Talk:Tea Party movement

An Editor Keeps reinserting "conservative" as an overall characterization of the TP in the lead.

More eyes are requested on this one.

Hey everyone, just wondering, do you think we should delete the comment which said "They are the most f****** retarded of any political parties"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.67.46 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When I removed it I said that comments by two editorialists do not justify inserting a controversial and contested overall characterization into the lead sentence. Please see the dialog in the edit summaries.

I indicated that per this talk page it is controversial and contested in this article. i.e. that there is no consensus. The editor's edit summary in essence said that one needed a WP:RS in order to remove the characterization and in essence that one needed a WP:RS to establish that there is no consensus. Huh? RS's do not write about WP talk pages, and there is not a WP practice to require a RS to establish that there is no consensus on an item in an article. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see your problem here. You're right, you don't need a source to say Wikipedia says that. Reliable sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, etc., call the movement grassroots, but they also call it conservative. Op-ed writers call it all those other things. The word "populist" suddenly started appearing in the lede/lead a while back, right after a lengthy consensus was reached to call it "grassroots." So much for consensus. When you see someone insert "ultra-conservative" that's definitely POV pushing, because the movement is not that except in the mind of George Soros, the billionaire who bankrolls the left wing Media Matters, ThinkProgress, etc. They call it ultra-conservative. Also, you'll see "libertarian," because of the association with Ron Paul.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservative may not be an ideal descriptive, but it's much easier to source than anything else and probably more accurate than leaving it out. Is there any evidence that the movement does not tend toward conservatism? In my estimation, there is some consensus on this page to include the term. Here's a sentence from the lead section: "The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government, lowering taxes, reducing wasteful spending, reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to the United States Constitution." Those all seem like pages from the conservative play book. Ronnotel (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But the article's emphasis right now seems to be on racism, Koch brothers, Fox News, polls on "supporters," and now Sarah Palin and global warming. Notice that a lot of citations are really op-eds and not from reporters, or they're bias "reporting," like the New Yorker which isn't really known for hard news reporting.  :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment above was more addressing the wrong process going on the the edits/edit summaries than the content itself. Now, addressing the latter, certainly there are many adjectives that are used for the TP with some creditability and some degree of acceptance by objective parties. I think that populist, conservative and libertarian are amongst them, with the latter two partially conflicting. However to choose only one for the lead sentence is essential saying that that one is th eprimary one, which is certainly not established, and doubly so not consensused. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it is a problem. But consensus gets reached and then a week later someone comes along and changes it, and the cycle starts over again. It can be frustrating. This is a very high traffic article, so if an editor wants an edit to remain relatively stable, he/she needs to find a low traffic article.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is a problem. First the Democrats said that Tea Partiers were stupid and uneducated, that didn't work. Then they went with Astroturf, that didn't work. Then they said that it didn't represent anything more than a fringe, that didn't work, then they said that they were racist, that didn't work, and now they are going with the Far-right, Koch astroturfed, people to stupid to know that they are being manipulated line (Monboit really had it going yesterday). All I hear is liberals trying to define this movement in some way that maligns them. People actually in the movement are largely ignored as being too stupid to understand what they are really about, and this article a huge mash of OR and opinion being displayed as fact. In a week it will be apparent who is here simply for political reasons. Arzel (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it'll take a week. The article is, and really has been I guess, what liberals want you to think the Tea Party movement is, and therein lies the problem. That explains the addition of polls of "supporters," and the "commentaries," and "Media bias," and "astroturfing," etc. But notice there's really no content on what the Tea Party movement actually is. There's nothing in the article, other than the Contract from America to explain what the movement is about, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why there's so much soapboxing in this thread, but ... on the topic at hand, I don't see how the "conservative" label is contentious in the least. I'm pretty sure even 30 seconds of Googling would turn up about 5000 usable citations for the characterization. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, conservative is a very well-sourced attribute to describe the TPM. Populist too. I see consensus on this talk page for both adjectives. Ronnotel (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And "Libertarian" is also used much in sources. My objection was narrowing it to one in the lead. We should craft some wording here. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "conservative" because of its ambiguity. It would seem that they have more in common with parties called "right-wing" such as the Progress Party (Norway) and UKIP, than they do with historical conservative parties like the ones in Scandinavia or the U.K. TFD (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I wikilinked it to US conservatism. BigK HeX (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces lacks a RS for his opinions. 1) this article is about U.S. politics and has no connection with any other country. 2) "conservative" is a standard terms in American politics (very common indeed); 3) all the RS use "conservative" to characterize the TP. The ABC News website for example headlines like this: "Tea Party Test: Conservative Movement's Strength Unclear in Midterm Elections"; CBS News has "National Tea Party Convention Kicks Off: Grass-Roots Conservative Movement Comes of Age"; New York Times says: Glenn Beck is "one of the most powerful media voices for the nation's conservative populist anger..... Beck has become closely identified with the Tea Party movement."; Jill Lepore's book tries to explain the "conservative Tea Party"; Rasmussen and Schoen use the word "conservative" over 90 times in their new book on the TP, such as "the economic and social conservative ideologies driving the Tea Party movement"; they use their polls to show that three quarters of the TP activists are conservative, compared to 40% of the public. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

75% shows that a single adjective "conservative" description is wrong, not that it is right. Would you describe a group that is s 25% female as a group of males? North8000 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That analogy is hardly relevant. The matter of characterizations for a political organization is pretty far from a binary question. A crowd with 75% of teenagers probably would be described as a young crowd even if there were a smattering of octagenarians in there. BigK HeX (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And I just googled "Tea Party Libertarian" and got 756,000 hits, including many RS's that characterize it as such, and also cover philosophical conflicts between Libertarian TP'er's and conservatives. We should work out some wording that includes the commonly used terms/adjectives. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that Google hitcounts mean much of anything, but I noticed about 10 times as many hits for Tea Party conservative. BigK HeX (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a change to the lead which would make it much easier to incorporate such a wording. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saw that. I think it's a grassroots conservative political movement. That's what a lot of reliable sources call it. When I see "social movement" there I think of middle-aged Baby Boomers Facebooking. XD No offense to middle-aged Boomers everywhere. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a high quality article explaining how they are generally described, not a number of sources that describe them in various ways. It is not unreasonable to believe that they contain people of different views who have come together because of what they oppose. TFD (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How bout something like political movement generally considered to be conservative or libertarian? I don't mind if I get outvoted on this, but we should settle it here and then support keeping it that way for a while. We don't want 10 new versions per day where the current version (for the next few hours) is just whatever the most recent editor wanted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What about "right-wing"? TFD (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend "conservative and right-wing populist" Note that in common speech in the US the libertarians (like Rand Paul) are part of the conservative movement. Rjensen (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul, is not a conservative. His views are much more closely alligned with libertarian ideology than they are conservative. Additionally, right-wing, is really just a code word for Christian right, which the movement is clearly not. Arzel (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• One of the few real conservatives running, Rand Paul in Kentucky,...
  • A pledge from the reckless brigade [Eire Region] ANDREW SULLIVAN. Sunday Times. London (UK): Oct 3, 2010. pg. 17
• Citing Bennett's loss in Utah and conservative Senate candidate Rand Paul's victory over a more moderate, establishment-backed candidate in Kentucky, ...
  • Primary results in Florida, Alaska send warning to GOP hierarchy CHUCK RAASCH. Gannett News Service. McLean: Aug 25, 2010.
• And in Kentucky, libertarian conservative Rand Paul embarrassed the GOP establishment by knocking off their favored candidate in the primary ...
  • In Colorado, which shoe will fit the GOP?; Jousting over footwear in Senate primary reflects party tensions Dan Balz. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Jul 24, 2010. pg. A.2
• These events follow ... libertarian-conservative Rand Paul's victory over a Republican establishment favorite in Kentucky's Senate primary...
  • Tea party shaping Republican Party, fall faceoffs CHARLES BABINGTON. Spartanburg Herald - Journal. Spartanburg, S.C.: Jun 11, 2010.

It's possible to be libertarian and conservative.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but it is clear that it contains people from many groups. To use a specific label is simply to disregard all of the others. Furthermore, will it has elements of many, it cannot be said to be any at all. Libertarian and Right-wing are two sets that do not intersect. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that "right-wing" adds much beyond "conservative". The distinction is difficult to define and would not be clear to most readers. "Libertarian" is inaccurate - there are many parts of the TPM that would recoil from true Libertarianism. Conservative is undeniably true as is populist. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why label? It is clear that the movement consists of many different basic core beliefs with one common theme, the reduce government intrusion. It is fine to say that some have called the Movement X, Y, and Z. But we should not be using the opinion of some commentators as the definition of what they are. It is quite ironic in that a lot of the terms used are diametrically opposite. "Populist" is certainly not "Right-Wing". By the definition of Populist it is the view of the common or average person. Populist is a middle view. Additionally, regardless of what the liberal echo-chamber continues to spew out, the beginnings are clearly Libertarian. Dems do not, will not, admit this because it destroys their argument against the movement. I propose we simply call it a movement and then state the various opinions that have been made. Something like the following.

The Tea Party Movement is a social movement started in response to the financial bailouts of 2008 and the stimulus bill of 2009 (This is fully sourcable). The movement has been described as Libertarian, Populist, Grassroots, Conservative, and Right-wing by various media and political commentators.

Arzel (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Hello Arzel, well said. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

consensus for words to use in lede/lead

1. grassroots
2. conservative
3. populist
4. libertarian
5. right wing

Depending on the number of supports per word we'll craft a sentence.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What about saying that they are part of modern American conservatism? TFD (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, they're the right-wing populist part. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Choose a number combination: like 1 & 2 & 3, etc. And then we'll tally up and see how it shakes out.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm not sure why you are under the impression that this is a vote. We have reliable sources for all five of these terms. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors can reach consensus to include or exclude material in a wikipedia article. It's not incumbent to include something just because it has a reliable source. The list I put up is simply there for editors to indicate which ones they prefer. It may well be that the editors here decide that all of the adjectives are included, or some combination. Listing all the choices makes it easier to choose. And as you can see below, Willbeback has made very good use of it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did searches in the Proquest newspaper archive for articles since 2008 with these terms within 5 words of "tea party", filtering out anonymous entries (usually letters to the editor)

• TEXT(tea party) W/5 TEXT(grassroots) AND PDN(>1/1/2008) AND NOT AU(anonymous)

1. grassroots 296
2. conservative 3072
3. populist 268
4. libertarian 284
5. right wing 272

"Conservative" appears ten times as frequently as the other terms, which are almost tied for second. This is a crude tool (though much better than Ghits). I think that these results have less weight than what the reliable books and scholarly sources say, but they do have some weight. If we did follow these results, we might use "conservative" in the lede and the other descriptions in a later sentence or worked into existing material elsewhere in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Libertarian" is most descriptive and accurate, to the extent that any one such term can be accurate. Grassroots is also descriptive and accurate. Populist is vague to the point of being non-description, but also applicable. "Right Wing" is the more negative sounding term for conservative, used by detractors and has POV problems. If we REALLY want to be accurate and informative, I guess we'd say: a grassroots movement with significant conservative and libertarian elements. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to say that "conservative" is descriptive, with applicability up near libertarian. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It definitely has to say 'conservative' in the lede as it is widespread, and very common for the reliable sources to call it that. The other influences, like libertarian are there, but I would guess that if you actually surveyed tea party members they'd call themselves conservatives. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Would "neo-liberal" have any application here? It's a term we use for radical conservatism here in the UK, which goes beyond conventional mainstream conservatism (Thatcher would be the prime example of this). Not to be confused with neocon or liberal, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.253.132 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Briefly:

grassroots - This is questionable, due to such things as the Koch factor. We can't lead with it.

conservative - Unquestionably accurate, and includes both libertarian and right wing as special cases.

populist - The distinguishing factor from the GOP is populism.

libertarian - Qualifies the general sort of conservatism, and should be mentioned, but not essential for the lead.

right wing - Applies to some, but not all, and is a bit strong. However, the term makes more sense to non-Americans.

This is why I support "conservative populist" or perhaps "conservative/libertarian populist". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty has it just right Rjensen (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Grassroots is definitely reliably sourced and belongs in the lede. Grassroots conservative/libertarian/populist is fine with me, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me too. Especially conservative/libertarian populist. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, North8000. Yes, agree the libertarians should be there, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the change based on the consensus above. Hopefully, it won't be modified at random. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, being consensused,lets resolve to defend it, and move on to working on other parts of the article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, I think the next trouble spot has to be Koch. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a new talk section. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Saw this on Koch Industries, of interest here?

According to October 2010 article in The Guardian, Koch brothers' money are behind the formation of the Tea Party movement. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted too:

The Koch brothers gave more than a $100 million to various right-wing causes. They founded the Mercatus Center, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy which spun off Citizens for the Environment, the Economic Education Trust, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Americans for Prosperity and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Americans for Prosperity organized 80 rallies against cap-and-trade and it spun off Patients United Now which organized 300 rallies against healthcare reform. Grover Norquist told Jane Mayer, who was writing for The New Yorker, that 2010 rallies were successful in undermining Obama's agenda. David Koch praised the Tea Party when he said, "powerful visceral hostility in the body politic against the massive increase in government power, the massive efforts to socialize this country." In a newsletter sent to his 70,000 employees, Charles Koch compared the Obama administration to the regime of the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez.

209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, and The Guardian article only speculates that the Kochs were instrumental in funding the movement, not in forming the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And no reliable sources to show money flowing to groups, only to these AFP free seminars.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(Astro) Turf Wars

Here is the reference to the Guardian opinion by George Monbiot: The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires. This is opinion, but it is notable opinion.

What is however far more interesting is the source, a new move titled (Astro) Turf Wars. The trailer and some sections are available at YouTube here. Most explosive is this footage of David Koch organizing his Tea Party troops: David Koch - Evidence Of Direct Tea Party Link. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article already touches on the Koch connection. Are there any specific changes you'd suggest? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you not go down this slippery slope. If you want to try and prove some nefarious relationship between the Koch's, AFP, and the Tea Party movement I suggest you do it somewhere else. Monboit is a known enviromental activist, it is no surprise that he would have a strong dislike for oil men like the Koch's. His opinion is little more than that. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Claims of astroturfing" was previously a subtitle. It has now disappeared. It should restored. In fact, the word astroturfing should be mentioned in the lead section. Also, some of the references listed above should be used either as sources or as external links. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No the political propoganda pieces above should not be used. They are clearly not neutral in any sense of the word. Arzel (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But is there a consensus that the brief mention of astroturfing that does remain in the article sufficiently explores the issue?

This corrupting influence doesn't have to ruin popular opinion of what the Tea Party's membership is all about, but all of this information needs to be put up for public scrutiny so the distinction between the membership and the self-serving astroturf influencers can be understood. Of course, I'm sure it's highly unlikely this could be accomplished without Wikipedia's neutrality being questioned. It's probably best left for history to decide.Ajc612 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no credible claim that the movement was not originally grass-roots. Whether it has been co-opted by organizations sponsored by organizations sponsored by the Kochs is open for discussion, but Monboit is not an adequate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit was unhelpful: "Fundraising and support: Should be {unreliable sources-section}, but we don't have that tag". There are tags to mark individual citations for discussion, but marking a section with eight different sources doesn't show us where the problems are. Is it claimed that all of the sources in this section unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They're all OpEd or opinion columns. At least three are reported in our text to be OpEd or opinion columns, which may be "reliable" for notability, but not for content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

After my refactoring, the second paragraph is sourced only to liberal or environmentalist opinion pieces. It properly attributes them as opinion, but they may still not be appropriate. The third paragraph is sourced primarily to sources I believe unreliable, and are now tagged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an unreliable source? So is Rasmussen, Scott; Schoen, Doug (2010). Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System. Harper. ISBN 978-0061995231. Can you explain what makes them unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I don't have copies of the material, I don't know which of those may be reliable, or which may be commentary (or, in the case of material added by the 99. anon, outright misquotes.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia's rule change to you, User:Arthur Rubin, needing to be omniscient for a source to be included? I'm not holding my breath ... See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources instead. 99.155.148.201 (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you (or at least the 99. anons) frequently lie about the content of sources, as the one a few minutes before this one did. Anything you add which is not on the web needs to be checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, the California Proposition 23 (2010) edit was corrected, i.e. a mistake ... "lie" implies intent. What is your motivation? 99.37.87.143 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. You say here that you don't have copies of the sources, but you know they're all unreliable opinion pieces? And that the majority of the section you've renamed "Opinions on fundraising and support" is made up of opinions rather than facts? It's really not good to be editing if you don't know what the sources you're describing actually say. Unless there's a clear reasons for saying that the entire section is made up of opinions I'm going to rename it back to "Fundraising and support".   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to rename it back to "Fundraising and support", the 2nd paragraph has got to go. It's entirely speculation or political accusations—notable speculation, but still speculation. And I don't know if the latter two sources are reliable. If they were added by the 99. anon, odds would be against both their being reliable and their supporting the statements. If some non-sock-puppet would confirm both that they are reliable (and not editorializing) and support the sentences as written, I have no objection to the statements remaining. (You should note that I had previously a template which says this source is not reliable rather than I'm not sure if this source is reliable, and I am intentionally not using that template.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So you seem to be implying that any section which contains quotes from Op-ed columns or quotes giving the opinions of politicians or activists should have "opinion" in the heading. Shall we add "Opinions on..." to every heading, for consistency? Here are the three assertions in paragraph two:[1]

• In a New York Times op-ed column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey."
• Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."
• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer echoed Greenpeace's statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, so his views should carry a bit more weight than the average op-ed column. Though printed on the Op-Ed page, his assertion that FreedomWorks has played a key role goes beyond being merely an "opinion". It's been stated in a number of sources,[2][3][4][5] so we should probably add those and remove the attribution to Krugman. The Pelosi quote is a comment from a key target of the TPM. The article contains many quotes from politicians and activists. I wouldn't object to removing the quotation itself and summarizing it, something like "Pelosi also said the TPM was an astroturfed operation". I don't see how the Mayer article can be considered an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mad as Hell

• Rasmussen, Scott; Schoen, Doug (2010). Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System. HarperCollins. ISBN 9780061995231.

I haven't read this book (I've got it on order), but it gets favorable reviews as a serious analysis written by political polling experts. Here is one from the LA Times' Pulitzer-winning journalist Tim Rutten.[6] HarperCollins is a mainstream publisher. Is there any reason to think that it is not a reliable source for this article, or the assertions credited to it?   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Rasmussen has an MBA and runs a polling company, which is seen as "conservative". Douglas Schoen has a law degree and is an analyst at Fox News. I do not see how any of this makes them experts, especially on historical populism. TFD (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The reasons I bring this up is that an editor marked this assertion as having a dubious source:

• David Koch of Koch Industries, who sits on AFP's Board of Directors, has help fund a number of Tea Party causes. His group is identified as one of the key groups, with FreedomWorks, behind the April 15, 2009 national tea party events. Its Hot Air Tour organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.

As I wrote above, I haven't read the whole book, but it is available on Google Books, including the cited page.[7] Is there any reason to think that this book is not a reliable source for the assertion?   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source because it is not written by an expert in the subject and is published in the popular press, rather than academic literature. While you have tried to connect the Tea Party to the populist tradition, this book actually puts Obama in the picture. Tea Party, Obama, Know Nothings - all populists. TFD (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a popular press rather than academic literature. But most of this article is sourced to newspapers and TV news websites, so the threshold is fairly low. I don't understand the particular objection to this source for this assertion. It has nothing to do with populism or American history. It concerns the connections between various groups and people in contemporary American politics.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When we have new stories, for example the Chilean miners we rely on news stories for the facts. But we do not rely on these sources for analysis. TFD (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that, but what does it have to do with this assertion and the source? This isn't analysis, it's a direct assertion that David Koch supports the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Develop Consensus of coverage of Koch funding / support

Per discussion at the end of the section on the lead, we're moving on to this section / topic.

Title of Section

I think that sections labeled "Opinions on" are always POV magnets. It's an invitation to, of the thousands of published opinions out there, just select the ones that push one's POV, and put them in here. It should probably be realelled "fundraising and support" which would also tend to improve the content of the section.

We should clarify whether Koch bros. actually supported the TP

If Person A gave money to an organization B that gave money to Organization C, that alone does not qualify saying that person A gave money to organization "C". However, if the linkage was much closer (e.g. they earmarked the money for "C" or said it must go to them) then one could say they gave to C.

Hi, I have been active on the Koch Industries page and related pages. I think that this is a very important point. I would point to this recent Wall Street Journal piece that seems to have Koch's most recent statement that makes precisely this point:

Rich Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, released a statement reading, “We have not provided funding to the tea party organizations which are being organized throughout the country and, until recently, we had never been approached by a tea party group for funding. We have publicly supported Americans for Prosperity Foundation since 1984 and Americans for Prosperity since 2004. We have never considered these institutions to be tea party organizations. Whether or not they are considered to be tea party organizations will not affect our support of them. We believe the tea party movement is a response to the growing frustration of many Americans to government overspending. We share these concerns and encourage citizens to express their opinions in a respectful and civil manner.”

MBMadmirer (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. And there does not appear to be any reliable sources to claim that the Koch brothers earmarked their donations to AFP Foundation/AFP specifically for tea party support.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the AFP is their baby. They don't need to "earmark" anything to get it to work to organize Tea Party protests. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were RS-established that the Koch;s control the AFP, then I think that that would be relevant to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• They included Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, groups born from a conservative think tank formed in the 1980s by members of the Koch family, who run oil-and-gas conglomerate Koch Industries Inc.
  • Election 2010: Birth of a Movement --- Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis Douglas A. Blackmon, Jennifer Levitz, Alexandra Berzon, Lauren Etter. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Oct 29, 2010. pg. A.1
  • (this is a big new profile of the TPM - we can use it as a source throughout the article)
• Die durchschlagendste Initiative der Kochs wird sich von kritischen Berichten aber kaum aufhalten lassen. David war einer der Gründer und Geldgeber einer Stiftung namens Americans for Prosperity Foundation, bei deren Schwester-Organisation Americans for Prosperity (AFP) die Anführer der Tea Party tatkräftige Hilfe beim Aufbau ihrer Bewegung erhielten. Die Kochs haben verneint, die Tea Party direkt zu finanzieren. Doch bei einer Veranstaltung von AFP im vergangenen Jahr erklärte David: "Vor fünf Jahren gaben mein Bruder Charles und ich Startkapital für Americans for Prosperity, und es hat meine wildesten Träume übertroffen, wie AFP zu dieser enormen Organisation herangewachsen ist - Hunderttausende Amerikaner aus allen Schichten, die aufstehen und für die ökonomische Freiheit kämpfen, die unsere Gesellschaft zu einer der reichsten der Geschichte gemacht hat." Seine Rede wurde von einem Dokumentarfilmer eingefangen, der sich eingeschlichen hatte (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JjQxPJOAfg).
  • Big Brothers. Die Zeit. Berlin: Oct 28, 2010. pg. 27, 2 pgs

• The units of the movement, however, have a powerful, opaque network of financial backers, including organisations such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. These groups appear to be providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds. But because they are registered as non-profit foundations they do not have to reveal their funding. David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, a Kansas-based energy and manufacturing conglomerate, have long funded Americans for Prosperity and are already making plans for after the midterm elections. The New York Times this month revealed that the Kochs intend to "develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity".
  • Local faces, billionaire backing Financial Times. London (UK): Oct 28, 2010. pg. 3

• Oldham infiltrated some of the movement's key organising events, including the 2009 Defending the American Dream summit, convened by a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP). The film shows David Koch addressing the summit. "Five years ago," he explains, "my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. It's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organisation." A convener tells the crowd how AFP mobilised opposition to Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. "We hit the button and we started doing the Twittering and Facebook and the phonecalls and the emails, and you turned up!" Then a series of AFP organisers tell Mr Koch how they have set up dozens of Tea Party events in their home states. He nods and beams from the podium like a chief executive receiving rosy reports from his regional sales directors. Afterwards, the delegates crowd into AFP workshops, where they are told how to run further Tea Party events. Americans for Prosperity is one of several groups set up by the Kochs to promote their politics. We know their foundations have given it at least $5m, but few such records are in the public domain and the total could be much higher. It has toured the country organising rallies against healthcare reform and the Democrats' attempts to tackle climate change. It provided the key organising tools that set the Tea Party running. [..] On the same day, Americans for Prosperity set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events. Oldham's film shows how AFP crafted the movement's messages and drafted its talking points.
  • Comment: The Tea Party: a deluded grassroots movement inspired by billionaires: By funding numerous rightwing organisations, two mega-rich brothers have duped millions into supporting big business George Monbiot. The Guardian. London (UK): Oct 26, 2010. pg. 31

• Also investing heavily in the race is Americans for Prosperity, a group started in part by oil and coal billionaire David Koch.
  • Hidden donors pour funds into campaign; A group with roots in the tobacco lobby is the latest to pay for ads attacking a Democratic House incumbent in Florida. Kim Geiger, Tom Hamburger. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 24, 2010. pg. A.34

• The Kochs have spent almost $250 million on politics, founding shadowy foundations like Americans for Prosperity and supporting the tea party.
  • Stick a pin in voodoo economics F. D. Bloss. Roanoke Times & World News. Roanoke, Va.: Oct 24, 2010. pg. 3

• The Tea Party Express rolled into Pasadena on Wednesday night taking advantage of a slight break in the rain to rally support from conservative voters less than two weeks before election day. [..] Americans for Prosperity was founded by Charles and David Koch, oil billionaires who have denied connections to the tea party. At Wednesday's event, the Americans for Prosperity stamp was visible and in high definition. "That's our big screen and we sponsored the ATM machine," said Meredith Turney, California communications director for Americans for Prosperity. She pointed to the large digital television screen near the stage that flashed group's logo.
  • Tea Party Express rolls into Pasadena Brian Charles. Pasadena Star - News. Pasadena, Calif.: Oct 20, 2010.

And so on. This is just from the past week or so. I don't think there's any real doubt.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any debate about the Koch role in AFP. David H. Koch is the chairman of the board of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy foundation before that. There is something odd saying that a group that was founded in 1984 and rebuilt in 2004 is a tea party group. Clearly AFP supports tea parties. But the quote from Richard H. Fink from the Journal above illustrates the point nicely, as does the WSJ profile from Friday that you point to, that this is more a "working with" and a "providing support to" than a "controlling". MBMadmirer (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's no question about providing support, though not necessarily financial. Essentially, rather than the Koch's financing and running the TPM directly, they founded and finance groups such as AfP, which then train, organize, and generally encourage the TPM. We have video of AfP workers at an event, bragging to Koch about the size of the "parties" they organized.

Ironically, one of the products Koch Industries sells is fertilizer, which has led to trite analogies about how the TPM is a grass-roots movement fertilized by billionaires. Within that framework, however, the Koch's are not fertilizing the fields by sprinkling money directly onto them, but instead by buying fertilizer (AfP) and applying it.

To what extent this makes the TPM astro-turfed or even an unknowing tool of the Koch's is a key issue, but not one I'm qualified to speak on. It does, however, make it impossible for us to lead off by calling it grass-roots, because that would require immediately balancing it with many credible claims to the contrary, thus swamping it. The best we can do is, in a supporting sentence, state that it has been considered both grass-roots and astro-turfed. It's not our job to make the article reflect our own personal views of the Truth, only to accurately summarize our sources. This means we can't omit sources we personally dismiss. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are no credible claims that the TPM was not originally a grass-roots movement. There are some claims it is not now a grass-roots movement, but the issues are not at all comparable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with me: nobody doubts that it was originally grass-roots, but there're doubt about whether it is anymore. The lead sentence is about the present state of the movement, not its origins, so it cannot state that it's grass-roots, as that is a controversial claim. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really controversial though? I would point to the Gardner piece in the Washington Post as pretty clear evidence that it is grassroots or that large parts of it are grassroots. Perhaps a statement like "the tea parties are a grassroots movement that has gotten support from a number of existing conservative organizations." That seems to capture both points. MBMadmirer (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It really, really is. Since writing the above, I learned that I was mistaken: the very first protest appears to be turfed. See elsewhere on this page for more on that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that claim but I have never seen anything approximating conspiracy theories, and only then from advocates. So do you specifically object to language like "started as a grassroots movement which has received support from existing organizations." And if you object, what specifically, with references, do you object to? MBMadmirer (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but it's hardly a "conspiracy" theory to say that the Tea Party movement was organized and channeled from the very start by Republican groups, particularly those founded and funded by Koch. In fact, they brag about it. FreedomWorks, run by noted Republican insider, Dick Armey, came from Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy, the other half of which is Americans for Prosperity.

My objection is not to the mention that the TPM widely considers itself to be grassroots. In fact, I insist upon it, as it's relevant and verifiable. My concern is that we cannot endorse this disputed claim by stating it as fact. Instead, we need to attribute it and then balance it by showing the contrary point of view, in the form of citations from notable, reliable sources. Would you like to help us do this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which contradict the statement that the TPm was initially formed as a grassroots movement. Whether and when it may have been co-opted by FreedomWorks (or whether FreedomWorks just claims to have founded it) has not been established by reliable sources. FreedomWorks and AFP may be reliable sources as to whether they funded TPm (although it still appears to violate WP:SPS), but they are not reliable sources as to whether they were involved in founding the TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FreedomWorks claims to have organized the TPM from the very start. Even if you offer sources to the contrary, all you're doing is showing that there is an open dispute. In such a context, we cannot take sides.

Ultimately, you need to be very clear on what you're actually supporting. The strong version is that the TPM is 100% grassroots -- that it started that way and has stayed that way. The weak version is that, amid the GOP-run organizing and funding, there's some core of grassroots-ism in it. If you wish to claim the strong version, you would need to first build an alternate universe where it's true, as it's quite verifiably false in this one. Good luck with that. If you wish to claim the weak version, that's fine, so long as it's properly cited, but it doesn't allow for us to make any statement that might be mistaken for the strong version. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording Problems

The most glaring problem is this section uses badly biased detractor's wording to characterize the donations and the situation. Numerous factual mis-wording are inserted for their POV's to build on. For example, that

• the Koch's are the sole supporters of the TP,
• pretending that the TP is one organization; e.g. that anything done with / for / applicable one of the 1600 groups constitutes doing it for all 1600
• That giving money to a group equates to "manufacturing" the group.

North8000 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This is POV pushing again. The original edit Balloonman suggested was much more neutral and that's the one that was placed by consensus. So we could go back to that since it was neutral and by consensus. The articles do not show that the Koch brothers are funding the Tea Party movement. And the edit that claims the New Yorker "examined statements" is a weasel way of saying "financial statement" which of course is false. And also, the New Yorker article has one of the Koch brothers denying he's funded the tea party. So that quote should be included there for balance.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you paste that in here to look at or give us a link or diff to it? North8000 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article changes so often, it will take time to find it again. It's not there now, but it was. I'll look again later. Also, I just wanted to mention that Balloonman still had reservations about the New Yorker article because it is a dubious source. But we went with the edit because other editors were pushing for a Koch mention. But the emphasis is becoming WP:UNDUE and clearly POV pushing. The Koch brothers have not been there from the beginning, supplying all the money, pulling strings, etc. That's a patently false assumption and has absolutely no reliable sources. Also, the Koch brothers are not well known outside New York City. It's not like they're on a notability level like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The Koch brothers are just a couple of rich guys who got that way because they've spent their lives servicing their own self-interests. AFP does not supply money to any tea party groups. Rather, they sponsor free seminars on lobbying, hand out names of Congressmen and contact numbers, show people how to canvass, network, etc. It looks like they're just trying to piggyback their agenda onto the tea party members.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which (current) wording are we talking about? Could someone paste a copy here?   Will Beback  talk  18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, I'll go back and look for it later. It's not there now. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's not there then why are we discussing it?   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Give him/her a chance.....they might have a 2nd job besides Wikipedia.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the editor who started this sub-thread, so maybe you can help. Do you know which text we're discussing?   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But I just know how to do the headings! :-) I remember reading the discussion but I wasn't a participant at the time. I'll take a look. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The main part of the discussion was October 3rd - 5th and is in Archive #9. Now I'll go look for text. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing the Koch brothers edit. Here's the edit with the "examined statements" that suggests that Jane Mayer examined "financial statements," which she did not. [8].

I've searched all the variations and this edit is getting changed frequently. It seems, given it is dubious to begin with, it should be deleted. This isn't relevant to the Tea Party movement. There's no connection other than the AFP trying to get Tea Party members to advance it's agenda.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer echoed Greenpeace's statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Is this the text we're discussing here?   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Only Malke can answer on what he/she meant, but I'm guessing the the following is it:

In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer examined allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

North8000 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow. When searching for it I noticed that we had 500 edits in 13 days. Makes me wonder how to ever get a semi-stable version. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that's not in the article anymore. Is the current wording acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it's my text, we should add that the statement is still inaccurate, and give relevant sources. AFP does not fund the TPM; it seems to fund individual TPms when they support AFP's goals. (At least, according to AFP.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the statement is true in an absolute sense, merely whether we've correctly summarized the source.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As a first step towards fixing the wording problems, I'd like to change the title to remove "fundraising and support" or "fundraising and funding", or something else that removes the "Opinions on" North8000 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wording problems there are, but I certainly agree to dropping the "Opinions on" text from the heading.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I put up the link above, don't know why no one seems to have clicked on it:

"In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer examined statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity..." This makes it seem like Jane Mayer examined "financial statements." There have been so many changes to this edit, it's morphed into something that is not recognizable to what the sources are claiming. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scroll down the page: [9]. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we're discussing an old version. The current text says:

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer echoed Greenpeace's statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Is there any issue with that?   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems weasel to me. How did Greenspeace get into the mix? Did Jane Mayer mention Greenpeace? Where's a reliable source that says Jane Mayer and Greenpeace have a common thing for the Koch brothers. What's wrong with the original edit from Balloonman which had consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, any edit that says, "echoed so and so. . ." sounds like original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Echoed" is another way of saying "repeated". As for Greenpeace, I imagine that the sentence may be referencing this passage from the source:

• And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

I don't think it adds anything, and it doesn't look like Greenpeace was talking about support of TPM. I suggest dropping it, which would leave us with:

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker is a reliable source. Why do we need to attribute it to Mayer as her statement or opinion? Why can we not use it simply as fact? Is there some other reliable source, apart from the Koch brothers themselves, that contradicts the New Yorker magazine? The factual content of the New Yorker article has been reprinted by practically every American news organization. If they found the information wrong, surely they would have been able to produce a reliable source to contradict the Mayer information.

If we had a section covering how the Koch family funding the Tea Party movement story broke (see the linked archive), then surely we need to give credit to Jane Mayer, but we also need to bring up Mark Ames of the eXile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

the eXile is a much less reliable source than the New Yorker. Do we have any independent source that says they broke the story, or commenting on their coverage?   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs the "Mayer said that...." format format is needed. When you say RS I think you are referring to the two paragraphs in wp:ver that place conditions for use. This does not mean that anything said by anybody meeting those two paragraphs is to be treated as unquestioned fact. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to Will, except not that Jane Mayer said, it has to be that she "claimed" it because she's only claiming, she has no proof.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WTA - we don't use "claim" for anything except for mining claims. We don't know that she has no proof. The New Yorker is famous for their fact checking, so it's unlikely they would have printed that unless they found evidence.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The New Yorker is a reliable source and we should not use weasel words here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010, you are posing an epistemological question. Luckily Wikipedia is not interested in the Truth. We only repeat what reliable sources say. If all the reliable sources say the same thing, then we print it – no question asked. If we find contradicting sources, then we weight the reliably of the sources and give each point-of-view due weight. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the narrower def of RS (the two paragraphs in wp:ver) which I think you are using has nothing in it about objectivity or knowledge of the subject, and since one can find lots of "RS's" (by that criteria) to say any particular thing that one wants, including on both sides of this question, by that standard, each sentence in a contentious area require about 20 man hours to work out (finding, collating and analyzing sources). I think that we're trying to find a consensus shortcut (shorter than that process) here, which is how it usually works in WP. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If the New York had found evidence they would have printed that. The article is very clear that it only alleges a connection. I believe "allege" is the original word that was there before.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Hello Petri, I'm not concerned with it being "true" but rather verifiable. I'm not posing an epistemological question, but rather I'm trying to avoid original research by insisting on specificity. Mayer is suggesting a connection as she has no evidence, and has not examined financial documents. The article should say that and not use weasel wording to suggest she's found evidence. When the articles says, "Jane Mayer said. . ." or, "Jane Mayer examined statements. . ." it needs to be more specific. What statements did she examine? And what did the Koch brothers have to say about that? Afterall, she did interview them. Quotes are there, they should be used.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that Mayer has no evidence? That seems to be merely a surmise. If a reporter said that the victim was driving a red car, would we say that's just an opinion because she has no evidence? Reports don't add footnotes to their articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

She quotes Greenpeace reports as her sources. That suggests that that is her evidence. Together with the tone of the article, that suggests it may very well be all she has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayer cites a Greenpeace report regarding the connection of the Kochs to Climate change, not regarding their connection to the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good comment, Will, from someone who has read the material being scrutinized. The article ought to clearly describe the situation of the source.-Digiphi (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

fund raising and support section

This section [10] is not really about the tea party movement. It doesn't show any of the local fundraising by the tea party groups. It shows Michele Bachmann giving financial support to tea party backed candidates. That's not the same as giving funds to the tea party movement. And Michele Bachmann formed the Tea Party Caucus on her own. There are no tea parties participating in that.

Also, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Krugman's comments don't point to any specific financial support. Just because they claim there's a connection doesn't mean one exists. So the title of the section is misleading. That is why the original title is far more accurate: "Claims of astroturfing."

And this edit:

"The New York Times describes the Kochs as founders of the Americans for Prosperity, which they say has supported the Tea Party movement.[100]"

Who is "they"? "They say. . ." Are we saying the Koch brothers are saying AFP supports the tea party movement, or is the New York Times saying it?

What the NYTimes article says is that Tim Philips, through AFP, has been active in helping tea party groups in "get out the vote" drives. It isn't saying anything about supporting the tea party movement.

They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations.

The "They" above is a reference to the participants at an Aspen conference attended by wealthy Republican Party donors, and not to Tea Party members. It clealy shows the AFP "microtargeting" "like-minded voters." It doesn't show support of tea party groups, just "get out the vote operations." That's not the same as providing financial support, and sponsoring a free seminar is not financial support either. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure I undertand, are you suggesting that the TPM is supported and organized entirely from grass roots? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)+

That doesn't seem to have any connection to what Malke said which is simply that the reference was misinterpreted/misused and does not support the statement that cited it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

North, I think it's relevant, so I'm asking Malke for a clarification. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000, I don't see any connection to the misuse/misinterpretation of the New York Times article.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you're not going to answer? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have answered See above.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Financing Tea Party candidates and rallying the Tea Party faithful, Mr. DeMint has established himself as an alternate power center in Washington. [..] Koch Industries, which finances libertarian causes like the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity, is among the top donors to both Mr. DeMint and his political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund. He has long had associations with FreedomWorks, a promoter of the Tea Party movement. Tea Party Kingmaker Becomes Power Unto Himself By KATE ZERNIKE October 30, 2010 New York Times [11] On the Republican side, tea party and "9/12" groups are active in voter education and rallying efforts. They are newcomers to the process, but are getting help from Washington-based conservative groups familiar with organizing. Americans for Prosperity is staffing offices in Meadville, Connellsville, Lebanon, Scranton and Philadelphia, where volunteers can come in and make phone calls. Or they can do so from home, getting numbers and instructions from www.novemberiscoming.com. Pennsylvania state director Steven Lonegan, who said Americans for Prosperity has about 5,000 active volunteers in the state, said the message focuses on fiscal policies and the group doesn't endorse candidates, but it is unquestionably against the Democratic agenda. Canvassers seek votes with days to go Daniel Malloy. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 29, 2010. But while people like Ms. Kremer and Ms. Martin--who were still unpaid volunteers at that point--have become the face of the tea party, the movement's success was also being supported by wealthy interests. They included Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, groups born from a conservative think tank formed in the 1980s by members of the Koch family, who run oil-and-gas conglomerate Koch Industries Inc. Election 2010: Birth of a Movement --- Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis Douglas A. Blackmon, Jennifer Levitz, Alexandra Berzon, Lauren Etter. Wall Street Journal New York, N.Y.: Oct 29, 2010. p. A.1 The calls don't always hit their mark. Kay Cone, a "very liberal" Democrat in Westminster, said she was shocked to pick up the phone last week and hear a message from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity inviting her to a tea party rally at a nearby park. Campaigns show no sign of easing up on robocalls for votes Julie Bykowicz. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 28, 2010 In many congressional races around the country, Democratic incumbents are in trouble and tea party-backed candidates such as [Tim] Walberg are doing well. [..] Through early October, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees had paid for $654,000 in TV ads in support of Schauer's campaign, while two groups, Americans for Prosperity and the American Future Fund, had combined to spend close to that much promoting Walberg. Costly Mich. House race could go Democrats' way MIKE HOUSEHOLDER. Daily News. Midland, MI: Oct 27, 2010. [Civitas Action Inc.,] has sent out mailings against Democratic lawmakers and has spent $202,000 so far, records show. The group is funded by $190,000 from Variety Stores Inc. of Henderson, a Pope company, and $78,889 from Americans for Prosperity of Arlington, Va. [..] Americans for Prosperity is a national conservative group, of which Pope is one of four members of the board of directors. The group has sent mailings in state legislative races and reported spending $282,783 so far. The group is also conducting a $100,000 independent campaign against 7th District Democratic Congressman Mike McIntyre of Lumberton. [..] Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity reported spending $14,114 for his opponent, Republican Tom Murry. Art Pope: a one-man Republican equalizer Rob Christensen. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 27, 2010.[12] [I don't know about Murry, but McIntyre's opponent, Ilario Pantano, is a TP-endorsed candidate.] Groups that help support Tea Party candidates include climate change skepticism in their core message. Americans for Prosperity, a group founded and largely financed by oil industry interests, has sponsored what it calls a Regulation Reality Tour to stir up opposition to climate change legislation and national regulation of carbon emissions. FreedomWorks, another group supported by the oil industry, helps organize Tea Party rallies and distributes fliers urging opposition to national climate policy, which it calls a "power grab." A wall of climate skepticism JOHN M BRODER. International Herald Tribune. Paris: Oct 22, 2010. pg. 2

And so on. There are numerous sources that refer to support, including direct expenditures, for TPM candidates from the AFP.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, it's probably best if you simply provide a link and not fill up the talk page with all these quotations. Could you please remove these and just add the links? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get them through sources that can be linked - though I've occasionally found links that can be added. I realize that it's a little harder to work around source quotations, but since we're here to summarize those sources it's worth the trouble. Meanwhile, I'm trying to collapse the quotes so they're less obtrusive.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, there seem to be two issues here. One is to add more material on general and local fundraising. The other is the question of AFP support. As I've documented above, the assertions that the AFP supports the TPM and TPM-endorsed candidates is repeated in numerous reliable sources. Therefore, attributing it just to the New York Times would be misleading. I suggest we redraft that sentence to make wider use of available sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit that I refer to and pointed out above, is using the New York Times for attribution, and this is not only misleading it's incorrect. As to the AFP, the sources you've listed are simply repeating these claims. They aren't offering anything new, such as their own investigative report, which shows any evidence or examination of financial records, etc., no any quotes from tea party group leaders who acknowledge their tea parties are financed and run by AFP. Also, AFP is being blown out of proportion here as if the AFP is somehow giving complete financial support to 1400 tea parties. There is no such reliable source that shows that.

And the fact that the Koch brothers deny supporting the tea party, and that there is no reliable source to show that their donations to AFP are earmarked specifically for "Tea Party movement support" seems to support their denials. That should all be mentioned in any edit regarding the Koch brothers and AFP. Also, the fact that AFP is holding seminars is also mentioned in the New Yorker article which does not in any way suggest that AFP is providing financial support to the Tea Party movement which is comprised of over 1400 groups, most of them grassroots and supported by local funding, usually through donations on their websites.

As regards the 9/12 groups, they are not tea parties. The 9/12 movement was founded by Glenn Beck to advance Glenn Beck's agenda.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing to note, is that you're saying that the AFP giving support to so-called 'tea party candidates' is somehow support of the tea party. That's not correct. Giving funds or other support to a political candidate is not the same as giving funds/support to any tea party group. Not at all. If a voter gives financial support to Joe the Trucker, who is running for Congress and also has tea party backing, the voter is not in any way supporting the tea party movement. The voter is supporting the candidate. To make the leap to tea party support is a synthetic one.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We have sources that say the AFP supports the overall movement and individual TPM candidates. If we have sources that say the candidates are not part of the TPM then that would change things. But giving money to individuals campaigning on the TPM agenda is clearly a form of support of the TPM agenda.

We have no evidence that sources are simply repeating each other. If there's evidence of that then we can work on it, but it seems to be just an assumption be WP editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at all the same thing. That's synthetic. And none of those 'sources' you've given show otherwise. How does one support an "overall movement?" The Tea Party movement has no central leader, no central headquarters, no center for financing/donations, etc. One doesn't fund 'movements.' And the candidates are not running on a third party ticket called "The Tea Party Movement Party." Giving money/support to a specific candidate is not at all saying that one is giving money to the Tea Party movement.

And additionally, none of this has anything to do with the fact that the New York Times is being misquoted, and the title of the section is misleading. The reason editors here have called it "astroturfing" is because that defines the claims being made. The title "Funding. . ." etc., is misleading. You don't have a single reliable source to show that AFP is the funding source for the Tea Party movement. There is no such thing. Holding 'get out the vote' seminars in hotel ballrooms that are free to anybody who wants to show up, is not providing support to the Tea Party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"How does one support an overall movement?" Lots of ways. By conducting training seminars for movement activists, by organizing events, and by campaigning on behalf of movement candidates, for example. The TPM does have candidates and an agenda. It may not have an elected leader, but people like Palin as seen as leading the movement. Anyway, if we have sources that say "X did Y" then it's not up to us to decide that Y is really Z, so therefore the sources are wrong.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All synthetic.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"All" of what? What text in the article are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel like, perhaps, the issue here is that there are a number of organizations and kinds of organizations in play, doing different things. Perhaps various organizations and the support that they offer should be listed. The Washington Post piece by Amy Gardner could provide a good guide to the organizations, the scope, and the functions. This could also allow for discussions of funding such as the Koch Family and Koch Family Foundations give money to Americans for Prosperity, while some other people give money to FreedomWorks, and yet other people give money to American Majority, while the Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express seem somewhat self-funding. That approach might address a lot of these issues. It might also deal with some potential WP:UNDUE issues that are in the current article. MBMadmirer (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, the logic you're leaning on is deeply flawed. Before addressing this discussion's original concern about the misleading/misquoting of the source I'm going to take two detours through your talking points.

1.)

That one or both of the Kochs made donations to AFP, and that AFP financially supported one or more TPM groups, and that therefore the Kochs are the financial backers of the TPM groups is a huge stretch (and includes the presumption that these facts are ironclad in the source). To that end you've asserted that AFP made donations to certain candidates and submitted that as evidence in support of your (ostensibly) primary argument that it's appropriate to state that the Kochs fund the TPM. You wrote:

...But giving money to individuals campaigning on the TPM agenda is clearly a form of support of the TPM agenda.

Sure.

a.)Here your point has reformed to conclude that the Kochs/AFP support the TPM agenda, which is a departure from your primary belief that they indisputably fund the the TPM.

b.)It is not clearly a form of support; not by WP standards and not for the purposes of this article. The TPM is a movement, not a national political party, and not a legal entity. There are, however, thousands of legal entities including non-profits throughout the nation that are associated with this movement. Consider the case of Mr. X:

If Mr. X makes a donation to the National Rifle Association, and the NRA later makes a donation to the campaign of candidate John Smith (who is officially endorsed by the Republican Party), Mr. X's donation IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THAT PERSON'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT of the Republican Party.

Any statement to the contrary in the article is synthesis.

c.)The business about the Koch assumptions and AFP activity may very well have a place in specific candidates' articles, if those articles already mention affiliations with one or more TPM groups.

2.)

Your presumption that AFP, and therefore the Kochs, "support" the TPM, whether emotionally, ideologically, or by participating in activities in which members of the TPM may also participate does not service your primary argument that it is appropriate to state that the Kochs fund the movement. You wrote:

"How does one support an overall movement?" Lots of ways. By conducting training seminars for movement activists, by organizing events, and by campaigning on behalf of movement candidates, for example. The TPM does have candidates and an agenda.

Sure.

a.)Here, again, your point strays from the cause you're trying to champion: the legitimacy of the statement that the Kochs fund the TPM. Whatever AFP does or does not is perhaps appropriate for the AFP article, and has no bearing on the debate over the value of the source.

b.)You're reaching. That one or more groups associated with the TPM have endorsed certain candidates, and that the TPM has an agenda, and that AFP made political donations or coordinated open-invitation events, does not classify AFP's donors as the financiers of the TPM, not even if they are wealthy. Again, consider Mr. X:

If Mr. X publicly supports candidate John Smith by ringing door bells, painting signs for rallies and even hosting a fundraiser in his backyard, and candidate John Smith is officially endorsed by the NRA, it does not mean that Mr. X supports the NRA. It's a reasonable suspicion that he subscribes to the NRA's doctrine—and this should be discussed on a political forum—but certainly not a fact. Furthermore, if Mr. X decided to make a financial contribution to candidate John Smith, even knowing that Smith is endorsed by the NRA, only an imbecile (or unscrupulous ideologue) would submit Mr. X's contribution as evidence that he finances the NRA.

You're reaching.

c.)The source does not lean on any primary sources, or any recorded statements of the parties it alleges to have performed certain acts, to validate its assumptions or any of your assumptions that I've examined here. On the other hand, there supposedly exist recorded statements of the concerned parties refuting the assumptions described in the source.

Returning to the main course of the discussion, I agree wholeheartedly with Malke. Not only do I agree, I recognize the source for what it is: woefully ill-suited to the scrutiny of WP standards, insofar as it is relied upon to support the content you want to see in the article.-Digiphi (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, these are all interesting arguments, but entirely beside the point. This is not a forum; you are not here to win a debate. Regardless of your own analysis, we have reliable sources that say otherwise. We also have a documentary which directly contradicts what Koch Industries claims, so although we should definitely echo their view, we must also show the opposing view.

I urge you to focus on what we need to put in the article, not what you believe to be the Truth. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're halfway right, Dyl (WP is not a forum). However, the analysis I provided is exactly what you need to understand the wrongness of the content you're advocating. You'll correct me if I'm mistaken. I presume that you're having trouble appreciating the exempla and analogy that I've arranged in my previous post. They are rhetorical devices not meant to be rebutted. They are hypothetical anecdotes, and you may find it useful to add (intra-personally) the passage, "and it would not be appropriate to include such a statement in a Wikipedia article," at the end of your reading of each one.

This is an encyclopedia and it has written policies regarding content. The examples that I have examined reflect the prescriptions of several of these policies, and include Reliable Sources, Original Research and Synthesis specifically.

BTW: I am in fact here to win a debate, and so are you (unless you intend to lose).*wink

-Digiphi (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try to be tactful, so please forgive me if anything seems harsh: that is not my intention. I have to say that I think you missed my point here: we're not here to discuss the Tea Party movement except to the extent that it is relevant to this article. With all due respect, you went on and on as if this was a Lincoln–Douglas debate. It's not. My actual interest in the TPM is quite limited. I just want the article to be fair and balanced. I don't really want to read all those words if they don't matter. Let's please focus on our job here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you want me to say Dyl? I'm sorry if you don't want to read, it's really too bad. It's part of the discussion process. I read what you write. If you don't feel like reading, then don't read, but also don't complain to me. You said your piece, like others, and I've given you my talking points back. Now do the real thing and let's have this debate. -Digiphi (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Off topic "geoengineering"

Financial crisis of 2007–2010, not 2008 ... and Significant per US House of Representatives: Geoengineering. See Wikinews ... 99.39.187.217 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.228.116 (talk)

There are no sources about this so there's nothing we can say. Posting junk like this doesn't help us to write an encyclopedia and just gets in the way. Please stop.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See Portal:Current events and Global warming, i.e Global warming denial Koch Industries related. 99.155.151.13 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about Koch Industries, even if there are connections to it.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to AB 32 Climate change mitigation is ON TOPIC for Fossil fuel Carbon pricing think tank lobbying and Astroturfing of earnest frustrations 99.24.251.127 (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a sourced mention of the Tea Party movement, then it's not relevant to this article.   Will Beback  talk  03:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Quid pro quo is legal" per Orwell Rolls in His Grave 99.190.91.0 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi 99.155.147.141 (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found that the most interesting thing about analogies is how they fail. For example, did anyone ever claim that Ghandhi received millions in oil money by those who would profit from the British leaving? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What does/do the tp movement(s) suggest instead of Cap and share to address the dysintegration of our shared life-support system? ... Especially curious to hear from the self-appoint speakers for the entire movement(s) above. 99.155.156.74 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect geoengineering, even though all the links you have are easter eggs. But it's still not notable even if there were a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg (Media) Phobia? 99.35.10.20 (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If not reTerraforming Earth (ban) per Convention on Biological Diversity (Nagoya Protocol), then what ...? 99.155.155.226 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No answers on what to cut, how to save, from self-zh:天子 Caesar of wp-land? Only Anti- ...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.89.210 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just more deny and delay FUD tactics from the Merchants of Doubt then ... ? 99.155.155.122 (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Does appear on my sample ballot

My Leon County Florida sample ballot lists Ira Chester and his party is listed as "TEA". Running for Commissioner of agriculture. 98.230.53.65 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true. However, if you read the article, it turns out that the connection to the TPM is tenuous. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

192.91.172.36 (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)It is fact that there are Tea Party candidates running under the banner of TEA all over the country, in both regional and state races. It isn't about an article, it is about what is reality - what people see on their ballots. That's a much better reference. Therefore, the reference that the Tea party is not running any candidates must be changed.

It's very difficult for a new party to get on a ballot. Many states require a new party to submit thousands of petitions before it gets on the ballot. Back in the 1990s, that number in California was over 80,000. I expect that most of the candidates who affiliate with the Tea Party are running as candidates of an established party.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the lead, still.

I've held off from making any edits, other than reverting obvious vandalism, but it's getting worse.

Most recently, a second "national" was added to the initial sentence. This is on top of the comma after "grassroots", which implies that it's a movement that happens to be political rather than a political movement. The real problem is the "grassroots", which violates neutrality.

I put forth some clear arguments in explanation of why we can't state that the TPM is "grassroots", but the responses I've received have not answered my point in any way. Unlike "populist", "conservative" and "libertarian", which have strong, one-sided support, "grassroots" is countered by numerous, credible claims of astroturfing. As a result, we can only say it's been "called grassroots" and then say it's been "accused of being astroturfed", both with citations.

This has become a serious neutrality issue for the article, so I'm going to once again climb the BRD StairMaster with a substantive edit. I fully expect to be knee-jerk reverted, but I do request that, as soon as your legs feel less kicky, you come here and explain how we can call it "grassroots" when we have so many reliable sources that contradict this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess, at at the heart of it is a double standard.....a very high standard for inclusion of anything even slightly positive sounding about the TPM, and a very very very low standard for inclusion for anything negative about it. We have 710 words about an unsubstantiated "somebody said that somebody in the millions of TP'ers said something racist" and you choose one positive word to raise the bar 10 levels higher for inclusion on. What would you suggest we do about that one word? North8000 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my views are generally conservative, and I don't see this in terms of "negative" or "positive". The issue here is that we have only support for words like "populist", "conservative" and "libertarian", but our sources are conflicted on "grassroots" vs. "astroturf". All we can do here is state that there is some controversy; we can't take sides. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was rough. I think that our discussion has to take into account the words used. "Grassroots" is a positive/ complimentary term, but very mainstream in civil writing. "Astroturf" is a pejorative "attack" term. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No insult taken.

I think we need to understand that, while astroturfing is incompatible with being grassroots, there are more than two possibilities here.

It's quite possible to be neither grassroots nor astroturfed. For example, take the GOP itself.

An astroturfed organization not only isn't grassroots, it pretends to be.

In short, because the TPM is often claimed to be grassroots, all denials necessarily involve astroturfing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While the first tea party protests were organized by people like Dick Armey (i.e., astroturf) most of the organization has been done by individuals (i.e., grassroots). TFD (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. Find some reliable sources to back that up and you can include that as a counterpoint. We absolutely need to present both sides. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Altemeyer wrote about the Tea Party and while it presents his analysis of the movement, he seems fair in presenting the facts.[13] But he has not published his report and therefore it would not be an RS. TFD (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. However, if he provided links to reliable sources, we could use those here. We just have to be careful to avoid original research. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it that this issue is an on-going multi-section debate in here?

Is the following not fairly conclusive and straight from the horses mouth

Feb 23, 2009

The Taxpayer Tea Party Movement is Growing - First wave of tea parties a huge success

This past week, FreedomWorks helped to organize "Taxpayer Tea Party" protests around the country

[14]

This is one month after President Obama took office.

I see nothing verifiable in this article indicating the existance of any widespread "grassroots" TP prior to this date. 75.88.83.74 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Paul

Using the looser of the two WP meanings of RS (just meeting the 2 paragraphs in wp:ver) on can find lots of "RS's" to say whatever one wishes on this, including grassroots, astroturf, and everything in between. . So where does that leave us?

One way to resolve this and solve some other problems with the article would be to build some credible content in the article on this topic (top down vs. bottom-up organizing, impetus, control) whether or not funding is an important issue here and if so, where does it come from) using RS's per the second WP meaning of RS's (reliable(on the topic) "RS's") and then summarize it in the lead. More work, but less work than the eternal instability that this article is headed for. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not a rhetorical question. When we have at least as much support for astroturfing as we do for grassroots, we have no choice but to avoid stating that it's grassroots. Later, we should mention both that the TPM generally considers itself grassroots and that many (and here we must cite specific, notable people both internal and external to the movement) consider some or all of it to be astroturfed.

I agree that we should go into some detail on the issue of funding, organization and support. But let's at least figure out how we want to lead off before we get mired in the details. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty makes appropriate wording choice arguments. Maybe the urge of the origin of the so-called "movement" was what ever "grassroots" means, that doesn't matter, but you may state they (citing source) consider ("call") themselves "grassroots". Anecdotes can be sources objectively. 99.39.184.178 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they cannot. Check out IRS. It is the rule for how we treat anecdotes. -Digiphi (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing at rules is not helpful. Here, you speak of some rule about anecdotes, but that term does not even appear on the page. You have to be a lot more specific than that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it. The first sentence of that page states Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. The page defines reliable here, and states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians[...]"

To that end, published is also clearly defined as "text materials, either in traditional printed format or online" and "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party." That scraps the possibility of an editor's anecdote and also that of a million editors' shared experience shaping an article.

Furthermore, a story posted to a blog will also never appear in this article, because the same policy also states (here) that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources," because use of primary sources frequently invites original research, even when good intentions rule the day.

An explanation of primary sources can be found here, and the standard for the consideration of blogs (found here) states that they "are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

This is why we will not include anecdotes in the article for the purposes suggested by the poster. -Digiphi (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what this has to do with the topic. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You begged for this post. Dylan Flaherty said: You have to be a lot more specific than that. Either you're not reading and you can't abide not submitting something, anything as a placeholder for a rebuttal, or you're trolling. Don't complain that my posts are too long, or dismiss them if you don't read them. This space is for editors. Make straightforward claims, and follow them up with rationale. Walk it like you talk it Dylan. -Digiphi (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to be specific, not merely tedious. You need to relate what you say to the issue at hand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, that won't satisfy my challenge, and you know it. I told you to not be dismissive. It tells me that you're intimidated and afraid of my talking points. You're fleeing the discussion. I'm inviting you to continue a real debate like an editor. Let's be adults together, you and I, and do this thing. Consider the points, reform your rebuttal, and bring this back to an actual debate. Let's get this show on the road. -Digiphi (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dig, you aren't in any position to challenge me, nor is this a place for pre-written talking points. That's the disconnect that's leading to your failures. You just have to stick to the topic instead of going on and on about irrelevant matters. I'm sure that this will encourage people to pay attention to you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the specific place for talking points. You can read about talk pages in WP:Talk_page. I'm still challenging you to continue the debate. I'm here to edit, and I desperately want to have this discussion about the article. I'm still waiting for this to get moving. Let's go. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Their Interpretation of" needed to go and should stay gone.

It's rightly so that Yeti Hunter removed this from "The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to.......and adherence to the United States Constitution" in the lead, and for many more reasons than they listed. The common meaning of that would be that the TPM has created a specific interpretation of the Constitution, and has defined their concern as being adherence (only) to that (non existent) special interpretation. This is not supported by the cite, and, as a sidebar, is also not correct. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe these words were added because, in their absence, it would sound as if we are endorsing the TPM interpretation of the Constitution, and also as if the TPM was somehow special for supporting the Constitution (an obvious falsehood). In fact, the TPM has a very distinct interpretation that is, if not fringe, certainly non-standard. Perhaps the way to solve this would be to find a properly cited adjective, such as "originalist" or "traditionalist", and use that instead. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several thoughts on this:

1. Adding "originalist" would probably not be controversial, as such is a very mainstream view and arguably even a majority view. (certainly not fringe). But is it really true (supported by refs) that the TP's general emphasis on constitutionality is defined as having such a qualifier and is made conditional on it?
2. I think that listing it means says that it a focus / priority of theirs. (witness point #1 of the contract from America) with the highest (82%) support, with no qualifier on "constitutionality"). And since it is a statement of the TP's emphasis, it should accurately state their emphasis. I don't see where the statement in the lead it even posits or implies a special interpretation of the constitution, much less implying our support of such.

What do you think?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can get a citation for "their interpretation" of the constitution, it should be included. Either "originalist" or "traditionalist" would be fine, but only if these are definable positions on the Constitution (do either have a wiki article??), and more importantly can be backed up by RS. My concern with "their interpretation" is that it has something of the scare quotes about it (ie, it could imply that they're not really for "the constitution", just "their interpretation" of it). But merely saying they are "for adherence to the constitution" is so banal as to be meaningless - very few groups are openly anti-constitution. Although, in the absence of any decent definition of their position, this should be the default.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press calls it a "strict interpretation" - sounds accurate enough. Implies gun rights, intentions of founding fathers etc. Thoughts? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with "strict interpretation", although it's not ideal. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with adding "strict interpretation" or "originalist" as a compromise. But I would argue that:

• the sentence as-is DOES say something (it doesn't just say that they are for adherence to the constitution, it essentially says that such is a priority / platform item.
• Adding any of those qualifiers would make the sentence less accurate. It basically says that that priority/platform item is specifically about a particular interpretation of the Consitution. I can't imagine any credible source trying to say that such is the case across the TPM, and it also directly conflicts with the TPM statement of this priority/platform item, which is what sentence is covering. As an additional note, And, that platform statement is a credible source on this, a case where primary is not only acceptable but somewhat definitive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No platform will ever state that upholding the Constitution is unimportant, so if we take it as just that, it truly is banal, as YH said. We know that the TPM means more than that: they support a view in which the Constitution is much more limited in terms of giving out powers. I'd call it minimalist, but if we have references for strict, that works, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it is a statement that adherence to the constitution is amongst their highest priority "action items". IMHO this certainly is a statement.North8000 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the listed priorities should be put in the same order as mentioned in "contract for America", if applicable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although I think that including the modifier "strict" works well alongside that change. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to an abstract and paper about how the Tea Party views the U,S, constitution. It says "fundamentalist vision of the constitution". TFD (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that either "fundamentalist" or "originalist" would be good, with "originalist" being #1. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

While fundamentalist may be accurate, it could be a bit more neutral. I'm fine with originalist, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

undue weight tag on "Fundraising and support"

There have been many reports in European media about where the Tea Party movements gets their money from. For an overview of this, I came to this Wikipedia article to find out more. And in the section "Fundraising and support", there is a little bit information about this, but it is fragmentary. It doesn't say what the (approximate) total budget is. An anonymous donor gave 1 million, but is that substantially? Suppose the budget is 100 million, then it is not even worth to mention it, but if the budget is 2 million it is important.

But I understand that Wikipedia is a user-made encyclopedia, so I am not complaining that the information is not in here.

I can understand the reasoning to place the tag that it's neutrality is disputed. The sections quotes a Democratic politician, but does not quote Republican point of view.

What I don't understand however, is that the section is tagged as having undue weight. There is not even enough information about the fundraising to determine how big the movement is! Which viewpoint is given undue weight by including information about the fundraising???

I hope that the editor who added the undue weight tag was confusing this tag with the neutrality tag.--131.155.56.27 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the undue weight tag is for just mostly having opinion statements by critics instead of real coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for starters, and check out the secretive Billionaires such as the Koch family. 99.29.186.87 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Those don't look like they are about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's about funding (and getting money), it very much is about the tp movement. Please don't write so naïvely (follow the money) for an Encyclopedia-aimed endeavour. 99.155.151.32 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More so, follow the shifts in wealth, for which money is only an I.O.U., In God We Trust you know. May look at Plutocracy, Oligarchy, and for the more cynical: Kleptocracy. 99.190.90.111 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Correctly see Plutarchy of Corporatocracy, and changes in the Corruption Perceptions Index, all the while see a decline in our Life-supporting Natural wealth; in other words, the near future. 99.54.139.211 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory?

The article states the Tea Party movement is conservative/libertarian (which is contradictory in and of itself), but the elections and candidates have shown that they are very much in the Republican camp rather than independent. Local and national analysts have said this, Rolling Stone has said this, and even the article indicates that Tea Party-supported candidates in 2010 were Republicans. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state this in the lede instead of presenting it as a non-affiliated movement that somehow becomes Republican later in the article? MSJapan (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Per sources there is significant elements of both in the TPM. The conflict of the latter term emphasizes one of the many reasons why it is not a part of the Republican party. Frequent clashes with the Republican establishment are further evidence of this. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that libertarians (especially the Libertarian Party) diametrically disagree with the Republican Party's official stances on most social issues, their "official" economic stances run hand-in-hand. In many cases, the chosen wording of several LP planks, regarding economic issues, originated from the GOP's wording of the same planks (despite the GOP, arguably, not having followed the precepts of their own planks). Since the TPM is singularly focused on economic/fiscal issues, the dual-label is more than appropriate. Gawain VIII (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be generally accurate to say that the Tea Party movement (as a whole) is solidly conservative on economic issues, but more leans libertarian on social issues. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar said it well. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You have it backwards. The most prominent Tea Party candidate and now Senator (Rand Paul) Is decidely Libertarian. If anything the GOP is moving towards the TPM on fiscal issues and has become more libertarian. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that your main statement is right. But it does not conflict with what Blueboar said and I concurred with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction: libertarianism is conservative, although not all conservatives are libertarian. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There are both types in the TPM, but I wouldn't agree with your description of Libertarians. Where Libertarainism and Conservatism conflict is on social issues. That "square" at the Libertarian party web site describes the difference pretty well. Liberals and conservatives are opposite corners, and Libertarians are at a third corner. Basically, Libertarians are conservative on fiscal, size of government, taxes issues, and liberal on social issues (e.g. legalization of drugs, "law and order" /vs. freedom type issues.) North8000 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly accurate to say that Libertarians agree with other conservatives on economic issues, such as lowering taxes, removing regulation and so on. However, while Libertarians are not necessarily conservative on social issues, they're also not really liberal.

For example, the liberal stance on gay marriage is pro, while the Libertarian stance is that marriage should exist only under contract law and as a religious ceremony. Likewise, liberals would argue for "gay rights", while Libertarians would argue for the government not discriminating against gays (such as in the military) while affirming the right of business owners to discriminate on this (or any) basis. In other words, when Libertarians have social views that aren't conservative, they are still defined in terms of liberties relative to the government (as negative rights, not positive rights) and recognize the supremacy of property rights over what liberals would claim are civil rights. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely hilarious that someone actually brought up Rolling Stone magazine as a viable source for answering the question of whether the Tea Parties are really just another name for a bunch of Republicans or if they really are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Add California Proposition 23 (2010) was defeated?

Add California Proposition 23 (2010) was defeated? 99.39.186.88 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Change sentence: An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.[64], to would have suspended ... 99.52.148.237 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Added, with official source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Less misleading would be 2,829,109 votes to 4,440,809 votes, as if clarity were your goal. 99.155.147.254 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only semiofficial, for at least 30 days after the election. The counties have 28 days to submit final totals to the Secretary of State, who then has 2 days to add them up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If not official, why did you include a percentage in your contribution to this article? It looks biased. 99.54.139.168 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All the election results aren't "official" until they're formally certified. The election crews have to sort through thousands of provisional and absentee ballots. But enough votes have been counted to make the result clear. Giving a precise ballot count would be impossible now, and irrelevant anyway. Be careful with terms like bias; we have rules about it. PhGustaf (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading description

Describing the "Tea Party" as "conservative" is utterly misleading. This is a far right extremist group. Soc628 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. We apparently cannot find a WP:RS reliable source which calls it "far-right". <redacted comment about the mental state of someone who thinks that sign is "far right"> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't? How about The Daily Telegraph, which calls it extremist, far-right and compares it to the English Defence League? Soc628 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

The link is to a column, not a news story, and it does not call the Tea Party "far right" anyway. TFD (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about far right, but "right wing" is very easy to find, especially if you look at non-American sources. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost all American politics are viewed as right wing by the rest of the world. The ideology of any American political movement should be gagued within the confines of America. We don't go around using American sources to call Western Europe as being all far left. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's simply inaccurate. Europe isn't far left, at least not as a whole. If anything, the right has been doing quite well as of late. Likewise, even by European standards, America is not all right wing. Obama, for example, would still be considered a moderate liberal there, just as he is here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor page 10, November 1, 2010; Far-right gains across Europe per Friedrich Ebert Foundation: New Extremism emerges in Europe; Even in Germany, highly attuned to dangers of radicalism, 13 percent would welcome a "Führer" (The word Führer means "leader" or "guide" in the German language, derived from the verb führen, a cognate of the Old English words faran ("to make one's way") and fær ("road", "journey") and the Modern English words derived from the older terms such as fare now mostly used in compounds such as wayfarer and sea-faring.[1]...) 99.155.155.33 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If we could be the PRC for only one day expression of frustration from Hot, Flat, and Crowded. 99.60.126.138 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those far right extremists demanding we have a balanced budget. That just screams radical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "teabagger"

Would an unbiased source say the "teabagger" is not a pejorative term? I may be biased as I am not a democrat, but the term teabagging has a definitive meaning and it is a pretty offensive. The page could at least cite sources of Tea Party protesters calling themselves teabaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.47.43 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• How does this matter? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you would include a section about the label "teabagger" -- other than perhaps making a biased connection to the slang sexual term. Most people probably are not familiar with the slang term. It is unlikely that an article about New York or Winnipeg would have a section about "New Yorkers", or "Winnipegers" -- the term used by the residents of these two cities. A cute pun (Tea Baggers)that came and went does not warrant inclusion in this page. (Ukrcanadian (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

The Tea Party movement has apparently embraced the term "teabagger", giving it yet another meaning. Given its previous meaning, that might not have been wise. However, it's not our job to pave over their PR gaffs. We just report the (verifiable) facts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct, Dylan. The term teabagger is frequently used pejoratively by detractors of the TPM. On the other hand, there is no pervasive use of the term by prominent TPM figures in self-describing contexts. So it would be inappropriate of us to label people in the movement this way within the article. Ideally, we should instead describe them with their endonym tea party patriots, or better: tea partiers. Better yet—and to avoid POV complaints—we should probably just use members of, or people in the TPM when describing them in the article.

- Digiphi (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't believe in the necessity of a section examining the use of the term. The term shouldn't appear in the article at all, for the same reason that libtard doesn't belong in the Coffee Party article, even though some TPM-minded bloggers have used it to describe that movement. -Digiphi (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't judge the noteworthiness of material, the sources do. A dictionary considering it for word of the year shows that some mention is appropriate. I agree that a whole section may not be necessary, though. As long as it doesn't overwhelm the tea bag article again I don't care that much what happens.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that the members of the Tea Party called *themselves* "teabaggers" at first, when their initial protests manifested themselves in sending boxes of tea bags to members of Congress. This term was used in FOX news broadcasts as well, until someone must have pointed out the current meaning of the word in the popular vernacular. I agree it can be used pejoratively by detractors of the movement. The reason it is important to point out that the 'baggers themselves coined the term and popularized it, however, is that it is a clear example of the right-wing media's effective use of the "victim" card (against the terrible, childish liberals) when challenged on their own mistruths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.192.207 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about the media and victim card doesn't have any bearing on what we do here. We have written policies that guide us in making edits. If you've witnessed someone using the term, or if you've observed an account of someone using the term, your knowledge is not a suitable source for the article, per policy. If an editor brings reliable sources describing the pervasive endonymous use of the term teabagger by members of the TPM, then we'll make the appropriate additions. Otherwise it's pejorative and doesn't belong in the article, per policy. -Digiphi (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall multiple editors previously submitting several RS on this. Are they no longer in the article?Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not populist, not libertarian

The Tea Party movement is not populist and is not libertarian, OK? We've been over this before.

There is a general consensus that it is conservative, maybe even right-wing. But it was funded by corporations like Koch, and thus it is not a populist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that it's a socially conservative movement. For instance, 82% of the movement opposes gay marriage. The movement also opposes legalizing marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be an argument against it being grassroots, not populist. Populism is a stance, grassroots is an origin. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Their stance is not populist though. They are against organized labor, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the people who say it is NOT populist and NOT libertarian. Look up populism and libertarianism. The Tea Parties are usually neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seigoat (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you don't fully understand libertarian or populist. Also, it was not funded by the Koch brothers. The are grassroots organizations that have since recieved funding from a number of sources. The whole Koch conspiracy is nothing more than Democratic talking points used to try and derail the movement. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes.

Populism does not require being pro-labor, just claiming to represent the common people. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It WAS funded by the Koch brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they did fund it, but the movement is still populist due to its platform. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Its platform isn't populist either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide what it is. We're just here to summarize reliable source using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record (again), the sources in the article only allege Americans for Prosperity funding TPM groups, and that the Kochs are obviously the domineers of the entire movement because of their association with AFP is your original research. Even so, for all we know TPM groups could be funded by the ghost of John Holmes, but it would have no bearing on their populist tenets.

-Digiphi (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If we wanted to be neutral, we would not refer to the Tea Parties as "populist." Outside of the Tea Party movement itself, there is a general consensus that it is not.

If the Tea Party claimed the sky was orange, would that make it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that the movement is not libertarian. However, we have reliable sources which call it "grass-roots", "populist", and "libertarian", so this descriptors should be in the lede. We do not have a reliable source which denies it being "grass-roots", and I don't recall any which deny it being "populist" or "libertarian". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that one has to support the insanely corrupt unions in this country in order to wrap oneself in the mantle of populism is quite simply the most asinine comment I have read on this page thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We spent many many hours working out that one sentence, including reviewing and citing sourcing. Time to move on to the other ~800 sentences in this mess of an article. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we haven't spent enough hours on that sentence, since it doesn't even reflect a consensus of what the Tea Party movement's ideology is. There's a consensus that it's conservative, but that's about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Prepare to have you mind blown, Anon. No real editor will ever care about any consensus that you report. We have written policies and we deal with sources. -Digiphi (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:CITEKILL looks poor and shows that there is a dispute. As mentioned, there is no reason to define it like that when it can be handled in the next line with some clarification. Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM origins (2007 not 2009)

I joined the protests in December 2007, but since I know original research doesn't mean much here, I also found references: http://www.prisonplanet.com/tea-party-co-founder-concept-has-been-hijacked-by-false-leftright-paradigm.html and VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8 and thousands and thousands of more references from google to the 2007 and 2008 Tea Party:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+tea+party+2007 and http://www.google.com/search?q=Campaign+For+Liberty+tea+party+2008 . I know it's an inconvenient truth to have thousands of references challenging your beliefs, but nevertheless they are there. Late 2007 was the birth date, with rapid growth throughout 2008, and especially in protest of Bush's Banker Bailout. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that they are right, if one is talking about it's beginnings. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible. However, prisonplanet is not possibly a reliable source, and the video is not likely a reliable source. If it were a legal upload of a CNN broadcast, or if it were a Ron Paul campaign ad uploaded in 2007 or 2008, then it could be used (but you'd still need to put a time-mark for the information.) You'll have to find a real source, as difficult as it might be.

I've restored the note, but noted that you don't have a credible or reliable source yet. Many of the thousands of references note that (a) Tea Party movement opposed Ron Paul in this election, and some noted that his (second) "money bomb" in 2007 was on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, but few use the term "Tea Party" to refer to the (then) current campaign.

Also, the google searches in question needs to have the strings quoted.

As a further note, if you can find a reliable source, you can put grassroots in the lede, where it belong. Some of the blog entries from the search would also support grassroots, if they were reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The video is timestamped by Youtube as "November 11, 2007" so I don't know how you can claim its not a reliable source. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a copyright violation, and I'm not willing to watch the video to find a mention of the "Tea Party". If you can provide a time-mark, we could verify that a "Tea Party" movement was described, but it might still require a reliable source to connect it to the group now known as the "Tea Party movement". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the problem with grassroots is not that we couldn't find support, but that there was so much opposition that we could not ignore it. We'd have been forced to have a phrase like "which has been considered grassroots by some and astroturf by others". Is that what you really want? Likewise, your objection to calling it libertarian is based solely on your strict, personal definition of libertarianism. Wikipedia is not limited in this manner. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Even so, if we can provide reliabie sources for the origin being grassroots, then that should be in the lede unless you can find reliable, contrary statements about the origin, even if there were reliable statements that it is not now grassroots, although I still haven't found any in the references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, we both know that there are already reliable sources accusing the movement of being turfed. Astroturf is incompatible with grassroots. No "interpretation" is needed, past knowing the meaning of the terms.

I'll say it again: we can only mention the claim of grassroots as an attributed claim, and then only when balanced by claims to the contrary. We do not get to disregard one side of this based on our own political views. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again; we do not have reliable sources to the contrary, only editorials, columns, and statements by politicians. We have sources that it is (now, at least, in part) funded by outside money, but I have not seen any evidence of reliable sources stating that that money changed anyone's views or was provided in a directed manner. Such a statement would be required for an assertion that it is not grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You can say it all day long, but it's entirely unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Nancy Pelosi's statement is entirely unconvincing, and not worthy of notice in an encyclopedia. If you can point to an assertion from a reliable source that the organization is not grassroots, I'll concede that point. None of the sources added qualifies. On the other hand, I can't recall seeing a definitely reliable source which stated it was grassroots; if there were any, they didn't stay long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing it doesn't come down to opinions. For example, your opinion about Pelosi is entirely irrelevant: she's a reliable source and belongs here even if we disagree with her. Reliability does not mean conformity with your biases. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, the sources you're leaning on are not appropriate to support the inclusion of that content per the language in Policies (IRS, NOR and Verify specifically). It is the (and only) rule for how we will decide on this issue. As editors we don't have any choice. Please read them from start to finish if you have not (it isn't fair to us if you have not). For starters, please consider the language from the Specific Contexts section: Academic Consensus Individual opinions should be identified [in the article] as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated-simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

And also: Statements of Opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. and ...when using them, it is better to attribute [in the article] the material in the text to the author.

And also from NOR: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

And very important, from Verify: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.

Please understand that the onus is on you (and the editors who agree with you) to demonstrate that the content satisfies the demands of the policies. Please think carefully and try to apply each of these maxims. -Digiphi (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By this logic I have to go change the "birthdate" on the Democratic Party wikipage to 1860, because I cannot locate any sources on the internet to "verify" it was born in 1792, even though we all know that was its origin. (goes off to edit article) ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. Dylan et al., you're really all over the place. If you want the Astroturf/grassroots labeling debate, then post in the section for that. You can do the same for discussions about funding and populist/conservative stuff. Editors shouldn't have to debate you all over the page about the same issue. Things don't get done on talk pages where sections don't stay on topic. Don't get tricked into derailing them by Anons.

Theaveng North8000 Arthur Rubin: the article should reflect the date as accurately as can be sourced. You should find—and I'll start searching too—an RS that mentions the primaries Theaveng has found. Alternatively, find any RS from 2007 that mentions the TPM, and we can include it with an in-text attribution. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing policies I already follow does not persuade me to edit any differently. If you have specific issues with the state of the article, you are welcome to share them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dyl, the word onus means the responsibility to demonstrate the propriety of your view. Several of us have now impugned either the appropriateness of the source or the way it's being used to support content. I've thrown you some bones and now I want you to go through the motions and make your case. This is a debate, so have at it please. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections to the removal of these tags? If so, please state them below. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Back on track: The question of the date. Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other in 2006 actually

1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

-Digiphi (Talk) 02:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag clean-up

I just went through the article and removed a number of tags, for a variety of stated reasons. If for any reason you disagree, I recommend explaining yourself here instead of launching into an edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, you just reinserted a whole bunch of tags. Presumably, you have some specific objection to their removal. This is your opportunity to explain them. Go ahead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it Bud. Those tags are there because the items to which they are attached are contested, and is each the subject of an ongoing debate on this very talk page. When there is consensus in an individual debate, then the tag attached to its respective content in the article will be removed (due either to consensus that the content is not controversial/tag-worthy, or consensus that the content ought to be changed). So we don't need a talk section to discuss the value of the tags. The ongoing debates concerning their objects does that for us. If you don't like the way one of those tags looks in the article, you should spend even more time working out the issues with editors in the corresponding discussion section. While the debate is ongoing and consensus has not developed, we do not remove tags as though the debate is ended. That is unfair to the readers and the editors in the discussion, and violates policy. If you're frustrated by the lack of consensus in a discussion, then you need to somehow make peace with that fact rather than removing the corresponding tags, because it subverts the editing and consensus building process.

This section is unnecessary, and encourages all the specific debates in other sections to migrate here. You should get rid of it. -Digiphi (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me I just realized that you've made a companion section to the already dangerous Tag section. This is ridiculously redundant and waste of space. I'm deleting "Tagstorm", and if you insist on having this discussion it can happen within this one section. -Digiphi (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dig, you seem to be struggling with the concept of justifying these tags, so I'm going to assume good faith and spell it out for you. The first tag I removed in that section was about url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html. The premise was that it's unreliable because it's an op-ed page. This is a misunderstanding of WP:RS; an op-ed page is explicitly stated to be reliable, just so long as the opinion is attributed. We attribute to Krugman, who is quite notable, so there is no reason for this tag. If you disagree, please explain. If you choose not to explain, then the tag will go away. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That tag doesn't indicate that someone thinks the NY Times isn't notable, nor that editorials are prohibited by WP policy. It indicates that the way the source is being used to support content has been challenged and is the topic of ongoing debate. I wrote once and I'm going to rehash that the ongoing discussions from other sections will not be dragged into this section to create break-away debates. The specific tags in question will remain until their respective debates have ended. However I'm not going to entertain your questions in this section in every instance that a tag is prematurely removed and needs to be restored. If the tags bug you, then you can participate in the discussions to speed them to conclusion. -Digiphi (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The tags have been removed. If you want to restore them, it is up to you to explain why.

I took the case of a single tag, explained why it was invalid, and then asked you to refute this. You have refused to. At this point, the most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you are unable or unwilling to do so. This is sufficient reason to keep the tag off the page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the now-removed tag next to the Krugman section was "{{verify credibility|failed=yes|reason=OpEd}}". As you can see, it clearly did invoke the op-ed status of the page as the alleged reason for its lack of credibility. Whatever Digiphi imagines, the tag itself contradicts him entirely. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... IMO, tagging a well-known Krugman op-ed for somehow being an unreliable source for assertions quoted from Krugman is pretty silly. I removed that whole set of tags. Looks like they were used as a weapon, rather than for cleanup. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing, I'm going to avoid speculating about motives. Instead, I'll just stick to the fact that the tags are not justified. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The {{verify credibility }} tags are not justified if the sections are properly marked as opinion. However, please discuss the {{verification failed}} and {{off-topic?}} tags. Mayer didn't actually say that, and Mad as Hell, if it does say what is quoted, only applies to funding of Tea Party events, not of the Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot fund your events without simultaneously funding your movement. The tortured logic you use to try to separate the two is unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research. You can be sure that I will give it due weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Mayer says that the Kochs founded (not funded) AFP, and AFP supports some TPE and training of TPM members. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They founded and fund it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want it in the article you'll need to purchase it's entry with a proper source. As to what Arthur Rubin said, and what you said in turn, it isn't original research.

If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE.

Arthur gave an analogical example of the original research policy, exactly as is done on the policy page (here) such that ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

For the conclusions you've drawn to appear in the article, the facts would have to be analyzed and laid out in a reliable third party source, like a an op-ed in the NY Times written by Paul Krugman, for instance. We have a source that meets those criteria exactly. But−and this is a big but−any mention of the conclusions drawn by Krugman in his piece must be accompanied by attributions to the author at every instance, as per policy (here and here). It states that "when using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact,." -Digiphi (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, Digiphi. Also, Dylan Flaherty, please don't remove tags and then demand that editors "explain themselves" if they disagree with the removal. You haven't fixed anything, you've simply removed the tags. The tags are there because the article has problems that need fixing. The tags alert editors to look for the problems. Unless you've fixed something, leave the tags, and please don't make any more unilateral decisions that they aren't needed. Also, please see WP:OWN as well as WP:CIVIL. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, with all due respect, I am hardly the only editor removing those excessive tags. The big difference is that I pretty much stuck to removing one at a time, with a stated reason for the removal. I am free to remove any unsupported tag, and will use that freedom. All you have to do is actually support the tag and that will prevent me from removing it.

You need to understand that whoever puts a tag up is filing a complaint and is obligated to follow up on it. If they fail to do so, then that complaint is summarily rejected, and the tag is removed. That's the process. I encourage you to embrace it wholly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's correct Dylan, in part. The follow up you're looking for is taking place in the ongoing discussion on the talk page (this is the talk page). That people want the tags up means that the issue is controverted. You have several times explained to me that you've read all the policies and guides. Therefore, you are surely familiar with tags and understand why they are put in articles. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pelosi

The tag for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587745,00.html reads "{{off-topic?|reason=personal opinion, and no claim that the funding influenced the movement}}". The complaint seems to be without merit. First of all, the quote is in the opinion section, so being her personal opinion is hardly an issue, even if it were only an opinion. More to the point, she is notable and the quote comes to us through a reliable source. As for the stuff about how the funding did or didn't influence the movement, it has absolutely no bearing on the relevance of the quote. I move that we remove this spurious tag. If you disagree, please state your reasons briefly and concisely, referencing specific policy if needed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

[Dylan, you've just recently created this section "Tags Clean-Up" for the express purpose of discussing tags. As you know I dispute its usefulness, but it's completely absurd to make another new section (which you've titled, "Pelosi") to discuss a specific tag when you've just created "Tags Clean-up". I'm doing you a favor and making it a subsection of your "Tags" section.]-Digiphi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(formatting Digiphi's comment)

That tag is no longer appropriate, as it's in the "opinions" section, provided the quote is accurate. There's no justification for assuming that she means middle class when she says "middle class", though. We have a guideline against wikilinking within quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what place putting insults from an opponent has in the article. What next.....in the Barack Obama article, put in 2,000 words of what newspapers say that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin say about him? Plus 700 words on each unfounded accusation that was ever published in a "RS". And then if some "RS's" say that he's a Socialist, then change the lead description to "Socialist President". The double standard has made a mess out of this article. It should be neutral, informative coverage of the movement. If there are questions about funding, organization, how it came to be etc. then it should really delve into those topics, not just repeating content-free insults by it's opponents. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

North, you seem to be raising a different point from the tag comment. Mostly, you seem to be arguing against including criticism.

Neutrality requires us to include criticism, but the statement in question is more analytic than critical. It is Pelosi's analysis of the origins of the TPM in relation to the GOP. As such, I do not see anything in your comment that would be a compelling argument for exclusion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus on what is to be done. The polls and demographics need to go back into their own section or eliminated entirely. The so-called "funding" is nothing more than claims of astroturfing and that section should be restored. The allegations of racism, same thing. These section headings were contributing to the overall neutrality of the article. Without them, the article is misleading and POV pushing. That's how the article got the tags, which were not there before.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the reason I broke this section out was to get people to focus on this one tag. If you won't do this, please post in some other section or make a new one. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting on this tag. We need to come to a consensus as to what is to be done. The neutrality of this article needs to be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Analysis" from Pelosi? (Pause while catching my breath from laughing.) Actually, it doesn't matter. It's her opinion, and she's not an expert. The tag should probably be removed, but only if it's clearly marked as "opinion". I'm not sure the present state of the article has adequate marks, as it's been moved from an "opinion" section to a "commentary" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the show of naked bias, but you are still incorrect. While we do have to attribute the view to her, we do not have to hide it in an opinion/commentary/criticism ghetto. In fact, it is almost always wrong to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

I removed the so-called "Opinions" section that featured exclusively the old comment by Paul Krugman. It's WP:UNDUE to give him his own section when the "Commentaries" section is clearly where this type of comment belongs. Krugman's comment was formerly part of the "Claims of astroturfing," section which has been removed without any consensus. It would be best if this section were put back so that neutrality on the issue can be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it had opinions by Krugman, Pelosi, and others (which were moved without comment to "commentary", rather than "opinions".) The paragraph still has opinions by Krugman and Pelosi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All the content Arthur mentions ought to appear in an "opinions" section. Placing only one of those things and its source alone under that heading would be undue. =Digiphi (Talk) 17:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the "commentaries" are nothing but opinions. The whole section could be eliminated. There needs to be more edits about the Tea Party movement individuals and why they joined the movement, what their experiences have been, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. What do you mean exactly? Anecdotes from blogs? Description of polls? I'd have an obvious problem with one. Also, let's perhaps table the discussion of whether the whole section should be eliminated for the time being, and right now move toward agreement that if the section stays, it must absolutely be under the heading of "Opinions" or "Allegations of" or something to that tune. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ----[I'd like to amend this comment to invite you to discuss this either on my talk page or in the well established section far up this page. This section here is not useful to the mission of the discussion page, and shouldn't be grown.] -Digiphi (Talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It can easily be titled "Opinions." It may have even been called that way back when. Also, we need to restore the Astroturfing section so that there's no question that these are allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

grassroots redux

I've restored the reliably sourced 'grassroots.' In looking over the discussions in the threads above, there is consensus for this edit. Also, there's no reliable source provided that shows the Tea Party movement isn't grassroots. I've noted Arthur Rubin, Digiphi, North8000, and myself all seem to be supportive of the edit. At the same time, the editor who objects has not provided any reliable source to show that the Tea Party movement did not arise as a grassroots movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that action. If you haven't seen this already, these sources lend weight to your (our) argument that the this should be reflected in the article.

Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other back in 2006, actually, both arranged locally

1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

-Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to remove it now. We cannot have "grassroots" in the lead without:

1) Attributing it to named individuals.

2) Immediately balancing it with the view that the organization is astroturf (attributing this to such named individuals as Pelosi and Krugman).

I appreciate your bold edit, but the role of such boldness is to get reverted and open up a new discussion. In this, you have succeeded. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are no reliable sources that the organization is "astroturfed", only that it is considered "astroturfed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By that token, there are no reliable sources that it is grassroots. We cannot use either term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the three sources listed are reliable. (Well, at least two of them.) All of the sources (so far presented) to the contrary are political commentary. Even Mad as Hell doesn't state that it's "Astroturfed", only that some (OK, many, although not yet supported by quotes) TP events were funded by outside sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is for the 'grassroots' to remain. There is no policy on Wikipedia that demands that this must be attributed to "named individuals." And it absolutely does not need to be balanced by Pelosi and Krugman. Those two are giving their opinions. The newspapers that are calling the movement grassroots have sent reporters to attend these rallies. They've been there from the beginning. They've seen that this arose from grassroots efforts. THAT is what makes these newspapers reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Dylan please examine the sources. Furthermore, the above Virginian-Pilot news pieces report Tea Party event as early as 2006, and report their local organization by community members. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the astroturfing, it belongs in a section called, "Claims of astroturfing." These are only allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, all the citations for the grassroots are reliable sources. Boston.com is the Boston Globe website. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. We need more detail in the references, so that editors can more easily determine provenance. As for "Claims of astroturfing", WP:WTA suggests we not use that word. ("Claims", not "astroturfing".) Although I agree that all we have are "claims", that appears not to be WP:NPOV phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We can call it "Allegations of Astroturfing," or "Accusations of Astroturfing."Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans that ignores the rules and cherry-picks sentences from sources can damage an article for a time, but is in no position to make lasting changes.

Allow me to support my accusation of cherry-picking. The first article you cite in support of the grassroots designation is http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html. But if you read the entire article, you find lines such as:

"Although Tea Party organizers have insisted they created a nonpartisan grass-roots movement, others have argued that tea parties were largely created by the clamor of cable news and fueled by the financial and political support of current and former Republican leaders."

This makes it clear that the grassroots designation comes from the TPM organizers, and is genuinely controversial outside of the movement. This explains why we find sources on both sides of the issue, yet you wish to base the lead upon selectively ignoring contrary views.

Muddling the interpretation of the controversy is the demand that we rule absolutely on whether the TPM is grassroots or astroturfed, when in fact we are not in any position to do so. Not only are we obligated to show all mainstream views, there is no one answer to be found. Some parts of the TPM are grassroots, others are astroturf: there is no single, cohesive TPM that is just one or the other. In the quote above, the counterclaim is that it is "largely", not wholly, astroturfed. And for an example of a reliable source that tells this balanced view, you need look no further than http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685795. The last section is particularly relevant. You could also look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-tea-party-lesson-pass_b_779712.html, which says:

"Surely this election -- with the tea party mobilization both the authentic and the corporate Astroturf parts -- is demonstration of that."

Given this, an unattributed claim of grassroots origin is unsupportable by the sources. As for the idea of hiding all criticism away in a ghetto section, that is likewise in violation of the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No Dylan. The Borosage piece is an blog/op-ed, and Borosage's opinions may only be added in the the appropriate section for that, with the proper attributions at every instance. Furthermore, the sources available, and accessible to you as every other editor, report the TPM as far back as 2006, either expressly as "grassroots" in the text of the sources, or in language remarkably devoid of anything "astroturf". -Digiphi (Talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to politely note that you did not address my argument. But thank you for the incidental comments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans" mean?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Which part is unclear to you? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer the question? Are you implying wrong-doing or are you not clear on consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am clear on this not being a consensus at all. A consensus includes all editors, not just three out of four of the editors active on a slow Sunday afternoon. Moreover, a consensus cannot stand in opposition to the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What rules? The edit is well sourced. You haven't shown otherwise. This has been a consensus, you just keep removing it. It was a consensus in the other thread, it's a consensus in this thread.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I'd also like you to answer the question, clarify the "consensus-of-three-partisans" bit. I don't get your meaning. I'd also like to see you write to the questions of the sources currently available to the article, and what you feel if wrong with them. Finally, please write to my denouncement of the Borosage piece, and by extension your suggestion that it's unreasonable or against policy to include in the article the conclusions reported in the aforementioned sources. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also. Agreement of 3 out of 4 concerned parties is, by definition, a consensus of whatever opinion the 3 share. However, the mission of this section "Grass Roots Redux" is not to reach consensus. It is really a discussion, started in good faith and for the edification of other editors, on the consensus previously developed in the original thread. The content has not changed, nor have the current event and sources reporting on them. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since "RS's" (by the narrower definition) are all over the board on most disputed topics, I tend to start on these things with a "what do you sincerely think" type discussion, and then move on to sourcing the consensus. If you look at nearly any metric of grassroots, the TPM is about as "grassroots" as any movement of that size can be. Not that it's 100% grassroots, but probably about 90% which is about as high as it gets. De-centralized, spontaneous, random beginnings, dis-organized, and frequently clashes with the establishment (the GOP) that many feel they are the closest to. If I had any qualms about it in the lead it's that the lead sentence is getting a bit adjective laden, and the term is a bit vague/uninformative (as is populist). That first sentence probably needs to get split into 2 more explanatory sentences. The "conservative/libertarian" probably needs a bit more explanation too, like "with both conservative and libertarian leanings" North8000 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were to say that 90% of the TPM organizations were grassroots, you might be right, but the distribution is such that this does not even entail that the majority is grassroots. The WashPost survey found that most of the registered TP orgs were unreachable, and that the remaining ones followed a power-law curve, with a few large ones that were financed by the usual suspects (Koch's orgs), and many tiny ones that were ineffectual and irrelevant. Is this what grass roots look like?

As for "both conservative and libertarian leanings", that's misleading. First of all, the TPM is 99% conservative. The other 1% must have wandered in looking for their AA meeting and stayed for the free beer. The libertarianism is not as universal as the conservatism, and some of our sources even suggest that it is injected by Koch instead of being a natural part. However, libertarianism is a form of conservatism, so there's no "both". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, in the future, please do us all the courtesy of at least signing your false accusations. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as I had to sign it for you, I've taken the liberty of adding numbers. This allows me to briefly respond to each:

1. This is an actual reversion: I removed the inserted "grassroots" from the lead.
2. Removed an undue-section tag, as part of a block of edits.
3. This is an exact duplicate of the previous link. I can only guess that you made a mistake.
4. Removed the verify tag from Krugman after verifying it, as part of that same block of edits.
5. Removed the off-topic tag from Pelosi after determining it was on topic, as part of that same block of edits.
6. Removed the last four tags, for varied reasons, as part of that same block of edits.
7. This is an actual reversion: I removed the tags that had been restored without justification. But see next.
8. You forgot about this, but immediately afterwards, I self-reverted.

In short, there is nothing even approaching a 3RR here.

I performed tag clean-up in a contiguous block of edits, all of which count as a single reversion. While I did revert one editor's attempt to reinsert the tags, I thought better of it and self-reverted. Then, sometime later, I reverted an entirely unrelated change exactly once.

Based on your sloppiness, including the duplication and the lack of timestamps, I'm going to assume good faith and conclude that you simply don't understand WP:3RR. That's fine, but now you know that you don't understand it, so you need to read it more carefully before you start throwing around false accusations. Got it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are totally correct, you edited in a block and that counts as a single edit so there is and was nowhere close to a 3RR violation, I am sure malke missed that, and I suggest this can be removed if anyone wants to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him, on his talk page, to remove it. Let's give him a chance to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't follow this. (maybe something was deleted?). May I suggest we move on? North8000 (talk)

I'm fully in favor of moving on, although I'd prefer that Malke remove this section, so that there is no question about his acceptance of the conclusion.

I did my best to make this followable, but if you have any further interest and would like me to go over this in detail to explain why nothing even close to a 3RR occurred, I would be willing to as a courtesy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't even find the 3RR claim that you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The initial claim was made by Arthur Rubin, in an edit comment, but he did not follow up on it so I ignored it as obviously false. Then this section was created, with the topic "3RR" and links to edits by me. This is a follow-up to Rubin's claim, as it seeks to establish the existence of a 3RR violation. Does that help? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I just think its a bit of a mistake and there is nothing to look at, I will happily delete the whole section in the spirit of moving on and getting on, it is clear that Dylan has not violated 3rr. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd really rather that Malke did it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

God, Guns and Gay's

According to Tea Party co-founder Karl Denniger who has now left the tea party movement. In the meetings that he attended as Tea Party leader the debates in the Tea party would all end up over god, guns and gay's. And very little about the fiscal and economic problems of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You would need to at least link us to a reliable source for this quote. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Is this it - after six minutes - http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2222649 - Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Denniger, whether the founder of a TP group or the president of India, needs to be reported as having said something in a reliable source for it to be mentioned in an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if a reliable source reports him making statements, exactly as you have described, they may be appropriate for the article about whichever group he might have been affiliated with (if there is one), but not on in this one about the TPM. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw quotes in reliable sources when I did the search, as I saw he is talking about the tea party in general not a specific branch, but I also am from the UK so I am not editing just joining in and doing a bit of research. It is true that Karl_Denninger is not presently mentioned in the article so he may well be a minor player. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not a reliable source. In the video Mr. Denniger, the co-founder of Fed Up, says that at a meeting of a Knoxville, Florida—is that it? I can't make it out in the video; some town in Florida, anyway—group the conversation ultimately ended up being about "God, guns and gays". Everything else is from the text of the page. http://market-ticker.org is an unaffiliated blog not authored by a professional and is not a reliable source, defined here WP:newspaper and magazine blogs. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the new British Tea Party contrasted itself from the American one by saying "We are less concerned with 'God, guns and gays'"[22]. Yet another reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs such as http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/karl-denninger-tea-party-founder-tea-party-is-a-joke/ have links to videos that are primary sources. I don't think reliability can be seriously questioned anymore. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2222649 contains Denninger's own words, directly. Given that Denniger is notable, we do not need a secondary source to quote him; his own article is authoritative about his own opinion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying again on Fundraising and Support

A couple of weeks ago, someone proposed addressing this section so that we could pull off the tags. That attempt foundered on a large number of objections. I thought I would try to restart the discussion with some sample text that addresses WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other issues. I have a suggested drop in text for the whole section below. You can see this fully formatted in the context of a full page, as of Sunday morning, in my userspace at User:MBMadmirer/Tea Party Movement. Anyways, the proposed text:

Various claims have been made about the funding and support of tea party organizations. In October 2010, The Washington Post surveyed Tea Party organizations and found that approximately half that responded were not connected to a national organization and that 46% had received some funding from a national organization, with 10% saying that they get the majority of funding from national organizations.[95] Gardner found tea party groups who claimed to be linked to, in order of size, Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, local Republican parties, the 9/12 Project, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty.

In addition to financial support, local organizations have received training from national organizations. For example, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty have organized training programs around the country.[96]

These organizations have some wealthy backers and the combination of organizational support to tea party groups and donors has lead to claims that the tea parties are astroturf organizations.[97] In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor.[98] In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.[99] Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles.[100]

In addition so-called tea party candidates had fundraising successes. Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.[101] Sharron Angle raised $14m in the 3rd quarter of the fundraising cycle.[102]

I would very much appreciate additions. A good chunk of this is just re-organized text from the existing page, with some framework on the core issue from a recent story from The Washington Post. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Good call, Digitphi. The existing section is:

In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor.[98]

Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles.[99] Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.[100] In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.[101][not in citation given]

Kate Zernike, writing in the New York Times describes the Kochs as founders of the Americans for Prosperity, which they[who?] say has supported the Tea Party movement.[102][relevant? – discuss] Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the latter supplied in part by Charles and David Koch.[103][unreliable source?] David Koch of Koch Industries, who sits on AFP's Board of Directors, has help fund a number of Tea Party causes. His group is identified as one of the key groups, with FreedomWorks, behind the April 15, 2009 national tea party events. Its Hot Air Tour organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.[104][relevant? – discuss]

MBMadmirer (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Let's please put this in the existing discussion section, or at least move this new section to a position immediately beneath the original, for the purposes of organization and keeping the original participants in the discussion. I feel very strongly about this. Would you please delete it and move the text, or at least move the section upwards? I'm going to drop a note on your talk page too. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's fine where it stands. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Astroturf" is the insult term hurled by their opponents, which sort of means "phony". If everything said in this discussion section were true, it would still provide no support for use of that term. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(to Dylan) Well, it is a continuation of a discussion which you clearly lost, above, but I suppose it's acceptable for MBMadmirer to try to avoid the unreasonable editors.

(to MBMadmirer) Mayer still didn't say that. Otherwise, a reasonable approach. Perhaps Krugman and Pelosi ahould be moved to this section (in a separate "opinions" subsection), as their "commentary" is only as to funding. Also, [97] needs to explicitly state "claims of astroturf" and be a reliable source, not just a marginally reliable source making claims of astroturfing, per North8000's comment.

(to North8000) I hadn't considered that. If my last comment to MBMadmirer were taken into account, would that solve the problem?

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)