an objective source on the subject.
• It then cites an unnamed "Republican campaign consultant" who says that the Koch's started the Tea Party. As pointed out elsewhere, the Tea Party isn't a single group.
• The article then says the Koch's declined to respond "a prominent New York public-relations executive who is close with the Kochs put forward two friends..."
• Finally, the section tying the Koch's to the Tea Party, cite a Democratic political strategist who decries the Koch's as being the "epicenter" of the anti-Obama movement. Ok. Let's suppose they are. Does that draw a line to funding the Tea Party?

When dealing with Reliable Sources, we have to look at specific examples. While the New Yorker is generally considered to be a reliable source, this particular article and this particular section are ripe with hyperbole, synthesis, and misdirection. Hell, the whole article is written with a strong bias (the next section begins by tying the Koch's to Stalin.) If this were written on Wikipedia, we would have never allowed it to be published!

That being said, I don't think we can exclude inclusion of the allegation in the article. While *I* don't find the New Yorker article to be compelling, it has been cited and picked up elsewhere. So what do we say? Our current wording leaves a lot to be desired:

In August 2010, mainstream American news organizations[137] started making allegations about the funding sources for the Tea Party Movement. Claims were made that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity.[138][139][140][141]

So let's look at that statement:

• "Mainstream American news organizations?" The source that supports that statement is Yasha Levine in the New York Observer. The Observer is not a mainstream media outlet, but that isn't what raises the red flag on this source. Yasha Levine appears to be the author whose original Playboy.com article got the ax. But the source does NOT support the comment! It cites the New Yorker article described above and an op-ed piece in the New York magazine. I would not call either of those "mainstream" and even if I did, those don't support the statement. So how about our other sources? All of the other sources cite the New Yorker magazine. The New York Times magazine in a partisan Op-Ed piece, but cites the New Yorker. But needless to say, the source has to go as it does not support the claim.
• "mainstream American news organizations started making allegations"---no, organizations plural did not start making allegations. A single magazine, the New Yorker, made allegations that others have repeated. There is a huge difference there.

The second sentence, is OK, but in my opinion, based upon the dubious reliability of the New Yorker article, we need to attribute it. In August 2010, the New Yorker magazine made allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity.[138][139][140][141]---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[Note post North's response below: there was a question about BLP. IMO, BLP would not be an impedement. BLP does not protect one from negative reporting, but rather requires reliable sources. While *I* question the source for reasons mentioned above, failure to include the allegation, especially as it has been cited elsewhere, would be Original Research.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)]

What a huge amount of excellent work and analysis! North8000 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Observer quote is irrelevant, I only added it after some IP changed "mainstream" to "some" – to source my OR conjuncture that The New Yorker and The New York Times are mainstream. As to repeating the allegations, what is notable is that practically every American news organization has repeated them in one form or another. This is in fact the essence of being mainstream. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The NYT I would consider mainstream, but the Op-ed piece used is highly partisan screed. I would consider mainstream to be news articles in NYT, Washington Post, the main TV networks, Time Magazine, etc---those haven't been shown. Even if it was, I would find the sentence to be OR and questionable if all they are doing is citing the New Yorker. Reporting on an allegation made by another source is not the same thing as making the allegation oneself. Right now, with the exception of the NYT's op-ed, all I've seen are other sources repeating the allegation---not adding to it/confirming it/expanding upon/delving into more details ets. Again, lets draw an extreme parrallel. Rush Limbaugh makes an allegation against Obama/Reid/Pelosi. The various mainstream news outlets repeat what Rush said, are we going to then conclude that those mainstream outlets are making the same charge? No, those sources are repeating the allegation, but not making it. Plus, the main purpose behind making the statement is to make the New Yorker allegation appear to be more mainstream/accepted by the major outlets than it really is.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. This is an excellent analysis. And I might add that the Kochs' are not household names. Notice that all of this is being reported in New York publications, which yes are distributed nationally, but not picked up by reliable sources elsewhere like Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore-Sun, St. Louis-Post Dispatch, Dallas-Morning News, which have no mentions of this. On the other hand, if the Kochs' were well known on the level of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, it would have been looked at, sources examined, etc. So just on notability alone I'd say it shouldn't be here. We would need to add so much content for the reader to understand what this is all about, and with no specific tea parties identified, it would all become top heavy. Thanks, Balloonman.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I support Balloonman's solution, to read: "In August 2010, the New Yorker magazine made allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the movement through Americans for Prosperity." Sounds AOK to me. Thanks for your help and all your efforts on this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll put in the cite in a bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. I added wikilinks and expanded the cite. So, good work and thanks again, Malke. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Welcome.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'all should write a book on how to settle differences of opinion in Wikipedia. I think that this is the first time I've seen it actually occur. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Give it a week and there will be something/somebody new...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No Evidence Corroborating Protest Slurs

It's appropriate to mention that no evidence has come light in the midst of these allegations. Furthermore, it's impossible to cite a source proving that evidence of something DOES NOT exist. It's likewise impossible to find a source for the lack of evidence that John F. Kennedy was killed in a train crash, or the lack of evidence that OJ Simpson is a Martian. If you become aware of any evidence let me know and I will post it and link it. Or please ask for mediation. Otherwise, leave it alone.Digiphi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello, Digiphi. Per WP:BRD, I reverted the addition of the comment "No evidence of either the alleged slurs or the spitting has emerged" because it's unsourced commentary which suggests a conclusion. You have pointed out that it is impossible to source the non-existence of corroborating evidence, which is true, but suppose an editor added this statement instead: "No evidence that the alleged slurs or the spitting did not take place has emerged." They would also be correct in asserting it's impossible to source the non-existence of corroborating evidence, but it still wouldn't be an appropriate comment to make. There are witnesses from both sides of this issue at the time and place of the alleged incident who make contradictory and opposing claims (some say it happened, some say it didn't happen), so adding the declarative comment you've inserted four times now just isn't appropriate in my opinion. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. You're taking a dim view in the example you've created. When you're accused of something, the party prosecuting you will only be successful by providing convincing evidence that your alleged actions took place. If the prosecution cannot do this, you are not subject to a presumption of guilt by failing to provide your own evidence that your alleged actions did not take place. The people making charges of racial slurs and spitting at the protest are declaring that actions took place. To date there is NO evidence in support of this accusation. It's necessary for the purpose of impartiality that this indisputable fact be available to readers in the context of the litany of accusations. Your position that it's impossible to find evidence that the slurs and spitting did not occur is predicated on the idea that Tea Party people should be presumed guilty of the alleged reprehensible acts until proven otherwise. That's a bias. I'll await input before jumping to revert.Digiphi (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law trying a criminal case, with the prosecution's affirmative burden and the defense's entitlement to the presumption of innocence - it's a Wikipedia article, where edits are based not on WP:TRUTH but WP:VERIFIABILITY. The assertion that "It's necessary for the purposes of impartiality that this indisputable fact be available to readers in context of the litany of accusations" is flawed and pushes a particular WP:POV and bias; an opposing editor could make the same argument for the reversed comment about the slurs pointed out above and would run afoul of the same problem. Neither comment should be in the article. Additionally, the assertion that "there is NO evidence in support of this" ignores the fact that witnesses are a form of evidence, and the article as written presents sourced statements from witnesses on both sides claiming that the slurs both did and did not happen. From there, it is up to the reader to decide. Per WP:BRD, I would suggest you discuss the issue here on the Talk Page and seek consensus before jumping to revert and re-insert your comment. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the point of argument that Wikipedia is a trial court. The example still illustrates what is wrong with excluding the fact from the article. Much of the reaction, described in the following section, concerns the search for documentary evidence beyond just witness statements. It is necessary to state definitively that to date none is known to exist. It is important to readers to have the facts. It was to me when I read the unimproved article. I had to perform searches to satisfy myself that no evidence exists. It ought to be stated plainly, as it is an undisputed fact, so that readers can form judgments on the presentation of all known facts pertaining to the subject. The reason you and I are troubling ourselves to participate in this discussion is an interest in perfection in impartiality in articles. It would be appropriate to replace and bold the statement to improve attention to this discussion. Let us know the counsel of other editors.Digiphi (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Digiphi. Welcome to Wikipedia (not a courtroom; not a democracy; not a forum in which to push personal beliefs as "indisputable fact"). You are a bit late, considering all of this was heavily discussed six months ago. You are encouraged to review archives 4, 5 and 6. Yes, slurs were used. Some were caught on tape when the press was near, like the assaults on Barney Frank. Others were witnessed by several people when only tea partiers, and not the press, was near -- good luck getting incriminating tape from them, especially when they won't see a single penny for it. Yes, spitting occurred, also caught on tape - although some have tried to explain it away as accidental spittle from a screaming protestor. I guess only the protestor knows for certain if it was accidental. The congressman knows for certain that an apology was not forthcoming either way. Your claim of "no evidence emerged" is patently false. As the "spitting" video shows, evidence exists, even if disputed. Video evidence of slurs exists in several forms, but is also disputed.

If an "indisputable" edit of yours is removed, then you may consider it disputed. If you plan to return it to the article, you must also cite it to reliable sources. "I had to perform searches to satisfy myself that no evidence exists. It ought to be stated plainly..."; no - it ought not. That would be a violation we call original research. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those vids support either party's position. That no evidence has emerged is not a personal belief. Whether or not you subscribe to this definition, it is a fact. Mentioning the lack of evidence qualifies the dispute over whether these things happened. None exists. I should like to extend to you the same encouragement to present real documentary evidence. Do so, and I will champion its proper place in the article against any opponents. Until then, the article remains biased without mentioning the lack of evidence.Digiphi (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed your belief that the above linked evidence doesn't support either party's position. You are not, however, allowed to claim that evidence doesn't exist in a Wikipedia article. Please be sure your edits conform to Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not merely my belief as you imply. The vids you are leaning on are not conclusive by any standard. Specifically, neither satisfies the challenges described in the following subsection. More specifically, Breitbart's solicitation (described in the subsection) has not been satisfied. In light of these points, I can be persuaded to compromise on the lack of documentary evidence being mentioned in the subsection, nearer to the context of the challenge for evidence.Digiphi (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have nothing of value to compromise with. Your sentence is your opinion. You just made it up, and it's by your own admission uncited. It's synthesis, and we don't do that. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, you could only add it if you had a source that commented on it, such as say, the NYTimes does a follow up article and in it they say, "To date no video evidence has been offered to Breitbart," etc. Then you could put that in because it's being reported in a reliable source. But you can't just add it there without a source because then it is read as original research and that's not helpful/informative to the reader. It's also against policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Add "Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts" ...

Add Kate Zernike NYT October 1st 2010 "Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts" with W. Cleon Skousen "The 5000 Year Leap" 1981 book John Birch Society defense against Separation of church and state in the United States, Friedrich Hayek's 1944 The Road to Serfdom which Koch family funders have followed, Frédéric Bastiat's The Law (1850 book), Justin Amash, Paul Ryan (politician), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, ... 99.24.248.41 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

also from NYT "Movement Finds Guidance in Once-Obscure Texts" ... Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution opposition ...

also from NYT "Movement Finds Guidance in Once-Obscure Texts". Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution opposition too(?) but what of Citizens_United#Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission since Koch family Billionaires Superclass of Koch Industries funding through Foundations ... Conflict of interest? 99.39.187.23 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Resource Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America (2010) by Kate Zernike ISBN 978-0805093483

Add Resource Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America (2010) by Kate Zernike ISBN 978-0805093483 99.102.178.29 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)