Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 25

Contents

Rasmussen

Surely a poll from the Fox News Corporation of pollsters isn't a good idea. Rasmussen is notorious for poor sampling, and favors Republican candidates several points over other polls like Gallup. As the Tea Party is heavily intertwined with the GOP, it's probably not the most reliable source for America's opinion on the Tea Party. 108.86.38.165 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen is a valid pollster. Democrats don't like him because he only polls "likely voters", and tend to lean to the right because a good number of younger Democrat leaning people don't vote. Other pollsters using "adults" or "registered voters" which also result in different numbers. There is no "correct" way to poll. In 2008, for example, the likely voter model didn't hold up because of enthusism of younger voters. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
He grossly overstates Republican likely results? -- but is more accurate than anyone else at election day, which rather suggests your premise is dead wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
We are not using the polls to support facts merely saying what there findings were with inline citation. If you can show that their polling results for a specific claim are inconsistent with what other firms have found, then we can consider replacing them. TFD (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

New racism section improvement, still needs work

Still too long, several quotes add nothing to discussion not already said. Rebuttals to racism charges, in particular, are too long and some cover ground already covered earlier in article. Is A3P noteworthy enough for inclusion? Using A3P comes across as POV quote mining to me. No mention of diversity of tea party candidates or how they are often running against white men. These are just some quick first impressions of article. Will try to expand my comments later.--Magicjava (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was working on some of the concerns you just mentioned, but edits of mine conflicted with those of an editor who apparently couldn't resist ignoring the UI tag just to make an unhelpful deletion (of sources and content that I was still in the middle of using, but were already commented-out of the article). With 1RR in effect, I'll continue to address the content in a day or so. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

--Magicjava (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of that work you are doing looks good. Why not do it without blending in reinsertion of the trivia block with it. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We both know there is no "trivia". Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding dates to items on bullet list would be good idea. --Magicjava (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".[307][308] All three of these are policy issues, not issues of prejudice. Claiming they are based on bigotry is liberal POV pushing. --Magicjava (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that "liberal POV"; can you point me to a source I can read to educate myself on it? Also, the lead paragraph of Bigotry seems fairly clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The first source to read is called "the law". Gay marriage, for example, is against the constitution of most states and DOMA is federal law. Liberals don't agree with the law and, IMHO, have some valid reasons for that. BUT that doesn't change the law. The POTUS has refused to enforce the law in this case, that is not disputed. Any groups, be it LGBTs or other, who can influence the POTUS to not enforce the law probably has "to much power". And so on. When you try to place a POV above the law and refer to those who want the laws enforced as bigots, you are POV pushing. And please don't remove my tags until we've finished the discussion. --Magicjava (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I asked for a source to read on this "liberal POV" you referenced, and you directed me to read "the law". Is that were I'll find a description of this "liberal POV" you referenced? That doesn't make sense to me; could you provide a link to this "liberal POV" in "the law" or a specific reference? As to your comment beginning, "When you try to place a POV above the law...", can you specify to whom you are addressing, and quote the specific content in our article to which you refer? (I do not see where that has been done.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The POTUS has refused to enforce the law in this case, that is not disputed. It is debatable, however, as to exactly why POTUS decided to do so, and for what policy reasons. You've stated that LGBT groups influenced POTUS not to enforce DOMA, hence they have "too much power." You might want to consider that is actually an opinion, not an indisputable fact. In 2011, after examining the numerous federal lawsuits filed over DOMA, and after every court (using different standards) found Section 3 of the act unconstitutional, "the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases." Currently, four of those cases are pending USSC review: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (12-13 as BLAG v. Gill), Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (12-15 as Dept. of HHS v. Massachusetts, 12-97), Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (12-16 OPM v. Golinski), and Windsor v. United States (12-63) If the POTUS had arbitrarily decided to stop enforcing a long-established and constitutionally settled federal law prohibiting gay marriage, speculation that it's really because LGBT groups "have too much power" might have more merit. As it stands contrasted with the facts and existing proceedings regarding its constitutionaly, it's just a POV. Hope that helps put some perspective on "the law". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
and of those polled, how many do you think are familiar with, say, OPM v Golinski? I'd hazard a guess it is none. The sources you reference probably not factors in the poll results. --Magicjava (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You have put your finger right on a problem that has been repeated much here. Polls on matters of policy, programs etc. are presented as indicating views not covered by the poll e.g. racism. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, that poll is specific to the state of Washington. I have long stated that a one state poll should not be used to imply general attitudes about a movement that is national. Arzel (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
We really should include a section in this article defining what we all recognize as the glaring differences in attitudes between Washington State Tea Partiers and National Tea Partiers. Which sources should we draw from? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
more likely that Washington state's general values are to the left of the nation as a whole . As are Oregon's and California's (Hence the term left coast). The poll is a 7 state poll and checking what 7 states where used may be worthwhile, especially since other polls have shown the tea party's demographics to be similar to the nation's demographics as a whole, withe the exception that tea partiers tend to have higher education and make more money. ;)--Magicjava (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"more likely that"...
That indicates speculation; something we should avoid in the construction of articles. Also, we were discussing the Washington State poll (you quoted it above); are you now indicating you wish to begin discussions on the 7-state poll instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that the clearest point there is that there is no basis for implying that a Washington State poll is representative of the country. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No argument from me on that point. But neither our article, nor the reliable sources, imply that the poll is representative of the country. It just focuses on Tea Partiers.
"The data tells us this opposition and frustration with government is going hand in hand with a frustration and opposition to racial and ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians." ... "The tea party movement is not just about small government or frustration. It's (also) about a very specific frustration with government resources being used on minorities and gays and lesbians and people who are more diverse."
Definitely not representative of the country. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Going back to "lesbians and gays have too much political power"—was that really the question asked? If so, I (and any honest competant pollster) would predict that the answers to other questions would be pushed to the conservative side. And the interpretation (above) seems to ignore the cognitive dissonance effect, and the fact that asking far-right or far-left questions tends to move the pollee in that direction on other questions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The wording of that poll statement was:
Compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.
Has your personal prediction (or that of other pollsters) been published in reliable sources that we can review? I'm sure we can have an entertaining discussion about "cognitive dissonance" and other psychbabble, or about how answering one poll question influences the answers of subsequent questions (note: the above question was the last in the series), but we should leave that to sources more qualified. I do note that many of the questions (and the sequence in which they are asked) in the above poll have been carefully developed and used over the past few decades by information analysts and poll researchers -- so this isn't a one-off, errant survey we're dealing with here. But all of this misses the actual concern raised above: "these are policy issues, not issues of prejudice. Claiming they are based on bigotry is liberal POV pushing." This is a misstatement. No one has claimed they are (or are not) based on bigotry. Those poll results are in a section titled "Public perception involving issues of race and bigotry"; and the data is definitely about "issues of race". Sure, there is also content on bigotry in that section, but Magicjava has mistakenly conflated the two. Perhaps a clearer header and more succinct presentation of the polling results would help. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The geographic issue is interesting but a sidebar. Two of the polling question are on policy issues, the other involves assessment of the amount of influence a particular group has. The synthesis-by juxtoposition asserts that these establish racial attitudes, not only is this unsupported and baseless synthesis-by-juxtaposition, it is also clearly an error to derive one from the other. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to move that item into the general views area. That will solve some of the problems. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You haven't indicated where this alleged "synthesis-by-juxtoposition" exists; could you be more specific? I don't see it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The Wasthington State poll simply has no place in a national article. The Poll is limited to residents of the state, and AGAIN is trying to be used to imply beliefs by the movement as a whole. Not sure if that this the Synth that North is referring, but it is synthesis of the material because it presents the poll out of frame. Arzel (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
And the disruptive edit you just made relates to this ... how? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't give me that, you have been the sole source of disruption on this article for over a year. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course I have. And you are the Easter Bunny. But if you feel my edits are a disruption to you, then I must thank you for that high praise -- better than a barnstar. Please use more care in seeing that your edit summaries at least come close to describing the edit. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Perhaps I overlooked it, but I find this article to be relatively one-sided. Should there not be a section that outlines the opposition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBMATT (talkcontribs) 03:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. There is little in this article which does not represent the views of the opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You didn't overlook it, NBMATT; an outline of the opposition isn't part of the TP agenda, hence its absence. Also, any opposing views would undoubtedly be mere trivia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ground game"

The phrase ground game appears several times without explanation. I understand it as a metaphor from American Football, but non-Americans, or Americans who don't follow football, may have no idea what it is referring to. It could be explained, but I would suggest instead that it simply be removed (or more precisely, that the sentences in which it occurs be reworded to avoid the metaphor), with perhaps one remaining instance if sourceable. The metaphor is not so apt as to be indispensable, and it tends to reduce the air of seriousness in the discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the metaphor referred to warfare, even if it came from American football. I guess not. See Wiktionary definition 5. It probably should be changed to "local political activity". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought it meant "executing the boring fundamentals" or "grinding it out by attrition". --Trovatore (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm from the US. I think that it could use a better explanation or different word, but such is one of the more minor issues with this article. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That it may well be, but that's not an excuse not to fix it. I'm from the US too; I just think that (i) we do need to consider international (or just unfamiliar-with-football) readers, and (ii) even if we could be assured that all our readers are rabid American football fans, it's still language that's too informal/imprecise for an encyclopedia article. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Zernike

(Zernike is a columnist, not necessarily a reporter.) --Arthur Rubin

Say what? Are we speaking about the same Kate Zernike? She is a journalist, and has long been a reporter for several news agencies. She is also a correspondent, author and has taught journalism at Columbia University as an adjunct professor. Quit being silly. I've corrected your edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd accept "journalist". "Reporter" requires a citation, under the circumstances that the articles she's written are not reporting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just reviewed several reliable sources that can be cited that define Zernike as a reporter (and Lead Reporter in some instances, also Education Reporter, etc.) with the Times, the Globe, the Ledger ... say, could I impose upon you to point me to these "not reporting" articles she has written? This should prove illuminating. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pared 2010 election items

I pared the 2010 election items items. Basically took out congressional races that did not have any national personalities involved. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia tag does not mean "Delete", does not mean "Unimportant"

It means a set of facts that have no connections between them, that form no system, and tell no larger story. Please reformat sections marked trivia into an article that tells a story.- WP:TRIVIA -Magicjava (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, particularly where inclusion can be a subjective / cherry picking situation. But that's going to be a tough one. The media one will require find "coverage of coverage" sources to integrate it. I do think that the debate on the TPM agenda should be a core and high level item. Right now it is contained in "commentaries on the movement" which has that tag and situation. We'll have to see how we can evolve this. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Would suggest deleting non-essentials first, like the "In 2011, Newt Gingrich said he liked the Tea party". I'm not sure even Newt Gingrich cares what Newt Gingich thinks about the tea party. I'm certain no one else does.--Magicjava (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So I went through each paragraph of the "Commentaries on the movement" section to give my thoughts on how they could possibly be used as starting points for a discussion, or possibly deleted. Here's what I came up with:
  1. According to The Atlantic... May be useful in a grass roots/astroturf discussion.
  2. "Tea Party supporters", says Patrik Jonsson... May be useful in discussion of composition or racism, but probably should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
  3. Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has said.... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  4. Mark Mardell of BBC News... May be useful in an agenda discussion, but probably should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
  5. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  6. Dan Gerstein, a former Democratic political advisor... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  7. Ned Ryun, president of American Majority... Could be useful in a party affiliation discussion, but perhaps should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
  8. According to Arthur C. Brooks... Could be useful in an agenda discussion.
  9. Noam Chomsky has compared... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  10. In an April 2009 New York Times... May be useful in a grass roots/astroturf discussion.
  11. In a September 2010 piece for Rolling Stone... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  12. Observers have compared the Tea Party... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
  13. William J. Bennett, contributing an opinion on CNN... May be useful in a ground game/GOTV discussion.
  14. Obama commentary... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.

... with WP:UNDUE being used where the commentary is WP:UNDUE (even if the commentator is a noteworthy person). Just my 2 cents... I welcome other opinions. --Magicjava (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

agreed all of the above are undude and would help focus the article of the actual movement rather than pundits spin on such. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice work. About the only thing that I'd disagree with at first glance is that I think that the Obama commentary should be reduced, not eliminated.
One other note. I think that "commentary" is a massive over-generalization. Many of the above are just opponents trying to "score points" against the TPM. That is "tactics" that is not information about the TPM. That is very different from a real writer or analyst trying to do real writing or analysis (even if slightly biased). North8000 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with North that "Commentary" is overly general; not very useful, in fact, as a section. It's simply a compilation of opinions from recognizable individuals. It's a fact of life that everybody has an opinion (no, I won't quote the popular comparison to a body part), and these sections have become a dumping ground for a huge pile of them. The great majority of these opinions are about aspects already covered elsewhere in the article (Agenda, Composition, etc.). We could move all those opinions into the existing topic sections (Magicjava has already made a good start on identifying the specific topic each opinion relates to), thereby eliminating the commentary sections. Then we could examine each of those topic sections, and reduce the opinions and commentary in each down to only what is necessary to convey the relevant points of view. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed --Magicjava (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the quotes that didn't seem like they were contributing anything to the article, the ones marked WP:UNDUE above that no one objected to. I'll start integrating the remaining quotes into the article shortly. BUT I'd like some input from folks who want to keep the Obama quotes. What value do you see in them and how should they be merged into the rest of the article? I need help on this because they just don't seem relavant to anything to me. --Magicjava (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that paragraph #'s 2 and 4 represent Obama debating/tackling the TPM agenda and are good to keep. Paragraph #'s 1 & 3 are his and his mouthpiece's (misleading) description of his own actions and should go. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I took out #1 & #3 on this basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to add my opinion of remaining two Obama quotes just to give idea of trouble I'm having with finding a use for them. 1st quote talks about how Obama is trying to cut spending and "tighten belt". It's absolutely ludicrous. 2nd quote talks about how tea party must come up with plan on what should be cut in budget. This is just factually incorrect, as it is President's job to submit budget to congress every year and Congress's job to pass a budget every year. I understand Obama is noteworthy person, but these particular comments don't seem noteworthy to me. --Magicjava (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on the remaining one. The two I took out clearly had no place here, they were self-descriptions of his own work and not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Media coverage"

I fail to see how this is a "list of miscellaenous information". An arbitrary group of examples, maybe, but certainly not a list. I have swapped out {{trivia}}, which is supposed to cover only lists, for {{examplefarm}}. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 12:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that that is more appropriate. The section IS pretty bad. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
example farm doesn't really exist, so i put trivia back, which is most of this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "Example farm doesn't really exist"? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
click the link and view the article, there is no text, just a tag. This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples. Please improve the article by adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions. (August 2012) i will send to afd after the notice has time to congeal. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That might be because it's, you know, a WP:Template – identifiable by the curly brackets around it – used to flag issues in actual WP:Articles. (Sort of like {{Trivia}}.) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
so when you click [1] you get an actual page describing what is/is not trivia, when you click {{examplefarm}} you get a poor quality tag, not much else. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Still, it's not a list, and it's not trivia, so {{trivia}} is wrong. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi North8000. Aren't you at 2RR now on the FAIR material? It was added by an editor previously here, removed by you today here, followed by being put back in here, followed by you removing it again here, only four hours after your first revert. Given this article's continued probationary status, maybe you should self-revert, and the make the case for its removal here on the Talk Page first? If I'm wrong, just let me know. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The FAIR stuff might be interesting in a general article on media coverage of various organizations - but as it has naught to do with acts or positions of the TPM (unless the TPM runs the media) it is simply irrelevant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The media coverage section is about how the media relates to TPM. At the risk of voiding the assumption of good faith, the idea that "media coverage" should only be about TPM-run media is patently absurd.
If North8000 wants to remove the entire section that's one thing but removing RS material with no good explanation can't stand and neither can the notion that it's only about TPM-run media. I'll reinstate it for now. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I said absolutely nothing about "TPM-run media" and that aside is staggering in its inapplicability to the discussion. The issue is whether the reader learns anything about TPM from the edit - if there is no substantive value to a reader seeking knowledge about TPM, then the material is known as "irrelevant." In the case at hand, it is wondrously and gloriously irrelevant to readers seeking to know about the acts and views of the TPM, and the reactions to those acts and views. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
As I take it you said "it has naught to do with acts or positions of the TPM (unless the TPM runs the media)" which means the only content in section would the TPM's POV of the media or media run by the TPM which is completely ridiculous and antithetical to the point of Wikipedia.
To the other point, FAIR is a RS which has said that the TPM is being covered more than other political movements, that information is pretty noteworthy given a section about media coverage of the movement. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I had hoped simple English would work here. The material has no relevance to the TPM. Period. It might have relevance to articles on how the media decide to produce stories, but that is of nugatory value to readers here. If TASS wrote 10,000 stories on the TPM, what relevance would it have to the subject of the article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Comparing media coverage of the TPM is irrelevant to media coverage of the TPM? CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The material is spin from an anti-TPM group which is applying the unused standard of coverage in proportion the attendance to give a certain impression that they want to give. That's the kind of low grade material that we need to get out of this article.North8000 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion of the group and the content, FAIR has been ruled a reliable source time and time again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS is not the issue. We know that they are a reliable source on the spin that they generate, the question is whether spin generated by advocacy groups is informative material for the article. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If it's an RS then it's not "low grade" and it's irrelevant whether or not it is "spin" since it's their assessment. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Not so. "Op-ed" and editorial opinion articles and sources are not usable for claims of "fact" as a rule - even if they come from an "RS source." Also material from an RS source which is not relevant to the article is not usable - the idea of having a cohesive article is that the claims in it are supposed to be relevant to the topic. See also WP:PIECE please. Collect (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can we bring the discussion back to reality, please? The core of the disputed content centers around the assertion "[by FAIR that] there is a disparity between large coverage of the Tea Party movement and minimal coverage of larger movements." The Tea Party movement is the central subject of that assertion, so the statement that it is "not relevant" to the TPm is ridiculous and transparent. Not every word in this article will be about just the TPm "agenda"; the "media coverage" aspect of TPm's history is certainly notable and prevalent enough in reliably-sourced discourse to warrant representation here. Further, calling that assertion by FAIR "spin" (or "trivia" ... or "junk" ... or "undue" ... ... or "trash" ... or "gamed in" ... or any of the other routine "I don't like it, but can't give an intelligent reason why" disparagements) aren't helpful, either. Floating those disparagements without reasonable substantiation to back them up will, as we've seen time and again here, likely fall on deaf ears.

In an effort to move down a more constructive path here, can someone provide additional sources which support the assertion that the media coverage of the TP movement is disproportionate in comparison to the coverage of other movements? Or conversely, can someone provide sources indicating that isn't the case, or directly refuting that assertion by FAIR? The assertion by FAIR is presently supported by only two anecdotal examples in our article: comparisons to the coverage of the "Social Forum" and "National Equality" protest movements. Have other reliable sources made the same observation? Additional context for the assertion (i.e.; "why the disparity in coverage?") also seems to be lacking. Address these issues, and the dispute here will resolve itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless or until someone shows that the coverage is a topic for the media over which the TPM had some control, it is, in fact, irrelevant. It is like saying the "Gnarph murder case" was covered by twice an many media as the "Flugh murder case" -- it shows the media are inconsistent, but it shows nothing about either Gnarph or Flurg as far as they are concerned. In fact, every single topic on Wikipedia could be "analysed" in this manner -- the question remaining is -- does the material benefit the reader of the article? In the case at hand, the answer is clearly "no." Collect (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Collect. This article is not only about matters over which the TPm had some control. All other matters significantly relevant to the TPm, not just those under the TPm's "control", are also beneficial content to the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, media coverage of events is NEVER proportionate to the number of participants; that is not how they decide what to cover. The "spin" is the anti-TPM group pretending that they are "discovering" this and that it is useful info regarding the TPM....such is worthless for the article. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I consider this items itself to be a minor issue but it is emblematic of the efforts try to raise this article up from trash level by starting to take out the selective gamed-in trivia and the resistance to such. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No one mentioned "number of participants" in the above arguments. From where did you pull that? Also, could you please explain "the anti-TPM group pretending" phrase? You lost me. I don't recall reading any mention about an "anti-TPm group", nor do I recall reading about "pretending" in any of the sources under discussion. Are you privy to some special information, and if so, could you please point it out to us for review? Thanks in advance. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The number of participants is right from the material in question ("larger movements") The "anti-TPM group" and "pretending" are my take on it but pretty obvious. The group is liberal which, per the US meaning, has an agenda which is in direct opposition to the agenda of the TPM. And "pretending" is obvious unless you are saying that they are so stupid that they think that they think that norm is that US media coverage of organizations is scaled to be proportionate to the size of the movement. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
FAIR? realiable? I suppose that if FAIR and AIM make the same statement, it's probably true, but, Really? (Sorry about the WP:EGG, but there isn't a section link to the Weekend Update subsegment called "Really?") — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
To address some of the other points made, neither article for FAIR was an editorial so it is factual based on FAIR as an RS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to the Colorado shootings

According to Brian Ross of ABC news, James Holmes is a member of the tea party his name is clearly listed on the local chapter's website. Why is there no section covering this? In my opinion there needs to be a separate article for tea party controversies because of this and the arizone giffords shooting caused by the vitriolic hate speech produced by the TPM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.108.152 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ross has retracted his statement.[2] Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. TFD (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
See 2012 Colorado shooting. 99.109.124.90 (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have a thought to express, please tell it to us. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no section for the Ross controversy because it was shown to be factually incorrect. Something Ross himself acknowledged. He didn't say the shooter was a member of the TP just that the Colorado TP had a member by the same name. It turned out to be a different individual. Similarly, there is no section referencing the Arizona shooting because the shooter, Jared Loughner was neither a TP member nor a supporter of its ideas. I hope this answers your question. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, numeric IP. That is entirely correct. There was a rush to judgement after each shooting, in an attempt to discredit the tea party after some tea party leaders made comments about "employing second amendment remedies" during the 2010 campaign. The attempts merely discredited those attempting to discredit the tea party without a basis in fact. I remember the sequence of events quite well, as I was deployed and actually wondering if I'd have a home to return to after the second amendment idiocy, only to arrive home and soon after, Giffords was shot. I did change my party affiliation when I redeployed home, as I wished no association with such an abusive group.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

this article is too long.

submit your recommendation here for what should be cut, after a few days to review, i will make the necessary deletion based on your input and tea leaves. simply give the section you wish to trim, not why or how much. off-topic or lengthy post will be moved to a subsection. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

since no one has volunteered a section to trim, i will simply start at the top. If the culled material warrants it's own page, please move it there and i will leave the section and link to it. Since this notice is 2 weeks old, and the article is 3 x recommended length, i assume my edits will go uncontested. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Or... since no one has responded even after two weeks, it's possible that no one took your request seriously. You basically said: Point out stuff to cut from the article, and don't give an explanation as to why, and don't say how much -- you know, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia editing policy. Speaking for myself, I took it as humor. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are seriously concerned about article length, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles longer than this one that could use your attention. Even Sarah Palin, List of Tea Party politicians and Political positions of Ron Paul (if you wish to stay TP-related), among others, are much longer than this article. You do realize that the readable prose length of this article is still under 70K, right? Where are you obtaining your "3 x recommended length" estimate? Anyway, on an article about an American Politics subject, during election season, that is under a 1RR probation, I'm fairly confident you were trying for humor when you said "I assume my edits will go uncontested". If you want uncontested edits, simply propose them here first and work out any major concerns before implementing them. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
TP seem to be swinging the platform of both parties now, so i see you point. The tea party is more important than D or R now and deserves the most prose of the 3 party system, perhaps we could even expand the page some. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

adding new material 3 new sources, unless objection

i plan to add some material from these sources unless anyone objects as reliable. i will allow a few days to review to avoid reverts or challenges post edit.

  • A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes John M. O'Hara
  • The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History by Lepore, Jill
  • The Tea Party: Three Principles, Elizabeth Price Foley Darkstar1st (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2012

184.74.184.98 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2012

Hello, I have a serious problem with what I read on wikipeida.org about "Tea Party movement". The page describes Ron Paul supporters or "Paulites" as "Neo-Isolationists". That is incorrect, I understand the mainstream media is attacking Ron Paul and his supporters by twisting the intention of the movement. Ron Paul supporters, Paulites and Thomas Jefferson are "Non-interventionists", not "Neo-Isolationists". There is a clear difference between the two. Below you will find a Wikipedia.com link that defines "Non-Interventionism" and lists Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul as "Non-Interventionists".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

1776FreedomNow (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 1776LibertyNow

The source for the "Neo-Isolationist" phrasing is Foreign Affairs magazine, which is published by the non-profit Council on Foreign Relations. Not exactly the for-profit press making money off of of grande scheme to keep Ron Paul out of office. Being opposed to giving US-citizenship to the the US-born children of illegal immigrants (as Paul is) is rather isolationist. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Council on Foreign Relations, while they may be "non-profit" by certain definitions, is not without a stated agenda, namely the "harmonization" of global lawmaking authority. This single, biased source cannot be used to justify a such a description, unsupported by any other source, and clearly violates the NPOV principles. Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Gee, that'd be applicable if the section wasn't being presented as Walter Russell Mead's analysis. NPOV simply demands that Mead's views be attributed to him. Foreign Affairs magazine meets WP:RS. Disputing reliable sources (especially by engaging in unsourced personal assessment of sources) is a characteristic of editors with axes to grind. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The wrong Jimmy Hoffa is linked

In the second paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Challenge_of_the_ground_game_for_the_Tea_Party_in_the_2012_election_cycle there is a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa when it should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hoffa

MusedFable (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the suggestion, I have corrected the link. Michael Anon 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Why is this in the libertarianism portal? The only thing libertarian about the Tea party is the anti-tax and small government stance. Despite what they might think they are

182.239.197.160 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is with the Libertarian project. You can ask them why they have an interest in this article. TFD (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Having libertarian in THIS article has been discussed and sourced immensely. Please see the archives. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Al Hunt's "Letter from Washington" shouldn't be attributed to the New York Times, but Bloomberg News

The Wikipedia article currently says: According to the New York Times, "The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics."[26]

The link [26] at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27iht-letter.html is titled: "LETTER FROM WASHINGTON Tea Party Doesn't Need Votes to Win U.S. Elections By ALBERT R. HUNT"

So maybe the paragraph in the article should instead say:

In the opinion of Al Hunt [3], "The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics."[26] The article makes it clear he's referring to illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Or maybe the whole reference should be removed, since it's referring to an unattributed opinion piece by Al Hunt rather than an attributed news article.

The Wikipedia article should also add a quote from the actual Tea Party. It could say:

The Tea Party Patriots [4] lists their "core principles" as "fiscal responsibility", "constitutionally limited government", and "free market economics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrintel (talkcontribs) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and an important point. And the anti-immigration is certainly erroneous. Even anti-illegal-immigration is not on most TPM agendas, and flat anti-immigration is on abotut 0% of them. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. As for the source, Hunt is the Senior Executive Editor for Washington and Politics at Bloomberg News, for whom the piece was originally written, and the NYT took that piece, sourced it to Hunt and Bloomberg but ran it through their news editing processes, and printed it under political news, not opinion, a day later. Hunt's creds as a journalist in the politics field, regardless, should suffice to meet Wikipedia's RS requirements for assertion of fact in this field, but we can run it through the RS noticeboard just to be certain.
To the more important point, immigration is definitely a big Tea Party concern. It is "an issue they care passionately about", and they "have long argued for harsher penalties against illegal border crossers", and have even organized nationwide rallies around this agenda item. Their concern also extends to immigration reform, especially if it even hints at "amnesty", or involves any components of the Dream Act, and other aspects not wholly concerned with violation of law. Remember that illegal immigration is still part of immigration, and the Tea Party is against it, so describing the TP as anti-immigration is not "erroneous". It's cultural, too. As already noted in academic studies and in-depth surveys of the Tea Party, they feel "Immigration is changing the culture in the U.S. for the worse." Reports from research institutes indicate that TPers "were significantly more hostile to immigrants and their children, as well as any effort to legalise their status in the United States". Just to be sure that Hunt didn't misspeak when saying that the Tea Party is anti-immigration, I looked up some of his other reports. He is consistent when he says "anti-immigration", so it's not erroneous, but he does note the TP has never been monolithic and has always been replete with factions. Hopefully this helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Your statement " illegal immigration is still part of immigration, and the Tea Party is against it, so describing the TP as anti-immigration is not "erroneous"" is such an obvious logical blunder that I assume that you will want to retract it. Basically says that if somethings is true of the subset it is true of the superset which it is part of. An obvious logical fallacy. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Misstating what I stated, so that you can argue against what I didn't state, is also a logical fallacy. I never said "If" something is true; I said it "is" true of both the subset and superset. Illegal immigration is immigration (and some would even argue that 'illegal' is a misnomer, but that's another debate entirely). I corrected your quote of me to include the Wikilink I had inserted, as that article also supports my point. Here's another example. There are pro-life individuals who are anti-abortion, and there are pro-life individuals who are anti-abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake. Do we say both categories of individuals are "pro-life, anti-abortion" because one is a subset of the other? No, we say it because they both are "pro-life, anti-abortion". This was entertaining, but is really beside the point. The crux is that TPers are the most anti-immigrant of all polled and surveyed demographics, and according to sources, not just the 'illegal' kind. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not making any sense, to the point of being ridiculous. You are trying to say that if someone is against illegal immigration then you can say that they are against immigration! Those have two completely statements. North8000 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. Why spend so much energy manufacturing what I'm "trying" to say, instead of responding to what I said? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead needs improvement

Affiliation with the Republican Party is lacking in the lead. Tea Party members caucus with the Republican Party. Now, whether the Tea Party is a faction or a wing of the Republican Party is semantics. This critical relationship should be emphasized in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.190.54 (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Being a grassroots movement on principles of fiscal responsibility may seem to align to conservative Republicans, but that goes without saying in the Article, and it is not an organizational fact. There is no connection. In fact, some Republican elites hate Conservatives as much as Liberal/Democrats. Nice try. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Be an editor—easy to do. You could work something in somewhere. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is locked from editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.190.54 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2012

The following section states a list of facts without indicating relevance:

"A University of Washington poll of Washington State residents reported that 46% of Tea Party supporters agree with the observation that "If blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites", 73% disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".[185][186][314]"

There should be some indication of what this (the author) means by these statements, and / or why they are relevant to the article. At a minimum, a contrast between these survey findings and those of the general populace should be provided.

(this is not to question the accuracy or validity of the cited survey, but rather is indicative that simply reciting facts does not make a point / show relevance of the quoted material. The author need not explicitly take a stand / express an opinion, but they DO need to point out why this content is worthy of the space it takes up)


99.16.136.41 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this request as Not done: as there is no consensus for any edit. This is not an absolute "no" answer to your edit request, but some discussion among editors is needed before any sort of edit is made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Racism

This is more of a hit piece when talking about racism and does not accurately reflect events, personalities or organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.203.103 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty bad. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"The term 'racism' occurs a dozen times in this article. But what can you do? The biased Washington Post is used, as encouraged by WP tradition, so is ABC. The Tea Party rallies police themselves and can be totally color-blind — but perception can be reported. What can you do? What should editors do? Does this article give too much emphasis on critics and their views? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the biggest problem has been flooding with wp:editor-selected trivia which is cherry picked to try to paint a particular false picture. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
How the a group and their supporters views themselves is less biased perception than outside observation (perhaps more so if more and varied persons disagree with the that group's assessment of itself). That's why this article, like all others, consists of a summary of widest variety of reliable sources possible.
If Washington Post and ABC cannot be used, neither can The Wall Street Journal nor Fox News. If other editors have cherry picked, bring in more sources. If a wide variety of sources from different kinds of reporters and authors with different backgrounds and beliefs have all managed to reach conclusions quite the opposite of what anyone thinks of the Tea party, then we just have to deal with it and consider what sort of company we keep. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about cherry-picking sources, I was talking about cherry picking content, especially trivia such as big sections on twitter comments, a cut gas line on a grille, and the fact that somebody said that somebody in a crowd of thousands at one event said something racist. North8000 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I've never gone through and counted before. There are:

  • 9 instances of the word "racist"
  • 11 instances of the word "racism"
  • 7 instances of the word "racial"
  • 10 instances of the word "race"

This is absurd. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we start paring this based on whether or not something is trivia and whether or not it is ABOUT the TPM (vs. just having some connection to it) rather than directly editing based on bias. If we go by those standards I think it will automatically reduce the bias as well as improving the quality of this article. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I'm working on another page at the moment (Paul Hermann Müller) so I won't be able to do this for perhaps another week. If you want to get started on it, I can join in later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousSquirrel (talkcontribs) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Future of the TP movement citation

99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Un-viewable by most of us....behind a paywall. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Google the article name, it has been copied elsewhere. Apparently the TPM has set its sights on left-wing Republicans including Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander and Saxby Chamblis. TFD (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Mandatory paywalls by WSJ aren't usually implemented until the content is archived. They do, however, pop in those annoying second-hop subscription prompts like the one above. Google goes around those; so if you google just the article title, you should see a link directly to the WSJ article at the WSJ site. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. A good but short article. Incidentally, the title is not what the article says. With respect to the item that TFD noted, the actual quote is (bolding is mine) "Conservative groups also are considering potential challenges to GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, Lamar Alexander in Tennessee and Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, whom some activists view as not conservative enough" North8000 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Conservatism, libertarianism, and populism

Why are we kidding ourselves into believing the modern Tea Party is equally conservative and libertarian? Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that it is a staunchly conservative movement, with some small libertarian factions.--Ðrdak (T) 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The general answer would be to look back in talk (and also the mediation) for an extensive amount of information that answers that. But a couple thoughts which are oriented towards understanding rather than bolstering:
  • First, this is not about an entity as your first sentence implies, it is about a movement.
  • The best way that you can define the politics of a movement is by its agenda. And, roughly speaking, it's agenda is the items in common with conservatism and libertarianism. (by the common USA meanings of those terms) The areas where libertarianism and conservatism conflict are absent from the TPM agenda, most notably social conservatism agendas/items
  • Libertarians are and have been prominent in the TPM, and it has been described as such in sources
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Foreign policy

I've moved the following unsourced text here, with the hopes that someone could provide a reliable source citation for it:

As a result, the Tea Party has shown it is largely distinct from the neoconservative and liberal internationalist viewpoints on foreign policy, while not totally endorsing the non-interventionist approach of the paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians. Some Republicans with links to the Tea Party, however, like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan have embraced the neoconservative foreign policy through their votes on bills such as these.

It appears to be a conclusion of sorts, but I don't see it conveyed by the two "vote list" sources that precede it. Any help? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cspan caller to Norm Ornstein Called for Tea Party Early February

On Cspan early in February 2009, a caller from Minnesota called for a Tea Part movement for America during a segment with Norm Ornstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.204.177 (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The tobacco industry and the Tea Party

goethean 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The first items is about 6 levels below being a source and credibility. The second one has some real facts in it plus spun statements that don't follow from the facts listed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As usual, your comments are strictly partisan, have no relation to Wikipedia policy, and can be ignored as irrelevant. The academic journal article that the blog post describes and which the abstract summarizes is a reliable source of the highest order and will be used in this article. — goethean 14:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss without the baseless personal insults? More specifically:
  1. On the first item, I was commenting on what you linked to (a clearly anti-TPM advocacy blog) not the item which you are now referring to but didn't link to.
  2. On the second item, a link to the "TobaccoControl" web site, what I said is that the material on that web page it contained some factual items and some statements that didn't follow from those factual items.
How in your imagination do you get your "strictly partisan" crap out of that? Quit it! North8000 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I am being more polite and charitable than your comments warrant. No matter, I have already requested through my local public library a copy of the full text of the academic journal article. I suggest that you do the same. — goethean 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll charitably skip to your second sentence. Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I love these correlation without causation studies. Some anti-TP people think that Big Tobacco must be behind the TP and then go look for anything that confirms their hypothesis. Finding anything then confirms their hypothesis. It might be more believable if the TP had been a notable participant in any big tobacco issues. I would be far more likely to believe that the TP was created by Big Oil, but that is just to passe to be of interest by the MSM. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
agreed, i first heard of the tea party in 2007 and was about income tax. [5] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The whole core of the TPM agenda and driving force of the movement is prioritizing less government, lower taxes, lower spending. A reader of this crap-hole attack piece of an article, where every possible piece of negative trivia has been gamed and battled in would think that it is about everything but those things. And a few people have work aggressively and tendentiously to prevent it rising from attack-piece junk status, and people have given up on fixng it. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you can tell that a study is flawed without reading it, then I guess you don't need a copy of it. — goethean 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please look up a few lines, I didn't say that. More specifically I said "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material." North8000 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Most Muslims claim their religion goes back to Adam instead of Mohammad. We do not accept this claim but merely note it and go with outside observation. We have outside academic observation that the Tea Party was created by non-profit groups founded and funded by corporate interests. Per NPOV, unless we find academic sources that present them as being a grassroots movement, we cannot present them as such. I've summarized the findings, and only cited the HuffPost article for verification that Citizens for a Sound Economy (mentioned even in the abstract). I could also cite the source that says the same thing at our article on CoaSE, but this source, which is about the study, is the most appropriate secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is that we're not *required* to use any source that comes around, especially if it doesn't pass the smell test. Per WP:V, it seems pretty controversial to add so far, and I would agree with its removal at the moment until we've got more information on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks are not the whole of the tea party, or even a majority. OR at best, POV pushing more likely. Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies is the snippet sniped from the cancer study some unknown blogged about. weasel word alert; associated, ties, is a far cry from the edit you support. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando: Please present any non-Tea Party source finding that the study's conclusions are controversial. We don't do original research, but we do use published original research from peer-reviewed academic journals with editorial oversight ("When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources"). It is nothing but tendentious to deny that a peer-reviewed journal on how big tobacco has affected society is reliable.
Darkstar1st: You clearly didn't see the edit I made, please actually know what you're talking about before posting. I only summarized what was in the two source, and gave those two sources only one sentence, so there wasn't an issue of undue weight. I only summarized what was in the sources (including a secondary source giving professional analysis of the article), so there wasn't OR. As the source points out, Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks are not the Tea Party movement as a whole now, but (as is documented in sources here and in the journal article), were responsible for getting the Tea Party movement started. My edit did not say "associated" and "ties", so your application of WP:WEASEL is incorrect at best and false at worst. The Huffington post article did use those words in summarizing parts of the study, but trying to apply WP:WEASEL to outside sources is nothing but Wikilawyering.
Overall, I'm seeing wikilawyering (bad wikilawyering at that) and tendentious editing in trying to apply BLP to groups, arguing that summarizing published works with no embellishment fails our rules preventing us from doing original research, and arguing that a peer-reviewed journal on how big tobacco has affected society is anything but the best source for one more way the tobacco industry has affected society. That is the shameful POV-pushing going on here, not my addition. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a lot of coverage period yet, which should probably tell us something. As it stands, it appears that the link is "Big Tobacco wants to use 3rd party groups, one third party group that agrees with Big Tobacco also agrees with the Tea Party, thus the Tea Party roots are in Big Tobacco." I don't see how that exactly makes a ton of sense, or why it needs to be in this article. We have enough bad sourcing from both sides of the debate in this article to begin with, I fail to see what this adds at this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not what the source says. Try reading. — goethean 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I did read it. That's functionally what it's saying. I'm not seeing consensus for the addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Your (Ian.thomson) source, even if it were reliable, says "associated" and "tied"; if you do not, it's a clear WP:OR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tobacco Control"

Is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about living persons. One eensy indication that it is not a "neutral source" is the bit:

It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations.

Sources which make clearly editorial comments are unlikely to meet Wikipedia requirements about contentious claims. Collect (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It has a LOT of problems. An "F" grade source telling us what the "study" says, and it only talking about a tiny piece of the TPM, not the TPM. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the website of the academic journal Tobacco Control. It is unquestionably a reliable source of the highest caliber. That the article argues about what is important for tobacco advocates to do or to not do in order to be effective has absolutely no bearing on its status as a reliable source. — goethean 15:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The journal is published by BMJ Group. — goethean 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The "study" is based on Google and Wayback - and the journal is not a reliable source on political issues at all -- any more than the JAMA would be a reliable source on economics. No journal is "reliable" when it ventures far outside its actual sphere of expertise. Collect (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP applies to persons, not to movements or organizations. An imprint of the peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted British Medicinal Journal focused on how the Tobacco industry affects society is an RS for issues relating to how the tobacco industry has affected society. Just because we do not use Google archives and Wayback does not prevent peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted academic journals from doing so. It is tendentious to dispute the validity of undeniably reliable sources, and it is wikilawyering to apply the standards for living individuals to unliving (if active) organizations. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That's just one of the many problems with that problematic attempted insertion. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As you ignored above, however, WP:V does not require us to use every source available. If the source is generally reliable, but the assertion doesn't really pass the smell test, we don't have to use it. As it stands, I can't tell whether this is a good study or not. I think we should wait until we know whether it is or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I was getting to commenting above, and have done so. "We don't have to use it" is meant to prevent original research, not as an excuse for partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not narrowed to that one case, and the last two items you listed (" partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering.") don't exist regarding keeping it out except as you baseless insult/ mis-chacerization. Please quit that crap. Also you violated the 1RR restriction. Let's see if there is any quality stuff in the actual study and stop trying to war in crap from an advocacy blog. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not violate 1RR, I only make 1 revert. Misapplying BLP to this group was wikilawyering, applying WP:WEASEL to the HuffPost article was wikilawyering, rejecting the study for OR is wikilawyering and tendentious, and saying that a peer-reviewed academic journal with editorial oversight on how the tobacco industry has affected society is anything but the best source for how big tobacco has affected society is tendentious, and all those are things that have occurred on this talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
What you are trying to put in is a faulty construction built upon a faulty construction built by an extreme op ed piece. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, I put in a summary of this academic source, and only cited the secondary source for the part saying that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers, something we affirm in our own article about that group. Did you even bother to read my edit? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit was appropriate and support its restoration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

At best, your assessment there was completely mistaken.
My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests
Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."
You are absolutely wrong to claim that what I added was not supported (or even contradicted) by the academic article. I did not have to include the HuffPost article, but only did so for confirming that the Koch brothers founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (and if you want to dispute that that was my intention, read WP:AGF). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The number 1 problem is that your statement (claim regarding the entire movement) is not supported even by your selected references. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and wp:synth, and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

New US gov't study on origins of Tea Party -- add to article

Someone should incorporate this into the "Organization" section: a new study from the National Institute of Health showing that the Tea Party originated out of a movement started in 2002 by the tobacco industry and the Koch brothers to foment action against taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.74.135 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're trying to cite the academic article that HuffPost piece is about, but some individuals who keep misinterpreting the situation have been removing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
HuffPo is not RS for such a claim, and the "source" is not RS for political claims. Health publications are RS for health studies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Anent POV of a source:

was very surprised to be invited to present as part of an FDA-sponsored “Facilitated Dialogue” panel also featuring tobacco industry representatives, which would be focused on the topic of industry-funded research. This very type of industry engagement with senior public health figures is straight out of the tobacco companies’ public relations “corporate social responsibility” playbook and was something that at least one tobacco company anticipated as a favorable result of FDA legislation. [1, 2] Such “dialogues” have long been part of this and earlier industry public relations campaigns. Public health authorities and scientists – to say nothing of the federal agency charged with regulating this industry — should not lend their legitimacy to the tobacco companies’ efforts to position themselves as socially responsible. [6]

The idea of "peer review" is for scientific studies. Political statements are != "scientific studies" as far as I can tell.

. For this very reason, Tobacco Control, the journal that I edit, and other reputable scientific journals including PLoS Medicine no longer publish tobacco industry-funded research. [5, 6] To engage the industry as a legitimate partner in the discussion of how to deal with industry science is to ignore this large body of evidence.

And we are thus to accept a political paper about the topic where the organization appears to have an eensy bit of a POV? Sorry, Charlie. Collect (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control is not a government or academic source; it is solely political, even though published by a professional organization. HuffPo is a reliable source that the claim was made, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
And the NCI is apparently not a governmental organization; it's affiliated with NIH, not part of NIH. The article appears to be the individual opinion of the authors; as NIH, NCI, and BMJ are not political experts, reliability would depend on the reliability of the individual authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Al Gore

The opinion of a prominent opponent is not a reliable source for the history of his enemies. His criticism might be noted elsewhere if others agree that it is an important opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of a prominent politician, as published in a prominent news piece, the news piece commented upon widely by others, is notable opinion. It does not matter whether he is the political enemy of the Tea Party. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
What do people have against consensus building on this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
the center of the earth is several million degrees, Al Gore, actual temp, 9,800 °F, get an actual MD or scientist. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Laugh all you want; Al Gore's opinion is still mainstream and prominent. That is all we are looking for in writing this article. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
it wasn't a joke, mr climate expert really believes the earths core is a few thousand times hotter than the surface of the sun. [7] Darkstar1st (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not care less what temperature Gore thinks the core is. You have not addressed any policy reasons why Gore should not be quoted regarding his opinion about the connection between the tobacco industry and the Tea Party. The quote is prominent; that's all we need for the encyclopedia. It is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
wp:weight. Al is neither an expert nor notable in tobacco or tea. this article already has enough about why people dont like it. see if you can find a positive opinion about the tp from someone, and you may add both. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have misinterpreted WP:NPOV to mean that equal time must be given to positive and negative opinions. This is not what NPOV is about; it is about transmitting to the reader the correct balance of positive and negative opinions—a balance that reflects mainstream opinion. If the majority of opinions are positive, our article reflects that. If the majority of opinions are negative, our article reflects that. We should never try to establish an artificial parity. The WP:WEIGHT section of NPOV follows this general rule, of course. It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Al Gore's opinion is a "significant" viewpoint in that it came from a significant politician (a former vice president, a former presidential candidate), it appeared in a significant media publication (Huffington Post) and it was noticed by other media observers and commented upon (Wall Street Journal, Men's News Daily, Newsbusters, Reason.com, Newsmax). As such, we summarize for the reader what Gore said. There is no tit-for-tat wherein a positive opinion must be found to 'balance' Gore's. Binksternet (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I said at the beginning of this thread, Al Gore is prominent and notable. What he said is critical opinion not reporting, and certainly not history. To leave his comments at the beginning of the history section is, I think, inappropriate. It should be moved if consensus is to keep it in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The first insertion clearly has to go. It not only violates wp:ver, wp:not/wp:synth, and wp:consensus, but even the synthesis is defective. The second insertion (Gore related) has fewer of these problems. Someday when we finnaly nuke this article and start rebuilding it to get it out of junk status, stuff like the Gore material might be good in a section with commentaries by prominent proponents and opponents, with Gore obviously being one of the latter. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So, based on Binksternet's logic of NPOV I guess we should report what his sources are saying about Gore, namely that he doesn't have a freaking clue what he is talking about with regards to the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I wasn't arguing for putting the Gore piece in. And certainly if it were in it would be under "statements by TPM opponents". Maybe have juxtaposing statements by Gore and Rush Limbaugh. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the content regarding Al Gore's opinion of a study at the top of the history section, has been given undue weight. Furthermore, the study itself should not be at the top of the history section, but listed chronologically down in the Current status section. The alleged ties of the subject of this article and the tabacco industry shouldn't be given undue weight, but I can understand some neutrally worded content somewhere in the section I stated. This article does not to begin to devolve into an attack page by those who oppose the subject; neither should this article be a propaganda piece for the subject either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I see this akin to the conspiracy theory that President Obama is not a citizen; it wouldn't be given heavy weight in the Obama article, and this claim tabacco connection claim shouldn't be given undue weight here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No where in the Barack Obama article is there a link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, nor is there a link on the Template:Barack Obama. So if that is the case, I would argue that the theory of "Big Tabacco" connection to the Tea Party movement should not be given weight here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, really? In what peer-reviewed academic journal was a well-researched article, written by experts in the field published which outlined the evidence for the Obama conspiracy theory? — goethean 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The TPM is a bunch a things, (a movement, an agenda, a metaphor, a rallying concept, an agglomeration of hundreds of organizations and zillions of individuals who support it on an occasion or continuously) but it isn't an entity, nor a specific group of people. Al of the bogus trivia that opponents of the agenda game in here start with a premise that it is an entity. That way they can pretend that what one supporter or unknown supporter did or might have done is "about" the TPM (cut a BBQ line, someone in the crowd saying something bad at a rally, a twitter comment) is "about" the TPM. That's how hey were able to make this article a junk collection of irrelevant trivia / junk attack piece that it is. The same for this most recent bout. Somebody finds some support of someone in tobacco industry for one of the zillions of person or groups in the TPM and tries to gin that up into a statement that implies that the tobacco industry founded the TPM. Prior to that the Koch's "founded" it. Basically, gaming in more crap to a crap article. This thing needs to be nuked to a stub and started over. Meanwhile, lets keep it from descending deeper into crapdom./ North8000 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that someone on the inside of the movement disagrees with the description of the movement given by the media, since (1) the media is not owned by the TPM and (2) feelings of contempt towards the "mainstream media" is one of the central doctrines of the TPM. However, Wikipedia needs to reflect what the media says about the TPM, not just what TPM insiders believe about it. It is perhaps expected that TPM believers will have an origin story which contradicts the mainstream account of the movement's origins. But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum for broad discussions about media etc. Let's keep discussion on the article everyone. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! Please see WP:NPA. Whether someone is "inside of the movement" is irrelevant to this discussion. No ad hominem.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If North8000 continues to repeat his upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies as if it is fact, I will continue to explain to him how Wikipedia policy actually works. If you don't like the digression, then maybe you can help to alleviate his confusion. — goethean 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Except for that policy about consensus, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I love it how you look the other way when the right-wingers spout their creative interpretations of policy, but then you reference policy in order to block good material from being added to the article. It is a good education in how to use policy in the most cynical way possible. — goethean 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thargor, in the last two threads the only argument you have used is the consensus one. Apparently you think consensus is equivalent to voting—that the weight of numbers is the primary concern here. This is not the case; well-formed debate points can win out over sheer quantity. To have an effect on the outcome here, you must actually have an argument about the issue rather than about the process. Without a relevant argument you are a bystander. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Goethean, exactly how (per your allegation) is what I said "upside down" with respect to policies? North8000 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
To North8000, far above; actually, they found evidence that the tobacco industry (as a whole), along with Koch, supported organizations which became organizations which became organizations which were active in the TPM ("founded" ia a separate conclusion, not in any reliable source, including the scholarly paper). If written that way, it's not totally inappropriate (even replacing "organzitions which became organizations which became organizations active in the TPM) by organizations connected with the TPM.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as of my most recent post on this, I said that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources. Then you fixed the problem and I have not commented since. Goethean characterized my post as "upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies" and now I'm waiting to hear from Goethean how me saying that it was a problem that that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources constitutes "upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies". North8000 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to this comment, in which you explained how the article is a piece of crap which should be stubified immediately. I attempted to explain that Wikipedia needs to reflect mainstream media coverage of events, not the right-wing media coverage of events, as Wikipedia is not an organ of the right-wing media. One of the central doctrines of the Tea Party is that the mainstream media is biased against the Tea Party. So one would not expect a member of the Tea Party to be pleased with the Wikipedia article on the Tea Party. The issues which you think that you have with this article are issues that you in fact have with Wikipedia policy. — goethean 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I would not expect any rational person, with familiarity with Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, to want to include critical comments about random statements of random people who may be "members" of the Tea Party (whatever that means), even if the comments are reported in the news media. That doesn't apply to the comments in this section, but it does suggest that much of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section should be removed. I also would not expect anyone to want to misquote sources. That does apply to Gore, in a sense; he misquotes the article in question, and we should point that out. at least indirectly, by accurately reporting what the article says, and what Gore says about it. Furthermore, opinions of the news media should be properly reported as "opinions", if relevant at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess that by now I shouldn't be surprised that you would elide those aspects of the Tea Party that have been most noted. — goethean 12:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Koch Brothers/Citizens for a Sound Economy redundant coverage.

Why are these mentioned in 2 different sections, history AND Influence of Koch Industries? I remove the redundancy only to have it reverted without discussion. Since there are hundreds independent funded and operated tea party groups, with different urls, leaders, credos, creation dates, etc. it is possible the Koch are getting to much credit. RS do mention Koch in relation to a group who formed a group, who made a websites with a list of protests they did plan but knew about and told others who searched for info about where to protest. reading the article may give the average person the impression Koch hired people to build a website, arrange meetings, print pamphlets, rent offices, buy advertising for each of the several hundred tp groups around the world. Koch is mentioned more times than all the politicians who self-identified with the TP. the article is way too long, much is trivia, even more opinion, i suggest we trim the article to focus on what the tp is about rather than its history and what those who do not like it think. wp:weight Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed again; I would agree that the section gives undue weight regarding a recent news story about an article written in a British Journal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Lets just get whatever objective material that there is in both and get it into one place. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that the focus of the more recent information is on how "big tobacco" (and "Big Business" in general) influenced the formation of the movement, whereas the recently removed material (as redundant) says more about funding and ongoing organizational support. Sure, Koch is mentioned in both, but the content doesn't appear to be "redundant", as one editor has suggested. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious POV work

Behavioral dispute, moved to user talk pages. KillerChihuahua 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(edit conflict) A recent incident has highlighted again the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing long term POV efforts that have brought this article to it's current junk status. Xenophrenic & Goethean have been warrign to remove the following from the history section:

"A fundraising event for Ron Paul dubbed "Boston TeaParty07" was held on December 16, 2007. This event included the throwing of boxes labeled "tea" and "IRS" among others, into the bay." A prominent name in the founding of the movement, throws a "tea party", with the title of the reference named "tea party"

Xenophrenic's excuse was that something mentioned later in the item was not germane. Goethean's excuse was quoting a non-existent policy that a RS has to state an explicit connection in order to include something in an article. BTW Goethean is the who who was warring in erroneous statements about Ron Paul which made no mention of the TPM; his excuse then was that if an RS said it that was enough for him to force it in. And Xenophrenic was actively warring in things about some unknown person cutting a BBQ grill line, a huge section about a twitter comment by a low level supporter, and a "somebody said that somebody said that someone at a rally said something racist." This tendentious POV work has to stop! North8000 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented "my excuse". Try again, please, so that it can be discussed in the section immediately preceding this one? As for your routine unsubstantiated personal attacks, I'm just going to ignore them again until you actually present something (in the proper venue) that makes any sense whatsoever. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
What I said is based on years of observation here. And I am slow and careful to form conclusions. This is the latest example. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, nothing to work with there. No specifics? Latest example indeed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This time: Trying to remove the item about the 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party. Plus you never even mentioned that you were deleting it in your edit summary, you only mentioned a secondary item from the following sentence. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. The edit summary states: (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement"). The so called Ron Paul Tea Party has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement this article is about, any more than the California Tea Party is. You are confusing a movement to get a single person elected president with a national movement against expanding government and taxes. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears goethean has violated the editing restriction as well with two reverts today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I mostly want to get the long term picture at this article fixed. Xenophrenic has exhibited the most tendentious behavior here, and Goethean the rudest, with insults and Inventing-Bad-Faith being the norm. But Goethean's actions present an interesting juxtaposition. They warred in a piece about someone saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist, as being relevant to the Tea Party article, but are trying to war out Ron Paul putting on a Tea Party in 2007 as not being relevant to the Tea Party article. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, the best thing to do, if this article as gone outside the quality content we should all be hoping to advance articles towards, (even though non neutral articles have been given FA status) is to create a sandbox alternative to this article, to the point where the sandbox content can easily pass GA, and after review or consensus, replace the content presently in the article space. Just an idea.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a great idea. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the item of the moment is that the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party material certainly has to go back in. And we need some type of huge rework on the article. The trivia needs to go, the OR constructions from primary sources (polls) need to go, and the comments by outside proponents and opponents need to be identified as such. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The Ron Paul campaign for president needs to go back into this article? Why? What is its relevance? May we also add the Victor Elizaelde 2004 Tea Party material? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

new refs for ron paul 07

  • [8] without objection, i submit this rs to replace the source removed and will restore the material and suggest we add material to the history about the actual creation of the tea party from when it first makes news, not a vague private memo from a tobacco lawyer 40 years ago about needing public support. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ron Paul's Tea Party Pulls in the Green. Sunday's event honored the Boston Tea Party, which happened Dec. 16, 1773. Paul supporters in Boston staged a re-enactment of the event. [9] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Supporters plan party for Ron Paul-- a Tea Party. Will the Ron Paul campaign turn down Sunday's donations simply because they aren't from an official fundraising drive? [10] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
since there have been no objections to the replacement sources for the material that was removed because of insufficient sources, i will return the material to the article soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The refs establish it multiple times over, but a ref stating the connection is not even a requirement. Assertions made by Geothan and Xenophrenic implied and were based on an "invented" policy that does not exist. The requirement for inclusion is support of the material itself, not of its connection to the article. I would welcome addition of a "degree of relevance" standard to Wikipedia. If a workable one existed, it would support inclusion of the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party but make it easier to get rid of the trivia from this article such as the BBQ grill line cut by an unknown person, twitter comments etc. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You may remove any source which does not mention the Tea Party. I doubt that any of the sources which are referenced in the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section lack a mention of the Tea Party. — goethean 15:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to include sources which mention the "Tea Party", but refer to something completely different? I would say, not, and that's what we seem to have here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
do you have a source claiming it means something else, or a specific policy you are referring to that would exclude sources mentioning the article subject? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Tea Party" ≠ contemporary "Tea Party movement" - when did the 'movement' start?

Someone inserted (and recently reinserted) content alleging that a December 2007 fundraising event with the words 'Tea' and 'Party' in the name was an early event in this movement. If we're going to add to this article every political event that references the historical event as if it were related, this article will need to be renamed. A 90-second search of news archives shows that "Tea Party" events have been happening for centuries (some more recent ones: 2003, 2003, 1990, 1957, ...). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird that Darkstar1st would say that there have been no objections, when I see many paragraphs below giving substantial objection. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Arthur Rubin on this: Just because a politician uses the words "Tea Party" in one of their campaign fundraisers, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with a "movement" that would not begin for another year or two. I also agree with Targor Orlando's source reference below that the movement, about which this article is written, began in the early months of 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
In response to Darkstar1st's question, I've no idea what "it" is in this context. As for reliable sources that say that Paul's 2007 fundraisers are part of the current TP movement, those might be fine. Have any? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
it refers to the subject of this section, the replacement ref. above. i have attempted to remove "movement" from this article before as no one in the tea party uses the term, rather mostly its critics, therefore there probably isn't many sources using the word "movement" and "Ron Paul" other than the Juan Williams ref referring to the 2008 Ron Paul campagn as the start and Ron as it's godfather. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll wait for reliable sources that convey the present movement existed before early 2009; then we can work on resolving the conflict between those sources, if any exist, and the multitude of sources that peg this movement's origins at early 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

personal campaigns for president vs TP movement

I'm not clear as to what content you intend to add to this article, supported by the link you just provided. Is the fundraiser for Ron Paul related to the Tea Party movement in some way? How about the links I provided for similar Tea Parties held on matters of Taxes, Spending and Budget concerns? How far back should we go? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

go back to where it became part of the news on a regular basis(dec 07) instead of a few events per decade. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been part of the news a LOT longer than that, as the examples above show. Shall we open a discussion on what time frame this article should cover? Recent reliable sources peg the comtemporary movement origins as early 2009. It sounds like you would like to expand that back into the history of tax protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
if you can find more sources in the ten years before dec 16 2007 than the 10 days after, i will drop it and apologize for my ignorance. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
proposed addition, attributed: "This basically shows that Ron Paul is a viable candidate," said Rachael McIntosh, a spokeswoman for what was dubbed Boston TeaParty07. "People are so engaged in this campaign because it’s coming from the grass-roots." The supporters of the Texas congressman pick anniversaries of such historical events to highlight what they call the "Ron Paul Revolution." we should probably note the lack of news coverage about the tea party prior, and the explosion of the term after December 07. maybe we could phrase it as the practical start of the tea party coverage, expansion, notability, whatever descriptor can stand scrutiny. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in that source to indicate it has anything to do the Tea Party movement (of which this article is about). It's just a fundraising event for Ron Paul's campaign that he happened to name after the Tea Party, just like his other fundraising event was named after Guy Fawkes. The "explosion", according to reliable sources, was in 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
the title of the article is Ron Paul's tea party for dollars, did you even follow the link, if so, how did you miss that part? Most of the 33,000 donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a "money bomb" timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Supporters also re-enacted the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor, by tossing banners that read "tyranny" and "no taxation without representation" into boxes that were placed in front of an image of the harbor. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
How much more obvious could it be?North8000 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be more obviously appropriate if a book, article, interview, or some other printed or recorded material other than a Wikipedia comment had explicitly connected the Ron Paul event with the movement. There have been dozens of books and hundreds of articles written about the Tea Party Movement. If not a single one of them connects Ron Paul's 2007 moneybomb to the Tea Party, then this article would be the first to do so. That is the very definition of original research. It would be different if we were writing this in 2007 and there was a lack of reliable material on the Tea Party. But it is 2013 and there is an excess of material on it. There is no need to include material which is not clearly appropriate. — goethean 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If you're looking for a Ron Paul connection, there's a few in the book Boiling Mad by New York Times author Kate Zienike. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Just finding a source that mentions Ron Paul does nothing, of course. The material still violates WP:SYNTH. Also falling under the category of "not helping" is the outrageously inappropriate opinion essay that Arthur Rubin has attached to the top of the article (and of course edit-warred to keep in), which summarizes a few disputes in the most one-sided, unsupportable way. Are you trying to settle this dispute, or escalate it? — goethean 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
When you've read the source, you'll see where the relevant passages are. I'm trying to help find sources that support the facts is all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, by that non-existent policy that you keep quoting (redefining mere inclusion in an article as synthesis if it doesn't have sourcing explicitly connecting it to the object of the title) it would make it really easy to nuke a whole lotta crap out of this article. Wanna point out where that is in policy? I could really use it at a whole lotta articles, starting with this one. 00:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read that source, Thargor Orlando, and seen the relevant passage: It was Tax Day 2010, and these Tea Partiers young and old were marking it with a seminar ... The Tea Party movement had started out small ... but now, some polls showed that 25 percent of Americans supported it — remarkable growth in just one year. That puts the approximate beginning of this movement around Tax Day 2009, not 2007. Another passage: "How big was it? In April 2010, fourteen months after the first Tea Party rallies, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that..." The first rallies of this movement were in the first few months of 2009. Tea Partiers and Ron Paul share some political views, so you'll likely find him mentioned in this book you've cited as well as our article (I have no problem with that), but his various presidential campaign antics aren't part of the movement this article is about. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

All campaigns for office are "personal campaigns". North8000 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And that comment is relevant or helpful how? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
It deflates the false implied premise of the title of this section which was that being an individual campaign is an indicator that it is not relevant to the movement. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not implied at all. The header is: "personal campaigns for president vs TP movement", and speaks to Ron Paul's fundraising events of 2007 and earlier, and editor's misguided attempts to include them in this article as if they relate to the TPm. But you go right on ahead and manufacture your own premesis and then "deflate" them; I prefer stamp collecting.Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Content tag in article

(1) the entire McAllister section is flaky, not just the selected quotes from the interview which we are fighting over. (2) "Boston TeaParty07" is at least nominally part of the origin of the "Tea Party Movement"; unless you can find sources which say it _isn't_, it's a reasonable claim, although including the phrase "Money Bomb" is questionable (3) "Influence of Koch Industries", to the extent it should be in the article, should be under "history" (probably in the subsection "commentaries on origin") rather than under "Fundraising and support"; also, the (clearly false) implication that (any) Koch has ever had anything to do with FreedomWorks after the split, needs to be contradicted by the relevant reliable sources. (This is partially done, but it could be improved) (4) ... any more distputes?

Anyone who wants to place a neutral discussion of the disputes I noted on the content tag, is welcome to do so, provided that the loci of dispute are properly noted. Removing the reason for the {{content}} tag will usually lead to removal of the tag, which I consider unreasonable, as there are some who agree that there are problems in all 4 locations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We should detail those 4 specific problems so that they can be properly addressed. Here, I'll start: Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • entire McAllister section is flaky
I don't see a "McAllister section"; just 4 sentences, in the section on public perception of the TPm, where other conservatives Herman Cain, Brandon Brice, Ward Connerly, Angela McGlowan and Allen West are covered. McAllister is a frequent Tea Party event speaker. Could you give us something more than "flakey" to work with? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Boston TeaParty07" is at least nominally part of the origin of the "Tea Party Movement"
No, it ain't. It's part of a rather impressive presidential fundraising campaign ... arguably a movement in its own right, and could easily find a place in a Ron Paul article, but it has nothing to do with the TPm, which wouldn't start until early 2009. (See above discussions.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Influence of Koch Industries" should be under "history" rather than "Fundraising and support"
Koch brothers involvement appears to be present (to varying extent) in both the origins of the movement, as well as the ongoing fundraising and organizational support, hence the mention in both sections. If you are arguing for a consolidation of all Koch-related activity into one section, that might be fairly large and undue. (See above discussion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • the implication that Koch has anything to do with FreedomWorks after the split needs to be contradicted by sources
I'm not up to speed on what involvement, if any, the Koch bros. may have in FreedomWorks or related organizations; I'll try to look into it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. McAllister is only a reliable source for his own opinions, and I question whether they are notable and/or relevant enough for inclusion. IIRC, all the other people referenced around there have some notability independent of the TPM. If not, perhaps their comments aren't relevant, either.
  2. More research is need as to whether the TPM might have been influenced by Boston TeaParty07. In the absence of specifics, though, I now think it shouldn't be there.
  3. Even if Meyer and sourceforge are reliable sources for the claimed influence of the Kochs on the TPM, many of the statements actually made in those sources do not support the comments that were in this article at one time. For instance, consider FreedomWorks. Meyer asserts that it is a Koch organization and is active in supporting the TPM. In fact, (according to our Wikipedia article, which I have no reason to doubt), it's a spinoff of a merger of a Koch organization with a non-Koch organization, and Armey was the leader of FreedomWorks at the time of the split. (A) Koch denied having anything to do with it (or the TPM), and there is no evidence presented other than bald assertions that any Koch was involved with FreedomWorks after the split. Much of the "information" on sourceforge and in Meyer's articles consists of such assrtions without evidence. Of course, some specifics on the connection between the Kochs and the TPM might be (and probably is) appropriate, but there are a lot of false connections which have been in articles relating to the Kochs for some time. There is little evidence that the Kochs directly funded any TPM organizations, unless you make the assertion that some of the Koch organizations which predate the TPM are part of the TPM now.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. The arguments being made about the Koch brothers and the early origins of the movement are the same old arguments being made when I was editing this page. The sources that show the TPM began as a grassroots movement with people who came over from the FEDUp movement (those protesting The FED and it's practices and effects on the economy) are still there in the history. These additions to the article were decimated by several editors who have since been banned from Wikipedia.
  2. The agenda from some of these former editors was to paint the TPM as coming about as a "response" (an incredibly overworked word on Wikipedia) to the election of Barack Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bail-out brought protesters out, too. But that was on Bush's watch, a fact that is always conveniently ignored.
  3. The actual origins of the TPM began on blog sites by everyday people who were being affected by the crash of the economy. They saw additional government debt as the wrong way to go. Then Rick Santorium made his famous rant on CNBC suggesting what was needed was a tea party, as in Boston Tea Party. There was no conspiracy against Obama. The economy had suddenly tanked in September 2008, taking the average American by surprise. Suddenly, 401Ks were no longer worth anything, meaning people who had retired or where about to retire were now broke. They were also the proud owners of homes that were now worth far less than their mortgages. The financial slide is what brought out the tea party, and many of these same people were already out there, definitely by 2007, protesting government and fed polices.
  4. There was a section in the article I put in about a individuals who had joined the tea party movement and what their stories were. That's all been deleted. The truth is, this movement started with average citizens getting fed up. They had lots at stake, that's why they showed up. The fact that other, professional type groups tried to associate themselves with it later on, should not be allowed to carpet over the truth that this was a genuinely grassroots movement focused on fiscal issues.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This article has been tendinitised farther and farther from actually being informative on the TPM. I think we're going to need a big RFC or something for the major changes that will be needed to fix it. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd write a new article about the fiscal issues. That's what the TPM is all about. Limit the scope of a new article to just that. It would be hard to argue for deletion or merger since the new article wouldn't resemble the kluge that exists right now.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_.28POV.29_forksgoethean 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It would not be a fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material. That is the textbook definition of a POV fork, and it is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. — goethean 19:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I never said that. The sources are there regarding the fiscal origins and agenda of the tea party movement, certainly enough to fill an article. A fork is when an editor decides to write their version of a subject. That's not what I'm proposing. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Goethean, you are being rude as usual. And missing wp:agf by two levels. Baselessly inventing bad faith. How do you get "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." out of Malke's idea for a subarticle on the economic issues? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminder

  • Uninvolved admin here to remind everyone this article is on probation. Be civil. Malke, if you question a source, take it to WP:RSN. North8000, cease attacking other editors. Everyone: Focus on content, not contributors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you are involved; you (and SlimVirgin) were approached by Goethean to get involved in this. Just now I pointed out an extreme violation of wp:agf and wp:civil an asked Goethean how they arrived at their insulting post out of an idea for a sub article on economic issues, and you are calling that an "attack", while overlooking the specifics of what led to that question. My post was to challenge the nastiness exhibited in order to stop such nastiness in this discussion. Let's get this whole discussion on topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Read WP:INVOLVED. An admin is specifically not involved if someone asks them to check out behavior on an article on probation. You can repeat your belief until the cows come home, but it won't hold water. I quote from the policy page: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. Regarding staying on topic: Yes, please do, and stop attacking other editors. KillerChihuahua 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, if you are being objective, here does saying "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." in response to Malke's idea for a subarticle on the economic issues fit into wp:civil. wp:npa and wp:agf and whether or not such is an "attack" ? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It reads like Gothean is explaining WP:POVFORK. He is either correct in his understanding of Malke's idea, in which case the comment is accurate and Malke would be well advised to heed it; or he is mistaken, in which case Malke can simply say "You are mistaken, that is not what I meant" and then either explain what he did mean, or drop it, or offer a new idea. It is in no way an attack, or incivil, or assuming bad faith. I have known many instances where editors propose a split which to them appears neutral but which upon examination would be a POV fork, and pointing this out is helpful. Your accusation that Goethean is "being rude as usual", however, is a personal attack and you would be wise to avoid such comments in the future. KillerChihuahua 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean like Goethean's civil comments just a week ago? "But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" It is pretty difficult to assume good faith of anyone that insults an entire religion without any thought whatsoever. Arzel (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If you provide a link, readers can see the comment in context[11]. — goethean 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My point was that they baselessly invented bad motives for Malke's idea, and accused Malke of having those bad motives. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt here, but KillerChihuahua I specifically and in a civil manner replied to goethean's uncivil and uncalled for comment about my motives in suggesting an article on TPM fiscal goals. I have to agree with North8000, you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ad hominem arguments / attacks have no place here. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Origins of tea party/Ron Paul

If there are any problems with sources regarding the Ron Paul money bomb and early tea party involvement, I easily found two sources that can be used:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-ronpaul-fundraising_N.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/16/nation/na-moneyman16

Trevor Lyman is the man who helped raise the money and at the time he had a website: www.teaparty07.com

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Malke! Those are excellent examples of what I was talking about here (see the very first paragraph). Note that "Tea Party" is mentioned only once in each of those sources, and only as part of "Boston Tea Party" 239 years ago, not the 2009 movement this Wikipedia article refers to. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, Xenophrenic. Nice to see you. I voted to keep you on Wikipedia at the AN/I. About the edit/sources, yeah, that's fine. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

anti-government?

an editor has reverted placing the Bloomberg via nyt opinion piece as lead source for the agenda subverting the much different description by an actual tea party. the article begins with the anti-government descriptor no actual tea party uses. the claim is a odd as the tea party seeks to gain voice in government, often quoting the Constitution. i suggest we remove the source and relegate it to the criticism section should it return. without objection, i make the edit removing the source. please comment as support/oppose, then cite the appropriate policy. diffs[12] Darkstar1st (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The NYT source would be a reliable source regarding what the NYT's opinion is but certainly isn't for what the TPM's agenda is. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but I didin't want to start a fight by moving it to a difference section or removing it all together. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think that section be moved to the Media Coverage section or removed. There is already a ton of Media Coverage, how much opinion is needed? Arzel (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that the NYT article is an opinion piece? Why does Ned Ryun speak for all Tea Party groups? — goethean 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are normally labelled as such, whereas this article appears to be in the news section.
As there are thousands of media outlets which have described the Tea Party, common sense dictates that there is not room for all of them. The New York Times is considered a highly reliable source, at least by those in the reality-based community. — goethean 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Arzel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant. For that matter the media section and all those silly commentaries should be deleted. They are not relevant and are POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Commentary from highly notable sources on the movement is pertinent, and given fair weight, it is perfectly fine to present POVs. Furious Style (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is fine to do that in a limited way. It's just not fine to make it the only POV, nor to allow one opinion piece to dominate instead of relying on fact based articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out many times, it's an opinion piece, and should not be called an "article". If "New York Times" was removed, or "article" was replaced by "column", and it was moved below the self-description, it would be reasonable. I'm not going to fix it again because of the 1RR on this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You say you want it "attributed as opinion". It's not in the opinion section, it's in the news section. It's written by a 4-decade news reporter and award-winning journalist specializing in politics. And the single sentence appears to be a non-controversial factual statement. What makes you say it is opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Properly we should just make the statement and reference the NYT article, there is no need for any qualification. We need third party material here not internal Tea Party sources. I'll leave it a day but unless some argument aligned with wikipedia policy is raised I will remove the tag. ----Snowded TALK 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not an article. It may not be in the opinion section, but it's a column, rather than a news article, and should be treated as the opinion of the author, especially since he's not affiliated with the NYT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
So its a considered article not a simple news item. Makes it better not worse ----Snowded TALK 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because an opinion piece is printed in the news section of the NYTs does not mean it is not opinion. And whether or not the journalist has forty years worth of awards doesn't change that. He could be Mohammed come down from the mountain, but it's still his opinion. The fact that it's in the news section should not be used to slip it in. Doing that makes it appear to the casual reader that it is fact-checked news. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Its a column in the news section of a major newspaper written by an experienced journalist. The NYT did not designate it as an opinion as far as I can see, its a considered judgement in the normal tradition of journalism. You can try and call it something else, but its certainty a better source than one tea party web site ----Snowded TALK 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This little section is a perfect example of the problems regarding this article. It is clearly the goal of anti-TPM people to frame the TPM in a negative light, as has been the agenda from the very beginning regarding this article. There is absolutely no reason to use the opinion of an outside source from the TPM to define the movement, particularly when there alread exists a section for the views from the media. What is even worse is the insistance by the TPM Haters that is be listed first! I can accept, at least hesitantly, that it be in this section, but under no sense of good faith can I accept that it must be listed first as well. If simple clear minded decisions like this cannot be made then the entire article will never be fixed. Arzel (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to use reliable third party sources (such as the NYT) rather than primary sources. That is basic wikipedia policy. Please refrain from making personal attacks, we are all bound by the same rules here try and respect them ----Snowded TALK 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because the writer is an experienced or award winning journalist doesn't mean his opinion should be elevated to news. And saying, "Whatever you want to call it?" It isn't a question of an individual editor wanting to call it anything. Rather, it is what it is. It's an opinion piece. And the NYTs rationale for putting it in the news section does not change the fact that it is an opinion piece. And the reader should be made aware that it is opinion and not fact checked news. It should read something like, "In the opinion of (insert name of experienced and award winning journalist.) Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Of possible interest to editors here

I have filed an RFAR at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement. Please do not make a statement unless you wish to become a party to the case; however if you wish to file a statement you may do so there. Remember that if you file a statement, you may become a party to the case, and all parties may be subject to sanctions. If you have evidence of behavioral issues here by any editor, or regarding this topic (including my actions, which have been called into question) such evidence is of far more use to a case than opinion or commentary. KillerChihuahua 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A little correction to KC's comment above. Making a statement has no connection to whether or not one would be named as a party in any opened case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must disagree. You will not necessarily be added, but you may be added, and you are doing readers here no service by misleading them. Puppy (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but readers can be added as a party regardless. One is probably no more likely to be added as a party no matter if they make a statement or not. NW (Talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


That's true, but there have certainly been instances where editors who otherwise would not have been added, were added because of their posts at RFAR. And certainly we have this very warning once a case is accepted; do not edit this page unless you want to be added to this case, and all editors may be subject to sanction. Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean that in pravtice, when you post on an RFAR you are inviting scrutiny by ArbCom, who otherwise might not even been aware of you. Puppy (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I am trying to establish a fair and accurate page for Steven Crowder, but feel I am being Wiki-bullied by editors who have a personal dislike for him and want to include libelous/POV comments about him. I would appreciate anyone taking a look since we've reached a deadlock and the Wikiguide suggests having a 3rd party look at it to try to find a resolution. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Please see WP:CANVASS. This may be posted on WikiProject talk pages if you see a problem, not on the talk page of an article on which conduct has been brought to WP:ANI and WP:RFAr. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this is the page of a living individual, I suggest instead the first place you bring this is to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion

I've raised the issue of whether or not a peer-reviewed BMJ Group academic journal with editorial oversight concerning how the tobacco industry has affected society is an appropriate source for how the tobacco industry at WP:RSN, at British Medical Journal imprint, "Tobacco Control," on one way how big tobacco has affected society. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


If its reviewed by other peers, then no its not RS since it was reviewed by its peers. Borloak (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the argument is that it's not reliable, but whether or not the reference and topic are appropriate for the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that it has been argued that it's not reliable in this instance, and RSN does address whether it's appropriate to use an RS in a particular situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you put there is a mis-statement of the question and issues and so is not relevant to the debate here. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you been reading the above threads and the edit summaries in the article? Your friends have tried applying BLP to a group, they've tried applying WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to sources instead of articles, and they've said that a peer-reviewed academic source on how the tobacco industry affects society is not a reliable source for one way the tobacco industry has affected society. It's not even archived discussion, it's something that anyone keeping up with discussion would know unless they intentionally ignored it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I never said anything about BLP. Per above, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Will you actually read what I'm saying? I said "your friends have tried applying BLP to a group," it was first brought up here by Collect.
I never said I got the statement from the HuffPost piece, I only said that I got confirmation that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers. If you continue to get that wrong, I will only be able to assume that you're actively lying about things I've said. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about your statement "the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests". Even the "Tobacco Control" website source ("out there" as it is) that you used to cite that does not support that statement. Even the content of the op ed piece from the Huffington doesn't support that, only its title which its body doesn't support says that. Thus my "faulty construction built upon a faulty construction" statement. The biggest problem is even the highly biased sources that you chose don't support the statement that you are trying to put in. The second biggest problem is the low quality of the sources with respect to this. And I've not been discussing BLP. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests
Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."
You said that I put a misstatement of the question over at RSN, I did not misstate your question, I did not say you raised BLP, quit acting like I did because Collect did and you cannot deny that he did.
You accuse Tobacco Control, published by BMJ Group, a highly respected academic journal that is peer-reviewed and has editorial oversight, of being low quality? Ok, are you a corporate shill, or a Tea Partier in denial about being an unwitting lobbyist? Because that kind of tendentious editing cannot come from someone reasonably acting in good faith. A source not giving into the Tobacco company's propaganda is not the same as a biased source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The number 1 problem is that your statement is not supported even by your selected references, and you have just proved me right. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and wp:synth, and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion . North8000 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
At this point, however, whether or not the source is reliable is secondary to the complete lack of consensus for addition. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's clearly something wrong with how this addition is going. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion

I've raised the issue of whether or not a peer-reviewed BMJ Group academic journal with editorial oversight concerning how the tobacco industry has affected society is an appropriate source for how the tobacco industry at WP:RSN, at British Medical Journal imprint, "Tobacco Control," on one way how big tobacco has affected society. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


If its reviewed by other peers, then no its not RS since it was reviewed by its peers. Borloak (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the argument is that it's not reliable, but whether or not the reference and topic are appropriate for the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that it has been argued that it's not reliable in this instance, and RSN does address whether it's appropriate to use an RS in a particular situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you put there is a mis-statement of the question and issues and so is not relevant to the debate here. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you been reading the above threads and the edit summaries in the article? Your friends have tried applying BLP to a group, they've tried applying WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to sources instead of articles, and they've said that a peer-reviewed academic source on how the tobacco industry affects society is not a reliable source for one way the tobacco industry has affected society. It's not even archived discussion, it's something that anyone keeping up with discussion would know unless they intentionally ignored it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I never said anything about BLP. Per above, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Will you actually read what I'm saying? I said "your friends have tried applying BLP to a group," it was first brought up here by Collect.
I never said I got the statement from the HuffPost piece, I only said that I got confirmation that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers. If you continue to get that wrong, I will only be able to assume that you're actively lying about things I've said. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about your statement "the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests". Even the "Tobacco Control" website source ("out there" as it is) that you used to cite that does not support that statement. Even the content of the op ed piece from the Huffington doesn't support that, only its title which its body doesn't support says that. Thus my "faulty construction built upon a faulty construction" statement. The biggest problem is even the highly biased sources that you chose don't support the statement that you are trying to put in. The second biggest problem is the low quality of the sources with respect to this. And I've not been discussing BLP. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests
Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."
You said that I put a misstatement of the question over at RSN, I did not misstate your question, I did not say you raised BLP, quit acting like I did because Collect did and you cannot deny that he did.
You accuse Tobacco Control, published by BMJ Group, a highly respected academic journal that is peer-reviewed and has editorial oversight, of being low quality? Ok, are you a corporate shill, or a Tea Partier in denial about being an unwitting lobbyist? Because that kind of tendentious editing cannot come from someone reasonably acting in good faith. A source not giving into the Tobacco company's propaganda is not the same as a biased source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The number 1 problem is that your statement is not supported even by your selected references, and you have just proved me right. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and wp:synth, and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion . North8000 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
At this point, however, whether or not the source is reliable is secondary to the complete lack of consensus for addition. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's clearly something wrong with how this addition is going. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Claims stated as fact, plus copyvio

A user has cut and paste a large section from the "tea party nation" website into the body of the article. I removed it for obvious reasons, but it has been re-added. Can someone please fix the article again? Also along with the cut and paste job, they also added as fact that "The Tea Party started as a grassroots movement" - a controversial statement like that should not be stated as fact of course. Furious Style (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I had put that material in but will take it back out pending discussion. More in a minute. North8000 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I took it out pending further discussion. A groups stated agenda is what drives their efforts and so is the best source for their actual agenda. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be so controversial, I was trying to improve the article and just didn't think that under Agenda it should say that they don't have a clear agenda. It is also an editorial opinion and not the TP POV and since it's an article about them it only makes sense to come from them. That NYT quote should probably be removed all together since the citation doesn't reflect that anyway. The part about starting as a grassroots movement is exactly what they state in the citation I provided from their page. Have fun with the article, hopefully you can improve it without someone elses agenda.The Hal Apeno (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The NYT quote is a third party one, the other material is from the Tea Party web site. We use third party sources here ----Snowded TALK 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Snowed, I'm newbee and learning all the timeThe Hal Apeno (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The NYT piece appears to be a "column", rather than an article, so it's not as well fact-checked. No objection to inclusion as long as it's represented as the author's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What leads you to believe it isn't reliable as an assertion of fact? It's in the NYT News section, not opinion or op-ed section. It's written by Al Hunt, a 4-decade news reporter specializing in politics, award-winning journalist, etc. As for the single sentence itself, is there something you are disputing about it? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
My sidebar point is that for a public advocacy organization/movement, a statement of agenda by themselves is likely to be pretty reliable. This is not giving them acolades for reliability, this is is due to the self-serving reason that if you don't put it in your agenda, you aren't going to make people push for it to happen. So for an advocacy organization it would be self-defeating to misstate your agenda. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I see no one is paying attention; I said the NYT column is not a reliable source, but the writer's opinion. The NYT considered it notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not a column. It's under NEWS. And the writer is a RS for political news himself. (see above) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As to North's point that an organization's declaration of their own agenda should be a useable source, please keep in mind that TeaParty.org isn't the movement. It is just one competing branch, just like TP Nation, TP Express, etc. Have you looked at TeaParty.org's 15-point non-negotiable core beliefs? You do realize "Illegal aliens are here illegally" appears to be their #1 concern. (Did you know that more than half of polled TPers feel that immigration - yup, the legal kind - is screwing up our American culture for the worse?) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

I expected to see the beliefs on spending, taxes, downsized gov't, budget and deficit ... but guns, English language, "traditional family values" (now there's a popular code phrase)? Looking deeper into their website, I see they have a birther campaign drive, and they proudly claim Jerome Corsi as their head researcher. Hmmmm. Do we really want this "source" heading our 'Agenda' section? I left it in the section, but demoted it after Arthur promoted it to lead sentence. I think that bold move needs to be discussed. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Would some neutral editor determine consensus here as to what the "NYT" source is? We have a clear consensus in this section that it is not a reliable source, and a fairly clear consensus in the section below that it is a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the consensus that the sentence is not reliably sourced. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I did see such consensus, until a few minutes ago. It still appears that there was no previous discussion except for your (archived) assertion that it was a news article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, I checked out that website. I don't think this is even a legitimate "Tea Party" organization. I'm using Tea Party Patriots as a comparison. It appears to me to exist for the sole purpose of getting money. Jerome Corsi appears to have affiliated himself for the purposes of publicizing his book. I don't think it should be in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Update on NYTs: I emailed the managing editor at the NYTs to ask how they catagorize Al Hunt's "Letter to Washington." An assistant to a senior editor emailed me back and informed me that, "Those columns appear in the International Herald Tribune, which (as of now) is separate from the Times. I've passed your email on to one of our IHT editors."
On the Tea Party.org with it's 'agenda' being used to represent the TPM. I've been looking over the Tea Party Patriots and a few of their state members and they all have the same Mission which is 1) fiscal responsibility 2) constitutionally limited government and 3) free markets. The Tea Party Patriots seem to be the dominant group. They bill themselves as the official home of the tea party movement, so it would be better to use that with a link to the page that has the mission statement. And I'd also mention they call themselves the Official home, etc.
As far as Al Hunt is concerned, I would suggest that the edit just say "Journalist Al Hunt in his Letter from Washington stated. . ." and then put in the cite. But I wouldn't put his quote first. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There are many issues with the edit that I just reverted. The fact that Tea Party Patriots thinks that its website is the official home of the Tea Party Movement is really neither here nor there, and doesn't establish it as a reliable or a notable source. The "100 Most Influential People in the World" bit (although helping with the notability part) is tangential and does not belong in the first paragraph of the body of this article. And a Time magazine editorial from 2013 is where we are going to source the agenda of a political movement which was important from 2009 to 2012? Doesn't make sense. Also, please format your citations with a little more care. — goethean 22:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
To correct my own edit summary, it looks like you were calling teaparty.org non-notable, which is true. You can also call the NYT page a column rather than an article, a change I didn't notice. I would change it, but then I would be accused of violating 1RR. — goethean 22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a NYT column, it's an IHT column reprinted in the NYT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that based on anything other than Malke's freelance reporting work? — goethean 03:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I confirmed that by searching the IHT website. Regardless, it's not an article, but a (probably invited) guest column. The author's opinions are probably notable enough to be reported, but where they were "published" doesn't grant additional reliability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not "an IHT column reprinted in the NYT". And yes, NYT does exert editorial control and oversight over it's wholly-owned international IHT outlet, regardless (which share the same website). The question isn't whether it is a column or article, or whether it is expert-opinion or news-reporting. We need to know if Al Hunt is a reliable source for factual assertion. In my opinion, the applicable rule is WP:NEWSORG, which states in part, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." If we want to question his reliability, we can do that at WP:RSN, but for good measure, I added additional non-opinion reliable sourcing to substantiate the "anti-government", etc. descriptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
As for TP Patriots referring to itself as "Official Home", I don't think it has done that since they ousted their founder - although he still uses that description on his similarily named website - is that where you got it? TP Express bills itself as, "the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena." As for www.TeaParty.org - they are actually quite notable, but not in a good way. You may recall it's founder of "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar" signage fame. SPLC just loves TeaParty.org:
TeaParty.org, also known as the 1776 Tea Party, is an especially belligerent faction of the Tea Party movement whose founder, Dale Robertson, once showed up at a Houston rally carrying a sign that read, “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar [sic].” Its CEO, Steve Eichler, used to be executive director of the Minuteman Project, a nativist extremist group whose splashiest event was a month-long vigilante gathering on the Arizona border in April 2005. TeaParty.org boasts that it is “the ONLY tea party praised by Dr. Michael Savage,” a radio talk show host who was fired from MSNBC in 2003 after describing an unidentified caller to his show as a “sodomite” who should “get AIDS and die.” Its website proudly features original content by Jerome Corsi, an influential conspiracy theorist best known for proposing, at various times, that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen; that the president’s true father is the late labor activist Frank Marshall Davis; and that Obama is gay and married to a Pakistani man. Really. The site also includes content from WorldNetDaily, an extreme-right online publication that plugs all manner of conpiracist nonsense (the imminent end of the world, the cause of homosexuality is soybean consumption — you get the idea), and from Alex Jones, an antigoverment conspiracy monger whose response to recent calls for gun control has been so unhinged that even Glenn Beck – Glenn Beck! – described him as a “crazy person.”
I left the TeaParty.org stuff in the article, but commented out for the moment. I'm not anxious to include it, but since another editor inserted it, and Arthur elevated it to the lead sentence in the article, I thought we should check with them before removing it totally. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I returned it to the lead sentence because it was the only reliable source available. You've much improved the article, although the non-TP source Malke suggested to me in a draft paragraph could also be added. As an aside, the NYT is left-of-center amoung major US publications; adding sources from the WSJ would provide evidence of balance. Of course, if you have a subscription to the NYT, it's perfectly understandable that you would use those articles as references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The edit with teaparty.org is using a primary source. It uses the "group's" own website. You can't use it. The teaparty.org edit appears to have been positioned in the same sentence with Al Hunt because it reinforces the POV that the tea party is nothing but a "response" to Obama's election and that they're all just a bunch of truthers and racists. That's why that edit is there. The fact that the only notable group is the Tea Party Patriots is the reason I put them in there. And while one side likes to claim that Al Hunt's opinion carries sooo much weight because he's an "award winning" journalist, I added that Time mag named Jenny Beth Martin one of the 100 most influential people for that very reason. That shows notability for the TTP. And as far as doing my own reporting, an editor claimed that the NYTs considered Al Hunt's column 'news.' That's why I emailed them to find out what they call it. They call it a column.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as it is noted as the specific organisation's site and used for what that specific organisation says about itself (rather than the general topic of this article), there is an exception allowing usage. In fact, Wikipedia frequently uses organisation sites to say what an organisation says about itself. Look at Southern Poverty Law Center using its own site, the Red Cross, [13] shows the type of SPS material that Wikipedia has always allowed about organisations. That noted, the specific organisation can be distinguished from the general topic (which appears to have no formal organisation at its top). And, as it is not in a position to speak for the entire topic, it does not belong in the lede. Does this cover everything? Collect (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Those are all good points, Collect. But I was referring to the edit I'd made and the rationale. It's moot now as the edit has been changed and hopefully everybody is happy with it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You realize we are talking about the "lead" of the Agenda section, not the article lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I think he's addressing my comment about the use of teaparty.org's website as the source which is a primary source. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Just some typos

Under Organization:

"...notable politicians Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul,..."

should be

"...notable Republican politicians Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul,..."

for clarity and correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.4.4 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Under Agenda: Delete New York Times definition - They are far left and not factual or credible. NOT "anti-government", but anti "irresponsible" government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.186.73 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2013‎ (UTC)

News articles on tobacco industry-Tea Party ties

More proof that the text that you are trying to war in is wrong and violates wp:ver and wp:nor.
When all you have is a hammer... — goethean 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
??? North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The text that you are trying to war in makes claims about the entire tea party movement, which is unsupported by even the cherry-picked sources and in fact in conflict with them. The text is in clear violation of wp:ver, and doubly so of wp:synth (not only is it synthesis, but it is faulty synthesis). And the additional source that you just provided reinforces that point. So mere presence of the material violates wp:ver and wp:synth, putting it in over such objection violates wp:burden, and trying to war it in makes it three-times-over problematic. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
goethean, per policy, where are you seeing the consensus to add this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
the tea party is about income tax, big tobacco is about cigarette tax, the Boston tea party was about tea tax. to draw the three together is beyond synth and approaching delusional. big tobacco is seeking to associate the $1 a pack tax with the tea tax of 1775, the TP is trying to associate the income tax with oppressive statism ala king george, big left is trying to paint a legitimate grassroots movement as manufactured meat puppets of corporatist, which it is anything but and about as true as OWS is the bastard spawn of Soros [14]. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
All 'health'/'sin' taxes are oppressive statism. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well then, I guess that you should remove all of the negative material from the article, because that would make a certain group of editors here very, very happy. Is that what you suggest? — goethean 17:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you going to answer the question? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've answered your question. Your refusal to acknowledge my point does not invalidate it. — goethean 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed the point. If you're saying that there's consensus to remove all the negative information, or to exclude it, I don't see that consensus. I also don't see a consensus to include this information. I don't disagree with you that the source is reliable. I do disagree, at this point, that there's consensus for inclusion. If you see consensus, can you point it out? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There will never be consensus on this talk page to add any negative material about the Tea Party to this article. Is that clear enough for you? — goethean 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Nice try. Trying to pretend that it is bias based vs. the clear issues raised. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That's right. I am pretending that you have argued against every addition of negative material about the Tea Party that has been suggested in the history of this talk page. That's what I am imagining. How far away from reality is this product of my imagination? — goethean 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that you're adding the information even though you lack the consensus to do so, against policy? Or is the consensus policy not enough of a policy to pay attention to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that this article has continued to exist and attain balance despite a group of editors who have opposed the addition of every proposed piece of negative information about the Tea Party. — goethean 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And yet you seem to be avoiding the key point that you're adding information against policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And you are avoiding he key point that the consensus on this talk page is to completely whitewash the article of all criticism and controversy. — goethean 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be true, actually. If that were the consensus, there would be no criticism or controversy in the article. So, since we've established that you're incorrect on that note as well as unable to demonstrate consensus for inclusion, will you remove the section or should I? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You have proved nothing apart from the depth of your own rhetoric. — goethean 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Answering Goethean's question, a look at the substance of the talk page discussion s will tell you the reality is a million miles from your imagination. For example, if someone would have written something that summarizes what this study actually said, I'd likely support its inclusion. What I said earlier was "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there." Whereupon your team immediately started trying to war in some heavily spun erroneous synthesis. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If that were to happen, that would be the first time that any of you have supported the addition of information which is at odds with the Tea Party's public relations narrative. — goethean 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In my mind I have had you pegged (if you will forgive me) as a rude POV warrior who has only been pretending to not notice that I push for article quality, not article POV. Now I'm starting to think that you genuinely have that misunderstanding, which would be an improvement compared to my previous perception. Which means that if your actions have been based on that misperception, then there is the possibility that you are actually 2 levels better than my perception. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell you how gratifying that is. — goethean 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell whether you really meant that or the reverse or something in between. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow So... what's wrong with the Rolling Stone article? Just asking. Cause they have really good reputation for very solid journalism, yanno ;) I don't have a lot of time for this, but if the real problem is the usual Tea Party allergy to HuffPo, then maybe you guys can try:

or even

then there is this, which is editorial in nature, but is, I believe, the Tucson daily newspaper, which would probably make it RS even as opinion:

I am not familiar with this publication and normally would question it as RS; however given who's complaining here it's interesting to note that even though, like Fox News, it wants to discredit the study, it essentially agrees with HuffPo about what the study *says* and has to complain about the funding in order to find something to be outraged about.

Then there is what UCSF has to say about it:

That should be enough to be going forward with.... Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • The Glantz et al article is now available for free [15]. — goethean 13:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

YES to Gothean: I don't know how editors want to handle it, but the article really ought to reference the free version, not just the paywalled one. BMJ "Tobacco control" is a serious journal and of course in the real world, the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the most authoritative possible sources about what the tobacco companies were doing, although of course it does not have everything and sometimes the tobacco companies used code words to obscure their plans. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/

Although not an RS, if people actually want to understand this, it's worth watching Amanda Fallin's presentation, 19 minutes, starting 01:17:45 in http://lecture.ucsf.edu/ETS/Play/2b212ec8c82346f8867647ff293c88ec1d The UCSF people were doing exactly the research proposed into tobacco company tactics, paid by grants renewed yearly, that started in 2001 and 2006, to do exactly the sort of work that generates surprises like this. The grants are: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=6378028&icde=15340674&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=48&csb=default&cs=ASC and http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8316137&icde=15340674&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=50&csb=default&cs=ASC The grants are a direct outcome of the various lawsuits that required tobacco companies to provide documents, i.e., having gotten them, it made sense to start research efforts to understand the tactics. People outraged about funding simply have not the foggiest clue about National Cancer Institute, whose missions certainly include prevention of cancer, not just looking for (very difficult) cures. This work at UCSF, with modest funding, likely has a cost/benefit ratio among the very best of any NIH-funded research, since the cause of most lung cancer is quite well-known. Needless to say, it is impossible for any but a very few Tea party folks to have known about the deep roots in tobacco, sicne the whole point of this and other tobacco tactics was to be "behind the scenes." JohnMashey (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

TPM contributes to grid lock in Congress

It might be a good idea to open a section in the article on how the tea party candidates who won election are now contributing to the grid-lock in Congress. And also mention how Boehner and the Party in general oppose them. There's a lot out there about it. It would show the effect the TPM is having on the country now they've brought their goals to fruition. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to ask the usual question: Are there reliable sources making the connection and confirm it as an achievement of their goals?TMCk (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
TMCk, hello! There's certainly a lot out there right now about the Republican in-fighting between Tea Party types and Establishment. It isn't just they don't agree with the Democrats. Seems like they can't work amongst themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, when I said "goals" earlier, I meant the goal of getting candidates elected that have promised to follow the TPM agenda. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a source that gridlock in Congress is (or is not, or both) one of the TPm's goals. That the TPC contributes to gridlock in Congress should be properly sourced, but I don't doubt that there is such a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure seems like there's trouble in paradise: [16][17][18] And maybe the folks who helped them get there are watching over their shoulders in a way the rest of the electorate does not. Most people just vote for them and don't keep track. Looks the Tea Party has a different view. [19] Just saying, if they are causing this much discord in their own party, what are they doing when it comes to compromising with the Democrats? Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This one calls it 'grid-lock.' [20]Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Op-ed [21]. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
"Gridlock" is the painful collision of deciding between bigger and smaller government. Non-TPM Republicans are sort of divided or "going with the pressure/flow" on that and TPM Republicans are generally not. Of course, this is just to help sort out terminology, not article material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Your idea IS a good idea. And it is at the core of the topic. I was digressing in a direction that might help implement and expand on your idea. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • support. this debunks the "anti-government" claim in the nyt, impossible to be in the government and anti-government. i think it also establishes the tp is really a grassroots movement, quite the opposite of the GOP where the actual corporate support lies. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • That is incorrect. Reliable sources describe the TPm as anti-government, on par with various libertarian factions; no one is claiming the TPm espouses anarchy. There is a grassroots component and also a corporate supported and driven component to the movement, but Malke's suggestion to add content about the "anti-compromise politics" quality could prove interesting. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • support . the article currently shows the tea party's progression from protests to getting representatives in the house and senate. Now seems a good time to include the effect those representatives are having. The RS are there.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support My other comments were just sidebar. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)