Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Clarification for Arzel

Please see this edit; and this edit; and this edit, etc. Yes, it is now routine. Yes, it is being treated just as the edits by a grade-schooler inserting the word "penis" into random articles would be -- per talk. FF is encouraged to discuss his problematic edits. My edit summary was accurate; your edit summary, Arzel, is a personal attack and is uncalled for. Let's do better, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Until you have concensus on the talk page it is not routine. My edit comment was correct. Arzel (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor does not "have consensus", Arzel. Consensus is something to be achieved among all editors. As I noted above, Freedom Fan is encouraged to discuss his problematic edits here. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is this concensus that you speak of. You also seem to be unwilling to discuss the section. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't speak of any perticular concensus. And I am always willing to discuss edits. Perhaps you are thinking of another editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Populist"???

The Tea Party movememt is not populist. Remove this part now. (I can't because it's locked.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You get more with honey then vinegar or something like that. Do it "now" typically doesn't get much response. That being said, a single source is not sufficient to give the label prominence in the first line of the lead. See WP:LABEL and WP:UNDUE and the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources thing. "NPR says that they are populist" might be fine in the body of the article somewhere. It can easily be read as "socialist" or "class warfaring" so the requirement for clarification means it should not be in the lead like that. There was previous consensus on this but consensus can change and, God forbid, be wrong. The conversation reads to me like it was implemented to remove grassroots which means the consensus building was done under false pretenses.Cptnono (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So I am going to pull the trigger on this and remove it or tag it with an inline dubious tag if there are no comments. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We had a big consensus discussion back in March about the first sentence in the article. It was decided by consensus (we actually took a vote) that grassroots was out as a description of the movement (because there was a conflict with astroturfing) and populist was its replacement. If you actually edit the lead, you'll see a bunch of invisible comments about this. Please don't modify the first paragraph in the lead without getting consensus here first. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, that was done under false pretenses and I am attemptint to reopen the discussion since "populist" can be misread and people obviously disagree with it. The question isn't "populist over grassroots" it is "populist".Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Populist is defined as "A supporter of the rights and power of the people.", which the Tea Party is definitely about. They are big about individual rights, and the power of people against large government. The Tea Party is definitely populist and we should change start changing it back. Ink Falls 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it requires explanation and can be read differently then that single definition. If populist is mentioned it should be explained or else the reader can easily jump the incorrect conclusion. Other definitions:

• wikt:populism - "A political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this."
• wikt:populist - Democrat (?!?!)
• Populist - A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favours "the people" over "the elites", or favours the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners. Populists are against big business owners.

You could argue that 1 does apply to a certain extent but it could certainly be disputed so explanation would be required. I'm not saying populism shouldn't be mentioned but it shouldn't be an immediate vague label in the first line.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is not populist, it's anti-populist. It doesn't favor common people - if it does, it would have supported the Obama tax cuts for the middle-class instead of trying to destroy health-care reform or continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich. 143.89.188.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

False Dichotomy. Furthermore, Bush cut taxes for EVERYONE, which some people fail to acknowledge. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

This is considered POV pushing. The additions of

• The Tea Party has met with perceptions of racism; nearly three in ten Americans see racial prejudice as underlying the Tea Party.

• Only 1 percent of self-described tea-party members are black, and 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people, a number that is nearly twice the national average.

• According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Tea Party is helping to strengthen the white supremacist movement in America, and has helped to re-energize some specific hate groups that were on the verge of extinction.

While also removing

• Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists. Allen West, one of 32 African-Americans who are running for Congress in 2010 as Republicans, says the notion of racism in the Tea Party movement has been made up by the news media.

We can do better, right? †TE†Talk 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation given for the Southern Poverty Law Center claim is this: [1] In addition, what is the SPLC using as evidence to base this claim? This is a private organization that depends on donations. This sounds like a typical direct mail campaign to get donations flowing into the bank account. It's the same thing the political parties do. Republicans get letters claiming the world as they know it is about to end because Harry Reid just did something. And the Dems get the same letter with Harry's name scratched out and Newt Gingrich's name penciled in.Malke2010 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see almost zero things wrong with Cubic Hour's edit. All of the studies and analyses were from credible sources. I will concede that section including the findings of the SPLC could have been a wee bit more responsible by starting out with something like "The SPLC, which is blah blah blah, has reported that the TP...." Anyway, you can never go wrong with an unlimited number of up to date studies. Clearly, since studies are studies, there is nothing partisan about them. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The bullet points clearly show POV pushing. I would like to remove the tags from this article and Tea Party protests, edits like those above impede our progress. We can talk specifics on each of them, but as a whole, they are inappropriate. †TE†Talk 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mean to seem partisan, but I don't see what's "clearly" pushing anything. I think including this kind of information helps the article, but it could definitely use some language-tweaking to please all parties. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First 30% of Americans see racial prejudices as underlying factor for Tea Parties, then 1% of tea partiers are black, then SPLC says Tea Parties are strengthening and re-energizing the white supremacist movement, then removing a black Tea Party candidate and at least 31 other black candidates for the Republican party. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... †TE†Talk 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even worse is what appears to be a basic synthesis of material. Trying to link aspects of different or same polls to first state the racial background of the Tea Party group and then lead into sections which might imply a possible racist belief in order to prove that the Tea Party is racist. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies and Arzel are making an excellent point. These edits definitely pass the duck test. And GnarlyLikeWhoa, these studies are soaking in partisan politics. You can't just say, 'studies are studies.' They aren't subject to any special dispensation on facts and truth. Anybody can conduct a study and skew the results to the outcome they desire.Malke2010 14:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. I accept that you don't like it, but the Southern Poverty Law Center is, without question, a credible source --Cubic Hour (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lenny McAllister

This is an interesting situation. Lenny Mcallister did an interview on NPR talking about the Tea Party movement and said that he had seen "the signs" (in regards to reported to racial animus) and confronted people about them. And said that they were uncommon, and that it is possible that someone has crossed the line. However, Cynthia Tucker reports him to have said (in this interview) that he said that racisim was associated with the Tea Party movement. She didn't quote him. Here is the NPR interview. This is the problem, the article makes a statement which doesn't seem to correspond to the actual interview from which it was taken. It also puts words into McAllister's mouth. So when the actual primary source dissagrees with the secondary sourcing what is the proper protocol? This could be a BLP violation of McAllister, attributing a statement to which he did not make. Arzel (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at that. Apparently, his real quote was above the last bit in the article that is cited and he talked about the fringe elements. So this sentence is actually WP:OR. It's been crafted to make it appear that McAllister is saying, "Yeah, I see that all the time." And that's not what he said at all. It should be removed or it should include what he really said.Malke2010 03:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is neither a BLP violation, nor Original Research ... at least on the part of the editor that quoted Cynthia Tucker in our Wikipedia article. You might make a case that Tucker did some of her own original research, but so does every editor/journalist/commentator/columnist/etc. -- we depend on them, as presumably reliable sources, to do the original research so we don't have to. If Tucker misinterpreted McAllister (doubtful, since the three of them no doubt conversed a bit off the air), then any issues would be between them; there is no BLP issue involving Wikipedia. But to remove doubt, the Washington Post makes a clearer assessment -- I've added it to the article, a couple paragraphs down. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what we depend upon them to do. We depend upon them to report accurately what happened, not to synthesis what happened. The only people that should be doing research are scientists. Your understanding of OR is wrong. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ... this is a contortion of policy so strange, that it's hard to formulate a reasonable response. Are you really trying to apply the WP:OR policy against the author of a SOURCE??? OR has exactly zero relevant when a usable source is being DIRECTLY QUOTED. Seriously, an editor raising objections that get this far off-base can significantly damage his credibility. BigK HeX (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it is, we need to get a consensus together on what to do about it because this is one of those things that ends up in an edit war.Malke2010 15:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The first step is probably (for those who are objecting) to actually post a relevant policy/guideline to base their objection on. As it stands, the author is notable [Pulitzer-prize winner], and the text quotes her directly and in-context, as well as helping to serve NPOV. So far, the edit seems to pass Wikipedia-muster, but if someone has an actual (applicable) policy-based objection, of course we should hash it out. If not though, an objecting editor who begins engaging in his own WP:OR in order to characterize Tucker's work and use their opinion alone as the basis for editing the article would end being the one violating WP policy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Tucker is a Pulitzer Prize winner. What matters is how she is characterizing what McAllister said. Quoting her directly doesn't make what she is saying true. This Washington Post article is something that could be used to quote him instead.[2] And not only can this source be used for McAllister, the African Americans also quoted in this article should be included. They speak out against claims of racism. Tucker's so-called quote seems to obscure the truth. It's a refactoring. It misleads the reader. It should be removed. Let's go with the Washington Post article as a source for quotes.Malke2010 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal characterization of Tucker's work is noted. The Washington Post article aside for a moment, do you have an applicable policy basis for which to object to the Tucker text? If so, please list it. If not, I guess you could tell us that, too. BigK HeX (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an observation of fact, not a personal characterization as in a personal view. See WP:RS. Tucker is not reliable. Washington Post is. Malke2010 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Tucker should be used, but if she is then her statement should not be quoted since it is a pharaphrase. Arzel (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. If Tucker was misquoted by Mcallister then simply {{Cite episode}} and use Tucker's direct words instead of the questionable paraphrase. Sure it is verifiable that Mcallister reported it one way but it is just wrong of us to use a dubious paraphrase when the actual quote is available.Cptnono (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Are there transcripts we can use? †TE†Talk 23:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

[ec]I think you have McAllister and Tucker switched around. Anyway, that was my original point. However, it is my understanding that a secondary source is to be used in order to establish notability. But the secondary source is not that close. Wouldn't it be OR to try to figure out what statement from McAllister to use? The WaPo article would seem to be the better fit and for us not to use either Tucker or the NPR transcript. Arzel (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this transcript from the interview you are referring to? If so, I say we use it in conjunction with WaPo. †TE†Talk 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the discussion about the content that keeps mysteriously disappearing? I don't see it anywhere on this pagePatriot130 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the page. The most recent is the section directly above this one. †TE†Talk 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the text "disappearing" from the article was initially added by me, and there has been no discussion of its removal. If there are issues with the information, please describe those issues here. If something is "disputed", as one editor claimed, please explain what that dispute is so that a discussion can be opened. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I've counted 66 edits in the last 24 hours. This leads me to believe there's a whole shitload of disputed content. The tags attached to this article and the Tea Party protests would also be a good indication. There were two tags removed be an uninvolved editor with no explanation other there. I wanted them gone, so I looked the other way. †TE†Talk 04:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One more time, TE, I'll be as specific as I can here: Please do not just delete and revert; instead, describe the issues you have with the content you are disputing so that your issues may be addressed. Clear now? Saying "there have been 66 edits!" or "there is a shitload of disputed content" or "there are tags in the article!" tells us nothing. Describe the disputes so that they can be addressed and individually resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How's this for disputed content? †TE†Talk 04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You have no dispute with me on that edit. In fact, you just made my preferred edit in that link. Your dispute will be with Freedom Fan, who will no doubt attempt to reinsert his POV version of that same content. By "POV version", I mean stripped of Breitbart's conspiracy theories, Trumka's refutation and the AP's fact-checking of his use of the wrong video as proof. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that I made your "preferred edit." It's the result of <personal attack removed>. †TE†Talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious, but .... believing the above to be "civil" would be highly mistaken. This, of course, is in addition to the fact that it's wholly unnecessary. BigK HeX (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps you are correct. I think it's in line with the constant snide remarks Xenophrenic bestows upon us. Maybe it's borderline, but it's important to my comments on this page and the reasoning behind some fairly apparent tactics to disrupt. Some of us are sick of POV pushing and edit warring in an article desperately in need of help. This garbage is a distraction and nobody is happy that a couple of editors couldn't try to reach consensus. Now the article is locked down, again. It's not cute, and should never be considered routine (see edit summaries). †TE†Talk 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's not civil, and it's pretty much a textbook example of commenting on an editor, and not edits. That said, it's not worth arguing over. Either leave it collapsed, or file a case on it, but responding to personal attacks just brings more unwanted attention to them. Let's try and stay focused on the content. Dayewalker (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I voluntarily collapsed it and have no problem leaving it there. †TE†Talk 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am equally happy with having the content in the article, but not the stripped down POV version. If you'd like to discuss a mutually acceptable version, that would be great. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to dispute this. †TE†Talk 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your dispute, exactly? Someone has added content by several black people saying basically, "they haven't seen any racism, so there is no racism at tea parties". You are now disputing content from black people that says the opposite? Your edit summary says, (Oh boy, a race-baiting op-ed. Just what this section needed.) Translation: I Don't Like It! The content is from a New York Times journalist and regular columnist who also wrote this commentary directly refuting the afore mentioned comments by several black people. So getting beyond the fact that you don't like it, is your "dispute" backed by particular Wikipedia editing policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be textbook <personal attack removed. You disapproved of an addition be some random editor. Instead of refactoring it to NPOV wording or removing it for policy reasons, you just added a completely POV undue addition to counter it. In this case it was black conservatives saying they haven't seen racism, then you adding a black journalist to project his own racial prejudices on the movement as some kind of counterpoint, not that it is. I suppose the end goal is to remove the unfair "they haven't seen any racism, so there is no racism at tea parties" additions. Why didn't you just do that in the first place? Anyways, I'd like to hear why this edit is encyclopedic and/or helpful to this article.

• After attending a Tea Party rally outside of Dallas with expectations of diversity due to the scheduled Black, Hispanic and Vietnamese speakers, New York Times Op-editor Charles M. Blow observed, "I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do? It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but." He concluded, "I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused."[3] †TE†Talk 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't disapprove of an addition by a random editor. I added completely new content. Apparently, you feel that content is POV and of Undue Weight. It is certainly a point of view, but that does not disqualify it from a place in the Wikipedia article. I do not find the content to be undue at all, in contrast to the present opposing POVs. As for why I didn't remove other material: probably because I didn't view it as in violation of Wikipedia editing policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Other black conservatives have questioned the Tea Party's inclusiveness. Brandon Brice, a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally, said he was worried about the movement, noting that "It's strayed away from the message of wasteful spending and Washington not listening to its constituents, and it's become more of this rally of hate." Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator, author and tea party supporter said he has seen racism within the Tea Party and has confronted it, and like Brice, thinks leaders of the Tea Party movement must not ignore the issue. McAllister told the Washington Post, "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior." During an interview on NPR with Michel Martin, columnist Cynthia Tucker and Lenny McAllister discussed racism and the tea parties; Tucker wrote about the interview, concluding that McAllister's take on racism was that he’d seen enough racist signs at other tea party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement. Jean Howard-Hill, leader the National Republican African American Caucus, wrote that, "Any movement which cannot openly denounce racism, calling it out as wrong troubles me. To attack President Obama on his policy is one thing, but to do so on his race or some hysterical pretext of socialism is yet another."

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be odd if the impression of some random protestors was deemed suitable, but not the experiences of Tea Party speakers. I, too, am curious as to what policy ThinkEnemies is using to support his edits.... BigK HeX (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not compute. Please clarify? †TE†Talk 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hal Crowther

Light sarcasm provides a poor excuse for removing the opinion of a notable writer living in the midst of teabagger turmoil. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments don't deserve their own section,WP:UNDUE especially under the title "Hyperbole," which is WP:OR. Crowther's comments were moved to another section of the article by another editor. Check the article's editing history.Malke2010 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The move's OK, but not the blanking after the move (link above) which may bear on your question below. -74.242.254.51 (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Page shut down

What just happened? Who was edit warring?Malke2010 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

More disambiguation page

Mbhiii is at it again with his IPs. It is pretty trivial but the Manual of Style needs to be followed. Instead of continuing to edit war, figured I would get other opinions. Please see Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation)#reverting and chime in if you have thoughts either way on this one. To clarify, this is about the other editor wanting to link directly to the section titled "humor" while I see it going against WP:PIPING.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I hate wasting time on what appears to be a disruptive IP for a trivial matter, I opened up an RFC: Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation)##Link to Tea Party movement article Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to Remove 'Reports of Inappropriate Incidents' Section

{{editprotected}} King of Hearts, thank you for protecting this article on the Tea Party movement. I am requesting that you remove this section because it is a textbook violation of the WP:BLP policy. It's sole purpose is to present a one-sided characterization of a group of living persons as "racists" and therefore represents a prime candidate for speedy deletion in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

I have no doubt that the BLP policy pertains to groups of living persons because when I worked on the Weatherman article, I was severely reprimanded by an administrator for attempting to use strongly sourced material which put unnamed members of the group in an unfavorable light. Even a vague mention of the sworn Congressional testimony considered a BLP violation and was immediately removed from the talk page by the Wikipedia administrator. So I am requesting the same treatment here for consistency.

Obviously Wikipedia has little tolerance regarding straying from this founding principal and "editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked". In addition, WP has now established a task force to deal specifically with violations of BLP. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a direct reporting mechanism to deal with BLP violations to ensure that we take "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding" material.

Even without the BLP policy, it remains a fundamental principal that editors must strive to achieve a neutral point of view in accordance with WP:NPOV. As if it weren't already obvious that using, loaded, "contentious labels" like "racist" to describe living persons, violates NPOV, there are several examples in Wikipedia policy which strongly recommending avoiding this specific word. For example, WP:Words To Avoid specifically states that it is unacceptable to use words such as these, even in describing obviously racist organizations such as the KKK, because "such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint". So:

"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization." thus becomes

"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

I don't think it gets much more clear than that. Similarly, Wikipedia:Words to watch advises against use of "Contentious Labels", and specifically the word "racist":

"Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

It is unfortunate that I have heard that Wikipedia is sometimes not permitted to be used as a source in classrooms, because of bias, especially in controversial articles. Obviously the long term success and widespread acceptance of any encyclopedia depends upon its credibility. Wikipedia recognizes this, and with it's five founding principles, admirably sets out to ensure that a "neutral point of view" is the foundation every article. This article should be no exception.

One survey reports that 24% of the American public identifies with the Tea Party movement. Imagine the impact upon the credibility of Wikipedia as potentially millions of those participants read this article, only to discover that Wikipedia is flatly calling them "racists" in violation of its own policies regarding presenting a neutral point of view and avoiding libelous accusations in describing a group of living persons.

Imagine someone trying to take the twisted words of some goofball on Twitter and using that as evidence to smear say, the entire Democrat party as "racists". Obviously that would never happen since it would represent a violation of a variety of Wikipedia policies such as WP:Undue, WP:Recentism, WP:Labels, WP:NPOV, etc. But that is precisely what one editor has done in this article. Again I am requesting the same treatment here for consistency.

There has never been a consensus for this section, and as you can see from this talk page, almost all of the comments deal with this continuously edited, controversial topic. While I believe it is possible to present this section from a neutral viewpoint, after over two months of trying, I am asking that the section be removed, and not restored unless consensus can be reached on the talk page.

If you disagree, please suggest what my next step should be in escalating this request. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: If there's a textbook example here .... it might be closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BigK HeX (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider this request. My point is that a consensus to include this section has never been established and currently is in violation of WP:BLP which requires speedy deletion.

Freedom Fan (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with FF's assessment of the situation. As long as the allegations are properly sourced, and the counter-arguments are present and likewise sourced, I don't see any problem with inclusion, and certainly not as a BLP violation. While describing the entire movement as racist would definitely be inaccurate, the allegations and discussion of possible racism as a motivation are properly sourced and notable. Dayewalker (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that it is possible to write this section from a neutral point of view, this has not been done and certain editors do not appear to have any interest in doing so. The section is conspicuously one-sided, uses contentious labels, cherry-picks only certain portions of quotes by Andre Carson, censors the widely publicized reward for evidence and response by Tea Party speaker Breitbart, elevates silly Twitter comments to smear millions of participants, and generally disregards the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This section has never found consensus and as currently written represents a WP:BLP violation qualifying for speedy deletion. Freedom Fan (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Dayewalker's general evaluation. It's pretty obvious that incidents involving perceived or possible intolerance have received a fair amount of mainstream coverage -- I think easily clearing notability requirements for inclusion. For the most part, the wording seems an accurate reflection of the RS's provided (to include the now-deleted portions). I'm not sure what happened with during the editing of the "Weatherman" article, but the idea that this section is worthy of a unilaterally-decided speedy delete seems ... ummm ... unusual. BigK HeX (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perceived or possible intolerance by who? Sounds WP:WEASEL. What is the 'fair amount of mainstream coverage?' Do they name the names of actual tea party protesters? Does the mainstream media claim the leaders of the tea party movement or of individual tea parties have a racist agenda? You can edit anything to support a POV and even us "mainstream media RS" to do it. But that doesn't make it true. The whole section is not accurate. A gas line on a grill in a closed in porch gets cut. Must have been a tea partier? Where's the proof? Maybe it was the guy who lives there. The CBC claims they heard the N word. Yet, no video exists. Cynthia Tucker refactors McAllister's words. But that's okay, because it conforms to the POV being pushed.

The article is shut down right now because of this. It should be removed. It's not accurate and all it does is create trouble.Malke2010 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... not really. Especially when considering the actual text used in the article, there's not really anything WP:WEASEL about it. (Just like there's no WP:OR in quoting a notable source.) If you're not more careful in describing your objections, they may not be granted much credibility. BigK HeX (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if you actually believe there to be a problem with a misrepresentation of sources (or "inaccuracy"), please take it to the OR noticeboard. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any dispute that the general topic is not notable and, I'd say any honest scan of the topic reveals it as easily clearing WP notability guidelines, and thus, worthy of inclusion. As for your specific complaint about a gas line that "maybe" was cut by some non-Tea Partier .... that's fine as your personal opinion, but the connection between the cut line and the Tea Party was suggested within RS'es .... as Dayewalker has noted, the text in the article seems to be a pretty fair reflection of the sources provided.

Provided that the article text is an accurate reflection of the sources, frankly, it seems your actual problem would be with topics of coverage which have gained notability due to the wide variety of mainstream sources. I don't think there's a policy to help you there, which may be why it seems that you've had limited success in pinning your objections to a particular WP policy......

In any case, it might need to be said that, as far as I know, text which accurately reflects coverage by reliable sources for notable topics does NOT merit deletion . BigK HeX (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While some editors may not have an interest in writing the section from a neutral point of view, there are enough of us that do, so we should work toward that end. Editors here obviously have strong opinions about certain content, but those should be shelved as much as possible during the collaboration. Some editors may feel that "silly Twitter comments" have no place in the article, while other editors may see significance in the fact that those silly comments were made by a TP organizer, not just a supporter, and they generated headlines in newspapers and caused prominent political people to cancel their scheduled TP appearances. Some editors feel that TP speaker Breitbart's opinions are fine content for the article, but cannot stomach critical opinions from other conservative TP speakers that suggest a racism component needs to be addressed. We need to come to agreement as to what content has encyclopedic value, and how best to present it. As for the "BLP violation" argument you raise, I don't think I understand how that applies to the content we are discussing. Since you asked above where you could escalate your request, I would suggest raising the issue at the BLP Noticeboard to see if other editors could help clarify the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. This isn't my argument but I'm going to respond to the Twitter thing. This suggests that any and all sundry nonsense deserves to be included in this article as if it were prima facie evidence of rampant racism within the Tea Party Movement. A twitter comment is nonsense. Getting up at a Tea Party Meeting and advocating racism is. None of that has been shown. And while some editors will put in anything "so long as it's sourced," that's nonsense.

This Movement does not have a racist plank in it's platform. This movement is against what they say is profligate federal spending and laws that favor predatory lenders who evict homeowners and then get rewarded with $$$ from a bailout all of us are paying for. Painting these people as racists is a violation of policy. This section has become a WP:BATTLE. It should be removed to avoid edit warring, and a new section opened up on the talk page to discuss guidelines for inclusion of incidents in a new section.Malke2010 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not claimed "that any and all sundry nonsense deserves to be included in this article as if it were prima facie evidence of rampant racism within the Tea Party Movement." Nothing of the sort. Please quote for me, exactly, my words to that effect, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I have not said you made any such claims. The only comment I addressed to your post was the mention of the Twitter thing. The rest of my comments are for the edit wars in general.Malke2010 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I refactored the comments to make it clear it was not about you.Malke2010 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD-EC) No one is saying the TP has a racist plank in their platform, nor has anyone claimed overt racism. However, there are plenty of allegations being made in reliable sources, which should be addressed. Dayewalker (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few editors above that are doing more talking about one another than this silly essay. Am I really the only one you want to say that to? Wiki is free just like hugs (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is free. . .Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see your talk page and review the guidelines. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Also, WP:BLP guidelines apply to article and user talk pages. Thanks. Malke2010 23:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I (who?) request the picture be removed due to the irrelevance. The picture shows a protest and may or may not be associated with a tea party protest. Either way without a reference for the picture it portrays tea party members as being Christian and against Islam. It needs a reference or it needs to be taken down. (unsigned)

finance reform

It will be interesting to see how the various tea parties react to this news. [4].Malke2010 11:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

John Lewis/Breitbart section

This seems too long. It rambles. The mention of the video that shows nothing is confusing. Is this the video Breitbart is paying $100,000 for, or is this something else? Wikipedia is about summary. This whole bit can be summed up in one paragraph. And the AFL-CIO guy was with John Lewis, he wasn't part of the Tea Party, which as it reads right now, it seems like he was either with the tea party protesters or just a random bystander. And all the quotes, not needed. The CBC guys walked through the crowd, claimed they were called the n word, tea party peeps deny it, Breitbart offers $100,000 for video evidence. Still waiting for video.Malke2010 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't have to be overdrawn, just a concise summary. Arzel (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing is always good. But not to the extent that we purge the section of the fact that Breitbart insists the whole episode was an intentional Pelosi plot to incite racism, or that the video Breitbart initially cited as proof turns out to be of a different time altogether, or that Trumka denies Breitbart's allegations. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if you really want to shorten it up, then just remove the Breitbart content, as other editors have done. As it turns out, Breitbart wasn't even there and isn't involved, and is just grandstanding for media attention (not my opinion, by the way, but I do completely agree with it), but some people want to make sure Breitbart's conspiracy theories are interjected into an otherwise serious article. So be it. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if there wasn't such an effort to try and "prove" that the tea party movement is racist this wouldn't be a problem. As for Brietbart, all of the additional information is not needed, only that he (a notable person within the movement) has offered $100,000 for video evidence of what took place. Arzel (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is really played out. Yes, Breitbart wasn't there for the n-word, neither was Trumka and neither was Clever. The only people involved are Lewis, Carson and Lewis' aide. Carson was very direct with what he heard, Lewis' aide is also on the record. Lewis has not officially said anything, his name was reported the most due to his integrity and stature, not to mention his civil rights legacy. A summary of many people from both sides pursuing video evidence is the only viable option. Sourcing of Breitbart is easy, now all we need to find is sourcing for his opposition. †TE†Talk 22:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Trumka says he was there, too. So was Cleaver, who also heard the slurs ... albeit about 10-15 yards behind for most of the walk, only catching up when arriving at the Capitol building. As for Lewis, while he didn't initiate any of the reports with media, he did later confirm that he, too, heard the slurs. So of all the people listed above, only Breitbart was not there, or anywhere close to the event. So a complete, balanced and accurate inclusion of all content on the Breitbart tangent -- or removal of it all -- are really the only viable options. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Trumka said alot of funny stuff, I thought he would claim to be a witness to shooters on the grassy knoll. Cleaver walked with Lewis, to the Cannon Building, where a protester spat on him. It obviously wasn't intentional, but who cares? Cleaver was "10-15 yards(per Xeno)" away from Lewis, just like the clips show with James Clyburn,Carson, lil' Jesse, Maxine, and whomever else I missed in the videos. Luckily, the AP dissected the videos to show us that the 48 second clip was not when racial slurs were spewed, but when the lawmakers returned to Cannon, via the Capitol Building at least an hour later. I have no horse in this race, but I'll always take a strong stance against bullshit. †TE†Talk 06:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I shortened it.Malke2010 03:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

...prematurely. It is under discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic above, the whole section should be taken out. If it stays, however, the other sourced content dealing with the Breitbart situation should also stay. Dayewalker (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart is speaking for the people that were there and claim it didn't happen in the manner that Lewis, et al, claim. Since there is no real Tea Party leadership there is nothing wrong with using him as the defacto spokesperson when the group seems to imply that he is. I really don't see the problem some have with including his opinion. he is well known within the movement and is well known outside of the movement as well. And without it you have a one sided view, and a violation of NPOV. If you want to take out the WHOLE section of allegations, that would be fine with me. None of the allegations are verifiable, with the exception of the Barney Frank aspect. Arzel (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart doesn't speak for the people that were there. He only speaks for the people that agree with him, no doubt many people, but many have also voiced their embarrassment over his antics, and disagree with him. Unless there are reliable sources either formally appointing him official spokesperson for the Tea Party Movement, or informally acknowledging him as defacto spokesperson for the Tea Party Movement, we probably shouldn't perpetuate that notion in our articles. He's just another guy with an opinion -- and we all know how rare those are. Without the Breitbart content, we have the reports from people that were there and heard slurs, and reports from people that were there and didn't hear slurs, in accordance with NPOV. And hopefully, as existed in the earliest versions, a short paragraph on the solid denunciation of those acts as wrong and not representative of the movement. All of the incidents are verifiable, including the treatment of Barney Frank. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought Breitbart was speaking at a Tea Party rally/meeting when he made the offer of the money.Malke2010 14:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Breitbart quote and offer of a donation to the United Negro College Fund is relevant. Members of the CBC have not come back with any proof. So far it's just, "he said, he said." You have to examine what your editorial goals are here. The Breitbart offer is a good counterweight to some very serious charges against tea party protesters who say this never happened. It doesn't need anymore than that. If that gets deleted, then all the CBC claims, which so far are unfounded, must also be deleted. And Cynthia Tucker was doing her own OR and Wikipedia doesn't have to support that. And from what I'm finding, it's for $10,000 and not $100,000.Malke2010 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Members of the CBC "have not come back with any proof?" They have multiple credible eyewitnesses. People are in prison based on weaker proof than that. Breitbart has a wild and implausible conspiracy theory, denials, and zero proof. Did you mean the lawmakers haven't joined in Breitbart's media circus? Correct. Cynthia Tucker, like all sources, do their own OR, because we Wikipedia editors are prohibited from doing it. WP:OR is a policy that governs Wikipedia editors, not the reliable sources upon which we rely. Let me know if you need that explained further. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Tucker is not reliable. Washington Post is. Malke2010 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. See WP:RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Xenophrenic. Cynthia Tucker is a well-regarded professional with relevant material for this article. So .... which part of WP:RS is it exactly that I'm supposed to be seeing? BigK HeX (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As it now stands, this article is a highly partisan WP:Attack piece. It is highly significant to this article and a glaring omission from it, that Breitbart, a prominent Tea Party speaker, offered $100,000 for video proof that the "n-word" was used at the D.C. health care protest on March 20, 2010.

"Breitbart 100,000" gets over 414,000 hits on Google; this is obviously a big deal. The "racist" charge was meant to impugn the movement as a whole, so someone this prominent in the movement should be allowed to respond. Breitbart's offer is well sourced and appears in the Wall Street Journal and CBS News, among many other reliable sources.

The fact that Breitbart was not at the event is irrelevant because Breitbart is not saying that he personally witnessed anything; he's challenging the credibility of the inconsistent claims by partisan opponents of the Tea Party movement. He's questioning how there possibly could be no independent evidence and no independent witnesses of such a disgusting act, repeated "fifteen times by fifteen people" in a public forum of thousands of people bristling with video cameras and video phones.

There are many videos of this event from many sources from many angles. There are videos of the Congressmen coming "down the steps" of the Cannon Building on their way to the Capitol Building, and there are videos of some of the same Congressmen, this time accompanied by Rep. Cleaver, returning to the Cannon building. Carson said he heard the "n-word" chanted by fifteen people fifteen times coming "down the steps" of the Cannon building without Cleaver. Cleaver also said he heard the "n-word" as he was returning with Carson to the Cannon building. Surely there would be some sort of independent corroboration besides the word of union boss Richard Trumka, who doesn't appear in any of the videos. Where in all the videos do heads snap around in shock when one of these protesters shouts the "n-word"? Or are all these Americans similarly "racist"?

There is also simple math: How could the "n-word" be used by "fifteen people fifteen times", yet one man just "rattled it off several times"? There is no question about precisely what Carson charged; we have it on audio tape. Also central to Carson's credibility is the fact that he believes that the Tea Party movement is a "racial supremacist group" involved with "terrorism" and represents "one of the largest threats to our internal security". Really? A group of millions representing about 24% of the U.S. population consisting mainly of conservative older people who are 55% female? He said this at the same time that he said that he heard the "n-word", so why is any attempt to add this text just instantly reverted?

Also what about Cleaver's statement that the person spitting on him was put in handcuffs, yet according to police, there were no arrests made that day? Here's a video of the entire incident. No spitting. No handcuffs. No arrests. Why aren't these protesters given any benefit of the doubt or at least acknowledgement that Cleaver was quoted as saying that he expected an apology as if it were an accident? Why is that quote just instantly reverted?

There have been countless articles outside of Wikipedia dedicated to discovering the truth about this event. It is outrageous that Tea Party members should be slandered as "racists", yet such a significant Tea Party spokesman such as Breitbart is not even allowed to question that charge in this article. This is a primary reason for the POV tag placed upon this article and this section in particular, and the article will remain fatally flawed until this is corrected.

By the way, Breitbart is Jewish, so the fact that Rep. Weiner gets to smear the movement as "anti-Semitic" while any comment by Breitbart is censored, is especially egregious.

To conclude, Breitbart's offer is significant, well sourced, relevant and should be included in order to balance the article and contribute to a neutral point of view in accordance with one of the five founding principles of Wikipedia. Surely there are some fair-minded editors here who will stand up to support the proper, even-handed treatment of this event? Shouldn't all the facts be presented to allow the reader to decide for himself what happened? Freedom Fan (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholey synthesis of material and undue weight

The "Composition of the Movement" section is(was) littered with synthesis of material and undue weight given to WP:FRINGE issues. I have removed most of it, but the section is still a huge violation of WP:NPOV. Just because some source issues some story does not mean that it needs to be repeated here. This article is becoming a huge WP:COAT in order to disparge the movement as a whole. Lets stick to primary aspects and not litter this article with attempts to paint the organization as a whole. If such editing was applied to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party the obvious violations of NPOV and Undue Weight would be immediately noticable. Stick to the facts and leave the partisan and tangental aspects out of this article. Arzel (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like the section was rewritten to make the movement seem more mainstream that most sources indicate. BigK HeX (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I wanted to point out that multiple parties are not edit warring although it might appear that way in the history. A note to any admin considering locking: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring. Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the link. Are these socks?Malke2010 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are per WP:ILLEGIT. †TE†Talk 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a paragraph

With the passage of health care reform, the organizational backing for anti-reform protests has largely evaporated, but Americans for Prosperity, founded in part by Koch Industries's Executive Vice President, David Koch, continues to seek issues. As of April 2010, Koch was chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. AFP's North Carolina branch has a Web site called www.nctaxdayteaparty.com that encourages supporters to "contact Americans for Prosperity-NC with questions about throwing a Tea Party in your town! We are here to help (fund) you (to) have a great success!"

Seems a little spammy with a touch of undue weight. Any concerns with its removal or reducing it? And why is it under the Astroturfing section?Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be removed or substantially reworked. It includes a live website link. Reads like a web ad.Malke2010 12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reads like a web ad." b/c it quotes what is, in effect, a corporate offer to support Tea Party activities. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't a forum/blog/website devoted to supporting Tea Party activities.Malke2010 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct, EXCEPT when presenting direct evidence of an ongoing corporate sponsorship of Tea Party activities. How better to show this? -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe you should rewrite it (with RS's) that show what you've pointed out in your last editsummary and now here?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And he's up to 5 reverts right now. Not including his own self-reverts.Malke2010 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome, the words (fund) and (to) are not in the source, but have been placed there for partisan purposes. Arzel (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea bag image

The image that you are pushing states:

• "The poster is presumably for a commercial educational purpose. The image from Huffington Post may be for a nonprofit educational purpose, as is its use in WP to show origin of the political verb "tea bag."

• "This image was identified and shown by Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, 5/6/10 ~9pm, with one other image of a different poster, as evidence of first use of the verb "tea bag" by Tea Party protesters ~4/15/2009. He showed two images on airing, including this image, which are not shown in the current archived version, "Who coined 'teabaggers?'", only verbal descriptions of the images, so preserving this image is important for etymology."

Doesn't the new image provided by Cptnono and supported by me achieve the same goals? †TE†Talk 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe element

I just came across this in the article:

In a February 19, 2010, column in the Wall Street Journal, Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested that, to improve its effect on policy, the Tea Party movement disassociate itself from the militia movement, 'birthers', 9/11 deniers, cranks and conspiracy nuts. [5]

I think it's time to create a section for this aspect of the movement. †TE†Talk 05:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was time for such a section long ago, and when I proposed it (more than 2 weeks ago), the idea was met with general approval. Granted, none of us (myself included) have gotten off our duff and started the thing yet. I've thrown together a rough outline and collected about two dozen relevant sources offline, but haven't gone much further than that. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, let's do this. †TE†Talk 05:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's about time. Also, Keli Carender made some comments about specific individuals, including Glenn Beck, to the NYTimes a while back. I'll find it.Malke2010 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh let's not. You guys are determined to turn this into a WP:Attack piece. Et tu Malke? The "fringe" is just that - a handful of people who don't represent the movement. This is specifically addressed by WP:Undue:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

There was a guy who mentioned Obama's birth certificate at the first Tea Party convention in Nashville; he was roundly booed and ostracized. The Lyndon LaRouche barnacles are Democrats who appear everywhere like mold, not just at Tea Party protests. The Hutaree militia members are unidentified political party affiliation, though one of them has been identified as a registered Democrat; there is no mention of the Tea Party in their Wikipedia article. The 9/11 deniers include Communist Van Jones, who was evicerated on the Glenn Beck show and run out of town. Other 9/11 deniers are Democrate Ed Asner and Tea Party race baiter Jeanane Garofalo.

Imagine someone's success in being able to put in a fringe segment about say, Communists like Van Jones, in the Democrat Party article.

As much as it might be interesting as a reflection of the views of the opponents of the Tea Party movement, I vote no. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Muslim monkey issue

This incident has absolutely nothing to do with the movement. Now it may be related to him personally, but not with this page. Leave the Coats on the rack where they belong. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the incidents of bigotry described in that section have anything to do with the movement. Not the racial slurs, not the anti-gay attacks, and not this guys apparent religious intolerance. Just ask any supporter of the movement. But why have they kept popping up in news report for more than a year now? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

False dicotomy. One of your points has nothing to do with the other. You are right most of them should be removed, however that specific incident is a clear WP:COAT. I would also ask that you again not make disingenious remarks on the edit summary. You stated that no reason was given and that it should be taken to talk, when it is clear that I did both. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary that no reason was given for the removal of some content, so I had replaced that content. There has still been no discussion of the removal of that content. What I said about this "monkey god" stuff, I said right here on the talk page. My edit summary was very accurate; it is unfortunate that you misunderstood it. As for me being "right" that most of the incidents listed in that section should be removed: I didn't say that either. However, since you have now created that new discussion, which incidents do you feel should remain, and why? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The issue is why did you include the Monkey god reference which is clearly a WP:COAT and only tangentally related to the article? Arzel (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But why have they kept popping up in news report for more than a year now?

In 1948 Lyndon Johnson, running for the Senate against Coke Stevenson, instructed a campaign worker: "Go out there and tell 'em Coke was caught having sex with a farm animal."

The worker was aghast. "But you know that's not true!"

"Of course it's not true. That's not the point. Tell it anyway, and make him deny it." [6]

JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Like the "Fair & Balanced" reporting tactics of certain news networks: "During our next 30-minute segment, we'll be looking at the charges that candidate So-and-so is secretly a pedophile, but just to be fair and balanced, we'll follow that with another 30-minute segment interviewing someone defending candidate So-and-so against pedophile charges." Result: a whole hour of "news" equating the candidate with pedophilia. I guess the real question is: is there any truth to the charges? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a great quote, JakeInJoisey. One of the more entertaining comments I've seen in awhile (sad but true). Well done. †TE†Talk 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no WP coatrack here, that I see. PLENTY of reliable sources relate Mark Williams to the Tea Party movement and report the "Monkey God" incident. BigK HeX (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you, will all due respect, do not understand WP:COAT. His comments do not have any relationship to the movement, and this article is not about him. Was this done at a Tea Party Protest? Was this done in concert with any Tea Party Movement event? Was this done on a national Tea Party webpage? Arzel (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand coatrack quite well. IMO though, it's pretty odd to push the idea that the Tea Party movement article must be limited to only describing the happenings within the schedule of the various Tea Party protests. BigK HeX (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That section has been related to action related to Tea Party events since it's inception. Should we have a section within the Democratic Party that lists everything that any Democrat did outside of the scope of the Democratic Party? That is a COAT. You take someone associated at some level to the primary article and then start listing all the bad things they did that don't have ANYTHING to do with the primary topic of the article. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, an attempt to link the two issues because the person that said them is a Tea Party member. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the statement that a section that "lists everything that any [member] did outside the scope of the [party]" would be a COAT. But isn't the guy in question not a routine "member", but actually one of the party's leaders? --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The movement doesn't have any defined leaders. There are some local groups under various Tea Party names that have leaders, but the actual movement does not. Most of the other issues are directly related to some event that has been viewed as part of a Tea Party movement event. One of the other incidents was apparently through a direct action of a Tea Party protester within the context of an event (the cutting of the gas line). One of the other issues is close to a Coat (the twitter issue). The issue, I think, is quite clear. Attempts to paint the movement as a whole which tangental incidents outside of the general scope of the article (and the Tea Party movement) violate NPOV (specifically COAT), Undue Weight, and potentially WP:ATTACK. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that "the movement doesn't have any" leaders is nice. Sources being cited beg to differ with you on the point; specifically, numerous sources associate Williams as a "Tea Party leader." It is fairly blatant WP:OR to continue to apply your personal assessments as if they take precedence over the cited sources. BigK HeX (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you could point out where the central structure of the Tea Party movement is located. Where are it's offices, what is the organizational structure? Who was elected as its leader? Arzel (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Arzel. There's really never been a central tea party. Williams is the head of his own tea party. He's not a tea party movement leader. The other tea party leaders aren't standing next to him when he says these things. He makes negative statements and ends up on CNN, a lot. Maybe that's why he says those things. His comments seem more WP:FRINGE than tea party which are the economy, the foreclosures, etc. The article should not be dominated by the WP:FRINGE. That's WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NPOV. It's also important to remember there are aspects of WP:BLP that must be adhered to because living people are mentioned.Malke2010 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... quite obviously, I wouldn't have to point out a single thing other than the fact that notable sources describe Williams as a "Tea Party" leader." So, perhaps, it may be a "good point," but its still irrelevant as far as this article goes. You can rage against the machine if you like, but your own assessments of the Tea Party and its leaders have little place affecting any of the edits here. In any case, for answers to your questions, feel free to click on the sources from whence they came ... just click on the inline cite [1][2][3] to get you on the right path to where your questions should go.

But anyways, your questions may be an interesting distraction to ponder, but its still fairly blatant WP:OR to base an edit on your ideas there. BigK HeX (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that editors here are basing this on personal opinion. It's OR to try and make Williams' remarks come across as if he's speaking for the entire tea party movement. He's speaking for himself. When he goes on CNN, he gives his opinions. He doesn't say, "As The leader of the Tea Party Movement I say this. . ." Arzel is correct. There is no central structure of the tea party. Anybody can organize a tea party. It doesn't make them a leader of anything other than their own tea party. He's not speaking for the entire movement. CNN likes to put him on because they like to claim he's a leader and then, by extension/association, claim his words are the words of the entire movement. You can say he's got his own tea party, but you can't say he's speaking for all the other tea parties. That's the point being made here and it's got nothing to do with personal opinion.Malke2010 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malke.Boromir123 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be for others to explain how this is related to the Tea Party movement. That he is a member is not sufficient. That it is has [{WP:RS]] doesn't mean that it is appropriate for this article. Arzel (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Utilizing terms such as "member" further exacerbates the issue. He is an advocate/activist/organizer/propagandist/outspoken devotee (choose your own descriptive) of and for a generally recognized political "platform" to which the term "Tea party" has been applied for reference and identification convenience (and there is, consequently, NO "official platform" either). Nothing in that generally recognized "platform" is "racist" per se, except in either the mind of the beholder or in the heart of someone who might choose to maliciously exploit a feigned association for their own purposes...and the media has begun to, perhaps grudgingly, recognize the reality of this truly "grassroots" phenomenon and the speciousness of the politically motivated "racist" allegation (see Salon's Joan Walsh and the WSJ's James Taranto).

Perhaps this new-found "respect" is more pragmatic than heart-felt (one can, after all, count the heads who will be showing up at the polls in November), but "Teabagger" appears to have all but disappeared from the vernacular of major media...with an exception, of course, for the most partisan. Should the Williams "racist" allegation find a home here, ideological/political considerations of its proponents are fair game as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the "Williams content" should not be included in this article? There doesn't appear to be one mentioned above. It is evident Williams was speaking of the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidents/Propane Gas Tank

I've posted this on the OR/N. [7]. Please don't add the sentence regarding the propane tank back into the article until this has been decided on OR/N. Thanks.Malke2010 23:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malke for a variety of reasons in addition to WP:OR. Including this little incident does not pass the relevancy smell test because the act of cutting the gas line cannot be directly tied to the Tea Party movement; there is no evidence, it is only idle speculation by the New York Times and other opponents of the movement.

It is also in violation of WP:Recentism and WP:Undue because it slants the article toward an insignificant current event; no one was hurt; the damage was maybe $25; no one will remember this incident six months from now, much less ten years.

To include this incident violates WP:NPOV which requires that an article represents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. This incident is not significant and including it distorts the proportionality principle of Wikipedia policies. Obviously it is an insignificant speck which has nothing whatsoever to do with the millions of people in the Tea Party movement. Lose it. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We can speculate all day, but IMO, if, 10 years from now, the Tea Party is discussed, and the specific topic is violence associated with the Tea Party, the targeting of a Congressman will still be significant event.

You may agree with Malke, but as it stands, consensus has sided against his objection. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to re-check Wikipedia policy, but it's possible that an opinion by you and the pet mouse in your pocket vs everyone else, does not represent a consensus ... at least not one in your favor. Freedom Fan (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit (?) but maybe a good external link.

[This removed edit] was a bad one but looking at the given citation there, I think the site could be of value for the external link section. Please discuss.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Supporters/opponents of the movement in the media

Alright, this is necessary to put back in. Any encyclopedia worth it's salt would mention the important media figures who either rally/support/are supported by the movement or who criticize/are noted opponents of the movement. We could trim it down to it's most visible supporters/opponents, though. Which would be Beck/Malkin/Hannity/Armey/Bachmann/Gingrich/Palin/Huckabee/Ingraham/Coulter/Boortz/Farrah, who all actively, consistently, and strongly support it, and Olbermann/Maddow/Stewart/Sullivan/Krugman/Maher/Garafalo/MoveOn/Marshall/Sanchez/Shuster/Moulitsas, who all actively, consistently, and strongly oppose it. The fact that we don't have this paragraph is a travesty, and it needs to be put back in ASAP.

The protests have been derided by commentators such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, talk show host Leslie Marshall, New York Times columnist and Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, author Andrew Sullivan, liberal public policy advocacy group MoveOn.org, political satirist Jon Stewart,, Thomas Frank, and comedians Bill Maher and Janeane Garofalo Conversely, the protests attracted support from and been promoted by conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck,, Glenn Reynolds, Laura Ingraham,, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and Neal Boortz.former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, rock guitarist and political activist Ted Nugent, actor Jon Voight, country musician John Rich, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin , former congressman Tom Tancredo, representatives Michele Bachmann and Steve King, and senator Jim Demint.

Don't forget Leftist icon Noam Chomsky in an interview with Pravda, suggesting the Tea Party folks are like Nazis. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky has nothing to do with this as he is not "the media". He has a view on almost all (if not every) political subject and those should stay mostly on his own page unless there is enough weight (which needs to be decided by RS's) that warrants any inclusion here. But for that, you have to do your research first and start a separate thread/section.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) And then of course we have to distinguish between "real" supports and the "jumping on the wagon" one's. Likewise, we then have to separate the media pundits into two groups: The ones that openly reject the Tea Party movement and the ones who just report and opinionate critically about the movement. Is that what you had in mind? If so, let's stuff everyone in the right group (if it is possible and really sooooo encyclopedic as you think).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivalent on this, as long as it is very well-sourced. However, I must admit that, in one respect, I was glad to see the paragraph go; I found all of that blue wikilink text highly annoying for some reason. Maybe I'm not the only one ... if the paragraph must be reinstated, such a high-density of wikilinks may not be the best course. BigK HeX (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If reintroduced (at all), there is no way it can be edited to the article as laid out and proposed above. I think I made that clear in my previous post. Furthermore, there are always pundits that support or oppose or just report on events w/o voicing a clear pro or against agenda in general. They usually stick to one recent event and we can't draw our own conclusions out of the information we have. Where there are clear positions (and by clear I mean clarified by the person in question) we can (if we choose so), add one or two sentences about it. No more and maybe no less; The latter is a matter of consensus.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I could agree with the notion that having the text as proposed above (with little elaboration) would be problematic. BigK HeX (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

MCK, we took it out for one thing because, like BigK HeX said, it's overloaded with the wikilink thing. And for another, it reads better without it. The paragraph is more coherent without the distraction of that roll call.Malke2010 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And seriously, Ted Nugent? I'm with BigK HeX on this. Also, we made room because the section was too big, had a lot of irrelevant peeps mentioned and so cutting it down made room for the polls, the new section on incidents, etc. Why did the page get shut down again?Malke2010 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are no supporters besides the proposer this seems to be a "beating a dead horse" case. Would that be an accurate description considering that this info was in the article before and rejected?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@IP 216..... Please look at the above thread and the edit history of the article for the "shut down" reason; or ask further questions at the mentioned section if you're still not sure. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been acknowledged before that the section was bloated. Right now it has the main points about the media bias. Same thing with the astroturfing. I can see the reason for the lock down. Same old story, different day.Malke2010 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no movement

Ed Rendell told Politico. †TE†Talk 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed says stuff like that. Ed Rendall is actually a cool guy. He's teflon coated in Pennsylvania. He was the Mayor of Philadelphia and now he's the Governor of Pennsylvania. People like him. He's never been afraid to say what he thinks and that could be the reason. Also, he's none too worried about getting reelected since he can't run again because of term limits. He's very practical, very straightforward. He's huge in the Irish/Italian Catholic community back there. You always know what you're getting with Ed. And no scandals, etc.Malke2010 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Rendell is pretty cool, straight forward. He's one of the few democrats that does Fox News, obviously many other dems avoid them like the plaque. Since you bring up term limits, I'm kinda interested if he has any other political ambitions, or is it back to the private sector. Not many politicians go back willingly. Anyways, I was just tinkering with this article and noticed this was already added in the 'Responses' section. I have no clue who added it. †TE†Talk 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Ed is young enough that he'll be around for awhile. Maybe run for the Senate. He could beat Arlen Specter like a drum. But it's primary season, and Ed would have to declare now because I believe Specter is up for reelect in November. In my opinion, he'd make a good president. Malke2010 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, he's so awesome that we should dedicate at least several more kilobytes of typing to his greatness, because that's way more interesting than the article related to this talk page.72.201.251.230 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong geographic caption on image

The protest photo at the top of the article is not at the Capitol. It appears to be at Freedom Plaza, around 12th and Penn. NW. Jkatzen (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not from the area but sounds like you might have a good eye. The description at the file's page says "Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C". So maybe a quick revision is in order. Simply "in Washington D.C." or something similar.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Taxpayer March on Washington says: "was a Tea Party protest march from Freedom Plaza to the United States Capitol that was held on September 12, 2009"

{{editprotected}} Adding the template a little prematurely but this is an easy enough fix:

"Protesters during the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009." as the caption for the top image.Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Multi level marketing

The plan in the UK, is to deal with the "Amway"-leadership-on one given day, around Europe, if we can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.235.197 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Locked down again

• 12:24, May 26, 2010 EyeSerene (talk | contribs) protected Tea Party movement [edit=sysop] (expires 17:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 17:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)
• 00:31, May 17, 2010 King of Hearts (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Tea Party movement [edit=sysop] (expires *05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 05:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Full protection: dispute. using TW) (hist)
• 12:54, April 8, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) protected Tea Party movement [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:54, 8 May *2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)
• 11:04, March 26, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Tea Party movement [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (dropping to semi-protection for what's left of the 2 week protection) (hist)
• 13:40, March 16, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) protected Tea Party movement [edit=sysop] (expires 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)
• 06:30, February 25, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) protected Tea Party movement [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism: steady IP soapboxing) (hist)

Just thought I'd drop by and post the protection log. Does anyone wish to opine? †TE†Talk 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it is for a decently long time, so that editors hash out their concerns and find a consensus, and we weed out the many "justifications" which are based on personal WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've just dropped the protection to semi - it did seem to be mostly IP socking causing the recent problems. However this can be upped again if necessary (and possibly helpful!) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe full protection would be a good thing, the current content disputes are reverts without compromise. I don't think the UW study is a big issue and can easily be reworked. The coatracking concerns of monkey god seems far more compelling, we could use some uninvolved editors to weigh in. †TE†Talk 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the history; maybe you're right. Full protection restored (with apologies for the to-ing and fro-ing) EyeSerene^talk 20:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is there a significant decrease in talk page discussion corresponding with each of the above listed article page protection time-frames? That seems an unfortunate side effect. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Am I the only one who lol'd when they saw that the criticism section is as big as the rest of the article? 72.201.251.230 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that fact has been a source of amusement for many.Malke2010 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Hedges has a wider insight into the archetypal nature of what's behind the movement

than what's on offer on the page.

Its actually important to include an intellectual or two as it would provide some of the contextual

commentary the wiki page is ultimately lacking.

You'll see where this thread is coming from if you look at the lecture below, or google Chris Hedges.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3470594-chris-hedges-to-poverty-scholars-us-government-lacks-legitimacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.236.115 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one, I laugh out loud every time these idiots are mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.176.66 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentaries on the Movement section

This paragraph contains redundant information.

"Other black conservatives have questioned the Tea Party's inclusiveness. Brandon Brice, a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally, said he was worried about the movement, noting that "It's strayed away from the message of wasteful spending and Washington not listening to its constituents, and it's become more of this rally of hate." Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator, author and tea party supporter said he has seen racism within the Tea Party and has confronted it, and like Brice, thinks leaders of the Tea Party movement must not ignore the issue. McAllister told the Washington Post, "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

This is the redundant part: During an interview on NPR with Michel Martin, columnist Cynthia Tucker and Lenny McAllister discussed racism and the tea parties; Tucker wrote about the interview, concluding that McAllister's take on racism was that he’d seen enough racist signs at other tea party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement.[128]

I suggest we delete this. McAllister has already made a forceful and effective statement.Malke2010 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the redundant sentence.Malke2010 13:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents

I moved some sections around so the article is more coherent and has a better flow for the reader.

Contents [hide]

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Background
         o 1.2 Early local protest events
         o 1.3 First national Tea Party protests
         o 1.4 Composition of the movement
   * 2 Tea Party Agenda: Contract from America
   * 3 Political responses
         o 3.1 2010 Election cycle
         o 3.2 The Obama administration
   * 4 Public opinion polls and demographics
   * 5 Commentaries on the movement
   * 6 Criticism
         o 6.1 Claims of bias in media coverage
         o 6.2 Astroturfing claims
         o 6.3 Reports of inappropriate incidents
         o 6.4 Use of term teabagger
         o 6.5 Marvel Comics
   * 7 References
   * 8 Additional reading
   * 9 External links

I put teabagger and Marvel at the end because they seem less relevant. The problem with that is that the photo for teabaggers is large and it breaks into the references section so I deleted it. If you want to re-add it, please see about making it smaller or find another photo that will fit. Also, if somebody could find a picture of Obama giving a speech, that would make a nice addition to the Obama Administration section.

I moved the University of Washington Study to the public opinion polls and demographics where it belongs. That also puts it higher up in the article.Malke2010 14:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned right above, after moving sections around, the teabagger photo is too big. It cuts into the references section. Please see about making it smaller, or find another photo that will fit. Thanks. Malke2010 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It wraps around just fine. Not a valid reason for removal -- it's a problem you have created, and so you can fix it (or not -- I don't really care about that aspect of appearance). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved the pic and added an Obama pic. The pic that was there I moved to 'Commentaries,' since the sign she's holding up is a commentary itself. Malke2010 20:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved Claims of bias in media coverage out of Criticism section. †TE†Talk 04:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you moved this back to Criticism. Why, especially when moving the racist perceptions out of the Criticism? Where you have it (racism of movement) now probably needs a sub-section header in Commentaries of the movement. †TE†Talk 16:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it back.Malke2010 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Before and After. I think it's an obvious improvement and can't imagine any basis for reverting back. I've made this move at least 3 times and the diffs help to explain my rationale. [8][9][10] Thoughts? †TE†Talk 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The [11] in Reports of inappropriate incidents is just begging to be "balanced". Maybe we should try to head this off. †TE†Talk 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does a comment questioning the incident need to be balanced? The incident, which has never come up with any proof of the claims, is balanced with the comment by Sowell. Are you saying that this article is really all about making claims against the Tea Party Movement and therefore any comment that speaks up for it is to be balanced? I should think it would be the other way round.Malke2010 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You changed it a couple minutes after I posted the comment. Maybe you read it, maybe you read my mind or vice versa. It looks a bit better now, but you moved it up and used the whole quote directly addressing the reports of inappropriate incidents before that dedicated sub-section. †TE†Talk 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

primaries

[12].Malke2010 03:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is odd and entertaining, "random dude" doesn't stand a chance against DeMint. Don't know what it has to do with the tea parties, though. †TE†Talk 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that the "random dude" has a pending felony and might be a republican plant.[13] †TE†Talk 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

house reps comments

The house republicans made the statement because of course they'd say that. Otherwise they'd look like they were condoning racism. Adding these comments is OR and is meant to make it appear that there is credibility to the claims. There is not. The Thomas Sowell comment is balancing what the CBC is claiming. Everybody knows that if there were evidence it would have received wide play on the websites and news channels. There's nothing there. I read where Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, was there recording on his cell phone. He's not claiming he heard anything either. Adding these comments by the House Reps is POV pushing and OR.Malke2010 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of interesting theories there, Malke, but we need to stick with sourced content. Sowell's comments do not balance anything; he wasn't there, he's spouting his version of the tired "it ain't on YouTube, so it didn't happen!" rationale; etc. At least the house reps were there that day. You claim there is no credibility to the reports of slurs, but you seem to forget there were several eyewitnesses -- but I won't deny you to the right to your opinion. Everyone knows that if there were evidence recorded by the tea partiers about tea partier misbehavior, it would never find its way into the public domain -- why incriminate themselves? I read where Congressman Jackson, Jr., was there hours after the slurs occurred, too, and yes, he did have a camera in case the slurs were used again. Adding the comments by the house reps does push the POV that no one there condones racial slurs, and in large crowds shit happens, but shouldn't overshadow the actual debate - but we wouldn't want that in the article now, would we? Too reasonable? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any source that shows the House Republicans were present at the rally and heard any slurs.Malke2010 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

U of W study

This study, as I have pointed out in the edit summary, is not a national study. It is limited to seven specific states. As such it cannot be used to depict the movement as a whole. It is a violation of WP:OR. Arzel (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Added to the WP:OR noticeboard [14]. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This kind of statistical manipulation can be used against any group: check for acceptance of enough groups/causes/positions, find one that the target group favors and is unpopular... or disfavors and is popular. Especially if you pick a demographic. Especially since teabaggers are not a formal group... anyone who chooses to be a teabagger is one.- Sinneed 02:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Especially since teabaggers are not a formal group... anyone who chooses to be a teabagger is one."

Keeping it classy, eh? †TE†Talk 03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I fear I don't understand.- Sinneed 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I still don't understand the meaning of your comment. My understanding is there are people who find that ad hominem attack to be offensive. I'm guessing you already knew that before using it twice in one sentence, though. †TE†Talk 14:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As I made no such attack, I have no clue what you are talking about. "teabagger" ? - I hear tea party supporters and detractors use this regularly. If it offends you, I decline to apologize. If you can explain why it *should be* offensive, I will be happy to listen. I encourage you to focus, however, on the issues of content here. If you do not understand my meaning about the abuse of statistics to attack a group, please feel free to ignore the remark.- Sinneed 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it also has a sexual usage. If this is the meaning the word evokes for your, and the cause for your concern, then I will, as a courtesy, not use it on this article page you frequent. But the usage was in no way an attack.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)

LOL, see talk. †TE†Talk 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will propose a version later today that explicity explains the study without any synthesis presentation. I would ask that other editos NOT return the version which makes an implication which is not supported by the study. We can discuss how best to present it at that point. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A consensus has already warned you that the text acceptably represents the source. Raging against consensus is probably not a good idea. You can propose improved text on the talk page here if you like, but the current text is acceptable and can stand until another consensus forms about any newer wording. In the meantime, you may want to accept that consensus has sided against you and refrain from editing that part of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for including this study; I agree with Arzel. The study was local, but the Tea Party movement is national so their results are not statistically significant. Their methods are questionable: How did they decide which handful of states to include in the study?

Also their premise is questionable. What does "racially resentful" even mean? For example, if a white firefighter was denied a promotion or a white student was rejected from medical school, on the basis of skin color euphemistically called "affirmative action", then don't they have a legitimate basis to be "racially resentful". But does that make either of them a "racist" necessarily? So what does that have to do with the "racism" charge used by opponents against the millions of Americans participating in the Tea Party?

Furthermore, the conclusions made by the study are highly subjective. They decided that disagreeing with the statement "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects "racial resentment". However a number of contradictory interpretations are possible. For example, couldn't a black person who thought he deserved "special favors" based upon his skin color, be deemed to be "racially resentful"? Of course. And couldn't a white person, who thought that blacks were equal to whites, disagree that blacks somehow needed "special favors" to have a level playing field? Most certainly because Tea Party members are Conservatives who believe in individual rights and who reject group rights and identity politics.

So this study, from a handful of cherry picked states, is not statistically representative of the millions of people in the national Tea Party movement. The premise, methods, and conclusions used by those who conducted the study are highly controversial and questionable. Therefore the study is in violation of the WP:NPOV and WP:Undue policies; there is no consensus for inclusion and any mention of the study should be removed at once. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, you posted the above as evidence that the U of W study consisted of WP:OR, but instead ended up receiving overwhelming advisement that your argument above is the actual WP:OR. As you may be aware, using any of these personal assessments of "truth" and "accuracy" as the basis for any edits is unacceptable. BigK HeX (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. We have text reflecting an RS. Please stick to addressing THAT issue, instead of irrelevant handwaving about what you feel is "questionable." BigK HeX (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• This section can be edited to reflect the source more precisely, incl. addressing editor's concerns. So where is the problem?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think with proper wording there should be no problem. Guess we'll have some time to tinker with it (1 week, depending on talk page progess). †TE†Talk 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming here from the OR noticeboard, where there is an emphatic consensus that use of the study Arzel is complaining about is not a problem -- certainly not an OR problem. Indeed, the only OR problem here is the fact that those who don't like the study in question are trying to use their own critiques of it as a basis for editing the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy questioned

UNBELIEVABLE. Are the POV pushers here so vain as to not even take the time to review the study or understand what the study ACTUALLY said?

This what the article currently states.

A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole.[70] Critics of this study suggest that while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.[71]

This is what Newsweek says:

Until now, that is. A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

• Notice that the comparison is not between Tea Party Supporters and the rest of the population, but between Tea Party Supporters and Non-Tea Party Supporters. If you actually read the study you can see that this is a sub-sample of the population as a whole. study

This is what the study says about the methodology:

The survey is drawn from a probability sample of 1006 cases, stratified by state. The Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics included seven states, six of which were battleground states in 2008. It includes Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio as the battleground states. For its diversity and its status as an uncontested state, California was also included for comparative purposes. The study, conducted by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Washington, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent and was in the field February 8 - March 15, 2010.

This is what the author of the study says:

Moreover, I make no claim that the data is representative of the country. Rather, they are representative of the states that were sampled. Appropriate weights, based upon the American Community Survey, have been constructed.

The current wording is patently FALSE.

Suggested rewording.

"A study conducted by the University of Washington suggests that Tea Party Movement supporters have a higher probability of be racially resentful than the people that are not Tea Party Movement supporters within the states Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California.[70] Critics state that Christopher Parker, director of the study, was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions, and while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.[71]"

This must be changed now to at least accurately clarify the population and the basic study limitations. Arzel (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Arzel says, "Notice that the comparison is not between Tea Party Supporters and the rest of the population, but between Tea Party Supporters and Non-Tea Party Supporters."

UNBELIEVABLE. Are there people here so vain as to not even take the time to review the study or understand what the study ACTUALLY said? Because, if they did bother to understand the study, they would have known that the study did compare results of Tea Party supporters to non-supporters BUT ALSO compared the results of Tea Party supporters to the more complete group not just limited to non-supporters (and still found the higher racial differences). BigK HeX (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That is NOT TRUE. Please provide evidence within the study methodology to back up your assertation. You have the right to your own opinions, but you do NOT have the right to your own facts. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Arzel. There's not really much left for me to say to you on the matter. While I could waste my time showing you the numbers from the study, I have no inclination to waste effort on issues that DO NOT MATTER. What DOES matter is that -- for the edit that you're disputing -- almost exactly the same text exists in the source. You can continue to believe that your personal research "proves" that it's wrong (even though you're amusingly incorrect), but your personal research still counts for exactly ZERO here on Wikipedia. If you choose to persist, then good luck with that losing battle. BigK HeX (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I will take that as a response that you cannot prove your point, and considering the amount of time you have already made me waste I have little sympathy for you. So either Prove It or stop trying to include it. "Almost exactly the same text" is not the same as "Exact" hence the OR. Arzel (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That I will let you continue to put your foot in your mouth has absolutely nothing to do with whether the text will be included. You can continue to cry "OR! OR!" if you like, but the consensus of the OR noticeboard is overwhelmingly against you. Your sympathy is not needed. Good day. BigK HeX (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a POV pusher and pointed out that this study was flawed. We can definitely keep it with proper wording (didn't think the current version was that terrible). Yes, it's a survey based on conservative and liberal perspectives. Yes, it's conducted from an extreme liberal's perspective. Yes, the underlying argument is individualism vs. collectivism, equal rights vs. social justice. Sure, the idea of racial resentment is in the eye of the beholder. All these points shouldn't effect the relevance of it. We can easily point out that the survey is marginal (7 states). This small sampling in no way disqualifies it from inclusion. I would also avoid naming the director of the study, or naming the separate states involved. A summary style should be sufficient. We can work on a version that is NPOV without undue weight, we have time with the lock down. †TE†Talk 06:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative wordings

Suggested rewording.

A study conducted by the University of Washington suggests that Tea Party Movement supporters have a higher probability of be racially resentful than the people that are not Tea Party Movement supporters within the states Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and California.[70] Critics state that Christopher Parker, director of the study, was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions, and while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.[71]

Arzel (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. The narrow scope of the study is essential to its meaning and the author admits this. It would be OR and POV to extrapolate its conclusions to the entire nation. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... as evidenced on the OR noticeboards, assertions like the above really seem to display a difficulty in applying policy. "OR" and "POV" are not Wikipedia codewords for you to use when you mean, "I think it's wrong." BigK HeX (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the source, then comment on the substance of what I said, rather than continue to engage in goofy personal attacks. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While giving larger prominence to the assertions of an op-ed piece might be a great idea, I'd propose something like this:

A study of seven states conducted by the University of Washington found within these states that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole. Data showed that Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population (even when controlling for partisanship and ideology) upon being presented with questions typically used to measure racially hostility,[70] such as whether the respondent believed Blacks and Latinos are intelligent. Additionally, the study also included questions designed to better gauge modern racism. The director of the study concluded that, "While it's clear that the tea party in one sense is about limited government, it's also clear from the data that people who want limited government don't want certain services for certain kinds of people." Critics of this study suggest that while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.[71]

Let me know what you think. BigK HeX (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)\\

There is NO statistical significance stated within the study. You CANNOT make a claim against the entire population. Arzel (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While we may agree on inclusion, your version is beyond POV. †TE†Talk 06:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a fair conclusion ... though it'd be easier to assess, if you were to elaborate on what you deem to be excessive. BigK HeX (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First, would this "(even when controlling for partisanship and ideology)" parentheses be involved? If so, it would be against good WP:MOS, not to mention other issues. Also, they are not polled against the population, they are compared to other respondents. I could go on, but it seems pretty apparent that your proposed version is unacceptable, on many different levels. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but... †TE†Talk 07:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

lol ... you don't have to worry about offending me with honest an honest and reasoned critique. Feel free not to cut short your concerns.

As for your concerns ... it is possible that the parenthesized sentence contains poor phrasing, per WP:MOS. That seems to be a trifle though.

I could use a bit more elaboration on the population versus respondents issue. Polls are used as indicators of the population. I don't think this wording is unusual to express poll results.

Also, a hint on any of the other major issues could prove helpful to me. BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) OK, lol for those who are lost. You think I'm trifling? Please tell me how. I am rapidly losing confidence in your opinion. I understand that some people may get confused as to the presentation of polls on Wikipedia. Luckily, there is a wealth of accepted polls to reference for the baffled editor. As you may know, the study proves that the Tea Party is largely conservative. In know, shocking, right? It also proves that their figure shows, even as they account for conservatism and partisanship:

• "support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful. Also, Democrats are 15 percent less likely than Republicans to be racially resentful. Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."

For those who didn't catch the translation:

• The University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality, believes that conservatives are 23% more racially resentful than non-conservative respondents. They base this on their own perceptions of what racial resentment entails. According to their opinion, democrats are 15% less likely than republicans to have racial resentments defined by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. They also find that self-described tea partiers are 25% more likely to be racially resentful than non-supporters of the movement. Apparently, it's a secret that tea partiers are largely conservative, and that (likely racist) liberals believe them to be racially resentful.

I have to ask... what does this have to do with inclusion, Hex? †TE†Talk 08:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty fuzzy as to what you're trying to convey in the above response. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in my responses that referred to you as "trifling." BigK HeX (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing at all wrong with that clause about controlling for partisanship and ideology -- this is standard fare in social science statistical models. It's not even poorly phrased -- again, perfectly standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you are trying to convey? †TE†Talk 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know -- and that's part of the problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The controlling for partisanship and ideology aspect is not needed. BigK has misunderstood what the sourcing and the study says. There are Not two different questions, there is one primary question, and Newsweek added that the question was controlled within their description. Furthermore, the comparison groups are between supporters and non-supporters, this is made clear in the study. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@ ThinkEnemies

If the objections to my proposal are supposed to be based on angst over the phrase "even when controlling for partisanship and ideology," I probably should point out that I ripped that exact phrase [verbatim] from the source. Hell, my proposed text above actually is a collection of near direct cut-and-pastes from the source, done precisely so that we could avoid objections like this. I did restate some of the ideas (which is probably how the poor WP:MOS issues were introduced), but my proposed text is certainly a conscientious reflection of the assertions within the source. BigK HeX (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have also ripped exact quotes from the actual source. Here is were the "controlling for partisanship and ideology" quote originates

• "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful. Also, Democrats are 15 percent less likely than Republicans to be racially resentful. Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."

I don't know how Newsweek used it, but I see none of this in your version. As I've said from the start, Conservatism = Racial Resentment, Tea Partiers = Conservatives, according to the opinion of WISER. There is nothing wrong with that, it shouldn't be hard to present that message. Also, I'd like to point out that Arzel is absolutely correct that "the comparison groups are between supporters and non-supporters, this is made clear in the study." All that population talk is misunderstood and misplaced, and not mentioned or even implied in the survey. †TE†Talk 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Newsweek article, combined with the U. of Washington study and others, seems to be significant referencing to the fact that tea partiers often hold more racist views than the public as a whole (you could also add the statistic from the NYT about many tea partiers thinking Obama doesn't care about white people). On another topic, why isn't there any mention of Obama in the lead? Also, with regard to the people who question the neutrality of article due to the inclusion of a seperate criticisms section...the article would be much less neutral without a critisms section, because the tea party is not only criticized from the left, but oftentimes the center as well. Criticisms section should be cleaned up, but should stay. That's my two cents on the Tea party Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@ ThinkEnemies. It's not really relevant to the edits here, but I'll get into the primary source for a bit, since your opinion has been helping to advance progress. I'll note that the study's director is quite specific in his conclusion that Tea Party "resentment" is not simply a function of general "conservative values." While he does make sure to convey that ideology does matter in the Tea Party analysis, he also is clear that, in his conclusion, the two should not be conflated; he describes specifically how the data shows that, even compared to other conservatives, Tea Partiers have an increased rate of stating opinions like "minorities could just work harder," etc. BigK HeX (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That belief could also be due to age. There are other studies out there that show older Americans, especially oldest Baby Boomers and G.I. generation adults associate hard work with success. When they see failures they tend to think you are just not working hard enough. It doesn't have to mean they are being racist.Malke2010 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be a lot of things. But, when experts examined data like only a ~third of certain Tea Partiers agreeing that "blacks were intelligent" they came to the conclusion covered by the Newsweek article and other sources. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other studies on the demographics that make up the tea party movement should also be included. One study making a judgment based on a smaller population within the larger study population doesn't sound right. I'll email the study peeps and ask them about it.Malke2010 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This study did not look at members of the Tea Party Movement. It asked your support of the Tea Party and then grouped into supporters and non-supporters. Someone may be a supporter of the Tea Party without actually being a member. Care must be given not to give the interpretation that they are one in the same. Arzel (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"This study did not look at members of the Tea Party Movement" because there is no such thing, by definition. There is no "Application for Membership" to the movement. You can join one or more of the various groups of supporters, but there is no standard definition of "membership". Care must be given not to play with semantics just because it is convenient to do so. Since there is no actual pigeon hole in which to place the study participants, separating by level of support or non-support is the only accurate way to categorize the respondents. You can call the Tea Partiers "supporters" or "backers" or "true believers" or "enthusiasts" or "sympathizers" (all of which have been used by the above cited sources), but you cannot say the "study did not look at members of the Tea Party" just because they don't have a formal membership. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a study that looks at supporters verus non-supporters is that the results are then applied to the people who are actual tea party members, yet they were not in the study. I support what the National Organization for Women is about, but I don't give them money, I've never gone to a rally, I don't make policy, I don't do anything except passively support them. So to take my personal views on religion, race, politics, etc. and apply them to members of NOW would be inaccurate. If they really wanted to know what these people believe, the Un. of Washington researchers should have studied them by contacting the various tea party organizations directly.Malke2010 13:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"actual tea party members"? There is no such thing. There are only supporters and non-supporters. Your Nat'l Org for Women example is inappropriate because "NOW" has a defined membership, defined chapters, defined leadership, and even a President -- the Tea Party movement does not. As for the study, a supporter's level of involvement isn't an issue, whether they passively agree with the TP's stated positions, or whether they are parading around with a sign and tea bags dangling off their hat -- if they are a supporter, then that is the category in which they were placed.

As for your suggestion that the UofW should have contacted "various tea party organizations directly" to learn what supporters believe? No, this is a scientific study, not a platform for propagandizing, so it requires a non-specific participant pool. Besides, going to specific "organizations" sets up the automatic disclaimer that "oh, that organization is just a fringe part of the movement, and doesn't represent the "real" movement..." Besides, various "organizations" in the movement can't even agree on certain platform points, or agree to join a National Federation or not, or agree on political positions. When studying a movement that does not have defined membership criteria and is quantified simply by you're either with us or against us, then categorizing participants by level of support is very accurate. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Studying oranges will not tell you about apples. This is a tangential study at best and not worth arguing over. See below.Malke2010 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and completely incorrect. The study about the tea partiers is anything but tangential, although I do understand why some people would rather not have its findings conveyed. This is not an oranges & apples situation. This is the discovery of some rotten apples in the apple-barrel, and a weak attempt to convince people that the rotten ones must be oranges. Maybe we should go back to defining them as "fringe". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See suggestion below.Malke2010 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

From the author of the study.

Another reason to proceed with caution is that I don't have an item that directly measures tea party membership. Indeed, support for the tea party isn't the same as accounting for group membership much less group identification, both if which tend to powerfully predict attitudes and behavior. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that I've underestimated the effect of the tea party on political attitudes, and will likely do so in future analysis on its effect on political behavior. [15]

We cannot equate support of the movement to be equal to being an actual member of the movement, regardless of how membership is defined. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying. The investigators conducting the study do not have a way to measure the TP "membership", because there is no membership, so measuring the feelings of the TPs supporters (note, all tea partiers fall into this category) is the most accurate method of measurement. Also, I've fixed your quote (above) to reflect the emphasis added by the author of the study. The author feels the racial resentment indicated by the study may even be "underestimated". Xenophrenic (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what the authors said. He said that he did not include an item to define membership. The author is saying that you cannot use this study as a proxy for Tea Party Members. He also did not say that he thought the resentment may be "underestimated" he said he didn't know one way or the other. Seriously, your attempt to twist entirely the words of one simple paragraph does not lead credence to your perspective. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what the author said. He did not say he "did not include" an item to define membership. He said he "doesn't have an item that directly measures tea party membership." You do realize that his actual words are in that blockquote just 3 paragraphs above, for everyone to read, right? Without your spin, no less. There isn't a defined "membership", so there isn't a way to measure what doesn't yet exist. He goes on to indicate that if there were a way to categorize the tea partiers beyond just "supporters" and "strong supporters", but as actual "members", that the study results would show an even more pronounced effect of the Tea Party on racial attitudes. That is what he is cautioning us about. He believes it's entirely possible that he has underestimated the effect of the tea party. It sucks when his actual words are right there for everyone to read, eh? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He never said there wasn't a something that he could include, only that he didn't have an item in the survery. What he actually meant is open to interpretation, which is exactly what you seem to be doing. As for your second sentence, you are categorically wrong. He didn't say that there would be an even more pronounced effect, he said it was plausible that you might. It certainly does suck when the actual words are right there and people like you still try to change what they say. Arzel (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Arzel, it is not open to interpretation. As Wikipedia editors, we have to stay with what the sources convey. As a refresher for you, here are the actual words of the lead investigator in the study:

Another reason to proceed with caution is that I don't have an item that directly measures tea party membership. Indeed, support for the tea party isn't the same as accounting for group membership much less group identification, both if which tend to powerfully predict attitudes and behavior. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that I've underestimated the effect of the tea party on political attitudes, and will likely do so in future analysis on its effect on political behavior. [16]

With no way to measure a nonexistent "membership" in the tea party, the study used the level of support of the tea partiers instead. Lucky for the tea partiers, lest the bad news conveyed by the study be found to be underestimated. You can accept what the sources say or not, but attacking editors won't change what the sources say. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "underestimated" in this context. The relationship between his findings could be stronger or weaker. He doesn't have any metric in his study which could be used to imply that it was stronger. None of this really matters, the primary issue is that his wording of the questions (and by his own admission) can not be extrapolated out to imply that a "Supporter" equals a "Member". Is there a relationship? Most certainly there would be, and I wouldn't be suprised if it had an r >= .80. Arzel (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. As the level of measurable support for the tea party increased through moderate to strong to (hypothetically) "membership", so did the level of measurable racial resentment. That is clear from the interview from which the above paragraph is excerpted. Of course there is no actual "membership" category to measure, but if there were, we would find (by his own admission) that he has underestimated the levels of racial resentment. But you are correct that none of that really matters. Speculating how the numbers would change if a "tea party membership" actually existed is interesting, but that isn't what we are discussing. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit of a late reply, but you really don't seem to understand the relationship between statistical correlation. It is not a one way street, if his interpretation where as you seem to believe then that statistical finding would be that the measurement is the minimum value (ie, it can only go up). However, with statistical testing the point estimate (measurement of racial resentment as a function of movement support) is a value which has a certain degree of probability of falling bewtween two values (confidence interval). Now he may believe that the relationship (correlation) is stronger than what he found, but that doesn't mean that it would be. If it were then he would simply state that the relationship is at least this level, or use that statistical terminology that he is 95% confident that the minimum level of relationship is some level. No PhD Statistician would ever make such an absolute statement though, because no other PhD Statistician would let him get away with it. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"...you really don't seem to understand the relationship between statistical correlation" ... and? What I really don't seem to understand is incomplete sentences. Statistics, trends and estimates based on statistical trends I understand completely. Back to discussions about article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Finding consensus on this issue

It's time for the arguing to end and for editors to start finding common ground. If you look at the overall weight in the article, the content is more about what people are saying about the tea party movement rather than what the people inside the movement, the actual tea party members who lobby congress, go to rallies, put up blogs, etc., are doing. It's also the reason the edit war/page shut down cycle has repeated itself three times now. The point of the article should be more about what got the tpm started, what the issues are, and what effects it is having on legislation, elections, etc. I think it's time to start looking for news articles that cover these areas and to start incorporating them into this article. More TPM, less 'studies' and barbecue grills.Malke2010 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Another way of saying the above is offered here.Malke2010 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More news articles, less scholarly investigation? Can't imagine why the former would be considered preferable. What academics have to say about the Tea Party movement on the basis of normal academic research is perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, in an encyclopedia article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the comment says.Malke2010 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a reference to where you suggested "less 'studies,'" in particular. BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, prob. The point is, it's become a circular argument and if everybody focuses on something else for a while, it will cool down and then it will be easier to address. Know what I mean?Malke2010 02:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original complaint (by ThinkEnemies).... TE quoted the study, "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment...."

And then stated, "I don't know how Newsweek used it, but I see none of this in your version."

I would think the above quote is pretty well captured in my proposed edit, "Data showed that Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population (even when controlling for partisanship and ideology) upon being presented with questions typically used to measure racially hostility" BigK HeX (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to repeat a false statement does not make it true. The comparison groups were not Tea Party supporters versus the rest of the population. The author was quite clear. The comparison groups were (actually) those strongly in support of the Tea Party versus those strongly disproving the Tea Party. Newsweeek left out the qualifier "strongly". Arzel (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some comparisons discussed in the Newsweek article do take that form. But others compare supporters to the rest of the population. The overall conclusion of the study's author is quoted as follows: '"The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study.' This really couldn't be clearer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, I think. The C. Parker statement should be the basis for any statement. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Arzel's (wrong) complaint, then I believe the most applicable Newsweek quote is the one stating, "Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population". BigK HeX (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Newsweek article, but the author is very specific. There is no baseline (rest of the population) to use for comparison purposes. Read his interview on 538.com for an understanding of what the study says and does not say. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you back to original research in asserting that the study and/or the reporting on the study are wrong? This is getting old. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What original research? It is perfectly acceptable to use the primary source for description of the study parameters. 538.com's interview with the author is a reliable source. I would ask you what is more reliable, the authors own words, or the summarization done by Newsweek? Arzel (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What original research?? Seriously? Your personal analysis of the data IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you continue to base any further edits on your OR, then I'm pretty sure that will be regarded as a disruption worthy of intervention. In any case, your cherry-picking of the "author's own words" is definitely not more reliable than Newsweek's summarization. BigK HeX (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever claimed that someone elses interpretation of what an author said is more reliable than what the actual author said. I think I will just ignore you from this point forward. You are a POV warrior that cannot work in an colaborative manner. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominems about "POV pushing" from the guy who keeps putting together WP:OR to try to push his (wildly inaccurate) points. How amusing.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but I don't even know what is meant by 538.com -- when I put that in my browser, I get a site that says domain name for sale. Doesn't seem exactly reliable... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The 538.com source being referred to is here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have linked the interview a minimum of three times between here and the OR Message board, if you cannot go to that article and read the interview with the author than I don't know what I can do to help you understand. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS - Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. (i.e.; Newsweek) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the most important point to note is that, even considering Arzel's original research, he still has nothing that disputes the (accurate) summarization given in the reliable source we're using. He continues to focus on one part of the study's results and apparently thinks that if he emphasizes only that portion vigorously enough, that we must ignore any other parts of the study as well. BigK HeX (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To keep the size down, I don't think we should use Newsweek's interpretation. If we do, then why not add Joan Walsh[17], or Cathy Young[18], or Leonard Pitts Jr.[19], or... I would like to keep the weight down. Maybe something like this:

• In 2010, a multi-state survey conducted by Professor Christopher Parker of the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than non-supporters. Parker concluded that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful." In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."[20]

Then possibly a sentence (or two) to counter. †TE†Talk 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Newsweek article has offered secondary-source coverage of the study results, while many others have offered only commentary and opinions. I haven't checked the links given above, but I recognize at least one of those as commentary from a political website. We should stay with news articles from reliable sources with editorial control; there shouldn't be much disagreement here unless two such reliable sources convey conflicting information. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek is a commentary and opinion magazine largely from the liberal point of view. They used to be more of actual news reporting, but they since their reorganization last year, they have redefined their purpose. By your logic we should not use Newsweek. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Newsweek article is a reliable source, so there's good reason to use it. My concern with the above proposal is that it would only serve to obfuscate a point that Parker specifically notes ... namely, that on "a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility....Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.." Parker specifically explains that "conservatism" and "Tea Party support" should not be conflated given the evidence that he found. BigK HeX (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But given the Newsweek article as an RS, I'm still a bit curious to know how my proposed wording is problematic, since it's basically a cut-and-paste of the Newsweek article. BigK HeX (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Because their interpretation is unnecessary, there are many different interpretations by a number of RS's. In trying to avoid choosing who's opinions are the most relevant, I wouldn't be opposed to just using my current proposal, as is. I was hoping someone would make that suggestion first, but I'll just lay it out there. †TE†Talk 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is a good point to start from. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Less tea party backers and more tea party participants. A reader who wants to know about the tea party movement is not better served by what self-proclaimed tea party backers think. It seems to be more about including this study in order to make the tea party movement appear to be racially motivated and there's no evidence that is the foundation of the movement. It has to do with the money lavished in the stimulus package on pork barrel spending, and the foreclosures, and the FED policies. The article needs more of that and far less of these exhaustive efforts to make these people look like race hating nutters.Malke2010 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't separate backers from supporters from participants from sympathizers -- and they are all "self-proclaimed", with the only distinction between them being their level of support and participation. Some may only have the time and energy to vote as a tea partier; others may also display a bumber-sticker or send in a $10 donation to a local organization claiming to be a tea party; still others may attend rallies, participate in online discussions or even form their own groups and websites. Now we have studies showing a correlation between the level of tea party support and increased racial resentment, and the reason to include it in the article is to inform the reader of this correlation. As for statements like "there's no evidence that is the foundation of the movement": no one claimed such a thing, and the study content doesn't say that (see strawman). As for spending and taxes and other fiscal concerns of the movement, these studies don't detract from that. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can separate them. If the study was reversed, and it said something positive, nobody here would be arguing to include it. This is not a study of tea party movement participants at all. This is a tangential study with the goal of eliciting the results they got. This article is loaded with negatives about the tea party movement. Anybody can see that. And even the 'populist' movement has been deleted after it was added with consensus. There is no relevance to this study. It does not define the tea party movement. Racial resentment has nothing to do with the protests against the stimulus package, the foreclosures, and the policies of the Federal Reserve that helped fuel the financial meltdown.Malke2010 13:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." - The secondary reliable sources, and the study investigators, appear to disagree with your opinion. I agree with you that it isn't positive news. I also agree with you that polling studies are conducted to produce results. I understand that you are not fond of the results from this latest study. Rather than repeatedly offering your opinion about the study, can you provide secondary reliable sources covering the study, like the above linked Newsweek article, that are more in line with your thinking? By reliable secondary sources, I mean something other than the many commentary and opinion pieces that pop up adding their own spin to the data. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest to continue the assertion that Newsweek is the hard reporting (my term) interpretation of the survey. They are just as partisan and opinionated as the others. I was about to compare them with Joan Walsh's piece until realizing it wasn't what I linked. As it turns out, I stumbled upon Christopher Parker's article (in Salon) with a defense aimed at RCP's criticism. This is far more useful. As for hard reporting and data analysis would go, you'll find it at 538.com. That site's author is also partisan, but much less opinionated than Newsweek. I also like how their readers questioned the study and elicited responses and explanation of methodology from the professor. †TE†Talk 22:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A Newsweek article qualifies as reporting, whereas opinion and commentary pieces are ... well, opinion and commentary. I'm sure every living soul on earth has opinions, including Newsweek journalists and their oversighting editors, but that is not relevant as far as Wikipedia's sourcing policies go (see WP:V). I'm not a big fan of polls, personally. It has been famously said that polling data can be made to say whatever you want it to say, with the right interpretation (paraphrased), so to avoid that tangled web, we Wikipedia editors must rely on reliable secondary source reporting on the information from primary sources. The quote in bold print above is from the investigator in the study, and was printed in a reliable secondary source (Newsweek), yet there still seems to be this hurdle some folks have trouble getting over. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek announced itself as a liberal publication some time ago. TE has a point about the lack of 'hard reporting.' They cherry pick, but they did add rebuttals by actual tea party members. And those quotes can easily be added to the article.Malke2010 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A Newsweek article qualifies as reporting, whereas opinion and commentary pieces are ... well, opinion and commentary. I'm sure every living soul on earth has opinions, including Newsweek journalists and their oversighting editors, but that is not relevant as far as Wikipedia's sourcing policies go (see WP:V). So while it is completely irrelevant to this issue, I'd still appreciate seeing a link to support your assertion that "Newsweek announced itself as a liberal publication some time ago", for my personal edification. I'm fairly certain you can not provide a link to support your "They cherry pick" opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checking here: still no evidence supporting the assertion that, "Newsweek announced itself as a liberal publication some time ago"? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:V states that "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view'." So, can opinion pieces and commentary be considered reliable sources? Yes, WP:RS states that "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." That covers WSJ for sure. "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." This should cover RCP. If someone contested that, Chris Parker addressing RCP's column directly, and RCP's experience in data and polling would tip the scale. I'd still prefer an attempt to just use the study/survey, though. †TE†Talk 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A Newsweek article qualifies as reporting, whereas opinion and commentary pieces are ... well, opinion and commentary. I'm sure every living soul on earth has opinions, including Newsweek journalists and their oversighting editors, but that is not relevant as far as Wikipedia's sourcing policies go (see WP:V). Some opinion pieces and commentary can be cited as opinion and commentary, not factual content. The Newsweek article, meeting Wikipedia's required standards for fact checking and accuracy, can be cited for statements of fact without attribution. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears we are in agreement that all the secondary sources could be used with certain attributions. †TE†Talk 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said nothing about the useability of any specific sources except the Newsweek article, which can be cited, without attribution, in support of factual content. It does appear we agree on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt at finding consensus

I think this edit of TE's is a good idea. *In 2010, a multi-state survey conducted by Professor Christopher Parker of the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than non-supporters. Parker concluded that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful." In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party." Anybody want to try for consensus on it?Malke2010 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is already being discussed in the section immediately below. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's below is really a discussion on this proposal. I still support it and believe it's the best option thus far. It's directly from the source and nothing is lost in translation. We can add all the secondary sources, but this polling section is too large already. †TE†Talk 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty "lost in translation" as your text specifically confuses Tea Party support with conservatism, despite the study director's specific admonitions against doing that, and the statistics against the broader population seem to be omitted.

It's direct quotes from the study presented in the exact context as it appears. It is also linked in my proposal above this bump, past conversation and the article diff when I removed it to talk. If we are really concerned about Chris Parker's "admonitions", I suggest we remove the population as a whole jargon immediately. This in reference to the numerous times he suggested the study was marginal, only applies to the states it was conducted, and we shouldn't jump the gun (all paraphrasing from memory). †TE†Talk 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's directly from which source? ....the primary source?? BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the primary source. As you know, this is the preferred source when quoting. The secondary sources mostly provide notability and opinion. †TE†Talk 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just double-checking. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A primary source may be cited in support of direct quotes in some cases, but I disagree that primary sources are "preferred" sources. Where a person's directly quoted words could be interpreted in different ways, we should defer to reliable secondary sources for the meaning conveyed. If Parker specifically states that he is correcting, or expanding, on his previous statements, then we could probably use them - with care; otherwise, we should not. From WP:PSTS - Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a useful secondary source which has the following pertinent factoids:

• "Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology."
• "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

And, TE indicates above that another quote available is:

• "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment...."

I think a reasonable restatement of the above assertions might look something like:

In 2010, the study director of a multi-state survey conducted at the University of Washington concluded that, "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed, even with methods designed to eliminate the effects of ideology (such as conservatism).

BigK HeX (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Minus the population of a whole, racially hostility, and care given to ideology. The first two are not in the study, the third needs clarification. †TE†Talk 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Though we might be able to do so, why would we "minus" the part on "racial hostility" when that is a direct quote of the RS? BigK HeX (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire study some time ago, not to mention Parker's words outside of it. The term "racial hostility" was never used. If this is Newsweek's opinion that's one thing, if it's stated as a fact, then we have a problem. Much like the use of "population." †TE†Talk 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "racial hostility" is clearly used. I quote the exact portion from the RS. I understand that you believe you have a good grasp of the primary source, but you're not suggesting that we base edits on your research on the matter, are you? BigK HeX (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to abuse WP:OR with me. All you have to do is attribute "racial hostility" as Newsweek's opinion and you will have no issues. If you are going to treat me as you did Arzel, I would ask what kind of research are you engaging in where falsifications are used in lieu of verifiable facts? Any and every of the secondary sources discussed in this section can be used, my goal is to keep the weight down. Have you shown any ability to compromise, yet? Many other editors have shown an interest to, please join us. †TE†Talk 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not attribute content from Newsweek as "Newsweek's opinion" unless the content is conveyed through an opinion column. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to believe it was Newsweek's opinion instead of glaring incompetence. But, you do have a point. It can however, be countered with the Parker's own (properly quoted) words. †TE†Talk 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is neither opinion nor incompetence. Reading the Newsweek article, and seeing specific quotes that appear nowhere else, it is evident that the bureau chief that wrote that article conversed directly with Parker -- so pending a Newsweek-issued correction, or direct contradiction by Parker, the Newsweek characterization of the study and results would be based on that interaction and considered sound. I understand that Parker has made later statements further describing certain limitations of the study, but has he corrected or countered any significant part of the Newsweek article? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what Parker quote would "counter" the idea that the study utilized "questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility". BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation of what exactly the problem here is. If the problem is the term "racial hostility" then a person would basically have to argue that -- at best -- Newsweek is being misleading with that label ... or at worst that Newsweek fabricated the term. Such an objection would even further imply that measurements of "racial hostility" do NOT actually exist in political science, as stated in Newsweek. I see very little basis for an objection of this sort. With the "population as a whole" bit clarified, the bottom line is that the text proposed is a faithful representation of the reliable secondary source, and -- frankly -- I haven't yet seen a single good reason for disputes with it. BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "care given to ideology"? I'd find it hard to believe it, if you are saying that the elaboration on ideology should be eliminated from the proposed wording when even YOU brought in a quote from the primary source specifically addressing how the study took care to control for ideology? BigK HeX (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I remain consistent on this. A couple percentage points inside the margin of error may be important for some people, we should try to include it as Parker was kind enough to do. †TE†Talk 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I support BigK HeX's proposed text. I'm having a hard time following the thread of this discussion, though -- how is the "margin of error" point a response to the question about ideology? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What parts do you support, specifically? You can't possibly support it as is, not with it containing some strongly contested material from this thread. Like I've said, this shouldn't be so difficult. My proposal is sound. I would even combine it with: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." That's in BigK's version and a proper quote. I'm trying to find consensus, some of us need to be more objective. †TE†Talk 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite your notion that I "can't possibly" support it as it is, I support it as it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then. †TE†Talk 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Still seeking consensus

Let's keep working on it instead of edit warring, again. My battery is running low and I am without a charger. Will be back later. †TE†Talk 12:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit-war about it, then don't delete it when there is no consensus for doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding it. It should not be there without compromise and will result in more edit warring. †TE†Talk 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So then reject the changes made earlier today. Deletion is not an option. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did. First I went back to my proposal, which I believe Arzel added. Then I removed it to continue working towards consensus. I don't have time to bicker with you. I don't know where you are coming from or why you are so animated. Have a nice day. †TE†Talk 12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed the old text there until someone comes up with an actual reason for it not to be. Noticeboard rejected the notion that the text was inappropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a good idea for now, BigK HeX. But remember, it's just an opinion on the OR noticeboard, it's not a stamp of approval. It's not an admin making a ruling on content.Malke2010 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I said the old/current version isn't that bad. I would advise removing "population" because it's not in the study and the author went out of his way to make that clear. †TE†Talk 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's also be clear that "working towards consensus" is not a valid reason for removal, particularly given the noticeboard discussions. I'll add that I got here via the OR/N discussion and consider myself to be a neutral party in this dispute, and it's obvious to me that the arguments of those pushing for deletion are whitewash (or even hogwash). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those comments are anything but neutral.Malke2010 11:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who suggested removing it entirely from the article. I thought it was removed and brought to here prior to the lock down (which wasn't the case). Still don't think we should've been editing it so soon. Also, the version I read took a hard POV turn, definitely not where I believed we're heading. †TE†Talk 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3RR template on my talk page. Now if you are sufficiently amused, will you please remove it for me? †TE†Talk 22:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Templating a regular doesn't sound like neutrality.Malke2010 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the descision that is made, patently false statements cannot stand. Next time the false statements are returned I am taking it to ANI. Arzel (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. No doubt, you'll receive no more satisfaction that you did from your last noticeboard attempt on the same matter. Plugging one's ears and ignoring consensus that doesn't fall your way, is not really how things work here. BigK HeX (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like another round of edit warring/page lock and I don't think either of you want that, so I put in TE's idea. Let it stand for the day and discuss here on talk page. Thanks.Malke2010 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the one ("TE's idea") follows from the other ("let's avoid edit warring"). That just seems like an exercise in faulty logic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked that the edit be allowed to remain for one day. I was specifically addressing BigX HeX and Arzel. By reverting my good faith edit, you are simply making things worse. Please stop being disruptive.Malke2010 19:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not editing in good faith to insert text which you already know is contentious, and has been reverted tot he original the last time you tried it. You're more than welcome to suggest text HERE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand my intention. In the first place, I've never added anything to this study before. I've never edited it before. I saw that you and Arzell were edit warring and I put in TE's edit for one day as a means to stop both of you. I was actually trying to help you. Obviously, I've had a wrong opinion of you all this time.Malke2010 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the assistance in defusing potential edit wars. If you had no indication that the text was contentious, then there's not much problem there --- my apologies for confusing you with someone else. However, I think we've settled on the idea that the current text is the least contentious version to serve provisionally while we come up with alternatives here. Arzel's complaints have already been covered on the noticeboard and rejected there. At this point, his insistence on basing edits on his original research is just disruptive. Certainly, we can work towards a less contentious version of the text, but we probably don't have to accommodate someone's desire to engage in disruptive editing. In any case, sorry about confusing you with someone else. BigK HeX (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Version we all can agree on

• In 2010, Professor Christopher Parker conducted a multi-state survey at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. He concluded that: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed, even with methods designed to eliminate the effects of any ideology.[21] The survey noted that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful." In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."[22] James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal argued that Parker was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions. He opined, "it's possible that agreement with a statement like 'Blacks should do the same without special favors' reflects a resentful spirit, but it could also reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else."[23]

A great deal of care has been given in incorporate all of the proposals. Please, let's consider this resolved. †TE†Talk 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) BigK, this edit summary indicates what I believed to be your objection to the Taranto text. What is your beef with the Parker text? What exactly is the Parker text? Either way, this version is solid and it uses all it could from our proposals. Also, what is this about the best version (my opinion) "pushes misleading text based on a misunderstanding, which itself results from Original Research?" Are you inserting your own WP:OR in objection to verbatim quoting of the study in it's proper context of ideology? †TE†Talk 16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While it would make for a nice bonus, incorporating the various proposals of different Wikipedia editors is not a sufficient, nor a necessary criteria for resolving the issue; and is more certainly not a good resolution when some of the proposed text is simply inaccurate. Even before we're able to consider the balance of the text, we need an accurate representation of the sources, and this version falls woefully short on just that aspect. The conclusion of the study is simple; I have no idea why editors insist on muddling it. BigK HeX (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is your Original Research. I properly quoted the primary source per WP:PSTS. †TE†Talk 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NO. You did NOT "properly quote" the study. You took quotes OUT of context, and then editorialized about them, leading to the quotes being misused to reflect your faulty understanding of the study.

You are more than welcome to explain to us right here, what part of any RS supports this text:

The survey noted that "as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful." In particular, "support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."

Note specifically that your text pushes "Tea Party support" as being a "particular" aspect of "conservatism". Feel free to justify your edit and find any RS supporting this conclusion ... I'll respond when you've quoted the RS for us here. BigK HeX (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As it appears in the primary source, again: "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful. Also, Democrats are 15 percent less likely than Republicans to be racially resentful. Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."

I would be happy to replace "In particular" with "Even so", as used in the study, or "Nonetheless", or whatever else would please you. †TE†Talk 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I'm interested in whether you can provide us with an RS that supports the text which you keep reverting to. (Specifically, your text which implies "Tea Party support" to be a "particular" aspect of "conservatism" ... as opposed to those two things being distinct attributes as explained by Parker who clearly draws a separation between the two because -- from YOUR quote -- Parker's results "account for conservatism and partisanship".) Do you have such an RS? BigK HeX (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are at least two of them included in the discussions above. They are interpretations/opinions and easily met WP:RS standards. Please don't ask to re-re-re-post them, there can be a benefit in you reading the discussions before contesting relevant, properly quoted material. Just a note, I need not prove why my properly quoted (with care per WP:PSTS) material is righteous, per your WP:OR. †TE†Talk 19:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

{EC} You have yet to post a single snippet of an WP:RS that backs up the presentation of Parker's results on "Tea Party support" as being a "particular" aspect of "conservatism", so I certainly am not asking for you to re-re-re-post any of the quotes that do not back your edit (and which, in fact, refute your edit). "Properly quoting" does not involve selectively quoting a primary source to push a conclusion not made by the source ... and this is precisely why WP:PSTS contains the warnings that it does. It's good that you have a new proposal, but before getting to that, I've still asked that you provide justification for the version you've continually reverted to. Please post the RS for us. BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WSJ and RCP both made the case. Did you even read the past discussions? It doesn't matter, I'm not using them in my current proposal, other than Taranto's opinion of Parker's emotions or interpretation of what "agree" or "disagree" can mean in certain instances. The burden of proof is on you and your reckless tagging of the article doesn't help to built consensus. I've been very clear and have been very considerate to your concerns. I've have shown a desire and ability to compromise, you have not. What you are doing here is disruptive. IMO. You have not proven any perceived synthesis in my edits, I just went into detail which flows perfectly with the preceding sentence. Your so-called explanations and inflammatory charges don't hold water. Please look below at my new (even clearer) proposal. Thanks †TE†Talk 19:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Welp .... sounds pretty confusing to me. I asked you present your justification for an edit ... you provided a quote of the primary source that actually disputes your edit. Then you make an inspecific reference to the WSJ and RCP.com, but then also say "I'm not using them in my current proposal". This seems to boil down to there not being an RS presented as of yet to support the edit. Meh. BigK HeX (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit doesn't need support, your disruption needs explaination. I have made it clear my desire to keep the weight down, it doesn't mean I'm conceding a weakness in RS. Your POV pushing need serious attention, IMO. †TE†Talk 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies says, "The edit doesn't need support"

I guess it's enlightening to know how you feel about burden of proof on Wikipedia. BigK HeX (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I do acknowledge that you're putting in effort in trying to accommodate various parts of the text, as proposed by editors. No doubt that you're a pretty level-headed guy (gal). However, in the end, you still hold some belief that "conservatism" is the real reason behind the numbers for the "Tea Party supporters" instead of accepting the ACTUAL conclusions of the study. So long as this misunderstanding of the study's results are perpetuated in the article, there's an accuracy problem, which will continue to impede efforts on this matter despite the graciousness of any of the editors here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And you believe something entirely different. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. There is a difference in our versions. Mine is fair, considerate, balanced, while properly sourced and attributed. Your version has a RS you are quite fond of, no other sources are useful or necessary. That thought process is flawed and your current version is laughable at best, in a world where wiki policies are applied and respected, at least. †TE†Talk 21:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this proposal will help to alleviate your concerns:

• In 2010, Professor Christopher Parker conducted a multi-state survey at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. He concluded that: "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race." After presenting questions typically used to gauge racial hostility, the study found Tea Party supporters to be more racially resentful than the rest of the population as surveyed.[24] The survey states that "even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful [...] Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party.[25] James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal argued that Parker was imputing his own emotional reactions to the questions. He opined, "it's possible that agreement with a statement like 'Blacks should do the same without special favors' reflects a resentful spirit, but it could also reflect a respectful one--a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else."[26] †TE†Talk 19:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to this proposal, your silence is deafening!!! I understand, so many hours and so many edits later, you can't deny the sheer awesomeness of it. Thanks for the compliment, I was a bit concerned you would try to argue against it just for kicks. I respect your common sense and restraint, looking forward to adding this much compromised version to the article. Cheers. †TE†Talk 06:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With your strategic quote cutting, this version has the same problems. BigK HeX (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strategic quote cutting!?! Look at the source below. Do you know how ridiculous that charge makes you look? It is baseless, much like your yelps of OR and SYN. You are acting in bad faith, and attempting game the system. To borrow a quote from you:

"The above seems to get the basic point across, while allowing the opinion pieces to address a few of the poll questions as balance. If anyone has any (VALID!) objections, please list a Wikipedia guideline and then also DETAIL how the guideline may pose a problem for the above text. Please! (If, on the other hand, you have only complaints unrelated to Wikipedia policy and guidelines or you are unwilling to detail the nature of your objections, let's please forego discussion of those.)" I'm still waiting... †TE†Talk 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Even aside from your refusal to meet the burden of proof, I have been QUITE clear as to the nature of the problem with your proposal. Just because you plug your ears, and I now refuse to humor your THIRD(+) attempt to ask the same question that has been asked and answered, doesn't actually mean that my objection has not been detailed. Feel free to read above to the last couple of times you asked, if you care to review my objection.

As for gaming the system, that seems to be YOUR tactic du'jour --- your efforts to delve into irrelevant distraction and mockery seems to have started the day you put together that failed "defense" from your 3RR block. I much preferred the ThinkEnemies that would disagree but at least keep a civil tone. BigK HeX (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be belittling, but if I have to be honest, it is the additions from your proposals which are causing the largest problems with the edit. Despite your reading of (some?) of the primary source, your proposed text continues to mislead about the results of the study. Your proposed text is not an accurate representation of a secondary source, and, unfortunately, it isn't even an accurate representation of the primary source. We do have my version which is undeniably a faithful representation of an RS, and it's getting fairly silly that it can't be used without all of these odd objections. BigK HeX (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That is you own WP:OR, again. I will post my source again for you:

"even as we account for conservatism and partisanship, support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment. We're not saying that ideology isn't important, because it is: as people become more conservative, it increases by 23 percent the chance that they're racially resentful. Also, Democrats are 15 percent less likely than Republicans to be racially resentful. Even so, support for the Tea Party makes one 25 percent more likely to be racially resentful than those who don't support the Tea Party."

I would appreciate your specific original research as to how my version "isn't even an accurate representation of the primary source." Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Provisional text

Under the assumption that consensus fails to fall towards any of the other proposals, then maybe we can consider that -- with little or no tweaking -- the current provisional text for the Parker study can be used.

A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were more likely to be "racially resentful" than the population as a whole within the states surveyed. Of poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, 35% believe that blacks are hardworking, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Tarty. Critics of this study suggest that while it's possible that agreement with statements like "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects a resentful spirit, it also could reflect a respectful one—a confidence that blacks are as capable as anyone else.

The above seems to get the basic point across, while allowing the opinion pieces to address a few of the poll questions as balance. If anyone has any (VALID!) objections, please list a Wikipedia guideline and then also DETAIL how the guideline may pose a problem for the above text. Please! (If, on the other hand, you have only complaints unrelated to Wikipedia policy and guidelines or you are unwilling to detail the nature of your objections, let's please forego discussion of those.) Thanks, all. BigK HeX (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you approved of the addition: "Of poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, 35% believe that blacks are hardworking, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Tarty." I guess you must like it, how accommodating you can be when your POV is satisfied. You were supposed to cry OR and SYN, as you have with additions you DON'T LIKE. You have exhausted your good faith. †TE†Talk 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that we are very close to representing what the study actually says and was reported to have said. I changed "found" to "suggests" as that is what the Newsweek article states in its first sentence describing the study. I am still unsure behind the logic used for the comparison group being the population as a whole within those states. As TE added in a following sentence, the study was limited to only white respondents, and per the author of the study the comparison group is non-supporters. I know BigK likes to point to the "when adjusted for...." sentence as a reference for that aspect, but the first sentence of Newsweek clearly makes the appropriate group comparison that the author later mentions in his interview with 538.com. Arzel (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)