Talk:Tea Party movement

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hot Air Tour

The AFP's "Hot Air Tour" was organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a cap and trade program. I suggest we remove this passage as insignificant. the Americans for Prosperity article does not mention Hotair nor Tea Party. WP:undue Darkstar1st (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. A connection between the TPm and the tour is made in the source.[1] That the AFP article does not mention it is irrelevant to whether or not it is significant. TFD (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

connection? line 25 of page 150 of the source you linked reads: attracts tea party activists, sounds like they mean two different groups. A attracts B, not A attracts A. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone makes the connection explicit in this piece about AFP leader Tim Phillips. It says that "Phillips launched a 'Hot Air Tour' of America last year [2010], staging faux-populist protests against climate legislation." The article connects AFP and Koch Industries money with the Hot Air Tour, and it connects AFP and Phillips with the Tea Party. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

the tea party/Americans_for_Prosperity link has failed on the Americans_for_Prosperity article page, perhaps it should be debated there. AFP is accused of supporting the tea party, if such an allegation cannot survive there, it certainly doesn't belong on an unrelated article. [2] Darkstar1st (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I surfed over to that article using your link but I don't see anything resembling a consensus there to avoid mentioning Koch money in relation to TPm or AFP. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you using the term "accused?" TFD (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "teabagger"

See also: Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion § The_term_.22teabagger.22

I can't recall having been involved in this article until right now, and would like to point out an error. The following sentence in the article is unsourced, it has two separate Wikipedia tags on it, and it is erroneous:

The term ''[[wikt:teabagger|teabagger]]'' was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives{{who|date=September 2013}} used ''tea bag'' as a verb on protest signs and websites.{{cn|date=September 2013}}

According to the article by Alex Koppelman that's already in the footnotes:

[W]hen used as a verb, the words “tea bag” and “teabagging” have nothing to do with a hot, soothing drink....I’ve traced the meme’s birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent’s David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: “Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!” (sic).

Those first uses on websites were not by conservatives at all, so the unsourced sentence in the Wikipedia article is false. And the origin seems to have been a single protest sign, not a plurality of them. Surely we can make this article a fine upstanding place to visit, instead of, um, a fleabag. Any objection if I take a crack at it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence does not say the first uses were by conservatives but that the term "teabagger" was used "after conservatives used "tea bag" as a verb." Presumably the term "teabagger" was coined by non-supporters. TFD (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, i agreed it should be trimmed/merged or removed, having a sub-section devoted to a slur seems excessive per wp:due. is the average reader searching wikipedia for information about tea party interested in learning about a sex act? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Four Deuces, the first uses on websites were apparently not by conservatives, right? Those first website uses were based on a use by a conservative protester's sign. Darkstar, I only have ambitions here to correct an error, not to restructure the article. The latter may or may not be desirable, but it's not what I'm suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You can remove "on websites." IIRC, Jon Stewart picked up on the sign. It is worth noting because the term is in popular usage, although it does not deserve its own section. TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words "tea bag" as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing teabagger as a term for Tea Partiers. Cite: Koppelman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me -- though I'm not familiar with the sourcing of the assertion that the protestor was conservative. If that's not rock solid, it could say "person at a tea party rally" or the like.William Jockusch (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing for the assertion that the protester was conservative, I would add this source, which is the photographer asserting that the protester was from Free Republic, which is a well known conservative group (and the photographed sign also says "Free Republic").Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I propose to replace this:

“ The term ''[[wikt:teabagger|teabagger]]'' was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives{{who|date=September 2013}} used ''tea bag'' as a verb on protest signs and websites.{{cn|date=September 2013}} ”

with this:

“ In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words "tea bag" as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing teabagger as a term for Tea Partiers.[3][4] ”

• Support (as proposer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rm. the word "websites" as TFD proposed if it pleases you. Commented about the same thread before at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion#The term "teabagger".TMCk (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  Or propose a different less one-sided wording/solution than the one above.TMCk (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section is titled "Use of the term teabagger". If the first such use was on a website, in February 2009, then why wipe the section clean of any information about websites?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe b/c those 2 blogs are less than notable?TMCk (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Wonkette has its own Wikipedia article. See also these three books at Google Books: [5], [6], [7]. Plus Wonkette and its bloggers are mentioned in several of the sources already footnoted in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

proposed inclusion in the page

Hi, I'm not an autoconfirmed author. So I can't publish in here. But I think this would be very useful in this page: "A study by Skocpol and Williams proposes that Tea Party should be understood in the "grey vs brown" opposition. They don't critize plain "government spending". The division is between those citizens that have earned the government spending (themselves, the "hard-workers"), and those who haven't (the "freeloaders"). They are suburban mature people. To the other side are the young (especially those without a job) and the illegal immigrants. The young people may include their own family. Thus, the Tea Party support medicare, social security and veteran programs, but don't support. Stockpol and Williams separate the grassroots sector and the business sectors who appropiates their clames but that, for example, include social security in the restructuration. [8] [9]" Please, I'd like to ask it to be put in the original page. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove separate subsection about "teabaggers"

Any objection if we just remove the separate subsection about teabaggers, and replace it with a sentence like "Members of the Tea Party have sometimes been referred to using the pejorative term 'teabaggers'." Details are at the link, and it seems excessive to dwell on the subject so much here in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Objection. The term has garnered media attention and Tea Party response. The full paragraph is needed to cover it. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of slurs at Wikipedia that are briefly mentioned in the subjects' article, with a wikilink to elaboration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ames and Levine on the launching of the Tea Party

I'm wondering if we might add this cite: http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-familiar-rightwing-pr-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/ to the comments on origin section, despite the near-obscenity in its title (the piece was originally published by Playboy). Ames and Levine report on the creation of websites used in the launching of the Tea Party prior to Santelli's on-air declamation, which is suggestive of a pre-planned media blitz on the Tea Party theme. Jonabbey (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

the website does not appear to be a reliably published source, and playboy does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking with regards to its work in political analysis (despite the fact that everyone has their copy "for the articles"). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Crap

How do you edit this crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.139.169 (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult. The best way is to propose a change here at the talk page. If by some miracle your proposal is accepted by a consensus of editors, then it will be implemented. (This applies regardless of whether you sign up for a user name.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

'Crap' is a four-letter word, its use is to be discouraged. I read through the article and there are some good aspects. The article seems too long. I would not put Huffington Post as a reference. There needs to be current activity from Tea Party House and Senate leaders: Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) come to mind.These are very important times in History and can be properly documented in WP. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Request Change

"The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5]"

Proposed

"The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] partly populist,[5] and partly anarchist." 

citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/10/11/the-tea-party-is-giving-anarchism-a-bad-name/ 68.48.204.94 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)