Talk:Tea Party movement

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

Closure request

{{help}}

I just try to follow policy. When comparing scholarly works and news organizations as reliable sources in WP:RS, Wikipedia policy doesn't rank one above the other, in terms of quality. In terms of quantity, this is no contest. Both "anti-immigration" and "Astroturfing" are minority opinions, and editors advocating those opinions have been conceding that they are minority opinions in terms of the quantity of reliable sources. "Opposed to illegal immigration" and "grass-roots movement" are the majority opinions per WP:WEIGHT. We've been repeating the same arguments for several days. Policy-based arguments carry the day according to WP:CONSENSUS, even if we didn't have the votes — and we do have the votes. Can we get a closure from an uninvolved admin or senior editor, please? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I feel that we have consensus for this version of the lede, including the word "grass-roots," and this version of the second paragraph of the "Agenda" section, including the phrase "opposed to illegal immigration." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• For the record, you continue to misinterpret what reliable sources have said; you continue to misinterpret what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS say; you continue to misinterpret (or ignore) the arguments presented to you by other editors. What, specifically, are you asking to have "closed"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• News organizations are reliable sources for current events and for public perceptions of current events. It is crap to suggest that scholarly articles written at the time of the events are any more "reliable" than any other sources, and Wikipedia policies do not make the claim that we need "peer reviewed scholarly articles" when dealing with current events for a very good reason -- such articles may be few in number, and do not address public perception of events. Thus we use news reports on a regular basis. Even when we see a "wall of text" argument being presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll take "wall of text argument" over "wall of nonsense" any day. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest asking your question at one of the following forums (pick 1) WP:HD, WP:VPP, or perhaps a more friendly option WP:THQ. Technical 13 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." If you disagree then make your case there. For mainstream opinion, see Formisano's chapter, "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism", p. 8, "The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few--the corporate lobbyists from above--but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." That seems to be the consensus in serious writing about them. TFD (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the complete paragraph, for those who don't appreciate snippets of policy being taken out of context: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." [1] Clearly, Wikipedia policy views scholarly sources and high-quality, mainstream news media sources as equal in reliability, TFD. There is no "scholarly consensus" on the matter of grass-roots vs. partially Astroturf. However, the high-quality, mainstream news media sources are overwhelming. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD's quotations were not taken out of context. The additional text you included (with your own bold emphasis selectively added) does not alter the context of TFD's remark: Use scholarly consensus when available; and it is available. I think you are confusing routine news sources with "high quality mainstream publications" -- although some in-depth investigative reporting by the former may qualify. Perhaps you can cite the specific sources to which you refer? The sources you have offered above, (in your this version and this version links), support TFD's assertion more than yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Use scholarly consensus when available; and it is available. That is yet another false statement. There is no scholarly consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...and the TPm is subject to WP:BLP; and when a reliable source expert makes an analysis in his field of study, it violates WP:SYNTH; and when a Wikipedia editor reverts your unsourced content, it's a violation of WP:VANDALISM. Sure, we can add "there is no scholarly consensus" to the sitcom. Should I take your response as an indication that you have no "high quality mainstream publications" to support your proposed edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are The New York Times and The Washington Post good enough? According to Elizabeth Foley, there is no scholarly consensus. If any of the sources you've cited are claiming scholarly consensus, please post the relevant quotation and page number. How long are you going to keep whining about BLP, SYNTH and VAN? I dropped all of that weeks ago. You're making no substantive arguments here. You're just posting weak ridicule based on past mistakes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that while those sources use the words you are concerned about they do not support the conclusions you are trying to make. All parties have grassroots, the issue is if the Tea Party is formed and sustained as a grassroots movement. The Newspapers are silent on that issue so its OR on your part. I'm encouraged that you acknowledge your past mistakes on policy, perhaps you would like to reflect that at the time you insisted that you were right with the same vehemence as you are now ----Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• This time I'm right. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A level of certainty appropriate to the cause you espouse through your edits on this page :-) Seriously, can you show how any of your citations make a judgement on origins or sustainability of the Tea Party rather than just using the words? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The cause I espouse is improving a Wikipedia article by applying policy in an even-handed manner. If you're interested, read The New York Times article. It explains the grass-roots origins of the movement. The editorial board would not have failed to at least mention any alleged Astroturfing if any of its member organizations had actually engaged in the practice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would link to the article rather than the wikipedia article on the newspaper? As to 'cause' I think your edits here and on the Obama article speak for themselves ----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've already posted links several times. [2] This post, and Xenophrenic's post below, demonstrate that you haven't even bothered to read it. As I've said previously, the NYT article provides a wealth of detail proving that the movement had grass-roots origins. It doesn't need to say the word directly, just as Edvard Munch didn't have to write the word "Scream" with his paintbrush. For the intelligent and mature reader, there are other ways to say it. As for the "cause," I agree with your assessment but not for the reason you think. I keep running into editors who, like me, do not care for conservatives and are loyal to the progressive cause; but unlike me, they are either unwilling to check their biases at the Wikipedia door, or simply incapable of it. That's why articles about conservative organizations and political figures are loaded with criticism and controversy, while articles about progressive organizations and politicians read like press releases from Organizing for Action. I'm not the first to say it, nor are such observations limited to the right-wing press.
• You're clearly very fond of peer-reviewed journal articles. Read this: [3] A free copy can be downloaded here: [4] It's a peer-reviewed article published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The authors focus on the NPOV (or lack thereof) in political articles at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like an interesting read, and thank you, but it appears tangential to our discussion. I read the one NYT link you provided, and while it does convey information on grassroots activity by the TPm, it doesn't make a case refuting the 'astroturf' aspect. I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't a grassroots component to the movement; the objection seems to be against inserting an "is grassroots" description as a factual statement in the lead sentence when that is not a completely accurate, standalone description by itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources cannot be used to tell the reader that the TPm "is grassroots" to the exclusion of astroturfing. The most objective sources say that it is a combination of both. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... but it appears tangential to our discussion. No, it's spot on. Consider your own recent editing history. Reverting the addition of criticism and controversy in articles about several progressive public figures, organizations and "spin" sources, and supportive discussions about others, such as Bill Maher, Alan Grayson (perhaps the most hated Democrat in the House of Representatives), Bill Maher, D.L. Hughley (comedian and left-wing political commentator), Media Matters for America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (I remember that one), and one of the worst scandals of the Obama Administration, ATF gunwalking scandal. You made sure that the most negative language, from a left-leaning [5] [6] political website, continues to be used to describe Tom Smith, a pro-life Democrat-turned-Republican who ran for the Senate last year. [7] It seems that all of your edits either add negatives to articles about conservatives or, more frequently, remove negatives about progressives. You're very, very consistent about it. But it's really nice to see that you support a politically "leaning" organization making a self-serving claim, using WP:SELFSOURCE, in the first sentence of an article about itself. [8] That's good to know. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No clue what you are rambling about. I cite FOX news, and people get their panties in a bunch? Gee, my bad. If you'd like to discuss in detail whatever it is you are harping about on your Talk page, we can do that. This Talk page is for improvement of the Tea Party movement article; am I to understand that you have no citations (that one NYT source notwithstanding) to support your proposed edits? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• No clue what you are rambling about. Thanks for confessing your cluelessness. You are to understand that I have abundant sources to support my proposed edits, which is why they're called "majority opinions." I've repeatedly posted links to a high-profile sampling of sources for each of two proposed edits. You're just seeing what you want to see. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources you are saying support your proposed edits. Links to Wikipedia articles on the NYT or WaPo aren't helpful, and there are several NYT links in the early part of the article. Did you mean the very first NYT link after your proposed insert of the word "grassroots"? That source doesn't mention grassroots, but it does mention nativism.

As already noted above, Formisano writes on page 8: "So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: Astroturf or Grassroots populism?" The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few - corporate lobbyists form above - but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism" and also notes on page 100, "The Tea Partiers, finally, are routinely referred to in the media as conservatives. But their blend of astroturf and grassroots populism is more accurately labeled right-wing or reactionary populism."

In the Skocpol & Williamson source, pages 11-13, "Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. This remarkable political outpouring is best understood as a combination of three intertwined forces. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama and wallop. ... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors--these three forces, together, create the Tea Party and give it the ongoing clout to buffet and redirect the Republican Party and influence...", and they go on in considerable detail about both the grassroots and astroturf aspects of the movement, saying neither description paints a complete or accurate picture of the movement.

Are there any scholarly sources that refute the astroturf component? Foley certainly does not; she "admittedly" acknowledges the outside organization's influence, but warns against thinking the movement is a mere spin-off or puppet. She doesn't go into any further detail on the grassroots/astroturf dual nature; it's not the focus of her book. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a fallacious argument. Can you show me any sources which refute the hypothetical claim that George Gnarph was a space alien? Articles generally do not "refute" claims which they regard as irrelevant or simply fallacious - and saying that anyone must find such articles is about as inane an argument as is possible on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If there was a scholarly article that made the claim that George Gnarph was a space alien then there would almost certainly be one which said the opposite. We reflect the balance of sources so its more than legitimate to ask for on that refutes a properly sourced statement if it is to be rejected ----Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete bosh and twaddle. Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that your contributions on right wing subjects retain their objective content focused approach, its been a pleasure to observe over multiple articles the last few years ----Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Questia search: [9] ZERO "scholarly articles" making the claim that TPM is "anti-immigration. ZERO. And the non-scholarly article from Mother Jones does not make the claim either. The enwspaper articles using "anti-immigration" use it primarily to refer to the AZ law - not to the TPM as a group. In short -- ZERO scholarly peer-reviewed sources make the claim which is so baldly pushed here. A book making the claim about "tea party nation" notes that it was a "for-profit corporation" and not in the middle of the TPM [10] Another at [11] specifies "while the US's Tea Party movement has increased pressure to limit illegal immigration from Mexico." More than sufficient to note that "anti-immigration" is, indeed, contradicted by reliable sources on the topic. I can add many NYT cites, but they are simply "current events" and not worthy of notice here - sic. Collect (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I get different results when I don't limit my searches to just "Tea Party movement", and when I look for information on the TPm's stance on immigration. Scholarly works have already been cited above, so that should have been an indicator to you that your "ZERO" results may have been a little less than accurately inclusive. The 'Steep:' source you linked does note that Tea Party Nation pushed for "cultural issues" like anti-immigration legislation, supported by 180+ TP groups and leaders. Your 'Globalization and the BRICs' source doesn't contradict at all the anti-immigrant description, and in fact notes their anti-illegal immigration stance in that context, just as "newspaper articles" usually do, as you noted. Where is the contradiction? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect, searching for keywords is not a good approach. I notice you used "Tea Party movement" rather than "Tea Party" - I assume you were trying to minimize the results. TFD (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Silly -- Questia requires using keywords. Doing a search without any keywords is incredibly slow! But eliminating "movement" gets all the way up to 2 books. The Sanderman book [12] refers to "anti-immigation" as an adjective for the AZ law, not to the Tea Party. So scratch that one. The Tolchin book [13] uses "anti-immigration" here: In the period most similar to our own, the 1890s, anger turned into third-party movements, anti-immigration backlash, and other forms of political expression that reflected public anxiety over rapid social and economic change. which appears to refer to the 1890s and not to the Tea Party. So still zero books using the "maximizing results" keywords. Bolded so it is fairly clear that the accusation that I tried to "minimize the results" is shown for what it is. For non-peer-reviewed, non-scholarly articles we have [14] which has Still, Sanchez contends that immigration reform can be an electoral winner for Democrats who are already nervous about the midterm elections in November. "It can pump up the base and motivate higher Hispanic turnout nationwide," she said. Nor does she think the issue will cost the Democrats. "The Tea Party people are also likely to be the loudest anti-immigration voices," she observed. "A lot of their anger towards President Obama is thinly veiled racism. They won't be voting for the Democrats no matter what we do." which is clearly "political opinion" by a person actively campaigning against the TPM. And not voiced as the opinion of the article author, by the way. Other than that - zero magazine articles making the claim at all. Zero. So much for the coutre comment about "minimizing results" one can hardly get much lower than zero. Really! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Under which of your search criteria, Collect, did the afore-mentioned Skocpol scholarly sources (for example) appear? Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted, kind blank, I used "Questia" which is a pretty well-known search vehicle for sources. Skocpol is not found as a scholarly book by Questia for having connected the TPM to "anti-immigration". One reason is the simple fact SKOCPOL DOES NOT MENTION 'ANTI-IMMIGRATION. Perhaps this elided your notice? Anent "immigration" the beloved Skocpol (written by grad students under his direction) we find In general, Tea Partiers do not explain their opposition to unauthorized immigration in terms of a job threat. Which does not in any wild imagination translate to "anti-immigration." Nationally, 80 percent of Tea Party activists see illegal immigration as a very serious problem, compared to 60 percent of Americans overall See "anti-immigration" there at all? I thought not. So what exactly is your reason for bringing up a source which explicitly contradicts your claims for it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Elided my notice? That is a nonsensical phrase to me; did you mean to ask if there was elision on my part? Of course not. We simply appear to be speaking of different content. The captions you are quoting are specifically about illegal/unauthorized immigration. The content I referenced was about the TPer's sentiments regarding immigration. You'll find that content in the chapter, "What they believe: Ideas and Passions" -- some of which is quoted above, but I'd recommend a more thorough reading of the chapter to understand the context. You appear to be fixated on the specific term "anti-immigration", which is hampering your searches. It also appears to be hampering your understanding of content concerning opposition to immigration. The content you've quoted in no way "explicitly contradicts" the content I have been referencing from that same source. (And as an aside, neither the book nor the peer-reviewed paper upon which it is based was "written by grad students under his direction" -- and he is a "she", by the way.) Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Try rereading the sentence if you do not understand it. Yes -- Theda is a female name - mea culpa and you get 1 point for "sic." I found specific usage of "illegal immigration" and no use of "anti-immigration" which means you are quite like Alic in being able to see No one clearly on the road. And the other authors are clearly identified as grad students - so I do not know why you are touchy about that fact made clear in the paper itself. It is, in fact, quite common for such writing. Collect (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"you get 1 point for..."

Now I understand. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Xeno, I am curious why you feel self-identification is fine for FAIR but not fine for the TPM. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to that, Arzel, as that is not how I feel, and I do not believe I have expressed that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then please express how you feel, Xeno. Since you have expressed your feeling that FAIR can have a self-serving self-identification as "progressive" (rather than "left-leaning") in the first sentence of its Wikipedia article, do you feel that the Tea Party movement can have a self-serving self-identification as "grass-roots" in the first sentence of its Wikipedia article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've expressed no such feelings. Perhaps you are confusing where I've cited or quoted Wikipedia policy with my feelings. Regarding your question, if you are asking me my opinion if "grassroots" can appear in the lead of this article as a sourced fact, I think that may be possible, if it is accompanied with the equally sourced fact of "astroturf". Unfortunately, it appears that some editors would prefer that "grassroots" be allowed in the lead as fact, while "astroturf" gets relegated to "opinion", or omitted from the lede entirely. That would be severely misleading to our readers, so I would be against that deception. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Tea Party grass roots or astroturfed? I looked at what books had to say. I only found two or three books that rejected astroturfing and around the twice that number that claimed it was from the start. Several books had dedicated chapters for the question and by far the most common conclusion is that it started out as grass roots but quickly became astroturfed and is so now. Several of these mention that the Tea Party initially started out as completely astroturfed but was taken over at a grass roots level before being astroturfed again. The Rosenthal book below in particular is very detailed about how this happened. Indeed, I can find no mention in the article that the Tea Party Express was set up by FreedomWorks and is now run by Our Country Deserves Better PAC which seems to be a clear case of astroturfing. The following are some books that are both detailed and reliable enough to be used as sources for the claim and for the Tea Party in general.

• Ronald P. Formisano The Tea Party: A Brief History JHU Press 2012 ISBN 9781421405964
• John S. Dryzek The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society Oxford University Press, 2011 ISBN 9780199566600
• Lester M. Salamon The state of nonprofit America Brookings Institute Press, 2012 ISBN 9780815703303
• Erin McHugh Coffee, Tea, Or Kool-Aid: Which Party Politics Are You Swallowing? Harry N. Abrams, 2010 ISBN 9780810997608
• Laura Ingraham The Obama Diaries Simon and Schuster, 2010 ISBN 9781439198445
• Theda Skocpol Obama and America's Political Future Harvard University Press, 2012 ISBN 9780674067943
• David Karpf The MoveOn Effect:The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy Oxford University Press, 2012 ISBN 9780199942879
• Lawrence Rosenthal Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party University of California Press, 2012 ISBN 9780520274235

I think it is impossible to regard astroturfing as a minor opinion, it may be in the media but it appears to be the mainstream view among academics. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Who said anything about it being a "minor opinion"? It is, however, minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Xenophrenic's position is that a politically "leaning" organization should be allowed to provide a self-serving definition of itself for the lede sentence of a Wikipedia article about it, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Here's the diff: [15] Since the Tea Party movement says that it's a grass-roots movement without any mention of Astroturfing, and since well-established, respected, thoroughly fact-checked news organizations like The New York Times agree, that's how we should describe it in the lede sentence. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE does say an organization can provide a definition of itself but it specifically excludes this if it's "self-serving". User:Xenophrenics suggested wording was no more self-serving than the wording he objected to. That diff was simply a case of disputed word usage. In the case of the Tea Party, it appears to be a case of self-serving through omission. If the NYT omits to mention astroturfing that does not mean that there is none, so we need to look for reliable sources that specifically discuss the claim that it exists and use their conclusions. The most widespread view is that there is a significant level of astroturfing. You are using an argument from ignorance to support your case. Wayne (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are simply trying to cherry-pick sources to present a statement in the lead that does not meet the requirement of NPOV. The manner in which you choose to construe Xenophrenic's comments is irrelevant, and the attempt to introduce it in a partisam manner is in violation of WP:TE.

The editor you responded to clearly indicates that the Astroturfing "appears to be the mainstream view among academics".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Another display of the same comprehension skills used to describe reliable sources. No, it isn't "minority opinion" per WP:WEIGHT. It's minority opinion per P&W. Xenophrenic's position is the same as reliable sources: The Tea Party movement is both grassroots and astroturfed. The "position" and link you have provided, along with your misrepresentation of it, say nothing about this discussion. And your NYT source absolutely doesn't "agree", in fact it doesn't address the astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, your arguments, such as they are, have not swayed other editors enough to create a consensus in your favor. In fact, talk page consensus is running strongly against your position. The sources that have been brought forward for examination can clearly be summarized as saying that the Tea Party movement includes both grassroots and astroturfing elements. Please give this issue a rest. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't prohibit self-serving claims, Wayne. It only prohibits unduly self-serving claims. The Tea Party's claim that it is a grass-roots organization self-serving, just like FAIR's claim that it is "progressive," but the Tea Party's claim is confirmed by the majority of reliable, neutral sources. Therefore it is not unduly self-serving. Xeno was correct to cite WP:SELFSOURCE when he defended the self-serving lede sentence in the FAIR article, and the same standard should be applied here.
• Arzel, Arthur Rubin, Collect, North8000, Malke 2010, Darkstar1st, Ken Arromdee ... so you say that "consensus is running strongly against [my] position," Binkster? All these people disagree.
• Wait a minute there, Wayne ... hold on ...

1. ... by far the most common conclusion is that it started out as grass roots but quickly became astroturfed and is so now.
2. Several of these mention that the Tea Party initially started out as completely astroturfed but was taken over at a grass roots level before being astroturfed again.

I see. So you've got some sources that say "B, then A." And you've got some other sources that say "A, then B, then A again." Which one of these two are you claiming to be the majority opinion, Wayne, and how many reliable sources do you have that say it? I have an enormous number of sources that just say, "B." Which is why it's the majority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"All those people", 4 of the many that have commented, don't even agree with themselves. What was Arromdee's position on "astroturf" again? And could you quote Arthur Rubin's position, please? Or North8000's? I fully understand your expectation that they would agree with whatever position you are advancing today, but it would be nice if they actually made a token comment on the matter before you include them in your non-voting. I have "numerous sources" that say the TP movement is against spending, taxes and the growing deficit, so that is the majority opinion, and your "grassroots" is the minority opinion. Same logic. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your petition to use WP:SELFSOURCING to support the "grassroots" description is unnecessary, as there are reliable third-party sources that convey the same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there aren't reliable third-party sources which say that the TPm is astroturf. There are reliable sources which state that some TPm organizations are astroturf. (And, you're correct, I had not stated my position on this issue; I've just noted that very few, if any, of the sources you have provided support the claims you make for them, particularly in regard "anti-immigration".) And (referring to your comment 2 back): "Astroturf" is clearly a minority position, even among academics who pretend to be neutral. "Grassroots" is majority among those who state an opinion. I don't know if "astroturf" is fringe; I only know that you are not qualified to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that only one or two of the hundreds of TPM organizations could even be claimed to be astroturfed, and so such a claim is implausible for the TPM as a whole. Regarding the TPM as a whole, it's hard to imagine any movement that is of that size that is grass roots to a greater degree than the TPM. Not 100%, but there's no such ting as 100%, yet the word is used. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano makes the important point that recent political results were obtained largely from the money from astroturfing rather than from grassroots enthusiasm by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano's bias against the Tea Party is well-established. In the past few days, I posted links to two op-ed columns by Formisano demonstrating that he really, really likes Barack Obama, and doesn't care much for the Tea Party. Bias can find its way into even peer-reviewed sources, and I suggest that it has found its way into his book. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Formisano is allowed to have a POV and to publish it in books published by academic publishers, which are considered to be the most reliable sources used on Wikipedia. That is why he is a tenured professor. You are not in a position to accuse him of "bias".

You have not attempted to post a request regarding Formisano's book at RS/N, but simply to denigrate a reliable source because the statements in that RS refute your one-sided POV.

You have repeatedly attempted to discredit sources that refute the version of the lead, for example, that you have been insisting on, even though it is clear that the consensus is against the version you have been pushing. This would seem to fall under [Wikipedia:TE#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources]] and to involve WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In the objective world, what is "money from astroturfing"?! North8000 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Objectively, "money" does not necessarily mean "Astroturfing." But the minority editors here, led by Xeno, Binkster and Ubikwit, apparently believe that in all cases, Money = Astroturfing.
• Here's a partial sampling of the eminently reliable sources that define TPm as a grass-roots movement — three from the New York Times, two from the Washington Post, one from Reuters, one from National Public Radio, one from Huffington Post of all places, a very interesting 30-minute webcam round-table discussion hosted by the Huffington Post, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..." [16] [17] [18] [19][20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
• The 30-minute webcam round table hosted by HuffPo, in a very interesting exchange of ideas, explores what is actually meant by the term "Astroturfing." The mere addition of money, even from people like the Koch Brothers, does not negate the grass-roots nature of the movement. Only if the money is being used to pretend that there is genuine grass-roots support for a particular position where no grass-roots support actually exists can it legitimately be called Astroturfing. I have many more reliable sources where these came from. It is painfully obvious that the majority opinion, per WP:WEIGHT, is that TPm is a grass-roots movement, even if we don't count the Tea Party's self-serving claims — which we should count under WP:SELFSOURCE . Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that there is a grassroots component, as your sources show. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Those same sources do not negate the fact of astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get your definition of astroturfing from? There is no requirement of "no grass-roots support" for astroturfing to exist, the sources are quite clear that both exist at the same time. You keep throwing up sources but the majority are involved in the astroturfing. For example, according to Theda Skocpol FOX virtually ran the Tea Party at one stage through it's extensive support, quote Pg50:"FOX acted as a kind of movement orchestrator.". Wayne (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, Xeno, when several reliable sources state what a subject IS, you expect them to also state what the subject IS NOT. Otherwise, you will feel empowered to state in the article mainspace that the subject is something else, if you can find two or three sources that say it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Incorrect, P&W. I've never conveyed that expectation. Perhaps you are thinking of another editor? Or is this more of the same? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow cites Theda Skocpol to support there being no astroturfing, yet in her book (Pg63) she states that conservatives "romanticize the Tea Party as a purely grass root movement" but that she (and her colleagues) finds this to be misguided as "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination" of support from grass roots, astroturfing and the conservative media outlets. She obviously gives equal weight to all three. Wayne (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Wayne, on what page does Skocpol use the word "astroturfing"? You might wish to read the following: "Skocpol dismissed as 'poppycock' the idea that the Tea Party is a phony 'Astroturf' movement of token marionettes manipulated from above by rich and powerful conservative puppet-masters." [27] Maybe you should run a word search for "poppycock." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I told you above, Pg63. You are cherrypicking again. Of course that's poppycock, because as she said...astro-turfing and grass-roots are on an equal footing. Wayne (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what she said. On page 63, Skocpol used the word "Astroturf" to describe someone else's opinion, not her own. Skocpol said that the Tea Party is "a mutually reinforcing combination of bottom-up and top-down undertakings." Skocpol said that "[t]he dynamic interplay of grass-roots activists, national advocates, and media impresarios has given the Tea Party its oomph[.]" At no time on page 63 did Skocpol say that "astro-turfing and grass-roots are on an equal footing." Some other page perhaps? What page number? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have no idea why you did it but please don't alter other peoples posts. Wayne (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wayne, referring to Theda Skocpol's book, page 63: "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination" of support from grass roots, astroturfing and the conservative media outlets. She obviously gives equal weight to all three.
• Theda Skocpol, on page 63 of her book: "what makes the Tea Party so effective and dynamic is a mutually reinforcing combination of bottom-up and top-down undertakings."
• Theda Skocpol, a bit farther down, page 63 of her book: "The dynamic interplay of grass-roots activists, national advocates, and media impresarios has given the Tea Party its oomph[.]"
• How did Wayne understand "top-down undertakings" to mean "Astroturfing"? Alternatively, how did Wayne understand "national advocates" to mean "Astroturfing"? That wasn't another example of Wayne using WP:SYNTH, was it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh I understand now...because she only called it astroturfing at the beginning of the chapter and then used its definition later instead of actually saying the word, you think you can ignore context. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you want to call it a horse. Skocpol explains that from the bottom up the movement is grass-roots and that from the top down is the media and "resource-deploying national organisations" who use the movement to enhance their policy proposals, provide funds and organisation for meetings and rallies and use the Tea Party to influence primaries or channel contributions to elections etc. To use the exact terminology Skocpol uses "the Tea Party is a tri-partite mix of local grass-roots networks, resource-deploying national organisations and conservative media outlets," as she is specifically discussing grass-roots and astroturfing by name in that chapter, it is obvious from the context that bottom up is grass-roots and top down is astroturfing and media support. Wayne (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P&W, you're reaching. What falls under SYNTH in the above-description? Insofar as the jargonistic term "Astroturfing" is defined in descriptive terms when the author expands her explanation in plain English, there is nothing out of the ordinary. I don't have the book, but the explanation of "tripartite" in which the "resource-deploying national organisations" are equated with earlier specific references in the chapter to Astroturfing appears to be sound to me. Perhaps a quote using "Astroturfing" should be combined with a reference to the descriptive definition when referencing the source.

Moreover, that is not the only source that makes reference to Astroturfing, so you are fighting a pointless battle and have already lost the war, so to speak. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears you're both wrong. Skocpol uses the term "astroturf", but to mean something completely different than what we use in our article astroturfing. So, we could use it, but wikilinking grass-roots and explicitly not wikilinking "astroturf". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your take of the difference in usage.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well this biggest difference is between saying that it may have occurred (.e.g. even in some small way) and using it as an adjective or trait for the overall movement. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw my agreement that she intended her use of "astroturfing" to be a significant part of the TPm; it's not in any of the quotes. Stating that the TPm is, or is founded on, a combination of factors (or factions), should not imply that the factors are equal in weight. In fact, if the interpretation that "botton-up" is "grass-roots" and "top-down" is "astroturf" plus "conservative media" is accurate, then the "equal in weight" assertion is contradictory, and some other weighting would be inmplied. An alternative is "most important first", which would make astroturfing appropriate, but as a lesser component of whatever she considers to be the TPm.

As for the specific question, it's not clear whether Skocpol meant "money = astrotuf", but she does seem to mean that a formal pre-existing organization "assisting" the TPm is astroturfing, regardless of whether the assistance is hidden, or whether it affects the goals of the TPm. This is not in our definition, and I don't think it's in the common "mainstream" definition. As a parallel, it could be used to assert that any campaign contribution is a bribe; again sometimes asserted, but not "mainstream". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ubikwit, my impression was that Theda Skocpol used the term "Astroturf" in reference to labels applied to TPm by others. I could be mistaken, but it seemed that she used "Astroturf" to describe others' opinions. Then she started to describe her own opinion, and instead chose to use terms like "top-down undertakings," "national advocates," and "resource-producing national organizations." If she does specifically use the term "Astroturf" to describe TPm or any part thereof, as an expression of her own opinion rather than someone else's, would you please cite the page number and post a quotation? Thanks.
• Moreover, that is not the only source that makes reference to Astroturfing, so you are fighting a pointless battle and have already lost the war, so to speak. I'm not sure about that either. And your references to battles and wars reveal a WP:BATTLE frame of mind, I'm afraid. I'm just trying to follow policy and produce a neutral, accurate, good quality article. In the best of all possible worlds for you, both Skocpol and Formisano might support your interpretation. That's two sources. I've cited eleven reliable sources, and can cite many more. Even getting Formisano and Skocpol to be counted in your column requires a painfully contorted definition of "Astroturf," rather than the commonly understood one we have in the Wikipedia Astroturfing article.
• My understanding of "Astroturfing" as a political science term is very clear and exact: manufacturing something fake that looks like a grass-roots movement, where grass-roots do not actually exist. In this case, even Skocpol and Formisano admit that there are very strong elements of genuine grass-roots activism in TPm and for that reason, it's clear that the standard definition of the term cannot be applied to their opinions. There's no need to manufacture something fake when the real thing is already there, big and healthy. The accurate term for the big money effect that Skocpol is describing would be "watering the grass" that's already there, and making sure that it thrives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@Arthur: The researchers do indicate both aspects as crucial to the understanding of the Tea Party movement. I find it interesting that you, after conjecture that perhaps the "grassroots" and "astroturf" aspects of the movement might not be of equal importance, suggest that the grassroots component would be the more important of the two. Based on what? As for the specific terminology used, please don't get hung up on word choice. The researchers draw a distinction between the political activists and the "elite" backing and guiding monied and media influences, and use numerous terms when discussing them. Yes, words have meaning, but the same meaning can be conveyed by a variety of words. Regarding the "bottom-up" and "top-down" descriptions, those are extremely common in academic political science discourse. As one example, from the book "Blessed Are The Organized": Some of the issues that have been of central concern to the religious right over the last three decades have more recently been taken over by the considerably more volatile Tea Party movement. Insofar as the latter movement is a creation of media elites, it too qualifies as an example of top-down politics. The volatility of the movement derives, however, from the spontaneity of its populist spirit. The movement's distrust of elites and antipathy for gays, resident aliens, and "socialists" could rapidly morph into outrage...

@P&W: Yeah, your impression is indeed mistaken when you say the researchers, Skocpol included, use the "astroturf" description "to describe others' opinions" of the movement. In an interview subsequent to the publication of that source, Skocpol reiterates, “It is very interesting to me how thoroughly Romney has catered to the Tea Party wing of his party,” she told me. “Both the grassroots version of it and the big-money elite version of it—the Tea Party is both. In Ryan, he picked about as far right a guy as you could on questions of budgets and entitlements and taxes.”

There is nothing in the definition of astroturfing that says in order for it to exist, a "grassroots" component must not exist. As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, your impression is indeed mistaken when you say the researchers, Skocpol included, use the "astroturf" description "to describe others' opinions" of the movement. Please post a quotation, and the page number in Skocpol's book where you got it, to support your claim that Skocpol uses the term "Astroturf" to describe TPm or any part thereof, as an expression of her own opinion rather than someone else's. I'd like to verify your claim. (I never claimed that. -Xenophrenic)
• There is nothing in the definition of astroturfing that says in order for it to exist, a "grassroots" component must not exist. There is nothing in the phrase, "big-money elite version" that says "Astroturf."
• As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? This is where you demand that in addition to saying what the subject IS, a reliable source must also say what the subject IS NOT. The illustrative example I used a few days ago to describe what you're doing here is the Elephant. If the reliable sources say, "The elephant is an animal," there is another statement implicit in that statement: "The elephant is not a plant." But according to you, if the source doesn't explicitly add the second statement, it doesn't exclude the possibility that the elephant is a plant. Then you feel empowered to delete any statement in the article stating that the elephant is an animal; and add a claim that the elephant is both an animal and a plant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to interrupt here, P&W, and note, again, that you are completely wrong, just as you were the last time you tried this ploy. I have never "demanded that in addition to saying what the subject IS, a reliable source must also say what the subject IS NOT." I simply asked you, and I'll repeat it slowly this time: As for your "eleven reliable sources", which of those refute the astroturf component? And why did I ask that question of you? I was responding to your above statement: "...Skocpol and Formisano ... That's two sources. I've cited eleven reliable sources, and can cite many more." Skocpol and Formisano are cited for the astroturf description, and you appear to be offering your eleven sources as refutation of those two, hence my question to you. No one is disputing the grassroots aspect of the movement If you are admitting that your eleven sources do not address the astroturf portion of this discussion, then your mention of them isn't productive. Let me know if you are still confused, and I'll go over it again in even more detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

While Skocpol does not use the word "astro-turf", she provides the same narrative in "Our argument." "We find that the Tea Party is a new incarnation of longstanding strands in U.S. conservatism....A small set of nationally operating Republican elites, many of whom have been promoting a low-tax, anti-regulation agenda since the 1970s, have played a key role in local and regional Tea Party efforts." TFD (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Where does Skocpol say that "nationally operating Republican elites" is a term equivalent to "Astroturf"? Page number, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Skopol explains on pp. 10-13e ff. that the Tea Party is a combination. As the Columbia Journalism Review summarizes it, "Skocpol and Williamson see the Tea Party as neither solely a mass movement nor an Astroturf creation, arguing for something in between: a grassroots movement amplified by the right-wing media and supported by elite donors."[28] Again that is the consensus in all reliable sources, even if they differ over the degree. That btw is a recurring theme in successful right-wing movements in U.S. history. The book does not contain a glossary, the authors merely accept that reasonably educated readers would understand what the various terms used mean. TFD (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Agenda section, as it stand contains the wording "... Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation ..." The source used doesn't support that statement. The source is a sociological study of members' views. It doesn't follow that all of the beliefs of the individuals in the movement are part of the agenda of the movement. A movement can be founded for a particular concern (say fiscal policy and government regulation) that attracts people with other commonalities. To support the Tea Party's immigration agenda, we need a better source. I hesitate to edit the article even to add "citation needed" in light of discussion above. I mention it here in the hopes that someone has a better source. (PS The sociology of Tea Party members is discussed in other sections. This is the "Agenda" section.) Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The source is actually a joint news poll of Tea Partier beliefs, not an academic sociology study, but your observation that members beliefs do not necessarily equate to agenda items is correct. That sentence is only a preface in the Agenda section and isn't intended to convey specific agenda items; it conveys studied generalities about the movement before the more nuanced agenda issues are discussed in the text that follows. The variance among TPers is noted (it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue [and] While not uniformly so...); also note that sentence is cited to 7 sources, not just that one poll source, which was inserted only to convey that TPers consider illegal immigration an extremely important issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that references 27-32 were meant to support the first sentence (as you point out and as I see after reading the sources.) It appeared that reference 26 was specifically inserted to support the immigration point. Since 26 is about demographics, which is discussed extensively in a separate section, it should be left out. This would make it clear that ref 27-32 support the sentences up to that point. I think this would make it clear where the reader can find support for the claims made. As a reader that's not too close to the subject, perhaps my feedback can of use. In any case, good luck with a difficult topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, May 8, 2013

In the "Organization" section, a recent edit resulted an the incorrect punctuation of a comma and adjacent semi-colon following "Tea Party Congressional Caucus", immediately prior to reference No. 49. The semi-colon alone seems to be correct.

Also, the quotation marks enclosing the block quote later in the same section should be removed to comply with the MoS. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, so  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

In Tea Party movement#Agenda, first subpara, last sentence ("Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the constitution...), the word "constitution" should be capitalized. Kelly ^hi! 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it refers directly to the American Constitution I agree that it should be changed.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides the single occurrence of "constitution" at Tea Party movement#Agenda, what about other words derived from the same root? Also at Tea Party movement#Agenda there is "constitutional", and at Tea Party movement#Contract from America there are two instances of "constitutionality". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalize all instances of 'Constitution' when it is prefaced with "U.S.", or "American" or "the". The words constitutional and constitutionality are not normally capitalized. Where there is still confusion, defer to the cited source materiel (i.e.; This for 'constitutional').

While you are making corrections, could you change "a number Republicans" to "a number of Republicans" in the Tea Party movement#Contract from America section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine,  Done as here --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Targeting by IRS

I saw the breaking story today about the Internal Revenue Service improperly targeting Tea Party groups for scrutiny (Washington Post. New York Times). In what section of the article should this be covered - "Commentary by the Obama administration"? Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be under a section "Relationship with the IRS" to be absolutely NPOV, I suspect. Collect (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More news today that senior IRS officials were aware, from the Associated Press. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

doesn't really seem significant.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Major coverage indicates it should be covered here -- see the NYT columns on it. This is not a trivial event. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Support for Immigration

From Politico: Immigration's new ally An interesting article after all the discussion here about the Tea Party being agianst immigrants. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you overlooked the word "new" in the title of that article? The policies that TPm activists adopt henceforth does not change the factuality of the policies and positions that have been proclaimed heretofore.

It does demonstrate an evolutionary development in the TPm with respect to the issue of immigration.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It demonstrates that "anti-immigration" was quite likely never a key part of their positions. Collect (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've never seen anywhere that it ever was. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction if the backers of astroturf Tea Party groups disagree with Tea Party values. (Revive America btw deny that they are meeting with Rubio.[29]) TFD (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

12 May edit request

If you would please be so kind:

• In the "Leadership and groups" section, IMHO the organization "non-section" headings should be in sentence case (e.g., "501(c)(4) non-profit organizations" and "For-profit businesses" for the current "501(c)(4) Non-Profit Organizations" and "For-Profit Businesses", etc.).
• In the same section "The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition" external link should be converted to a reference.
• In the "Public opinion" section's subsection titles ("2010 Polling" and "2012 Polling"), change the word "Polling" to "polling" (sentence case, as above).
• In the "Use of term "teabagger"" subsection, delete the double quotation marks bracketing A Way with Words, as the title is (properly) already italicized.
• Lastly, I suggest changing the {{Portal}} template to a {{Portal box}} template and moving it to the bottom of the "See also" section, as it currently is impinging on the "References" section (at least, in my browser).

—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea party alignment

I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning in the article about the actual party composition. The lead makes it appear to be a bipartisan political movement, but according to The Washington Post show that between 9 and 13% make up Democrats. For the record, I am Canadian and not lobbying for one group or another, but I did find it a little confusing because I had always thought of the Tea Party as very Republican but I had to look elsewhere to confirm that bit of information when it seems almost critical to the article. Could we add these figures in somewhere? Mkdw^talk 04:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Bipartisan" covers groups which are not set up to be representative of a single party. As a significant number of the adherents are not Republican, and the party is not set up to be solely one party, it is "bipartisan." The term does not mean "equal numbers from all parties" even in Canada. Collect (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the entire related content of sources

I suggest that where criticism is given with a specific source as a reference, and that source contains other material which balances the claim, that it misrepresents the source to only present the criticism - when we use a source, we use the entire source, and where the source has balancing comments, we also include those balancing comments in an article. I rathber think this is intrinsic to WP:NPOV which is a non-negotiable core principle of the project. Thus I made two edits top show why such nbalance from the sources is essential to the article at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Allegations_of_bigotry_in_the_Tea_Party. Collect (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The above had been posted at the moderated sub-page, but is moved here at SilkTork's suggestion. Anyone wished to view the discussion as it has already progressed should read that page first, as duplicating points seems less than fruitful. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, such a demand would only deserve consideration in the case that the claim of "the source has balancing comments" is deemed to be true.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "demand" it is pointing out the existence of WP:NPOV which is not a negotiable policy. Using only one side of a source is clearly violative of that precept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note too that NPOV requires that appropriate weight be given to different opinions in sources. That does not mean that we "balance" mainstream views with fringe views. TFD (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying views you agree with within one source can be "mainstream" while the identical source is "fringe" for other views it also presents? How? Schizophrenic sources? Sorry -- if a source is reliable and mainstream, it is not "fringe" for the parts you do not like. Collect (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD what fringe views are you talking about? It is unclear.Capitalismojo (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example. A reputable article about 911 may mention truthers. That does not mean every time we use that article as a source we mention the truther version. Good sources explain the relative weight of competing views, and we should reflect that in articles. We do not provide equal weight to the official and the truther version just because the "schizophrenic article" mentions both. The fact that a reliable source mentions a fringe view does not make it mainstream. TFD (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As that is not remotely near the question posed, I feel you may have misapprehended the question. A reliable source states A as a fact. It also states B as a fact as specifically related content. We can not take one statement as a fact without also recognizing the fact that the source also makes the other statement as a fact. I would think this is covered in Logic 101. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the idea of "fringe", I meant what do you say is fringe in the specific context of this article? What specifically must be kept out as fringe? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was merely replying to Collect's hypothetical. TFD (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand what Collect is saying now. If a cited source gives balanced coverage of a criticism or controversial subject, an editor should not present just one half of what that source is conveying. That would be misrepresenting what the source says. We should use what the entire source says about the topic, not just a selected portion, to the neglect of balancing material. Did I get that right?

For example, take the topic of "Racial slurs heard by black Congressmen at a protest rally". A source, let's say The Washington Post for this example, tries to investigate the controversial matter of whether or not racial slurs were actually heard. Some people assert it never happened. The reliable investigating source, in support of the "it never happened" side of the argument notes:

• If there is video or audio evidence of the racial slurs against Lewis and Carson, it has yet to emerge.

But, the source also notes, in support of the "it did happen" side of the argument:

• Breitbart insists they "made it up." If so, they're good actors. Roxana Tiron, a reporter for the Hill newspaper, said she was talking with a congressional staffer inside a House entrance to the Capitol when a "trembling" and "agitated" Carson said he and Lewis had just been called the N-word by protesters outside. "He literally grabbed me by the arm and . . . said 'You need to come out with me,' " imploring her to step back outside to listen to the taunts. Post reporter Paul Kane was nearby and witnessed Carson's reaction. "It was real. It was raw. It was angry. It was emotional. And he wanted it documented," recalled Kane, who said U.S. Capitol Police prevented them from going outside.

So the source notes facts on both sides of the argument: recorded proof hasn't yet emerged, but the reporting witnesses were credible and would have to be good actors to have made it up. Collect is saying that to select only part of what the reliable source says about the topic would be misrepresentation of the source. Not that any editor would Actually. Do. That. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the case you cite was to add specifically the balancing material in the reliable source as the allegations were already in the article -- there is no need to "double dip" on "fact A" - the point is that eliding "fact B" is errant and contrary to NPOV. The edit I suggested did not remove any allegations, it only added the material which balanced some of them per the reliable source already being used in as neutral a manner as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Collect. The fact that Congressmen said they heard the slurs is not controversial, and was already in the article. The "controversy" being manufactured is whether or not they made it up, and you decided to add only one half of the Ombudman's statements in that matter. Your "balance" is off. Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)