Talk:Tea Party protests

Presidential campaign in 2007, not the protests of 2009

See for yourself [1]--24.171.6.27 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a YouTube video from an unreliable mystery source purporting to show that Paul's campaign and supporters made references to the 1773 Tea Party and "revolution" as part of his presidential campaign. This article, on the other hand, is about the protests that started in 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the source of the video is irrelevant but the source(s) of the content within the video are relevant and also quite obvious. They are all clips from mainstream television networks and clearly labeled. In addition the video does not simply "show that Paul's supporters made references to the 1773 Tea Party" during his 2007 campaign as you stated. It shows they referred to their fundraisers and protests as Tea Parties in 2007 and it shows footage from a few of those protests. Furthermore the video includes well known mainstream media figures like Juan Williams, Rachel Maddow, Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd saying things like Ron Paul supporters started the Tea Party in 2007 and Ron Paul is the Godfather of the Tea Party.

While the video may not be a good reference for this article nor does it prove who started the Tea Party protests or when they started(as if that's possible), it certainly points out the fact that there are alternative views as to when they did start and who started them. It also points out that there were Tea Party protests in 2007. So far this page fails to represent the topic accurately and without bias because it fails to represent a well documented and widely held alternative view. The article opens with "The Tea Party protests are a series of protests across the United States that began in early 2009." That statement only represents one side of the argument as if it were fact and does not mention the 2007 Tea Party Protests.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The source of the video is very relevant. It is not from a reliable source (so is absolutely "not a good reference" for this or any Wikipedia article). It also does not "prove" anything about the start of the present Tea Party movement - which becomes even more evident once you see that it tries to claim origins as far back as 2007. It contains a number of video snippets, with no indication what was said before or after those clips, or what the context might be. There have been protests and demonstrations called "Tea Parties" since as far back as the 1970s (and probably farther back). If you believe there is a "widely held alternative view" that should be represented, we'll need reliable sources discussing that view, as well as it's significance. Are there any? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure here are just a few:

1. The vindication of Ron Paul. Will founding father of the tea party movement get his due from party leaders? (Baltimore Sun 11/2010)

Remember, it was Ron Paul supporters who kick-started the tea party into life on Dec. 16, 2007, when they dumped a $6 million "money bomb" into his presidential campaign on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Not that all or even most tea partiers are Paulians when the rubber meets the road.

• By opinion talk show host Ron Smith (radio host). Note that he describes the "Tea Party" as a campaign drive to elect Paul as president, not as the present movement that started in 2009.

2. Was Ron Paul, tea party re-inventor, right all along?(LA Times 04/2009)

Maybe you remember about 16 months ago the 11-term Texas Republican representative, who's now organized a new Campaign for Liberty, was raking in more political contributions each month than most other GOP presidential candidates, relying on his hundreds of thousands of fervent supporters staging their money bomb days of online donations and -- oh, yes – tea parties.

• ...another opinion piece, noting the movement of supporters trying to raise money get a single individual elected, rather than describing the present movement of protesters not beholden to any individual politician.

Paul's liberty campaign today sought to remind folks of its role in the re-genesis of tea parties in 2007.

• ...by issuing a press release in April, 2009, weirdly trying to equate a presidential election fundraising drive with the new protest movement: "The concept of the modern day Tea Party began on December 16, 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign came together and raised over $6 million online in one day..."

3. Tea Party Godfather Ron Paul Running for President (ABC News 05/2011)

Paul, a native of Pittsburgh, is both a spiritual father and actual father in the tea party movement.

• He has a son in the present Tea Party movement. Now getting back to the origins of the movement that exists today, note that this article says the Paul campaign and the TP movement both use "tea party" imagery -- but it separates Ron Paul's election campaigning efforts from the present protest movement: "As far back as 2007, long before people were evoking the fabled Boston Tea Party to symbolize their disgust with an overtaxing central government, Ron Paul was hosting a "Tea Party Fundraiser"...

4. JUAN WILLIAMS: The Surprising Rise of Rep. Ron Paul(Fox News 05/2011)

The Tea Party, which drove the GOP to claim a majority of the House in the mid-term elections, grew largely out of the ashes of his 2008 presidential campaign, which emphasized limited government and a return to constitutional principles.

• Another opinion piece trying to equate Paul's "2008 presidential campaign" with the present TP movement, by noting that Paul shares the "limited government and a return to constitutional principles" attitude held by today's protesters as well as other libertarians for decades now.

5. Paul tries to reap Tea Party seeds he helped nourish(Boston Globe 07/2011)

Four years ago, Ron Paul’s libertarian views became divining rods for the brand of strident antigovernment activism that grew into the Tea Party movement. “Now that there’s a shift in attitude, a country that’s getting in worse shape by the day, all of a sudden the message becomes very appropriate,’’ the 75-year-old obstetrician and 12-term representative said in an interview.

• This article makes my point. Paul has (as have many other libertarians) always been for limited government and cutting taxes, and has seven campaigned on those issues, but "Now" there is an actual movement, and he's hoping to hitch a ride on it. The article even notes that Paul and the Tea Party are separate: "Paul and Tea Party activists may be working from the same antitax, probusiness playbook, but when matters turn to personal rights or foreign policy, their views diverge."

--76.20.32.102 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

--Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Those sources, like many others, clearly establish that an alternative view exists. Just because you don't agree with the view does not mean it doesn't exist.

Excerpt from current wiki:
"The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest has also been used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters during fundraising events in the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives."

If that paragraph was written more fairly without a motive by someone with an unbiased opinion and included some sources like those I listed then the alternative view would be represented at least to some degree in a fair manner. The paragraph says, "which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern day tea party movement." Not only do "they" claim that but many others do as well and the sources I listed above like LA Times clearly demonstrate that. (apparently my old ip 76.20.32.102 expired so I decided to create a wiki account :) --JustaJason (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You have misread. I do agree with the view, as shown in the above sources, that Ron Paul has previously invoked the tea party theme during his presidential campaigning — holding protests called "tea party protests" is nothing new, and Ron Paul certainly didn't invent them (see the references given in this Wikipedia article to even earlier protests than his). That would be appropriate content for his Wikipedia article, not the Tea Party movement article, nor this one. The movement that exists today didn't start until 2009, even though there have been many "tea party protests" in the past. By the way, I don't see an "LA Times" source reporting on the origins of the Tea Party movement listed above; I only see an opinion piece by commentary columnist Andrew Malcom that was printed in the LA Times. In that piece, Malcom doesn't say Paul started the Tea Party movement; he says Paul & his supporters held tea party-themed protests 16 months earlier -- something on which we all agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You said "the movement that exists today didn't start until 2009." How is that a fact? What source is there that's not based on opinion with regard to the origin of the modern day Tea Party movement? If we all agree that Ron Paul supporters held tea party themed protests in 2007 and this article is titled "Tea Party Protests" then what's the problem?

You also mentioned "Malcom doesn't say Paul started the Tea Party movement; he says Paul & his supporters held tea party-themed protests 16 months earlier." I'm not sure there's much difference but are you implying that if he had specifically said Paul started the Tea Party movement you would accept it? Because plenty of people like Juan Williams have said that yet you don't accept it. He's as credible as most of the sources in the article page and he's even referenced in the current Tea Party Movement wiki as well. JustaJason (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm no expert on this topic but I did look at some of the old sources. I think it's clear that Ron Paul is "more recently" (as our articles say now) a godfather of the movement, and also clear that others preceded him (for example in 1991). Hope that helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Susan. I'm not too concerned about weather or not Ron Paul is credited with starting the movement. My point was that clearly Ron Paul supporters held Tea Party Protests in 2007. I agree there were similar protests even before that(though many years before). Since this page is called "Tea Party Protests" it seems the 2007 protests as well as the ones prior should be outlined in detail here. Don't they qualify under the current title? So far the arguments against including those protests seem to argue that this page is for modern day tea party protests. Then why not include "modern day" in the title? I suppose the argument then would be weather or not 2007 counts as modern day. JustaJason (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 2007 protests should be here. (And 1991 if you can find any material about them. I'm old enough to think that anything after 1950 or World War II is modern day, aka contemporary history.) -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback Susan and the helpful links you posted on my talk page. Obviously I'm a noob to Wikipedia so I'm still learning all the procedures. I noticed somebody changed a few very minor things to a previous comment of mine on this talk page. I'm just curious why. I quoted a portion of the wiki in a comment under "excerpt from current wiki." That portion was later edited within the Wiki article but it was also changed within my comment(I think, though all this is still a bit confusing). Here are the changes reflected in my comment. This is all new to me so I'm just trying to figure things out. JustaJason (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the changes were "automatic" or if someone else changed them (it is possible the text is linked and somehow automagically updated). Somebody else would have to answer that. I'm going on wikibreak for a week. Good luck! -SusanLesch (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests or Tea Party Protests in 2009?

I'm confused, is this article page supposed to explain Tea Party Protests or the 2009 Tea Party Protests? It seems rather lopsided if it's supposed to explain Tea Party Protests as a whole. I read a comment on this talk page that said, "This article, on the other hand, is about the protests that started in 2009," by Xenophrenic under the heading "Presidential campaign in 2007, not the protests of 2009." I would argue that this page should be combined with the "List of Tea Party protests, 2009" page that already exists if that's the case, or at the very least the title should be changed.

On the other hand if this is about Tea Party Protests as a whole why aren't there any references to the 2007 Tea Party protests? There are plenty of sources out there, including in The Tea Party Movement wiki. I can also provide sources if needed.--76.20.32.102 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the Paul's 2007 "tea party" protests. There is also mention of other "tea party" protests earlier than those, in the 1990s and the 1980s. See the Background section. I believe this article, however, originated with the description of the protests of the present Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Arrests

There were a couple of Tea Partiers arrested; some of them were part of rallies, whereas others were unrelated to rallies.

Top Tea Party Organizer Arrested for Prostitution http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/top-tea-party-organizer-arrested-for-prostitution.html

SC Tea Party Leaders Arrested For Selling Pirated Computer Software http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/sc_tea_party_leaders_arrested_for_selling_pirated.php

Violent tea partier arrested at Democratic rally in Houston http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/03/violent-tea-partier-arrested-at-democratic-rally-in-houston/

Tea Party Activists Hit Capitol Hill, 9 Arrested http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/tea-party-activists-hit-c_n_347016.html

Strange Scene: 10 Arrested As Tea Partiers Heckle Police http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/strange-scene-10-arrested-as-tea-party-watchers-heckle-police.php

Phoenix 'tea party' rally leads to arrests http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/04/15/20110415Phoenix-tea-party-rally-arrests-abrk.html

Please confirm these sources. Thank you. Great50 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Leader Flees CBS Cameras After Handgun Arrest http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/tea-party-leader-flees-cbs-cameras-after-han

Great50 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the 'Arrests' section of the infobox until someone less lazy than me wants to update it with these articles. 72.198.211.245 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Article is very difficult to edit

I clicked the "edit" button and was immediately confused. It is filled with so many random codes and brackets, that's it's impossible to understand what I'm looking at. Worse than looking at C code. Isn't there some way we can clean-up the article so it looks like a readable document in the Wiki-editor, instead of confusing gibberish? Thanks. ---- Theaveng (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess not.  :-| ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of what?

Since 13 Nov., the Tea Party Protests article has included:

(Infobox civil conflict)

|partof = response to excessive government social and fiscal policies.

I think that "excessive" has to be modified or attributed. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NO response since, so I added "Perceived" before "excessive", etc. If that's too many "perceieved"s, then someone should just edit out the "excessives". I thought this more accurately reflected the situation...i.e. they're not against taxation per se, but what they perceieve as excessive taxation. To take away "excessive" make a change to what is being said, just as to not indicate that it is their opinion that it is excessive makes it sound like a factual statement (that taxation IS excessive, which is an inherently subjective thing.).204.65.34.168 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Source 2 does not document unsupported claim of protest against TARP

The second Tea Party rally mentioned, just after Obama was inaugerated, is characterized as protesting both the Obama Stimulus and the TARP bank bailout. The reference 2 follows that statement. I checked the source and no where does it claim (the absence demonstrating it was NOT an issue) that the protest was against the bank bailout.

This is important because recently, many pundits are claiming that the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party have their protest of the banks in common. The claim that like both oppose bank bailouts is not supported by the source cited, nor by any actual evidence.

If the Tea Party, which started at the time that Obama took office, were outraged about TARP, it would have made sense to protest in in 2008 before Bush signed it rather than wait until he was out of office and then, when Obama took over, protest a bill passed in October of 2008, when Obama had not yet been even elected. Why did they wait?

And also note that for a few week Herman Cain became a Tea Party favorite. But if the Tea Party is fiercely opposed to the Federal Reserve Board, why did they support a man who had served, unapologetically, on the Kansas Federal Reserve Board. It becomes clear that the Tea Party protested the Recovery Act (Stimulus) but their outrage at the bank bailout is a fabrication. The source on the Wiki article regarding the early Tea Party rally, at any rate, does not support it. None of the other noted rallies listed support a claim that the Tea Party movement formed around the concept of opposing the bank bailouts. It lacks support and therefore should be deleted. Or, it could be remodeled to show how many today are making that claim, but the evidence does not back it up. A current meme of how the OWS and Tea Party have a common outrage at the banks and the bank bailouts is currently being supported by the Wikipedia article, in the very introduction, and may be contributing to a false comparison gaining currency.

Perhaps there could be a paragraph about various unsupported claims about the Tea Party. As a newbie, it was amusing reading archives and arguments, none of which focused on such a fundamental problem as misstating the basic concerns of the Tea Party movement.

The original Ron Paul Tea Party rallies of 2007 did protest the Federal Reserve and Military/Security War State, but the 2009 Tea Party rallies did not express outrage at the FRB/banks and it almost completely supports Big Military and today (2012) actually wants to increase defense spending! So this is not the Ron Paul anti-bank anti-war Tea Party. This is the Tea Party which arose to protest Obama, focusing on this combination of 1/3 tax cuts (they protested against this!) Imagine protesting against tax cuts, which was the largest portion of the stimulus, $280 billion, with another 1/3 250 billion to pay for unemployment benefits to the victims of the recesssion, and 250 billion in direct job creation, funding school districts to keep teachers jobs, cop, etc as well as loan guarantees and grants for direct job creation through funding infrastructure projects.

The protest was not about banks but against government spending. Even when that spending was tax cuts for the middle class, for Tea Party partisans themselves. They protested funding benefits for the unemployed. And they protested spending to save firemen, safety inspectors, cops jobs.

I welcome evidence that a major issue was TARP, as the article states, or the Federal Reserve, which the original Paul rallies did protest.

Conclusion: the claim that the early Tea Party rally in Feb of 2009 (a few weeks after the swearing in: Glen Beck, who promoted the Tea Party of 2009, is now saying their motive was race!)was about TARP and the Stimulus is wrong. Either delete the unsupported claim and the empty source 2. Or include the claim, since it has currency in today's political discourse, and the evidence, or lack thereof, for its accuracy.

I would prefer, over deleting the false claim, exposing the falsehood and putting it in the context of efforts to revise history and the motives for such efforts. If the only real issue was Obama's spending (1/3 tax cuts), then the assertion, I would suggest, that TARP was equally a target of protest is a cover for the appearance of racism in their date of emergence as a movement. When a person like Beck makes this connection, and the TARP controversy had unfolded 4 months earlier, even before Obama was elected, and when many, in an apparent effort to show that they are NOT racist, a black candidate who was a Federal REserve officer, there is a likelihood that the historical revision is intended to backpedal from the single-minded assault on Obama, when in terms of policy the protest should have been staged in September of 2008.

These are my speculations, but the claim of TARP protest is NOT backed up by the source and should be deleted or expanded to expose the revision.

Will anyone read this? As a newbie, I am lost....message in a bottle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffsoft (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to deeper researchers here to sort out exactly which statement you are referring to and whether or not it is sourced/accurate. But in your post above I see an argument which is a synthesis by you (which is fine on a talk page but, because it is synthesis, carries no validity/ weight regarding determining article content. )Your logic also relies on the false premise of treating the TPM as an entity, which it isn't. Later in your post you go even deeper into to pure speculation with a certain POV setting its direction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor performed a large revert with only this as an explanation:

(I'm afraid not. Some of your edits were rejected by consensus; some violate WP:BLP, some are just wrong...)

I've reviewed the edits and found no BLP violations and no changes against consensus. It would be very helpful if the editor would indicate any specific BLP violations, relevant consensus discussions or other concerns here so that they can be discussed. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, much of the same content has been reverted without discussion. I'm requesting again that editors please raise their concerns here for discussion rather than edit warring. Specific undiscussed and unexplained edits that I've seen include:

• Removal of content that indicates Breitbart was not present at the protests. Reliable sources feel that is pertinent information to convey, so it would be POV to omit that on grounds that "we" don't think it is important.
• Removal of Trumka content, claiming it is "non-notable". "Notability" is a requirement for article creation, not content within a Wikipedia article. The content is relevant to the subject matter in the article, and significant in that context, so what is the argument for removing it?
• Removal of reliable sources describing the slurs at the health care protests; no explanation given.

Xenophrenic (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not required to raise my concerns about OR quotes from videos or content being added which isn't present in the cited sources. †TE†Talk 15:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are, ThinkEnemies. When you attempt to remove content on the bases that it is "OR" and "not present in cited sources", and then your reasoning is challenged on the Talk page, you really should discuss and resolve your concerns instead of continue to revert-war your edits into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Trumka content, claiming it is "non-notable". "Notability" is a requirement for article creation, not content within a Wikipedia article. The content is relevant to the subject matter in the article, and significant in that context, so what is the argument for removing it?

False. My edit summaries repeatedly state that is an OR addition due to the fact you manufactured content from a video with no transcription by secondary sources. The fact it's not notable is just more reason you should reconsider pushing it. †TE†Talk 15:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not false. You did indeed claim it was "not-notable", which isn't a valid justification for purging content from an article. Also, I'm not "pushing it" -- it's been in the article for ages, and you are deleting it, so I asked for your reasoning. Here is the content you deleted:

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, corroborated Lewis' version of events during a confrontation with Breitbart at a Harvard Institute of Politics forum by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word."

What part of that do you say is "manufactured content"? The quote? I believe I transcribed it correctly. If there was an error, why not simply correct it instead of purging the whole thing? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content that indicates Breitbart was not present at the protests. Reliable sources feel that is pertinent information to convey, so it would be POV to omit that on grounds that "we" don't think it is important.

It does nothing to improve the readability of this BLP and it's also pointless due the fact Breitbart isn't claiming to have been there.

It's like saying: "Breitbart, who wasn't good at math as a child, has offered $100,000 for proof."

That being said, if it's so important to the OP I'll be happy to add it right now to the text preceding the RS. †TE†Talk 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done †TE†Talk 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence itself isn't "so important to me". It apparently was important enough to the reliable sources to state it, and I didn't want to second-guess them. It apparently isn't as unimportant, if two different editors will revert-war to remove it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources describing the slurs at the health care protests; no explanation given.

Xenophrenic stated as part of an edit summary: rem "recounted weeks later", as same is on audio clip.

This was in direct relation to a quote: "You know, this reminds me of a different time."

I took it on good faith and used the source Xeno cited. [2] I can put the ref dated weeks later back directly after the content, in chronological order of course (it's still used for other content in the article). I'll do that right now. †TE†Talk 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done †TE†Talk 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about here. The reference I was talking about was the CNN.COM reference, and the associated content. Still gone. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tried to do keep them together per the OP's wishes, but upon further review I realized the OP was incorrect in claiming the 2 sources contained the same quote.[3]
†TE†Talk 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Still unclear about what content you are speaking about here. Quote? A little more info, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I've reviewed this further; if you are speaking about the "reminds me of a different time" saying, I never made a claim that "the 2 sources contained the same quote", as you allege. I said I removed your "recounted weeks later" modifier because the "same is on audio clip". On audio, he says Lewis said "I’m being reminded of another time" and in the later interview, he says Lewis said "this reminds me of a different time". Are you suggesting that our article contain both ways of saying the same thing, with text that indicates one was said 3 weeks after the other? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made the following edits to the content in the article. They appear uncontroversial to me, but let me know if you have any further concerns.

• Removed duplicate sentence (and duplicate attached refs) beginning with "Politicians from both political parties..." that was inserted without explanation
• Re-wikilinked Zernike that was undone without explanation
• Returned the reference formatting that was undone without explanation
• Returned wording more closely conveying what cited sources say ("...been slow to respond to critics who've painted protesters as racists.")
• Returned the CNN reference, and the related content about the nature and frequency of anti-gay slurs, that was removed without explanation
• I moved the cbsnews.com reference (dated in April, but actually describes events from 3 weeks prior) back to the content it describes
• Returned Trumka content that was deleted under the pretense of OR/SYNTH; I've re-verified that there is no OR or SYNTH, and that there has been no personal interpretation of the video contents of the cited sources
• Returned the Carson "rattled it off" quote cited to the CBS source that was deleted without explanation
• Removed POV verbiage misdescribing this news piece as a "correction"
• Removed this opinion piece and some content not fully supported by it (can this be verified as a reliable source for assertion of fact?)

I've reviewed archived discussions I've had with your ThinkEnemies account, and it seems we've gone over a lot of this same ground before. Maybe it would be helpful to remember that the audio clip transcription produced by that Breitbart opinion writer, Kerry Picket, in the Washington Times piece has several errors. She has Carson saying "and a person said" instead of "and of course he said", and she leaves words out of the "15 times" quote (i.e.; "I heard it..."), among others. Also keep in mind that for Wikipedia editors transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research, as long as the description of the content from the recording can be "verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge". That seems to be tripping up some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's no point trying to talk to somebody who ignores their blatant BLP violations and continues to DISRUPT to make as POINT. My rationale for my overly-considerate edits are for actual wikipedians to hopefully take notice and do something about the seriously POV, OR and OWNership issues of Xenophrenic (talk · contribs). The reason this edit-warrior doesn't accuse me of similar violations is because my edits are respectable, NPOV, and more of what is needed around here.

• Anyways, rationale here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Where_the_problem_still_is_--_A_diff_maybe_MC_or_whoever_else_will_actually_look_at_instead_of_passing_over_it_to_comment_on_other_stuff

• here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AGK#comment

• here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&action=history (note, my edit summaries have meaning)

• What Xenophrenic does with his constant reverts back to his many BLP violations will be considered vandalism from here on out and treated as such. †TE†Talk 10:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no WP:BLP edits by Xenophrenic. After reading both the edit favored by ThinkEnemies and Xenophrenic, I think Xenophrenic edit is far better written and more in line with WP:NPV. Casprings (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for bringing your rubber stamp. †TE†Talk 23:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why so confrontational, TE? Comments like that, and those in your edit summaries, are not necessary or helpful. I looked at the "rationale" you provided, and like Casprings I see no indication of a BLP violation. Could you please be more specific? There is no mention whatsoever in your comments on AGK's Talk page, and the only edit summary that comes close says "removed conspiratorial attack on democratic congressman", which tells us nothing. At your link to the ArbCom page I see no BLP violations described. I do see where you said "a complete hitjob on Health Shuler we can discuss" - but then you never discuss it. Please specify the BLP violation so that it may be addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's some additional information on the edits I just made:

• I expanded this content to include missing context. Old version:

Moments after the incident, Carson was asked if the people outside were dangerous: "Oh absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security…I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups."

With additions:

After the incident, Carson said he "expected rocks to come", and said Capitol Police became aware and surrounded them. When he was asked if he thought the people outside were generally dangerous: "Oh absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security…I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. I mean this kind of animosity is the kind of things we keep threat assessments on record." When asked if there was any physical altercation or if anything was thrown, Carson said no, and reiterated the Capitol Police escort.

• Added missing sentence to NYT correction, which was about a NYT article we don't cite in our Wikipedia article -- which strikes me as curious. What is the addition of the NYT correction supposed to convey to our readers?
• I moved this problematic sentence here for discussion:
  • Using the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News as his source, Jesse Washington, who covers the "race beat" for the Associated Press, named Shuler as a "corroborating witness" to the slurs alleged by Rep. Cleaver.The Great Tea-Bait Taranto Opinion; James Taranto. Wall Street Journal April 14, 2010.

1) That is a Taranto opinion piece; as mentioned above, we shouldn't be using it for assertion of fact. 2) The "corroborating witness" quote makes it sound like you are quoting Washington, when that isn't the case. Here is Washington's actual article: N-word Feud. Shouldn't we just add that?

• I modified the text starting with "The AP later clarified that Shuler heard slurs against Frank but not Cleaver..." -- they didn't "clarify" that at all. They reported that Shuler (and his spokespeople) were now saying something different. Shuler was "denying" the previous report, claiming the reporter must have misunderstood him. It was a new report, not a clarification (and absolutely not a "correction") of an old report.
• Expanded Breitbart quote to include his accusation of racism based on the mislabeled video.
• Added sentence from CBS noting that charges the Congressmen were sparked mostly by the mislabeled video.
• Ref and ref name clean-up, formatting

Xenophrenic (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We have some of these "incidents" in two articles still. What are your thoughts about consolidating them in one article? Also, would you be adverse to taking a more encyclopedic, "longer-view" approach to this material? The minutia in these sections, including all the "he said/she said" is a bit overwhelming. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You've re-instated problematic material again, and I see no explanation for that provided here. Again, whould you please address the concerns itemized above instead of revert-warring? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC on which version of Abusive behavior section best represents WP:BLP

Latest version by Editor 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&oldid=568335461#Reports_of_abusive_behavior

Latest version by Editor 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&oldid=568365883#Reports_of_abusive_behavior

Editor 2 conducted a experiment by emulating the editing-style of Editor 1 here. Though Editor 2 attempted his best impersonation of Editor 1 -- Editor 2 found it difficult to match the POV-pushing and BLP-violating prowess of Editor 1 and fell short. Apparently, that was still more than enough reason for Editor 1 to further their UNDUE editing-pattern here. Editor 1, even while adding more of the trivial, somehow found a way to delete the one of the only references which calls their preferred narrative into question here. While not surprised, Editor 2 is profoundly disappointed with the results as they foolishly believed Editor 1 might finally recognize the error of their own ways. An RfC on Editor 1 also failed to help them see and correct their well-established issues to the determent of this project. I'm calling out for anyone to help before this disruption goes too far. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 14:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of non-neutral assertions for an RfC. Would you mind re-wording this in a clear, more neutral manner? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this being "non-neutral," but I'm certain it's not untrue (unlike the patently false assertions made against me here). Wish I had the time, but explaining everything that's wrong with your latest preferred version will take all my available resources. Would you mind limiting your blatant BLP violations to a more fixable level? †TE†Talk 00:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No false assertions about you at that link. Yes, this RfC is non-neutral, unless you are making it about user conduct instead of a content dispute. You should be specific about the exact text you feel constitutes a BLP violation, along with a clear explanation of why you feel it is a violation. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Congressman André Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis and his chief of staff, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word" about fifteen times coming from several places in the crowd: "One guy, I remember he just rattled it off several times. Then John looks at me and says, 'You know, this reminds me of a different time.'"

• What's wrong with this is a simple fix. The quote, "One guy, I remember he just rattled it off several times. Then John looks at me and says, 'You know, this reminds me of a different time'" comes from one source only, Jesse Washington. That must be separate from the Kerry Picket transcript. The problem, Editor 1 doesn't approve of this person for whatever reason and goes out of their way to bury the Washington Times reference behind Jesse Washington. Even though it was published weeks earlier. Not sure why the third ref was added but it also doesn't support the quote. To fight my separation of content and refs is just weird, OWNership-type behavior. My suggestion below:

Congressman André Carson said while he was walking down the steps of the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis and chief of staff, amid chants of "Kill the bill," he heard the "n-word" fifteen times; "One guy, I remember he just rattled it off several times. Then John looks at me and says, 'You know, this reminds me of a different time.'"

• Note: Other content could be taken from the interview moments after, like how Carson said he heard the n-word from "fifteen people about fifteen times" instead of the Jesse Washington interview. Or other things he said. That would be a content dispute which I'm not about. This is about policy.

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who wasn't present at the protests, said the racial slurs and other allegations by Cleaver, Lewis and Carson were fabricated as part of a plan to annihilate the Tea Party movement by all means necessary and that they never actually happened. He offered to donate $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund if Lewis could provide audio or video footage of the slurs, or pass a lie detector test. The amount was later raised to $100,000 for "hard evidence."

• The most glaring violation is the false statement that Breitbart "said the racial slurs and other allegations by Cleaver, Lewis and Carson were fabricated." There is no talk of "other allegations," in any of the sources. This exists only in the mind of Editor 1. Breitbart speaks explicitly of the racial slurs, and Cleaver is even named, probably because he wasn't there (see what I did ;-). Anyways, the entire sentence is corrupted -- Now "they never actually happened" also includes these other non-existent, "other allegations." Next up is the bundling stringing of sources, again, which puts the most important to Editor 1, Jesse Washington, first. It's the last published and makes no mention of $10,000 being raised to $100,000. It came some time after the original $10K and should be presented as such. Jesse Washington also made the remark that Breitbart "wasn't there," while no other refs echo this. Contentious statements like that should be attributed. My suggestion below:

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart said the allegations of racial slurs by Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members were fabricated as part of a plan to "annihilate" the Tea Party movement "by all means necessary." He offered to donate $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund if Lewis could provide audio or video footage of the slurs, or pass a lie detector test. The amount was later raised to $100,000 by Breitbart, who wasn't present at the protest.

• Note: Again this is not a content dispute. I've done nothing to change the meaning, OWNership issues may again be the reason for the edit-warring by Editor 1. Or maybe something more sinister. Editor 1 decided to delete this ref here. (Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic But apparently it discusses abuse by Harry Reid-supporters at an event in Searchlight, Nevada, which included attendance of an "estimated 20,000 Tea Partiers." Maybe this deserves mention, maybe a section above. What Xenophrenic believes to be a personal attack, his disapproval of neutral and right-leaning sources can be shown through years of edits, or more recently, the removal of two WSJ sources and displacement of a Washington Times source in this section alone. What are the odds, really? †TE†Talk 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina backed up his colleagues, telling the Hendersonville (N.C.) Times-News that he too heard slurs. "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life ... It breaks your heart that the way they display their anger is to spit on a member and use that kind of language," Shuler said. Three weeks later, after the issue of whether the N-word was used had turned into a political battle and the Associated Press ran a story on the controversy which quoted the previous Times-News report, Shuler changed his story and told the Associated Press that he heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver. In a statement to the AP, Shuler said: "It's obvious that there was a misunderstanding between me and the reporter. Questions have been raised as to why I did not immediately call to correct the paper, but I understand people make mistakes. I spoke to the reporter, James Shea, regarding a number of racial remarks I heard and heard about on that day. We spoke about protesters screaming at me and my colleagues outside, and particularly the bigotry shown toward three members of Congress, Reps. Emanuel Cleaver, John Lewis and Barney Frank. When I discussed a specific instance of a slur that I heard, I was referring to that directed at Barney Frank. The reporter assumed I was speaking of another instance. It is unfortunate and un-American that rather than condemning the racial remarks and slurs made throughout that weekend we are instead focusing on whether one racially charged word was heard or not." Opinion writer James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal contacted Shuler's press secretary, who stated the congressman heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver.

• Screams UNDUE, first off. Sure there's some quotes Editor 1 likes, but come on. Even for a controversy section this is bad. Background on the Heath Shuler story: Small publication said on March 23, he was a witness to the racial slurs. Nobody notices. Jesse Washington includes it in his piece for the AP weeks later on April 13th. Now it's national. James Taranto on April 14th, called Shuler's office to verify -- His press secretary said that Shuler was not walking with Cleaver and did not hear the "N-word." Shuler was with Frank and heard faggot. April 15th, the AP prints a correction. Editor 1 decides to spin it up as Shuler changed his story due to political pressure and was either lying then or now, which the small publication did attempt to claim on April 16th, possibly after consulting their legal team. Still doesn't get prominence over Shuler, WSJ and the AP. Though Editor 1 is much less deceptive in his "three weeks later" SYN than previous versions, it's still garbage as presented and trying to re-add James Taranto to the tail end after being called out for deleting the ref and content is just insulting to our intelligence. My suggestion below:

On April 13, 2010, Associated Press (AP) reported that Heath Shuler of North Carolina had also heard the racial slurs. This prompted the Wall Street Journal to contact Shuler's press secretary, who stated the congressman heard slurs used against Barney Frank, but not Cleaver. On April 15th, the AP issued a correction in which Shuler said it was a "misunderstanding" between him and the reporter.

• Note: The Heath Shuler content really lost its sex appeal once the white guy was no longer corroborating the story of the black guys, but whatever. I just believe all content should be presented in a fair and neutral light, supported by the top RS available.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, corroborated Lewis' version of events during a confrontation with Breitbart at a Harvard Institute of Politics forum by saying, "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word. [...] I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That's real evidence."

• This just doesn't belong, IMO. Editor 1 provided their own OR interpretation and transcription to include this non-noteworthy event. Its inclusion originated years ago from their desire to have the Breitbart content, which was reported by secondary sources, removed by coercion in countering it with the video of Trumka, which was not covered by secondary sources. It's just a video on Media Matters and HuffPo, a fake ref inbetween and nothing else of substance. Either both go or both stay, it appears was the goal. My suggestion, it's gone and Breitbart stays. We should rely on the reporting and noteworthiness of secondary sources. Period. †TE†Talk 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll address each of the above 4 matters in order.

• Regarding your comments on the "Carson" material:

Yes, Jesse Washington and Kerry Picket are each "one source only". I don't see where you were going with that. Both sources cover the Carson events, and the fact that one source was published before the other source has no bearing here on reliability, weight or usefulness of the sources. Also, I've never indicated that I "don't approve of this person (Picket)", and I've never "buried" a source, so it would be great if you would stop perpetuating that line of fantasy. I did bring to your attention that her transcription of the audio clip is flawed, and I also noted that she is not a journalist, but a politics opinion writer/blogger associated with Breitbart and MRC. Given Breitbart's history with creative use of recordings, and his untenable stance in this matter, I only raised this information to convey to you that a little care when using this source would be a good thing. And by the way, no one "owns" a Wikipedia article; you've been here long enough to learn that. With that out of the way, let's look at the different versions of text. After examining the three cited sources, it is clear that the slurs were heard from multiple locations as they travelled, and not just "while he was walking down the steps". It is also clear that he estimated "about" 15 times (even on the audio clip).

• Regarding your comments on the "Breitbart" conspiracy theories material:

You identify the text "other allegations" (that would be the spitting) as the most glaring violation. Breitbart did indeed briefly rant about that other allegation:

The proof that the N-word wasn’t said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed, is that soon thereafter — even though the press dutifully reported it as truth — Nancy Pelosi followed the alleged hate fest, which allegedly included someone spitting, by walking through the crowd with a gavel in hand and a shit-eating grin on her face. Had the incidentS reported by the Congressional Black Caucus actually occurred the Capitol Police would have been negligent to allow the least popular person to that crowd – the Speaker – to put herself in harm’s way.

You also appear to have a problem with the ordering of multiple citations at the end of a sentence. I have no preference over which source appears before another, as long as they all appear, so feel free to order them to your preference. On the related matter of duplicating the same ref after each and every sentence in a paragraph, I prefer instead to have a single citation at the end of the paragraph, especially when the whole of that paragraph is about the same content. Is there an applicable policy regarding this? re: "Breitbart wasn't there" -- factual, non-contentous, and as you noted, it was conveyed by a reliable source. Is there any reason, in your opinion, why it should not appear with the first mention of Breitbart? All the other people we are quoting were present at the protests, and have made first-hand observations. Lastly, I removed the WSJ opinion piece simply because it is an opinion piece, and it was redundant to actual reliable sources for the assertion of fact already present in the article. The Nevada rally info is in the Breitbart cite, by the way, so that blows your theory. Why is it you can't get through a single paragraph without personally attacking a fellow editor?

• Regarding the "Heath Shuler" comments:

Your recounting of events is only half-correct. Shuler was there at the protests, and then was interviewed by his home-town paper, which has done more stories on Shuler than any other publication. Shuler said he heard the slurs, so the paper reported that. Three weeks later, an Associated Press reporter does a piece on the "N-word" controversy and mentions Shuler's corroboration of the accusations. The piece is AP-syndicated, and appears in ABC, CBS, Yahoo, NBC, etc., publications. Shuler told the AP (April 14) there must be a misunderstanding, as he didn't hear the racial slurs, only anti-gay slurs. The AP then (April 15) did not "print a correction", but instead reported that Shuler now "denies" hearing the racial slurs. The Times-News also ran that AP story. Please be careful about misusing "print a correction", which has a very specific meaning in print journalism -- there was no correction here (as you were already informed above). The following day (April 16), after checking interview notes, verifying interview recordings and consulting with their editors, the full staff printed a follow-up titled, Shuler changes story on what he heard at health care protests - Congressman now says he heard slurs directed at Frank, not Cleaver. Note the explicit lack of corrections, apologies or admission of error. The report says, in no uncertain terms, U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler is distancing himself from comments he made to the Times-News last month, stating he heard racial slurs yelled from a crowd of angry health care protesters... It doesn't say "oops, we made an error, here's what Shuler actually said". The AP says Shuler now "denies" his previous account, and the Times-News says Shuler "changes his story" and "distances himself" from his previous account. Yet you, ThinkEnemies, make this ridiculous charge: "Editor 1 decides to spin it up as Shuler changed his story". Personal attacks that misrepresent your fellow editors like that are going to get you into hot water again, TE.

Citing the opinion writer, Taranto, to reiterate that Shuler changed his claim - that's redundant, but I included it because you seemed insistent - and I properly attributed it (rather than make it sound like the Wall Street Journal was conveying it as a news story). If we're going to have the whole Breitbart/Shuler/Trumka/CBC Congressmen debacle, my preference would be to simply state that Shuler corroborated the slurs. Second choice would be to include that he later changed his story after the AP ran a new piece on the now controversial hot-potato N-Word event.

• Regarding your comments on the "Trumka" content:

I understand that you would like to see the Trumka content disappear. Breitbart published his conspiracy theories, Trumka refuted them (they even did this face-to-face), and you would like only half of that to appear in our article. My preference would be to have neither of them in our article. Take a clue from Zernike, who in her book notes only that "conservatives denied that it happened", and leave out the he-said, she-said. Breitbart, Shuler, Trumka ... all of that is unencyclopedic minutia and clutter, as I mentioned above. But if you are going to insist on inserting half-stories, like Breitbart's theories, what problem do you have with the full story being told? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• On Kerry Picket at the Washington Times: Ignoring your petty little ad-homs directed at her and Breitbart -- What about André Carson said while he was walking down the steps of the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis and chief of staff, amid chants of "Kill the bill," he heard the "n-word" fifteen times would you like to pretend is flawed?

• On attributing quotes to sources which do not support said quote. Don't do it. Ever. You can't keep ignoring this obvious violation.

• On your OR/SYN that "which allegedly included someone spitting," means that Breitbart is denying the incident ever occurred. It's best not to claim contentious things not clearly stated in the sources. It's kinda like trying to convince me that organizing and funding really means "astroturfing" when it's not explicitly stated. No dice.

• On your preference to string refs at the end of paragraphs. Yes, there are policy guidelines: "For example, when there are multiple sources for a given sentence, and each source applies to the entire sentence, the sources can be placed at the end of the sentence, like this.[4][5][6][7] Or they can be bundled into one footnote at the end of the sentence or paragraph, like this.[4]" Now a good wiki-lawyer will find another statement which contradicts this in 30 seconds, but common sense reigns supreme and when editors cannot achieve summary-style writing, or they rely heavily on contentious sourcing, which brings about contentious content, it's best to attribute statements of that nature. I've explained this.

• On Jesse Washington saying Breitbart wasn't there. It was a great lead-in to the Carson quote saying: "I was there." However, It's not supported by the other cited sources. If it's so important to you, try this who wasn't there[1]. Happy?

• On opinion sources not being cool unless they they jive with your own opinions. Whatever floats your boat. One problem with this lame excuse for removing WSJ sources are they have not been used for opinion. Even if they were, if properly attributed and noteworthy it's all good.

• On the AP contacting Shuler after James Taranto got to his press secretary first. You may deny it, but that's what happened. You think a 24/7 newswire would be a day behind some lowly "opinion writer" at the WSJ in their publishing? LMAO. That's adorable. On the correction, I'm not opposed to calling it a clarification or even using "reported" as you suggested. It actually was their first direct reporting with Shuler, as they stated: "The Associated Press, after Shuler's office did not return phone calls or e-mails, quoted the News-Times report in a story on the controversy over whether racial slurs had been shouted." However, there is no "now denies" in their corrections here and here. Nice try.

• On your fantasy of: "The following day (April 16), after checking interview notes, verifying interview recordings and consulting with their editors, the full staff printed a follow-up titled, Shuler changes story on what he heard at health care protests - Congressman now says he heard slurs directed at Frank, not Cleaver." It's quite imaginative, more than me mentioning conversations with their legal team, if they have one. Could just be an ambulance chaser for all I know. Do you have intimate knowledge on the situation? I doubt it. Anyways, Shuler, WSJ and the AP all trump some small time publication.

• On how your "preference would be to have neither of them [Breitbart or Trumka] in our article." First, it's not your article nor is it mine, definitely not ours. Second, I didn't make the Breitbart content notable to MSM and I certainly didn't force them to ignore Trumka's amazing story of shapeshifting. I mean, to be at these three seperate events in time without anyone seeing him is quite astounding. Truly. I wonder why nobody cared enough to even have an intern write something up.

Now you may find me to be somewhat abrasive, but just look at the foolishness you present. Your disruptive actions and lack of coherent rationale would make even Ned Flanders blow a head gasket. †TE†Talk 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can live with your abrasiveness. It's the misrepresentation of situations and the misapplication of policy that get annoying. Have you figured out yet that my Trumka quote from the Harvard forum is not OR?

• What about [insert one paraphrase from one part of one source here] would you like to pretend is flawed?

Nothing. There are some actual flaws with using that wording, however. There are several sources that describe that event (and even the "15 times" bit is said three different ways in just the audio clip) which need to be taken into account when we describe the event. That is what I've done with my proposed text.

Congressman André Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis and his chief of staff, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word" about fifteen times coming from several places in the crowd...

is more comprehensive than

André Carson said while he was walking down the steps of the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis and chief of staff, amid chants of "Kill the bill," he heard the "n-word" fifteen times...

• Don't do it. Ever.

Never have.

• On your OR/SYN that "which allegedly included someone spitting," means that Breitbart is denying the incident ever occurred.

It's not OR when the cited source says so. Here's the text from the source, again:

The proof that the N-word wasn’t said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed, is that soon thereafter — even though the press dutifully reported it as truth — Nancy Pelosi followed the alleged hate fest, which allegedly included someone spitting, by walking through the crowd with a gavel in hand and a shit-eating grin on her face. Had the incidents reported by the Congressional Black Caucus actually occurred the Capitol Police would have been negligent to allow the least popular person to that crowd – the Speaker – to put herself in harm’s way.

Note what Breitbart offers as "proof" is that Pelosi wouldn't have walked through what he describes as the "hate fest" if those incidents - including someone 'allegedly' spitting, according to him - actually occurred. Yes, Breitbart is saying it didn't happen. Rather than using "racial slurs and other allegations by..." we can try simply "incidents reported by...", just to get past one of these hurdles.

• On your preference to string refs at the end of paragraphs. Yes, there are policy guidelines...

Let's try the one you quoted.

• If it's so important to you, try this who wasn't there[1].

As noted above, it's not "so important to me". It is apparently important enough that the reliable source thought it needed to be said, and we are to convey what reliable sources convey. That is important to me. So you suggest saying "who wasn't there" instead of "who wasn't present"? If that means you'll take down another hurdle, sure.

• On opinion sources not being cool unless they they jive with your own opinions. Whatever floats your boat.

And again you have misrepresented the situation. Opinion pieces are not cool with Wikipedia for assertion of fact. They can be used as sources for the opinions of the writer, if properly attributed. You were attempting to cite assertions of fact, stated in Wikipedia's voice, to opinion pieces, which is against policy. It was also unnecessary for some content, as reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy were available.

• On the AP contacting Shuler after James Taranto got to his press secretary first. You may deny it...

Gee, thanks for the permission, but why would I, or why would I care? And who says the AP contacted Shuler? Or are you talking about Washington, before his report on the 13th, when Shuler's office wouldn't return calls?

• On the correction, I'm not opposed to calling it a clarification or even using "reported" as you suggested.

You do that, just as soon as they issue a correction. Since it has been over three years, and they still haven't issued a single correction, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

• there is no "now denies"

Correct, and I never said there was. The AP reported that Shuler now "denies" it. Check your links.

• Do you have intimate knowledge on the situation? I doubt it.

Intimate? No. I do recall seeing the Sunday political round-table TV show clip where the issue was discussed, and it was mentioned that the reporter had audio from his interview with Shuler, resulting in that strongly worded article from the Times-News -- an article that was never rebutted, and further requests for a follow-up interview on the matter were declined. I wonder why. We could fire off an email to the paper and ask, but that would be original research.

• Anyways, Shuler, WSJ and the AP all trump some small time publication.

No, they don't. In fact, Taranto, the AP and the Times-News don't appear to disagree at all. All three of them convey that Shuler (or his spokesperson) now states he heard anti-gay slurs but denies hearing racial slurs, and there must have been a "misunderstanding". None of the three say that Shuler didn't claim to hear racial slurs while he was with Cleaver back in March.

• First, it's not your article nor is it mine, definitely not ours.

Sorry to hear that. I refer to it as "our article", speaking as a member of the Wikipedia community, but no one can force you to collaborate. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You never did respond to my inquiry: Would you be interested in helping to trim this down to a more encyclopedic presentation, instead of the current "he said/she said" script of inconsequential events? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, one of them now says that he didn't hear racial slurs, and that he said that he didn't hear racial slurs the first time. I think we need to remove "change his story", or go into full details as to which conflicting source said what. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Changes story" is in the title of an article, not in the body. Titles are not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What he said was, "I spoke to the reporter, James Shea, regarding a number of racial remarks I heard and heard about on that day." -- and that is confusing in itself; did he hear some, and hear about others? He never says "he didn't hear racial slurs". He does say later, however, "When I discussed a specific instance of a slur that I heard, I was referring to that directed at Barney Frank. The reporter assumed I was speaking of another instance."

Since you are here, Arthur, what's your opinion about the "encyclopedia-worthiness" of all this "this paper reports this, and that witness says that, and this other person says he doesn't believe it, etc." detail? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like any of it. A heard it, B and C report that D heard it, E was reported to have heard it but now denies it, F (who wasn't there) said it was fabricated, and it's not recorded. (Out here on left coast, someone would have had his/her iPhone on record.) If we are to avoid NPOV violations or deciding on the relative reliability of conflicting reliable sources, I think we're just going to have to drop it down to one sentence, on the order of "Some Congressmen were reported to have heard racist remarks and the 'n- word'. I was originally in favor of removing the whole thing as not being important, but it's still being discussed in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This RfC is a trainwreck of personal attacks, passive-aggressive trolling, topped off with a non-neutral summary. I move that it be closed and a new one start... preferably by someone capable of writing a neutral summary of the situation. What a waste of time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already considered it closed, might as well make it official. This RfC was an attempt to get some involved editors to chime in. It failed in that sense but much was accomplished in documenting a POV-warrior's will to remove sources he doesn't personally agree with and a narrative he finds contradictory to his own. This editor's OWNership issues have kept many away and I wasn't surprised with the lack of interest. I'm sure there are links to the current ArbCom if you wish to opine. †TE†Talk 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom

Taking a good look at the recent developments, it appears my work here is done. I'd like to thank Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) for being such a willing participant in my evidence collection. This process has been an especially difficult one for me, probably a few peccadilloes along the way but I'm sufficiently satisfied with the results -- Which are free for anyone to use if they so choose. Regards ;-) †TE†Talk 15:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Changed his story"

Nobody actually said that, except in a title. He says he was misquoted, and the original quote was "corrected" in at least some of the reliable sources. I changed it to "misquoted", but another alternative might be found.

This falls under WP:BLP, so I will continue to remove it when it appears. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does say in the headline that he changed his story. It also says in at least some of the reliable sources that he claims he was misquoted, but not a single source claims to have reported anything in error and there have been no corrections. The report further explains that "Shuler is distancing himself from comments he made to the Times-News last month, stating he heard racial slurs yelled from a crowd of angry health care protesters outside the U.S. Capitol." I'll make that clear in the article. All content about living persons falls under WP:BLP, but if you intend to cite that policy as justification to revert-war, you'll need to actually explain what you think the specific violation is -- which you have not done thus far. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Including controversial material about living persons, not included in reliable sources is a WP:BLP violation. The first source said "distancing himself from", and the second said "denied he said...". Although both are sourced, denied is probably less controversial. I'm not claiming the current version (distancing) is a BLP violation, but the former was, so, for WP:EW purposes, my next edit is the first to this article for some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You kids and your new math. That is your second batch of edits to the article in a long time (both made within the last 24 hours). You said the Times-News (Blue Ridge) source doesn't add anything to the article, and you started removing it (and the content from that source), however, you missed some of it. I cleaned up the rest of that source from the article for you. I don't necessarily agree with you that the Blue Ridge Times-News source doesn't add anything to the article - it adds the whole backstory about politicians changing their stances based on political expediency - but perhaps that goes too far astray from the scope of this article. James Shea and Heath Shuler are both still living, as far as I can tell, and Wikipedia should remain neutral where they are concerned. That content is now back to its neutral one sentence, long-standing form that it has been in for at least the past 2 years before recent editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I said that particular Blue Ridge source doesn't add to the material, since all the material except something (contradicted by other sources) about the "changed story" is reported in other sources already present, including another Blue Ridge source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)