Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

tea party in New York

Tea Party "catching on in liberal New York City. 1 in 5 New Yorkers are tea party supporters." Article also mentions the TP's are not such fans of Paln and Beck.[1].Malke2010 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag at top of article

I'm wondering why we have this tag. It says the article needs to be checked for it's neutrality, but we already have a criticism section that is tagged, and I don't think the whole article has a neutrality problem. I think we could delete the tag, and I'd like to know what others think.Malke2010 16:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Kill the tag. It's useless and unnecessary. †TE†Talk 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With the repeated refferences to oral sex and the use of slang term teabagging , I am sure the article needs fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.52.98 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Populist

The word 'populist' was added by consensus. [2]. Please don't change/delete it without another consensus.Malke2010 13:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, while the term "populist" has been self-applied by tea partiers, this is an Orwellian newspeak definition and has no place in an objective statement on Wikipedia. Both the populism article on Wikipedia and the definition on Wikitionary are not in agreement with the policies advocated by the tea party, and I suspect this is why "populist" lacks a Wikilink in this article, because others would see that the Tea Party has nothing to do with what populism adovcates. The debate above is strictly over whether the words "populist" or "grassroots" is the correct term, but it also reads like it was assembled by people who are pro-tea party trying to come up with the right language for their own movement than a group of Wikipedia editors trying to create a neutral article about the phenomenon. That neither word is appropriate never even enters the discussion. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I know this sucks. There was a conversation. Then another one. And I was happy since it was removed for some time but is now back in. It is obviously problematic or IPs wouldn't continue to remove it. I am not trying to say if the movement is or is not populist. It very well might be in the sense that is similar to "grassroots" and "for the people". However, there are different definitions for populist and the current version causes confusion. Go ahead and say they are populist but explain which definition. The vague label is causing more problems than is necessary. Definitions for populist in wikiworld:
  • 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."
So why not have a line in the lead or the body saying how or which definition is met? POV (recent tag) comes into play with WP:LABEL. I really think this is a confusion issue and not entirely a POV issue but the POV concern shouldn't be ignored either. The consensus was a discussion about grassroots. The poll was nice but it created an ongoing concern. I think the fresh eyes of the IPs might actually be better in this case since they weren't embroiled in a debate over "grassroots". An easy fix is to explain it outside of the first labeling sentence.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that the "populist" label could do with some clarification. BigK HeX (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I did oppose this. I'm surprised that it didn't cause more disruption. Let's load up the many RS's that call these people such, in the lede. They do exist, noticed when I was trying to disregard that label. †TE†Talk 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There are sources which dispute the populist nature as well. This is part of the problem in presenting "populism" as undisputed fact. BigK HeX (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh oops, did I start a duplicate discussion? Sorry about that. It looks like a few editors agree. So is there any room to move the label out of the first line and explain it somewhere else in the lead or the body? Is this a nonstarter for anyone? Are there any suggestions on how to word it if it is a possibility? And I'm not sure if I follow you TE. WP:CITEKILL is not a good solution. Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
At the time, I was the only editor to oppose it. I have to admit that citation overkill is never a concern. While I usually choose not to do it (picking the best), it really can make life a lot easier when editing controversial material. It strikes me that the term "populist" is only found in the lead. I assumed it or "populism" was explained somewhere in the article. Since it is not, every anon that visits this article can and should remove it, consensus or not. If we are to keep it, we must explain it in the body. Then we can decide whether it is lead worthy. †TE†Talk 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been avoiding this page because it just keeps rehashing the same issues. But here is the Wikipedia definition of populism (emphasis added):
Populism, defined either as an ideology (more rarely and uncommonly), a political philosophy or a type of discourse, is a type of political-social thought that juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes".
Populism purports to represent the people. Hope this helps. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really. The version in question being vague isn't based on if it meets a definition but how it meets one of the definitions.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably best to just look at the former consensus. All that was hashed out by RoyGoldsmith who did an excellent job pulling it together.Malke2010 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Using this definition, "populism" appears to make sense, especially with the "... purports to..." qualifier. However, in regards to the Tea Party phenomenon specifically, it doesn't really stand up IMO, and I'd vote against it. First, while Tea Party rhetoric certainly relies on a juxtaposition of the people v. elites, their conclusions almost invariably support the elites and their enterprise. Second, many sound sources are questioning whether the "movement" is earnestly populist in the sense that it is a grassroots or bottom-up movement. By many reliable accounts, it is in fact an astroturfing campaign (I know this is being discussed elsewhere and has a small place in the article). Third, if the use of "populism" here does not match the word's use elsewhere throughout WP - making a wikilink inappropriate - why should we redefine language to fit a non-standard usage? While I won't go so far to invoke Orwellian cliche, it certainly screams POV to me. "Popular" would be quite accurate enough to describe the Tea Party phenomenon, meaning that it is motivated and shaped by popular consumption / discourse without suggesting it is populist or grassroots per se. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well put, DigitalHoodoo. BigK HeX (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"BLP problems" re astroturfing

I'm puzzled by Malke-2010's assertion of BLP problems in the edit summary for this edit -- which particular LP is threatened by the inclusion of that passage? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) If there is to be no reply to the question, the edit will be reverted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit is a partial from the original where the editors wrote an article that Playboy withdrew because there were 'libel claims.' The sources given for the Playboy edit this time around are primary sources by the authors. Including the edit about Koch right after is part of the BLP problem. The original playboy article made some rough assertions about Koch.Malke2010 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else understand this explanation? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I gather, he's saying that the ref for this edit is actually an article that was retracted by the publisher...? Not really sure though. BigK HeX (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to restore this section. I fail to see any BLP problem. The material is properly sourced -- not to the Playboy article but to other sources reporting on the Playboy article. I'll hold off for a bit -- if anyone objects, please say so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you've got non-retracted sources, and the issue is notable, I'd say burden of proof is met to include it. BigK HeX (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The sources I saw were to a primary source by the author on a website and it's his opinion about things and it's not at all sourced. The other concern is that the original article has disappeared from the internet and I think that's because there was a battalion of lawyers behind that, so referring to it here is probably not a good idea. Also, one more thing about it, putting an edit about Koch right after mentioning the article is also not smart. When the writer talks about it, he talks about other people and not Koch, who was the object of the original article. So that is why I removed it---again. Previous edits were much worse and had specifics. It also did not add to anything in the section, just bloated it. And without the original article, and without being able to be specific without possibly making wiki vulnerable, what is the point? Anyway, I wouldn't want my name on that edit.Malke2010 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If there are possible (legal?) BLP problems, I guess the best course of action is just to present the sources here on the talk page (without the text right now), and then we can solicit input on the viability of the sources. If the sources are reliably published, then it's probably OK if someone restores the text at that point. BigK HeX (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I guess too, so long as it doesn't mention that Koch fellow.Malke2010 23:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources: [3], [4], and [5]. Malke, I have no idea what to make of a sentence that includes "The sources I saw" and "it's not at all sourced" -- you simply aren't being clear in saying what you mean. There is no difficulty here with sources; there aren't any primary sources, only secondary ones. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources you are using for this are on alternet. and all that is, is another article by Ames and Levine. It's just their opinions, it's not an investigative journalism piece. This is probably why their original Playboy article got canned. They don't really seem like the kind of guys the New York Times is chasing after to do investigative journalism. And if you just stand back for a moment, what is so crucial about mention of the playboy article anyway? You can't use the actual article that mentions the astroturfing because it's been taken down supposedly because of these libel claims. What does mention of two guys who wrote a playboy article that we can't use add to the readers knowledge of astroturfing? Nothing. The Pelosi quote is great, the other stuff is good, what's the point? It seems like it's becoming an argument for argument's sake. And apparently, the libel issue had something to do with this Koch fellow, so putting his name up there right after mention of Ames and Levine doesn't seem smart to me.Malke2010 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in this but it seems like the original Playboy content doesn't really add anything to the article. It goes on to say the there was an allegation, then was removed for libel, but no legal actions came of it, then the authors repeat the allegations elsewhere, and quote. Seems like a waste to me. As for the sources above, the first two originate from a Moscow-based English-language biweekly free tabloid named The eXile. Hardly what would be considered an RS, granted, I don't know what they would be used for. The last one is obviously fine and we can find some use for it. Though, I'm not really sure for what. †TE†Talk 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention, it doesn't add anything. It's not like these guys uncovered a conspiracy or something like that. The article size is ponderous already. And User:BigK HeX had a good idea when he wanted to delete the massive polling stuff. I would go along with that if it wouldn't start an edit war. My suggestion is to go through the content heavy sections like the polling and the "Commentaries on the Movement," and start thinning out stuff that is just redundant first. Do we really need three polls that say the same thing? And how many comments in commentaries do we need? What about a good summary? And looking again at media bias claims, do we really need all that MSNBC stuff? The point of that is that Fox was banging the drum for the tea partiers, and User:BigK HeX added an edit there that really says it well. Plus, I added in the Rupert Murdoch thing where Sean Hannity got pulled from an event. That seems to cover it. Thin non-essential content where possible.Malke2010 02:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir here. I opened a thread to slim down the polling section. It really didn't gain much attention/traction and I didn't follow through. I'll have to take a good look at the Commentaries and Media bias sections. I am a big fan of addition by subtraction, as long as we keep the essence of it. †TE†Talk 02:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That's good to know. User:BigK HeX had a mention embedded that said something like, "everything below this could be deleted." And I was so tempted to delete it, but then I thought whoever put the thing there would put it back. So without consensus as a back up, I didn't want to do that. But if you're willing and he still wants to, I'm all for it.Malke2010 02:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I remember noticing the hidden message at some point, not really seeing right now. I'm sure we can find consensus fairly easily on this one. Would you like to craft the proposal? †TE†Talk 04:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go write up something and bring it back here.Malke2010 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

size of article

The page is 93 kilobytes long and well over what is considered a good size for an article. It is becoming unwieldly for the average reader to navigate. Two areas where I think we could substantially reduce the article size is "Commentaries on the Movement" and the "Polls" section.

Just a bit ago, I reduced the size of a quote in the Commentaries section that an editor put into some separate box within the section. The box and the size of the quote seemed over the top. Also, I reduced the Obama quote as it seemed rambling. It's been reduced before for that reason, but somebody put it back.

I think a summary of the Polls section, which would have to include the Un of Washington study, should be reduced to the basics of what the polls are saying and the Un. of Wash. study. For the commentaries section, I think a few paragraphs could handle what all the paragraphs seem to be saying.

I also think we could delete the Marvel Comics section as it doesn't really have any notability beyond the one day it made the news.Malke2010 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote to leave in the Marvel Comics incident in some form, as it is a clear example of censorship in response to criticism of the movement. One could argue that many events - such as TP protesters throwing racial epithets - have no notability "beyond the one day [event] made the news". We live in a society with a damn short attention span, after all. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: I'm not advocating reducing the size of the Un. of Washington study. I mean it would have to be included, as is, in addition to a summary of the polling data.Malke2010 04:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

proposed edit for 'Commentaries on the Movement'

Leaving in the real analysis published in reliable sources and not a private website/blog, should help cut down the section and start to make it more readable. This is a suggested edit:

Leave in: 

1) Matthew Continetti/Weekly Standard. 
2) New Gingrich 
3) Ed Rendell 
4) Dan Gerstein 
5) Ned Ryun 
6) The Economist 
7) Thomas Edsall 
8) Rick Perlstein (but separated from Edsall and with an expanded quote)
9) Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute.

This could make the section more manageable and more interesting to read.Malke2010 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem objectionable, off-hand. Perhaps, I may have more input after reading the end-result. BigK HeX (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll put in the edit.Malke2010 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Revolution Flag

thumb|right|150px

  • I added the, ingeniously designed, Second Revolution flag to the page. I do not know the designer of the flag. If someone can post that information, it would be greatly appreciated. -DevinCook (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to ask Moonriddengirl about this, because there might be copyright issues involved.Malke2010 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help.:) I added the image with the fair-use tag, but I will certainly not object to its removal if the designer wishes it so. From a design point of view, he/she did a fantastic job. The symbolism, simplicity, and eloquence of the design makes it one of the finer flags in U.S. history. -DevinCook (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl says it's okay. It's good to have it in the article.Malke2010 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

political ideology?

What is the political ideology of the Tea Party?--69.165.131.155 (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yep, very conservative on the fiscal issues. And sometimes Libertarian, but they will protest government spending and then go to the mailbox to collect their Social Security check and they say things like, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare," without seeming to connect where Medicare/Social Security comes from.Malke2010 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering most, if not all, have paid into SS and Medicare this is not really much of a contridiction. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

interesting article

[6]. Malke2010 17:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you eliminated my point that the Tea Party Movement is corporate supported on the evidence it has never criticized the Supreme Court decision affirming unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns; you call my point "tendentious" and ask for a source. There cannot be a source for this; it is based on the fact the nowhere in the Tea Party literature is there ever a criticism of said Supreme Court decision, a criticism which indeed would be expected if the Tea Party Movement truly represented 'the people'. My statement is a fair one on the evidence or rather lack of same. Alloco1 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor deleted your post because it doesn't have a source. That's called original research. If you have a citation from one of these that shows that the TPM is corporate supported and that the reason there is no mention/criticism of the Supreme Court decision in TPM literature is because of this corporate sponsorship, then go ahead and put it in the article.Malke2010 00:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Alloco! Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, in addition to the comment regarding your original research above, your addition fails even a basic logic test. You claim a failure on the Tea Party's part to object to the Supreme Court decision "affirming unlimited corporate funding of political campaigns" should result in the conclusion that the Tea Party is "corporate supported". The good folk at PETA and the crusaders of "Whale Wars" failed to publicly condemn the Supreme Court's decision also. Does this make them corporate supported? I appreciate the effort you put into this, but just follow NAACP lead and stick to claims of racism, it is a more reliable way to attack these guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.114.250 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Early Local Protests

I added the first *actual* known Tea Party of 2009 in protest of bigger government. Is it necessary to link to every reference and relevant news source that picked it up? I added one link to a local news station, but a quick search of the "Binghamton Tea Party" yields many more. Also in regards to it gaining momentum - I linked to a Campaign for Liberty blog post which discusses the Tax Day Coalition which formed as a result. (This comprised over over 2 dozen organizations, including FreedomWorks, which half of the citations here come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.96.153 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) this article should be locked or marked as biased. preferably locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.166.162 (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Other U of W study

I removed the other University of Washington study for several valid reasons. One, this study was limited to a population of only the greater Seattle area, as such it is only valid for the residents of Seattle and Puget Sound. It is no way representative of the view of the Tea Party in general. Because of this the study if undue weight within the scope of the section. All, except the other U of W study, are national polls and can be said to be a fair representation of the national view of the Tea Party movement, this one cannot. Additionally, this study has recieved almost no press outside a few left-leaning outlets like HuffPo, as such it is of questionable NPOV value. That section is already quite large, so one has to ask why should a limited poll which cannot be used to define the broader view of the Tea Party Movement be included in the section. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a few questions regarding your reasoning behind proposing the removal of that content. All of the studies cited in this Wikipedia article are "limited". I don't recall a poll ever being taken of every US citizen about any issue. You say this particular study was limited to just Seattle, but I don't see that mentioned in the cited sources -- not that it would make a difference if it were; I'm fairly certain that Seattle residents are citizens, and that some of them are indeed tea party supporters and thus qualify as a representative sample. Additionally, the poll has been covered in reliable sources; perceived "leanings" of "outlets" does not make facts less factual. Finally, your complaint that the content was added by an "Anon" (see your edit summary) doesn't strike me as a valid reason for anything. With the few exceptions that edit using their complete legal names, every editor of Wikipedia is "Anon", and that has no bearing on the acceptability of article content we produce. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you can wait until this is discussed before reinserting. This study was limited to residents of greater Seattle, as such it is not representative of the Tea Party as a whole. It is one thing to include a national poll that is a representative sample of the entire country, even the other UW study was at least a multi-state poll, this wasn't even a poll of the entire state of Washington, mostly limited to one county in one state. I ask you how anything from this poll can be applied to the nation as a whole? This study was put into the article by a Anon over the 4th holiday with no comments. As such it was put in without any discussion, and given the misleading insertion it is fully within the rights of anyone to remove misleading information. Now, if you want to discuss how this very limited study is relevant to the whole movement go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Arzel, please provide the "proof" that this study was "limited to residents of greater Seattle." Thank you.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the U of W doesn't do a better job of stating the methdology. Here is one article talking about the poll (it was actually a poll about something else) [7] Here is the actual poll, which is apparently the whole state of Washington, not just the Greater Seattle area, I had seen some reporting on the Seattle breakout before. [8] It is not expressly stated, but it is only a Washington State poll, and therefore undue weight for the scope of this article. Arzel (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. My own (brief) examination of the sources led me to conclude it is a poll of 1,695 Washington state registered voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3%. It would probably be undue weight for the poll to appear the way it was expressed previously, which might lead one to believe that it was a national poll. There is a simple compromise solution for this, however. Instead of stating the poll as:
"University of Washington According to a University of Washington poll published on June 2, 2010:"
...a more accurate and acceptable wording would be:
"University of Washington According to a University of Washington poll of registered voters in the State of Washington, published on June 2, 2010, with a sample size of 1,695 individuals and a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent:"
In this fashion, the reader can make the decision for themselves and assign whatever weight they care to assign to the poll's significance. --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a perfectly acceptable suggestion. I've incorporated some of your suggestions; let me know what you think. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. This article is about the movement as a whole. There are several national polls which we could include, and previously were included only to be removed because of weight issues. I don't see why we would have removed previous national polls for brevity only to include narrow specific polls which don't represent the movement as a whole. What makes this poll more important than the other national polls that have since been removed? Arzel (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Which national polls were removed for weight issues? --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to go through the whole history right now, but I know that there has been some information removed for weight concerns. I would ask you again, why include a state specific poll that is not representative of the movement as a whole? This is not an article about the Tea Party Movement in Washington, perhaps state specific articles should be created rather than try to shoehorn limited scope information into the national view. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why do you assume the polling data is not relative to the TP movement as a whole, and is only about "the Tea Party Movement in Washington"? I don't see that expressed in any of the cited sources. In fact, from the very link you just provided:
"Similar to nationwide numbers, about 20 percent of registered voters in Washington state identify themselves as strong supporters of the Tea Party movement. University of Washington Professor and pollster Matt Barreto decided to delve into the social and political opinions of that 20 percent."
Are the TPers from Washington a special "fringe" subset that we should know about? The sample sets used by all polling organizations have limitations and defining parameters, whether it is "only people from this state" or "only people from these 11 states" or "only registered voters" or "only people that answer phone calls between 6PM and 8PM", etc. Given this fact, we can discredit any poll we disapprove of based on its limitations. But we shouldn't; instead, please cite reliable sources that explain why this or that poll is inaccurate or flawed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I never said it was inaccurate or flawed. I am sure it is a valid representation of the residents of Washington. However, that does not mean it is a valid representation of the nation as a whole. National polls are Stratified by state, population centers, race, gender, ect in order to get a representative view of the nation as a whole. This was a big part of the problem with the previous UW poll, but at least that poll had the benefit of being a multistate poll from battleground states. This is from a highly blue state not known to be very representative of the US as a whole. Arzel (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Can you provide a citation to point me to this information? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I recall removing some of the oldest polls, can't tell you when. This movement seems to be ever-evolving and the most mainstream and recent should be covered. I hate to pick on the smaller and marginal polls, but the section is a bit large and should be limited to more established polling such as Gallop, Rasmussen, NYT/CBS. †TE†Talk 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The poll discussed above is actually bigger than the NYT/CBS, Gallop, etc., polls in the article, and has the distinction of focusing on specific and relevant fields not covered by more general polls. That aside, I'm all for concise but complete article content, as long as we are applying that standard evenly across all content -- I see sections far more deserving of the knife. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
How can you make that distinction? Because the sample size is large? Do you know anything about polling? Polls are only a valid representation of the population from which they were sampled. This continued attempt to use limited polls to paint the group as a whole is very disengenious to say the least. Please provide a valid reason why a poll specific to one state is relevent to discussion of the group as a whole. As for the residents of Washington, I don't recall that state every being used as a bellweather state for polling purposes. Arzel (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Do I know anything about polling? That isn't really relevant; the content I add (or restore) comes from reliable sources, not my own reservoir of knowledge on particular subjects. All polls are limited, including each of those cited in this article. One is limited to a registered group of preselected, paid poll-takers with internet access, instead of random participants. Another poll is limited to only those that will sit through an automated, computerized questionnaire on the phone. I could easily cite the limited scope of any poll that I wished to discredit, if I were so inclined -- but I prefer to leave those evaluations to reliable sources. So tell me, is there a reliable source that says the poll we are discussing is not relevant to the TP movement? The sources cited thus far indicate it is relevant. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Huffpo? Haha, yeah that is clearly an unbiased source. The other is the Seattle Times, and given the poll was in Washington this hardly suprising. You can't prove a negative, so why do you try to prove the positive? Arzel (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. At least with this poll we have a good idea of its scope and limitations. The arguments about Washington being "blue" or not "bellwether" are specious: we have no sources correlating these with the poll. (And the second is Just Made Up.) The poll data should stay. PhGustaf (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You know it is very hard to take other editors remarks seriously when they obviously fail to even go to the link that I included. Our very own article on bellweather clearly notes which states are bellweather states, Washington is not one of them. Washington is also clearly not a red state, therefore by simply ellimination it is a blue state. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I say leave it, at least for now. I don't condone the edit warring instead of standard BRD procedure, though (Arzel was not the BOLD, he was the REVERT). There are more pressing issues with the section, weight being one of them. And not just undue section weight compared to rest of the article, but also undue weight among the different polls themselves. Now we've added another WISER poll, does Gallup get another? Is Gallup being underrepresented compared to the others? Why doesn't Gallup get bullet points? How should we decide what is bullet point worthy? Should we use only the most recent polls? Mainstream? Also, are they being used to insert POV, be it good or bad depending on the editors intentions? So many questions. †TE†Talk 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I bulleted all of them that could be bulleted. I think it would be difficult to pick which should and which should not without bringing in POV issues. Either they all should or all should not. As for your second question, Yes, they clearly are being used to present the POV meme that the Tea Party movement is racist. About a third of the section is focused not on the demographics of the movement, but the supposed racist nature of the movement. In reality though, this article is mostly focused on the fringe elements of the movement as a way to denigrate the movement as a whole. But then that is common with WP pages. Arzel (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What became of Dick Armey discussion?

A couple of weeks ago the main article included an informative description of the role in creating the Tea Party of Dick Armey, his Freedomworks organization, plus other other professional lobbying companies and foundations. What became of that discussion?

If someone objects to the discussion, let them refute it.Tldoran (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I have 2 questions:

Noha307 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

More statistics. Given the current standard for inclusion then none can be left out. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Political Polls from several months ago are kind of silly to include. Even if they are updated they should be abridged if you ask me. Nobody wants to read the whole poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.87.123 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart's 48-second "no slurs" video

This block of text has see-sawed back and forth between being deleted and re-inserted (in more or less similar versions) by contributors here:

Breitbart also posted a mislabeled 48-second video of the Congressional Black Caucus members on the day in question, though later analysis revealed that the video was not of Lewis and Carson walking to the Capitol, when the slurs were reportedly heard, but instead showed the lawmakers leaving the Capitol — at least one hour after the reported incident. When asked about using the video from the wrong moment on his website, Breitbart stood by his claim that the lawmakers were lying. "I'm not saying the video was conclusive proof," he said.[1][2]

In the interest of working this out through talk page discussion rather than through reverts and edit summaries, let's discuss it here. Is this paragraph relevant to the controversy over what happened? If it is, does it present an accurate picture of what happened? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's important to some more than others. I've never really seen anyone push for it, unless, Breitbart was added first. It always went Breitbart first, then an editor responds with Trumka and 48 second clip. It's always not NPOV and always is undue weight.' After long and annoying edit warring, all mention of Breitbart disappears. It won't be long until someone adds that Breitbart has obtained 3-4 videos of when the slurs are said to have occurred. He was on Hannity recently with the videos looping from the different angles. †TE†Talk 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems self-evident that the video is part of Breitbart's claims WRT to the controversy. BigK HeX (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur. †TE†Talk 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's to hoping for "further developments". Or should we not allow any more updating of the section because these new developments happened 4 months after the initial reports? Or just a couple weeks after the initial reports - an objection I've read in the edit summaries recently? My opinion has been the same throughout: If we are going to include Breitbart's assertion that slurs never happened, and are just an intricately planned fabrication on the part of Pelosi+Congressional Black Caucus+Media, then every significant and relevant detail needs to be included. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No, that section you wish to add is nothing more than an attack on Breitbart for not being able to prove the negative. He made his offer, that is all that is needed. That he didn't provide video that doesn't prove that the racist words were not spoken is not relevant to his claim. If someone else were to provide video that the racist words were spoken than you have something that would be a response to his claim. Arzel (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Political class?

In the data for the Rasmussen poll, it says "87% of members of the political class felt closer to Obama." Can someone who knows what "political class" means in this context clarify this a bit, or provide a reasonable definition so I can do it? This sounds like conservative jargon, which often has a meaning very different from accepted usage... (edit to add) I know Rasmussen is often loose with the wording of their poll questions, so I expect this is the wording they used, but as it is it's pretty indecipherable and useless to most readers. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You wikilinked to it, so it would seem you already know what it is. It is not conservative jargon, it is simply people that follow politics closely. Arzel (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging First Line

I removed this from the page ", which is known to practice the controversial act of astroturfing" because it is immediately disparaging in the first sentence of the article. If added back, I think it should be deeper into the article

69.181.65.140 (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative

I was surprised "conservative" was actually disputed.[9] Sources say it is. I think conservative fits better than "socio-political movement" and should stand. Maybe remove them both if what to label them is disputed. Leaving it as just "movement" could work if the two labels are described in the next lines.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that libertarian fits it far better and sources say it is libertarian, and some of it's strongest supporters are libertarians (Rand Paul). It also started on purely libertarian themes (strong reaction to precieved goverment overreach). It may be more closely alligned to the Republican party than the Democratic party, but that is hardly a direct connection to conservativism. At the same time it is a social-political movement since it is directly influencing politics. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that should be explained instead of applying a label that has already been disputed by other editors then. The sources do call it conservative. And simply "political" comes up while searching sources while "social-political" does not (or at least not as much) so that is OR. Do some google news searches with keywords or let me know if I can provide some links.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Something like "political movement. It often has ties to libertarian and conservative politics." Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "socio-political movement" is more accurate than "conservative" because "Conservatism" generally includes aspects of fundamentalist Christianity. There are aspects of the Tea Party movement that are decidedly non-Conservative, mostly in the realm of social issues. 173.53.71.140 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

While many refer to the TP as conservative in shorthand, I think to be fair there has to be some recognition of how they draw from across traditional party lines. There are a number of moderate Dems who went Tea, and a whole lot of libertarians with very liberal social views. I think "fiscally conservative" was in there before and should make everyone happy. Izauze (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted due to OR??

The following info was deleted - I realize it is kind of on the margins of what some people deem acceptable here, so I wanted to bring it here first before I added it back in, to get people's opinions.

My view of it is that the info deleted does not violate OR. I understand that the thing being referenced is a discussion board and not a news source, but wikipedia clearly states that while informal posts like these are clearly not usable as a reliable reference for something else (like, we could not use Mr. Joe Blow's report that the sky is blue), but wikipedia says (and common sense tell us) that Mr. Joe Blow is a reliable authority on one thing -- Himself. So whether he blogs about liking the color blue or says he thinks everyone should send a tea bag to congress, we can refer to that if it's applicable to our topic - we just can't use him as an authority on anything.

In this case, a now-historic message board post which has been referred to in the huffingtonpost, a number of other sites, and perhaps most notably was called "the earliest known documentary record of the first national tea party protest" by Salon.com shows us that a short while after that first post about mailing tea bags, someone made a joke about tea bagging barney frank. It's right there in black and white. So I don't see a problem with the wiki page utilizing that document to share additional information with people.

If using "According to the market-ticker.org forums," beforehand makes anyone more comfortable, that seems like a workable solution to me.

Here is the text in question:

It was only a matter of hours after the idea of mailing tea bags to congress was first proposed that one of the participants used "teabagging" as a double entendre referring to a sexual act.[3]

Izauze (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eliminate the Atroturfing

There should not be a seperate section it could be put under criticsm. It gives undue weight to politcal opponents oppinions.Unicorn76 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Political Affiliations

I removed the text about 70 percent of Tea Partiers desiring government support of job creation. The Bloomberg opinion article makes this claim, but the survey linked in the Heidi Przybyla article does not support that claim. In fact, the survey referenced in the previous paragraph sites that only 17% of Tea Party supporters hold that opinion. I would recommend at this point that the entire paragraph should either be removed, or significantly modified to reflect the actual results of the poll, rather than the opinion of the article's author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squ1rr3l (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are they deriving those figures from this line on page 7 of this source?
  • The government needs to do a lot more to create jobs: 46% 34% 12% 6% 2%
...with the 46% (Strongly Agree) and 34% (Mostly Agree)? On what page is the 17%? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Funded by Billonaire Koch Brothers

Needless to say the stupidity of masses of tea baggers believing that the G.O.P. represents them. Once again, the truth prevails. Republican Politicians represent one thing: Those that are rich through the means of what ordinary moral people would consider corruption, lying, cheating, stealing. Like the fact that the Iraq war was never about liberating Iraq, it was about lining the family coffers of the Bush dynasty. Now we find that the tea baggers are un-knowingly doing the dirty work for the billionaire Koch Brothers. If only Tea partiers would use their brains instead of letting Sarah Palin and Glen Beck do their thinking for them. Fortunately there is only 13% of the population that holds the belief the rich people are ordained by Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.23.207 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That article is nothing but the opinion of liberal Frank Rich. Furthermore, it does not say that the Tea Party was starter or funded by the Koch Brothers. You are going to need much more than this to make the statement you are making, especially if you want to include it in the lead. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The wording added to the article was in no way neutral, ive not looked at the sources yet but please just wait and get agreement on this talk page before including that on the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The two sources provided certainly do not justify the statement you added to the article. Please provide more reliable, notable and neutral sources (rather than someones POV like in the NewYork times link). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am 100% CERTAIN that there is no amount of citations that could ever satisfy you. PROOF - YOU DELETED EVERYTHING - Why didn't you just correct it if it was wrong?
You're not interested in neutrality, your're only interested in defending the Tea Party movement from any negative information.
BE MY GUEST, correct the paragraph to your interpretations of the 3 citations. BUT YOU WON'T DO THAT! You just want to CENSOR the truth. Typical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.23.207 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in censoring information. However for it to be added to this article it needs to be notable, neutral and reliably sourced. The two sources provided so far certainly make me question how notable this claim on the funding is, the wording put into the article was certainly not neutral, and the sources are not good enough. You inserted some text, it got undone, you are now meant to discuss this on the talk page to get agreement. Not re add the biased paragraph. Please see Wikipedia:BRD BritishWatcher (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, ip, this is not a forum for general discussions about the topic of this article or whatnot, but specific ways to improve it. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude, 98.223, settle down a bit. At this point the only one who is wearing their agenda on their sleeve is you. If you want good NPOV info added, make a good NPOV case for it. I'm fine with adding more stuff about who funded what - in my opinion it would be included either in the body of the article (for instance if we wanted to list who funded a specific protest, we'd include that info along with our write-up of that protest) or it would be included in the astroturfing section. I don't think we need a new section that says the TP isn't grass roots, because that's what astroturfing already does, mate. Good luck. And take a breather. Izauze (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Koch has been funding the Americans for Prosperity group for some time. If anything, the group has diverted grass-roots donations from the small Tea Party organizations into their own national organization, rather than the other way around. I have no objection to including the AFP and other Koch organizations in this article (although a reference to Americans_for_prosperity would probably be sufficient), but it needs some additional, non-biased references which provide factual connections and numbers, not just innuendo and Beck-style inferences. Squ1rr3l (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How the Koch family funding the Tea Party movement story broke?

I first wrote this to Talk:David H. Koch but I am moving it here as the references may be more relevant to this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is strange how people in Moscow can be better informed than people in Washington, D.C. The Tea Party movement funding by Koch Industries was first exposed by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the eXile, a Moscow based English language former tabloid and current Internet newspaper. The first article appeared on Playboy.com in about February 2009. Here is the copy at the eXile:

  • Mark Ames and Yasha Levine (February 27, 2009). "Exposing The Rightwing PR Machine: Is CNBC's Rick Santelli Sucking Koch?". the eXile.

In August 2009 The Washington Post runs a similar story:

Mark Ames comments on the story the same day:

In April 2010 Yasha Levine exposes new details of the story: bring in grandpa Fredrick C. Koch and Uncle Joe:

In July 2010 Rachel Maddow on her show on MSNBC calls Koch the tea party's puppet master:

Looking at the version history of the David H. Koch article, it seems that the story only hit the mainstream American media last week with the article by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker magazine.

Equally important, but more opinionated is the op-ed column by Frank Rich in The New York Times:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is valid information, but it has to be voiced neutrally (maybe try to think of what a smart reasonable person with opposing views might object to what you have said) and should be included as part of the astroturfing section. That is where all information regarding the movement's outside backing and support should be. Izauze (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party movement is largely a disorganized, decentralized grass roots movement. "Funding" in it's normal meaning (andf level of importance) for an organization does not exist. Any discussion of it should be given explanation and perspective. North8000 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

current edit appears to be WP:OR

The edit that is there now is sourced by The New Yorker and an Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich in the NYTimes. The only actual "news" source is from an online Canadian publication. Therefore this edit: "In August 2010, American mainstream news organizations started making allegations on the funding sources for the Tea Party Movement. Along with funding from Rupert Murdoch, claims were also made that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch are funding the movement," is original resarch.

There is no direct connection made that supports this, "Along with funding from Rupert Murdoch. . ." What funding? In addition, the Canadian article shows these claims are refuted, yet there is no mention of that.

This needs to be deleted as it is WP:OR. The TPM is not one monolithic organization that one can contribute funds to. There is no central office accepting donations. It is a movement of people who may or may not show up at rallies or join organized 'tea parties' such the Tea Party Patriots, etc.Malke2010 21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An article in The New Yorker and an editorial by The New York Times certainly more than support the content stating "American mainstream news organizations started making allegations". Both sources exceed Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements, and the cited sources do indeed support that above mentioned edit -- no "original research" involved here.
However, you did point out an inaccurate word choice used in that edit. The sources did not specifically mention "funding" from Murdoch, but instead mentioned that, "The Kochs surely match the in-kind donations the Tea Party receives in free promotion 24/7 from Murdoch’s Fox News, where both Beck and Palin are on the payroll." Changing "funding from Murdoch" to "free promotion from Murdoch's Fox News" would bring the content in line with what the sources actually convey.
You are correct to observe that the TP movement, being made up of numerous groups, factions and organizations, is not one monolithic organization with a central office accepting donations -- but that has absolutely nothing to do with the above mentioned content. The cited sources above discuss the major sponsors, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and Fox News -- you know, the bigger groups in the TPM. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Xenophrenic, nice to read your comments again. On the WP:OR, OP-ED pieces are not considered reliable sources. In addition, there is no evidence offered that any of these men have made direct contributions to any of the various and sundry Tea Parties.
Also, there is no evidence that Fox News is "promoting" anything for "free." Fox News is a news outlet and they are reporting news. The FCC prohibits news outlets from sponsoring/promoting any political organizations. That they choose to provide a lot of coverage for anything the Tea Party Movement does is no different than MSNBC covering any story they believe is worthy of coverage.
So, no, the piece in the New Yorker and the OP-ED by Frank Rich do not constitute the "American mainstream media," they are opinion pieces, and therefore, the claim needs to be deleted. The entire paragraph has no relevance to this article. Unless there is a reliable source showing a direct link to funding as there is in public records that show donations, to tea parties, then this is just 'allegations,' and as such could be in violation of WP:BLP as this is against living persons.
As Wikipedia is not a tabloid, the 'allegations' are inappropriate.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you again as well, Malke. :-) I think you are mixing up your Wiki-policies. If the content in this article says the same thing the cited sources say, then there isn't an "original research" issue here. Moving on to the next policy, reliable sources, WP:RS states that Op-Eds from major mainstream news sources are indeed reliable sources, but it is better to attribute the text to the author. The New Yorker piece isn't an opinion piece, by the way, and that source is known for "its rigorous fact checking and copyediting; its journalism on world politics and social issues...", so there is no RS issue there, either. As for relevance to this article, I would think that content on sources of major funding going into the TP movement would be quite relevant. It is true that Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but then, no one is claiming it is. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the contention is more that these are allegations, rather than actual reports of funding, and that is why I questioned the sources. This entry has had many incarnations in the article. Also, take a look at the tea bag protest thing, will you? I mention my concerns below. Appreciate it, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

racism/intolerance sections

There is a duplication of effort with separate sections on racism and "intolerance" which contains more 'racism' claims. These sections are too long. They are WP:UNDUE. This needs to be edited. Suggestions for what to keep/delete would be appreciated. Thanks.Malke2010 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Probably all of that plus the polling section should be in an "efforts by their opponents to discredit them" section. And the article should report on such efforts rather than participating in them. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Renaming it to a section called "efforts by their opponents to discredit them" would be pro-TP POV pushing, just as renaming it to "Tea Party Racism" instead of "Accusations of Racism" would be blatant anti-TP POV pushing. These things have been addressed in prior Talk Page discussions; still, if you feel there are more neutral ways to word the section headings, please suggest them. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I took the title suggestion as a bit of humor by North8000. The entire criticism section could be split off into another article with a paragraph and a link remaining. That might be something we should look into, with a consensus, of course. If not, then everybody should take a serious look at reducing the bloat. All of it could be reduced to a couple of succinct paragraphs. I'm sure we could manage that together.Malke2010 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
My comment was a bit off-the-cuff and flippant, but I really meant the point. All of this material relates to and comes from opponents' activities and should be covered accurately as such. The article should report on the inuendo campaign, not participate in it. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


also noted return of WP:OR in 'tea bag protest' section=

This claim keeps reappearing: [10]. This has been removed several times before as this is entirely WP:OR. This is from a private blog that did not receive any coverage for the claim that it spread to other websites. There were multiple incidents of mailing tea bags starting back in 2007. Rand Paul called for it, the people at FEDUP did it in August 2008. All of that has been deleted and this claim about this Graham fellow is being put forth as being the source of tea bags being mailed. It is not true. There are no sources to support this claim.

It would be best if we came to a consensus on this. I'd like to rewrite the section to delete this Grahram fellow and re-add the Rand Paul/FEDUP 'mail tea bags to Washington' so that it more fits in with the tax revolt/Boston tea party which was the reason people latched onto the tea bag idea in the first place.

In the alternative, if editors feel this tea bag thing is not relevant, we can delete the section entirely. Either way, I feel consensus is the only way to keep this WP:OR out of the article. Thanks. Malke2010 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about Lead

It says "he protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[4] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[5][6] Federal Reserve Transparency Act[7] and a series of health care reform bills.[8]" Are the Tea Party's not in FAVOUR of the Federal REserve Transperancy Act? It's kind of ocnfusing at first glance to have it grouped in with all the other peices of legislation which the group is decidedly against. 17:04, September 4 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhqwgads (talk • contribs)

You are correct. The citation does not support the claim, so I have removed it from the lead. Many TPM members are also from the FEDUP group that was a precursor in 2008. They were against the secrecy of the FED reserve in manipulating the economy.Malke2010 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it was somewhat spontaneous, from a multitude of catalysts / factors. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the formation of the TPM or the FEDUP group?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

I am not familiar with the Tea Party Movement. However when reading the article I noticed that it sounds biased towards the tea party movement, until one reads the statistics for it. There are a lot of statistics saying the same things, but different numbers. I have taken enough statistics classes to know that all of those statistics are unnecessary. The inordinate amount of statistics also lend no credibility to the article as there is no standard deviation presented. Hughesdepayen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

agreed - the article as whole is tilted slightly pro-TP and the statistics have gotten a little unwieldy. The neutrality is a longer term goal which will always be tough while the TP is still a current phenomenon. But the statistics can be dealt with now. The problem seems to be that once one set of statistics is posted (that may be DUE), the "other side" wants to go dig up their own statistics to reinforce their point under the banner of objectivity. And then back and forth till you have way more stats than any simple encyclopedic entry should ever need. Izauze (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I took a stab at it. I separated most of them into -general demographics-, -teapartier opinions-, and a section about race since so many polls seemed to ask about that. I removed the bullet point format and moved to a prose format. I also didn't keep a few assorted stats that were about how others feel about the tea party, rather than bout who the tea party is or how they feel about things. I think it reads better now, anyway... still maybe takes up too much space, but what else is new around here? Izauze (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You left in primarily the limited scope statistics which cannot be applied to the population as a whole. It is a highly NPOV presentation of the statistics. Either they should all stay or all go per MOS, but you cannot cherry pick the ones you think belong. The first UW study you left in was limited to the State of Washington. Basically you are defining the entire movement by one state, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for that section. The other UW study is limited to 7 states, but it is undue weight to include one limited study or even focus on any study or poll in general. I will agree that there were too many statistics, but it is not pro-TP people putting them in. It is anti-TP people putting them in to highly the negatives from the polls. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No organization has yet polled the entire "population as a whole". Only subsets have been polled; usually a sampling numbering fewer than one thousand respondents. Choosing to select and represent your favored subsets in the article, while excluding other subsets, is a highly POV presentation of the statistics. Either they should all stay or all go per MOS, but you cannot cherry pick the ones you think belong -- so I agree, too. I have returned the selectively deleted polling information. The relevance and the validity of these polls was previously discussed here. Each of the sets of polling data are valid and are of equal WP:WEIGHT in that section. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, you do not understand statistics. A sample from a subset of a population can ONLY be used to describe the subset. This is not me making this statement, this is the whole entirety of the body of Statistics making this statement. To present the information as you are, is a synthesis of material. You are making a conclusion which is not explicitly made from the sourcing, and could never be made because is a basic violation of statistical methods. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am returning content derived from reliable sources. If you have an issue with the way the content is conveyed, you are encouraged to improve upon it. You are correct, I do not understand statistics. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we don't need to. BTW, I'm not synthesizing or adding anything here, just undoing a mass delete. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it solve everyone's problems if we just added something which explicitly stated the limited reach of the poll - like "A Blahblah University poll was conducted in 7 states, and while not a nationwide poll, it did show that in those seven states....." ? I say either we discuss a way to phrase it differently in order to keep it, or make a case for why its not useful information on its own accord (and not just because its not nationwide). My 2 cents. Izauze (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Prior to your efforts to condense the polling data, some of the polls were briefly described thusly:
*According to a University of Washington poll of 1695 registered voters in the state of Washington...
*A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found:...
This wording was descriptive, without falsely implying there is some defect in the polling results because of the sample they used. Adding words like "and while not a nationwide poll" or "in those seven states" adds the originally researched implication that the findings only apply to self-described tea partiers from just those states, and self-described TPers from the other 43 states are actually somehow different. The study results do not specify that its conclusions apply only to a special subset of tea partiers, and neither do the reliable sources that reported on the study -- so we shouldn't, either. All polls are limited samples in one way or another; i.e., will we also explicitely describe the Angus-Reid poll like — "An Angus-Reid poll of 1,021 paid, pre-screened poll-takers, while not at all random, showed that blah blah blah..."? No, we shouldn't, unless reliable reporting on that poll specifically conveys that the sample limitations have skewed the results (beyond the obvious "margin of error" every poll claims).
I think the poll data summarizing you have done so far is good, and remains true to what the cited sources have conveyed. If you intend to now re-expand the polling content, I caution you against straying into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when looking at primary-source poll information. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You really don't understand statistics, and you should really stop this non-sense. It is imperitive that the methods be clearly stated so that people do not make the erroneous conclusions that you have just stated. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, I do not understand statistics. Fortunately for us as Wikipedia editors, we don't need to. It is imperative that we convey only what is contained in reliable sources, so that we do not make and include erroneous conclusions of our own. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The first study is limited to the state of Washington. Less then 2.2% of the population were sampled from. From a sample of subset which is less than 2.2% of the total you are going to frame the rest of the country? Not only is this undue weight, but it is a fringe view as well. Under no circumstances can the 1st UW study be used in a limited capacity. The violations to WP policies are staggering to say the least. Arzel (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there is disagreement. What noticeboard would you suggest as being most appropriate to discuss your concerns with a wider audience? Or would opening an RFC on this page suffice? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Xenophrenic was right when he pointed out it was fine when the wording was only descriptive and did not add POV qualifiers. It used to say "According to a University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington," which told the reader exactly what kind of poll they were looking at and left it to the read to draw their own conclusions. That was not WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or undue weight previously, so I don't see why it should be a problem now provided that the exact descriptive wording is put back in place. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Put back in the language briefly contextualizing the poll and leave it to the reader to decide how they want to interpret it and what kind of weight to give it. Izauze (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How widley was the Washington State poll reported/covered. Right now the citation is from a partisan source, HP, could that be improved/changed? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

personally, I don't think a poll's value changes much based on who used it. If it was a partisan polling place, that'd be another story. And HP is a pretty major source anyway - it's not like a small unreliable blog or something. I'd just focus on wording it in a way that addresses both sides concerns. Izauze (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Removed as NPOV violation and Undue Weight. There have been several polls taken by many sources, so please explain the rational of included two from the same source, one of which is from one state, a sample from less than 2.5% of the population of then entire US. The results of that poll have almost no relevance to the Tea Party movement in general. It would be like me polling the demographics of my neighborhood and somehow thinking that it was representative of my entire city. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The results of that poll have almost no relevance to the Tea Party movement in general.
The reliable sources reporting on those poll results would seem to disagree. Can you direct us to the reliably sourced reporting that indicate that poll has no relevance? Would the views and positions of a self-described tea partier from your neighborhood not be elligible for inclusion in a study about tea partiers in general, for some reason, and would there be reliable sources explaining why? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course they would be, but if I only polled my neighbor hood it wouldn't say anything about the rest of my city. If you polled people living in Chicago's Chinatown, do you think they you would get a similar base of people as if you polled the people living in around Wrigley Park? Neither group would be able to tell you about the city of Chicago in general because they only polled a small subset of the city's poplulation. What is it that you don't understand about this basic priciple of survey sampling? Arzel (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying the self-described tea partiers in Chicago's Chinatown would hold a completely different set of Tea Party values and positions than those of the self-described tea partiers from around Wrigley Park? Interesting. You are right that their views about Chicago may differ, but no one is asking them about Chicago. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if they would be different or not, but I certainly have no evidence to make the claim that they would. Basic statistical methodology. It is not possible to make any statistical inference about a population that is outside the sampling frame. A good example to consider is in agriculture. Say you want to test the effectiveness of a new fertilizer on a crop. You wouldn't want to use the new fertilizer everywhere because it may be less effective or cause other unintended outcomes. So you randomly select small sections (a few acres) from a large grid which inluded the nominal range for which a particular crop is grown. (say Beets in ND and MN). You might assume that the land around the Red River valley is the same everywhere, but you don't know for sure. There may be differences in soil that might cause a difference in the effectiveness of the fertilizer. If you only randomly selected one county of the 15 to 20 counties in the area for the study you would come to some conclusion about the fertilizer that may or may not also apply to the surrounding counties. However, if you randomnly select from all areas then you can come to a conclusion that would apply to all areas. Or if you like diving (like I do) and you wanted a rough count of sea life around the coast of Cozumel and you randomnly selected one area there is a chance you would hit a reef, sand, or a combination of both. A count per sqare foot (even if randomly done) in that area could not be extrapolated out to the entire coast, or even if you were on a reef, the average life on a reef (reefs can vary greatly) could not be extrapolated out to other reefs. Just remember this, you can never make conclusions about a population that is outside of the sampling frame (ie had no probability of being selected for study).Arzel (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"I don't know if they would be different or not, but I certainly have no evidence to make the claim that they would."
Exactly! Which is why we shouldn't insert such claims into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What claims are you talking about? The AUTHOR of the study has stated that these results CANNOT be extrapolated out. You don't know anything about statistics and your continue to show your lack of knowledge about how survey sampling is done and what can and cannot be implied from the results. The Study Methodolgy states the sourcing that YOU claim I need. They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
"They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again."
I just re-checked all 5 sources that are cited after the content you inserted, and none of them convey what you assert in your edit. I'm not being obtuse here -- I really do not see it. Could you (or anyone else reading this) please specifically point out the source? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Reported to the NPOV message board [11] Arzel (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post that on the NPOV board. Hopefully additional eyes on the matter will help speed us to a resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to the polls section

I have reverted this edit, which was given with this edit summary: (Now you are just being disruptive. That information is contained within the study methods)

Regarding the personal attack, I'll only request that you, Arzel, please not take us down that road. As for the edit itself, you have changed this statement from reliable sources stating the pollsters reported:

  • 73% of Tea Party backers disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries

to read, instead, that they reported this:

  • 73% of Washington State Tea Party supporters disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries

They did not report that. The poll did not determine that Washington State TPers were somehow different from TPers in general, nor was the polling focused on determining if such a difference existed. The sources indicate the sample was taken from Washington State (and so does our article); the sources do not indicate the poll findings are uniquely applicable only to Washington State citizens, or only to respondents with telephones, or only to those 1695 individuals, etc. To say so is original research, and also contradicts the sources, which discusses the findings in terms of "Tea Partiers" and "the Tea Party movement", not Washington State folks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of juxtaposing a poll on a racial issue which has nothing to do with the topic with the content of this article is pure OR and an attempt at Ad hominem smear tactics. That's like including, in an article on the Democratic Party, a poll on the acceptance of the concept of sex with animals in Democrats vs. the population as a whole, and then looking for percentage differences to cover. Again, in Wikipedia terms, it's pure OR and an attempt at Ad Hominmen smear tactics; the whole concept has no place in the article and should be dropped. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A number of reliable sources have reported the results of polls and the concomitant interests regarding the perspectives and opinions of tea party supporters with regard to political and racial issues. Analogizing this to polls on attitudes regarding sex with animals doesn't make much sense, nor has an explanation been provided as to how tea these polls are "pure OR" or "Ad Hominem smear tactics" in Wikipedia terms. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Both my example and point were one and the same. Ad Hominem tactics of polling, and publishing polling and accusations on unrelated topics have been one of the main tactics of persons /groups who do not want the Tea Party Movement to gain additional traction, with racial topics being the most often chosen area. From an NPOV standpoint, it's OK for the article to report on such activities, but it should not be participating in such activities. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
From an OR standpoint, the article is currently participating in such tactics rather than covering them. The insertion / juxtaposition of such material is an unsupported implied statement of relevance, = OR. There was a substantial discussion about this type of inclusion in the wp:nor policy discussion section. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see Wikipedia participation in "ad hominem smear tactics" here in the way the polling information is phrased, cited, and positioned. The polling information on Muslim countries, gays and lesbians, and race appears near the bottom of the section "Public opinion polls and demographics", one of many sections in the article. The statements are reliably sourced, reflect what was reported in the news, and do not distort the facts or findings of the research polls. In my opinion, their inclusion does not overstate their relevance or imply original research. As you've referenced WP:NOR policy discussion, however, and have indicated that there was substantial discussion about this very type of inclusion, perhaps you'd like to post reference to those specific points you feel make the case that this is actually pure OR. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
But they do distort the facts. The two polls I have called into question have a limited sampling frame, therefore cannot be extrapolated out to frame the entire movement. I find it ironic that Xenophrenic included the 538 link which specificaly notes that the results are limited to those people in those states for the second poll, yet still claims that the poll limited to one state can be applied to everyone. I would ask how he or anyone else can come to this conclusion. As it is now, the NPOV board has spoken. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you point out specifically where Xenophrenic is stating that the poll limited to one state can be applied to everyone? Looking at his postings, I don't see that. Secondly, on the NPOV board I see a few postings by yourself and Xenophrenic, along with a comment by North8000 (identical the one posted here), so I must ask, what exactly do you mean when you say "the NPOV board has spoken"? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
@Arzel: there is no irony in my (and Wikipedia policy) requiring source citations to back up the edits you made. As noted in my edit summaries, you are welcome to put your edits back in when they are accompanied by sources. Saying "They are already cited, there is no need to cite them again." when they clearly are not cited in the article, seems a bit curious -- why not simply provide cite the requested sources? You finally did mention on another noticeboard the source (FiveThirtyEight.com) supporting one of your three edits, so I returned that edit (with that citation) to the article. The 538 source, however, does not support your edits to the later UofW single-state poll content.
@AzureCitizen: No one has yet spoken to the actual issue on the NPOV noticeboard, so I believe Arzel simply made a mistake. Perhaps more time is needed (although, looking again at the postings by Arzel and myself on the NPOV board, the issue isn't as concisely defined as it should be, and doesn't really invite outside comment). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Poll results are always dicey business to begin with. How much weight in the article should we give them? And how should we reconcile obvious contradictions between poll results, for instance, the Times/CBS poll stating (as included in our aticle) that TPers are more educated, yet the Quinnipiac Poll concluding, "They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters"? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Update (for North8000/Arzel): If by "juxtaposition" you were referring to the way the Washington State poll was mentioned in the first paragraph with it's demographic description, then with the racial "equal opportunity" poll question in the second paragraph, I've re-flowed the paragraph so it's more obvious to the reader now that those findings are from the same poll, lest there be confusion as to what the sample set was (i.e., 1,695 registered voters in the State of Washington). --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Repharasing it in less Wikipedian terms, the idea of polling, and then trolling through the results hoping to find and highlight a higher incidence of an unpopular or un-PC opinion unrelated to the movement is a bogus smear tactic that has no place in Wikipedia. Going back to my clarity -by-absurdity analogy, if a reliable source polled and found that there was a higher incidence of acceptance of sex with animals within the Democratic Party than the population as a whole, by your reasoning, I should put that into the article on the Democratic Party. My point would be that it has no relevance and is just an ad hominem smear tactic which also violates various wp policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"If a reliable source polled and found that there was a higher incidence of acceptance of sex with animals within the Democratic Party than the population as a whole, by your reasoning, I should put that into the article on the Democratic Party."
Yes, you should, if many reliable sources reporting on many different polls reaching similar conclusions exist, and if it becomes such a very significant point of public discourse and contention that inclusion in a Wikipedia article is justified. Much like how the issue of racism & the TP movement has, for good or for bad, been a very significant issue in public discourse over the past two years. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If it were put into a different context such as saying that opponents of the Tea Party Movement have been engaging in such poll-use related tactics, then it would be suitable. But this section of the article is engaging in such tactics rather than reporting on them. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your theory about "poll-use related tactics" falls apart when you realize the public discourse about racist elements associated with the tea party movement had peaked long before the first poll tried to scientifically address the contentious issue. Claiming as you did that TP opponents did polling and then trolled through those poll results hoping to find and highlight "unpopular" characteristics about the TP movement gets it backwards. The various bigotry issues were already being observed and significantly discussed, which then prompted scientific polling to be done to look further into it. And by the way, the "opponents & the media are making this stuff up to smear the TP movement" viewpoint is already expressed several times in our article -- what "suitable" additions are you suggesting? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that you have finally agreed that the polling statistics cannot be extrapolated out toward the entire population, perhaps you could explain why it is not undue weight to use limited sampling frame polls. Per the NPOV message board you have not presented a viable rational for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have indicated no such agreement. As for the polls, to which of the 9 "limited sampling frame polls" do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There are only 2 limited sampling frame polls, both of those from UW, one of which is extremely problematic. Per the NPOV board this has been resolved, what is your current reasoning for including them? Arzel (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
All polls presently in the article are limited samples, none of them more problematic than the others. Per the NPOV noticeboard, there is no reason for not including any of these polls. My reasoning for not deleting a poll result is the same for each of the polls: they are relevant, significant and well sourced. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no understanding of statistics it is not suprising that you don't know what "limited" means within the framework of statistical sampling. I see no further reason for explaining how statistics work to you since you seem to have no desire to understand how they work when you can use your own flawed understanding justify your POV editing. The NPOV board has spoken and you simply don't like the answer, and now you simply can't hear anything that doesn't agree with your line of thought. Arzel (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just exactly what do you think the NPOV Board has "said" Arzel? --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Populist

In the Astroturfing section (at the very end of the article) is the following:

Group members often claim it to be a populist movement when their message is diametrically opposed to the Populist Party, also known as The People's Party, which favored wealth redistribution and a minimum wage.

What is the basis of this statement? The reference is to a description of The People's Party. The word "populist" does not equate to Populist Party (which one? there have been several, including two current US parties, one of which is libertarian), just as democrat, republican, and libertarian (small "d", "r", and "l" respectively) do not necessarily equate Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian Party. This statement feels like it falls into the original research category, and mistaken/faulty research, at that. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, I'd just strike it. Izauze (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sroc, 6 September 2010

Under the heading Use of term "Teabagger," "Teabagging", the first para reads:

The use of "Teabagging" as a verb was seen early on in Tea Party protest signage at the first national Tea Party protest. Shortly after the idea of mailing tea bags to congress was first proposed, one of the participants used the slang term "teabagging" as a double entendre referring to a sexual act.

Can we please edit the placement of the second link to break up the links (so that they don't appear to be one long link) thus:

The use of "Teabagging" as a verb was seen early on in Tea Party protest signage at the first national Tea Party protest. Shortly after the idea of mailing tea bags to congress was first proposed, one of the participants used the slang term "teabagging" as a double entendre referring to a sexual act.

Thanks. —sroc (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.23.202.153, 7 September 2010

{{edit protected}} Add link to serbian wikipedia article sr:Ти парти покрет —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.202.153 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just wait until tomorrow when the page will be open?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Uncontroversial change, so  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Polls/Demographics/Washington University Study

As many of the regular editors here are aware, there was a great deal of work put into this section and it generated a great deal of back and forth, but in the end things were settled. Apparently, this has been changed entirely and without any discussion on the talk page to seek consensus first. I propose we restore the version before the edit was made and then discuss any changes.

I, for one, think that the bullet format makes for easy reading. Rolling the statistics into prose format doesn't seem wise as it, I think everyone can agree, statistics and studies are hard enough to decipher and are meant to be presented in chart type format.

As we all know, the contention over the Washington University study was intense, but in the end a good result came out of it and the editors involved did a wonderful job resolving that. I believe BigK HeX worked on it, as did ThinkEnemies, Xenophrenic, Arzel, et al. Sorry if I've left off anyone's name. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate here for consensus to restore this version [12]:

Return edit prior to change

Support


Don't Support

Needs a complete re-write The polling topic is coverage of activities by persons and organizations who oppose the tea party movement. The article should be COVERING those activities as such, NOT PARTICIPATING in those activities, as it currently is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart again

I think the Breitbart is WP:UNDUE. He wasn't there. It's an ancillary story. Maybe we could sort out all the racial incidents and the other incidents and make entries with bullets, so that the reader can easily identify the incidents. Then we could get rid of all the talking heads saying how they just know these things never happened, etc. I think if they weren't there, it's just opinion, and right now the opinions seem to be outweighing everything else. Thoughts?Malke 2010 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Example
  • On March 21, 2010, Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted racist slurs against Hispanics on the group's Twitter webpage, including one post that said, "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?".
  • Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as a "Monkey God".
  • Williams came under further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams claimed the letter was a "satirical" response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to "'repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement."
  • On March 22, 2010, a severed gas line was found at the home of Congressman Tom Perriello's brother.

Of course it would have citations, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A lengthy, informative reference

Lots of good info: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20100911_8855.php Sbowers3 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls focusing on Tea Party supporters

Initially, I objected to this section because the "Opinions of the Tea Party supporters" heading lead me to believe that the article section was going to let individual members characterize the movement (e.g., some guy wears a white jacket with a "white hood" to a gathering of 2,000 and that wearing of the "white hood" is the opinion of the Tea Party becuse it is an opinion of a tea party supporter.) I change the title of this section to "Opinion polls focusing on Tea Party supporters" since it seemed more neutral and it was based on the structure of the headline "New York Times/CBS News poll focusing on Tea Party supporters" (google it). "focusing on" implies that the poll attempts to interview only Tea Party supporters, but allows for errors. I thought of using the broader title "Collective opinions or views of Tea Party supporters", but that is merely another way of characterizing most of the article. Opinion polls are merely a piece of the collective views of Tea Party supporters. The issue regarding using opinion polls from biased sources is discussed above in Statistics -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While biased sources are a part of the issue, the whole idea of polling on issues unrelated to any Tea Party objectives, ideology, platforms etc. and trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize is a tactic of Tea Party opponents. The article should report on such efforts as such, not participate in them. Otherwise the injection (juxtaposition) of non-germane material is OR. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For the article to report your theory that polling is just "trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize", you would need reliable sources conveying that as a fact. Lack of such sources is probably why you don't see your theory in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Xenophrenic. Actually, there are reliable sources that can show polling is used to do just that. It's actually often seen as 'push polling.' Politicians do it all the time. "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John Doe if you knew he had an illegitimate child?" Happens all the time and not by the actual politicians people, but rather by his "supporters." So if an agency or group, etc., want to come up with some numbers to favor their guy, they do this.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Like any other information, polls need to be from reliable sources. The fact that some are not reliable doesn't prevent us from using ones that are reliable. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But North8000 has a point there.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
North8000's "point" is that the polls in this article are "trolling for some higher incidence of a bad or unpopular opinion to publicize". He has asserted it several time on this talk page. He has yet to substantiate his theory with citations to reliable sources. If you, Malke, know of some reliable sources that he can use to validate his theory, perhaps you could help him out and provide them? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, you have it backwards. You (or someone) needs to establish that insertion of polling on unrelated topics belongs in the article in order for it to stay in. It's personal insertion of unrelated primary source material, and the juxtaposition is OR and synthesis. Similar situation have been discussed extensively at the wp:nor talk, and, except for the person who wanted to do the insertion, the decision was unanimous. The inclusion here is in violation. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The polling of tea partiers about tea partier views is certainly related to the Tea Party movement. If you think you see examples of OR or synthesis, please don't hesitate to detail the exact violations here; personally, I do not see them. A link to any previous extensive discussions you feel directly pertain to this situation would be helpful, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the polls aren't polling tea party movement members. It's polling what is being called 'tea party supporters.' Here's how you define that, "Do you agree or disagree with the way Congress has handled the bailout?" "Do you agree or disagree with the government takeover of General Motors?" "Do you agree or disagree with a tax increase to pay for the bailout?" It's all in how you phrase something. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is something that I have been trying to make explicit since the beginning. The defense against this argument seems to be that since there is no official Tea Party then you can use Tea Party Supporters as a proxy for the view of supposed Tea Party Members. This is the OR to which North8000 alludes. Interestingly, when people poll Republicans or Democrats, those doing the polling have no way to know if someone really is a Republican or a Democrat. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
North8000 never said anything about "Supporters" versus "Members"; s/he never played that silly semantics game. North8000's complaint, as I understand it, and as s/he has expressed it, concerns some of the questions the polls are asking. S/he feels that poll questions asking the TPers about issues related to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., are not only "non-germane" to the TP platform, but are also specifically developed by "Tea Party opponents" as a tactic to dig up and publicize unpopular trends among TPers. I disagree, and I have asked North8000 to provide links (reliable sources, mind you, not partisan blog echo-chamber sites) to support his/her conspiracy theory.
There is no such thing as an all-encompassing, formal Tea Party Movement Membership ... yet. Sure, you can formally join as a "member" of any number of the TP groups (i.e.; Tea Party Patriots, Express, etc.), but there are just as many that do not have a formal membership process. "Supporter", "Member", "Adherent", "Proponent", "Activist", are not "proxies" for anything, and are all descriptive expressions of people in agreement with the Tea Party -- and organizations have begun conducting polls to help define and understand these folks. I'm sure most TPers would rather the polling just focus on issues of taxes, bailouts, stimulus and deficit spending, but when TP groups start mobilizing around issues of gay marriage, immigration reform and women's rights, people start to ask questions. When TPers start mobilizing, only now that Obama is president, around fiscal issues that started and existed many years ago, people start to ask questions. When the "fringe" element in the movement, and every movement has its regrettable fringe elements, expresses itself, people start to examine what form that expression takes in this movement. When such questions are asked, polls are conducted to help answer them -- not the other way around, as North8000 theorizes, that the polls were formulated just to raise questions about the TPers. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
But the polls make it appear as if there is a defined tea party movement. You can't say there isn't a defined movement and then allow polls that define these "supporters" when clearly the people taking the polls are starting from the false premise that there is a clearly defined movement with a membership whose collective beliefs and action are being polled against.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The polls do not make it appear as if there is a defined TP movement; quite the contrary, if it was well defined, then the polling would be unnecessary. The people taking the polls start with no premise, and begin specifically by asking the respondents where they stand with regard to the TP movement. People claiming support for the TP movement, and especially those claiming "strong" support for the movement, tend to hold certain views on certain issues. Polls, by their nature, indicate trends, not "collective beliefs". When poll results indicate that "92% of TP supporter respondents disagree that the bailouts were necessary", that indicates a trend, albeit a strong one - but not a "collective belief". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They use the collective "tea party supporters." What tea party? A specific tea party or the tea party movement? Did they use the Contract from America to ask questions? Or did they gather questions from reading articles about rallies and what the speakers said? The pollsters are defining it as movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The UW poll clearly is using supporter as a proxy for a member, they even state as much in their methodology. But I am confused, you say that supporter is not being used as a proxy, yet you later say that they are being used as a proxy. In fact if there was no implied proxy then the inclusion of those polls would be completely meaningless within this article. Either you agree that the UW poll is being used as a proxy for the views of a hypothetical Tea Party Member in order to validate the use of the poll in this article, or you don't in which case the poll has no meaning in this article because it doesn't say anything about a hypothetical Tea Party Member. BTW, when you make statements that could be interpreted as a correlation between a Tea Party Supporter and a Tea Party Member, then you are by definition using the views of a supporter as a proxy for the views of a member. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an all-encompassing, formal Tea Party Movement Membership ... yet. Sure, you can formally join as a "member" of any number of the TP groups (i.e.; Tea Party Patriots, Express, etc.), but there are just as many that do not have a formal membership process. "Supporter", "Member", "Adherent", "Proponent", "Activist", are not "proxies" for anything, and are all descriptive expressions of people in agreement with the Tea Party, as far as the polling goes. By the way, you are incorrect as to what I said, and what I later said. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat, the UW poll used Supporter as a proxy of a Member, and they stated as such in their methdology. That you fail to grasp what you are saying is not my fault, but given your lack of understanding of statistics it is not suprising. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You may repeat all you want. The UW poll referred to "Supporters", not as a proxy, but because they recognized there wasn't a formal "Membership" item to use to count membership (as I explained above), and they stated as much in their methodology. That you now feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks summarizes the conclusion of this discussion nicely. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sara Palin?

Shouldn't Palin be mentioned somewhere in here? richrakh````

I think she selectively associates herself with people most likely to win and I think there's WP:RS out there to show it, and I'd like to include it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Political Agenda

I am very concerned with this article. It lacks organization, and more specifically, I find it rather difficult to find any concrete information about the group's political agenda; therefore I propose we:

A) Protect this article from corporate editing and biased editing. Just the facts, please.

B) Focus on providing readers with brief, factual information about the group's agenda, upfront. Right now, there seems to be a lot of information marginalizing and "information jamming" going on in this article, which is why I believe this article deserves only the most rigorous investigation. --Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TEA Party eponymous of Taxed Enough Already(not attributing to 1773 organization)

As heard on NPR News and Diane Rehm Show on NPR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.71.70 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See Backronym. jheiv talk contribs 22:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Election Effect

Some notable "tea party" candidates are missing from this section. Where is Marco Rubio in Florida, Pat Toommey in Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Ken Buck in Colorado, Carl Paladino in New York, and plenty of other house candidates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.208.27 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. We might need to create an article to cover all of them. This section is already becoming too large, not to mention 2012 might see the same effects.
Right now the page protection is set for 2 weeks. If you can post some refs and content here, the auto-confirmed users would be happy to add them for you. †TE†Talk 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The section seems to be one of the of the most relevant parts of the article. The Tea Party Movement is apparently having an effect on the mid-terms and most likely will continue on with 2012. As that gets closer, we can condense the mid-term entries into one sentence each, but it should stay here.
Also, I wanted to add a section on Sarah Palin. I think she finds areas where the Tea Party candidate can't lose and then goes there to campaign for the candidate, the candidate wins, and she takes credit. That's an old political trick and I was thinking it might be worth a mention.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Joelhirsch, 19 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

To be referred as the Conservative Hysteriarchy''Italic text. Joelhirsch (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama quote

I think adding the Claire McGaskill bit weakens the force of the sentence after it, "But let's not play games here." When he'd just been talking about the Social Security. Going through an audit with Claire, seems to stop the impact.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Contract from America

Why exactly is some unotable houston lawyer credited with creation of what was orginally the idea of GOP members of the House in '94 mostly with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey taking the charge. With this new contract Armey picked the top 10 from a pool of 50, shouldn't Dick Armey get most of the credit here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafizzle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph - what does this mean?

"attempted to establish a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies by giving a cut on re-importation tax imposed on the East India Company."

  • Who got the cut?
  • Are some words missing?

Uncle uncle uncle 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't the description of the original Boston Tea Party be similar to what is on the "Boston Tea Party" page:

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

Major changes

I tried to make the article less biased by bringing the actual policy agenda of the group to the forefront and by reducing redundancy. The neutrality and composition of this article both concern me greatly. I really believe that the mods should be more involved with attaining (and maintaining) that high Wikipedia standard of quality. Please tell me what you think.--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed this last night before creating new section. My fault. †TE†Talk 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lede

For an article of this length and complexity, the lede needs to be expanded.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say...

I propose a sandbox version to work on with newer editors. Who's with me? †TE†Talk 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox, created using the latest article revision. This was the version prior to my massive reverts. If anyone cares to compare them and let me know if I made the right moves, I'd appreciate it. I understand alot of work went into the good faith edits, but I have many issues with them. Thanks. †TE†Talk 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I'm all for working out the kinks. I really do believe this article should be frank and informative about the goals, composition, action, and history of the group. No matter how many people vandalize and sugar coat these things by marginalizing, disorganizing, and putting up pro-tea party imagery in random places, it's still biased... so let's fix it together (sorry for being kind of a dick)--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm all with you on "this article should be frank and informative about the goals, composition, action, and history of the group." However, I'm not sure about the "marginalizing, disorganizing, and putting up pro-tea party imagery in random places." Neutrality is the goal, and this article should conform to any other WP:BLP. I will try to post relevant policy links in the sandbox article. I envision us discussing those things and changes there. It can be a learning experience for all involved, as I am far from being an expert. †TE†Talk 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Let's get started. Please elaborate on "I'm sorry but this restructuring, added content, unfree pic, new bullet scheme, see also, etc. are not improvements, IMHO."--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little short on time right now. I've explained the 'see also' in a previous revert made on your minor edits, the image is unfree (I believe), the bullet scheme refers to the changes you made in the 'polling and demographics' section (whatever it's named, it is the result of talk page consensus), the restructuring is completely out of order and against MOS, there is some added content that might needs scrutiny and the quote boxes were overkill (for such small quotes). There is plenty of previous conversation regarding some of the changes. You might want to peruse the archives, if you're interested in mostly pointless, mind-numbing debate. Now I must call it a night. †TE†Talk 06:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dale Robertson sign section citations are just just blogs or non-notable media cites

I'm a political moderate and when I read articles on a subject, especially on political topics, I do look at the cited sources to gauge for myself if the allegations have merit or are partisan in nature.

Each of the four citations in the Dale Robertson sign section are links to non-professional blogs or lower tier media sites that in no way can be considered notable, reliable sources.

147. http://www.washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader ‘N-Word’ Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader
148. http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-leader-that-claimed-no-slurs-now-famous-for-n-word-sign Tea Party Leader Who Claimed No Slurs? Now Famous For Holding N-word Sign
149. http://www.tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/tea_partiers_site_shows_photoshopped_image_of_raci.php Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign
150. http://www.mediaite.com/online/analysis-was-the-notorious-racist-tea-party-sign-forged-we-believe-not/ Analysis: Was The Notorious Racist Tea Party Sign Forged? We Believe Not

Unless notable, reliable sources can be found to replace these citations the entire section will need to go away since it involves serious allegations and speculations of motive against a living person. I'm not insinuating that the incident didn't happen but if it's not properly cited there is a serious issue with it's inclusion. I will tag the entire subsection as poorly sourced and/or having POV issues when until there is a consensus. Veriss (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the train wreck called wikipedia :). Its really sad that you have to self identify as "neutral" in order to point out poorly sourced material and question its inclusion. Political articles are easily the worst POV types on this project due to the partisan militants. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the invalid sources which then required a major rewrite of the subsection using lots of weasel words to try to keep it NPOV. I also placed an unreferenced section banner on it. Inevitably it needs to be properly sourced or removed though. Veriss (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a problem for the article in that I just searched the New York Times and the Washington Post and I couldn't find any articles about this. Last spring I found several websites that showed altered tea party photos, the before and after, so I went looking, but I couldn't find before and after photos of the Dale Robertson sign.

Points to think about:

  • who took this picture?
  • Why doesn't Dale Robertson show the original sign to reporters so they can see that it was photoshopped?
  • Why aren't there reliable sources?
  • If this is a credible story, why not report on it?

Points to think in asking whether or not to delete this section:

I've removed the section and the image as it lacks reliable sources and is a BLP vio. If you want it back, you need to provide reliable sources. RE Malke's question about why not "show the original sign to reporters"---simple, per the description, the bruhaha broke out 10 months after the event. Most people would not keep a cheaply made sign like that for 10 months.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RE the sign, I didn't realize it was that long ago. I see it's been readded, but might this still be a violation as this fellow is denying it?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MediaMatters is definitely not a neutral source and they are doing something that I would call synthesis with the USA Today article. First, not denying something is not the same as admitting to it. Second, the USA Today piece is rather vague on details. The assumption is that the sign being referenced is the sign in MediaMatters, but we don't know that. To tie that simple statement to the specific image would be synth.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the section and added reliable sources from USA Today and CBS News. A quick search reveals several other reliable sources. Gobonobo T C 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The BET cite is the one that seals the deal for me... the CBS and (especially) USA Today references are too vague, but conjuctively along with the BET reference, this covers my BLP concerns.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
@Balloonman Did I say anything about including this to the article? I don't think so. I placed some links/info that might help further searches to get to the bottom of this and seems like someone did.TMCk (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything appears to meet the standards now. Veriss (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead/Lede tag

We need to get around to dealing with this tag about the lead. Any suggestions for rewriting it? I was thinking:

  • Four paragraphs to include:
  • origins
  • what they're protesting
  • influencing elections
  • encompasses multiple groups, but no single leadership
  • have an agenda
  • criticisms that rallies attract racists

Please add/suggest. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation no longer active

Citation #27 ([13]) is no longer working, and one of the quotes used in the article is taken from it. Is there another source that can take its place? A dullard (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shame. It doesn't seem to be archived at archive.org. It's a primary source, so not a great loss. Where it is not used in conjunction with another source, the information should be important enough to be verifiable from other sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

article length/teabagging section

This section was WP:UNDUE and I scaled it down. It isn't called The Teabagger Movement. The first paragraph explains the term sufficiently. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:UNDUE is relevant in relation to your edits. The use of the term has garnered enough media attention for the section that is currently there. Can it be cleaned up? Sure. But outrightly removing content under the pretense that you are following policy is not the way to go about this. Besides the point that a section should never be just 2 sentences when it can be more, with the only reference not even being that great of an WP:RS. If you feel it needs condensed even more, then please do so. But do not remove perfectly valid citations when you do so. You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Layout#Paragraphs. §hepTalk 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Stepshep You are making assumptions about my intentions. I've edited this page for a very long time and I made it plain why I deleted the material. I had no "pretense" as you claim and the other editors who edit here on a regular basis know that I have been working to keep the size of the article manageable. The entire article "can be more" as you put it, but this is a dynamic process and there is a great deal more to add to the article. The additional paragraphs do not add to the quality of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't making assumptions about your intentions, just noting mine; sorry for the confusion about that. You did not make it plain why you deleted the material. You said you deleted it for a reason that wasn't true. This is a medium sized article. Looking through the archives of this page's talk it seems many things are removed to keep it "manageable" when it could do with some beefing up. Just because "there is a great deal more to add to the article" does not mean that certain additions should wait until other things are added. I do agree that the section would benefit from a clean-up. I just don't think wiping away everything but two sentences is the way to do it. §hepTalk 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how well sourced something is. It isn't relevant. The first paragraph explains it all. Continuing to re-add it is silly. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph makes no mention of the term "TeaBagger" (or any of its derivatives) but focuses solely on where "Tea Party" came from. Therefore your current argument is false. §hepTalk 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I reverted Malke 2010's deletion and recommended to them to possibly use more discretion when deleting other editors' work in the future - especially for controversial articles such as this.
And while this section continues to undergo revision and be refined, one cannot ignore the amount of usage and attention the term has gotten -- and the controversy it has provoked. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The original term was "teabagging." I've corrected the section. There is no 'controversy,' about the use of the term which has fallen out of use. It is not called the "The Teabagging Movement" and does not require more than one paragraph.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, the article seems bloated enough without name calling ho ho type additions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and what with the November elections coming, there's going to be a great deal more to add.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the article in its current state is bloated. Picture-heavy? Sure. But I don't see bloated. §hepTalk 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"There is no 'controversy,' about the use of the term which has fallen out of use."
Source? Thanks. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with the rest of you - there are better ways to do things than just removing content like this. To me, it looks like the op just didn't like the use of the word "teabagger" and was trying to do whatever they could to remove it. Any neutral editor should know better. And unfortunately, now the page has apparently been locked because of it. Hopefully lesson learned. 76.208.147.124 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did the block come from? If there was a discussion, it certainly wasn't noted here. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I forgot about the ancient one. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello North8000, check the history.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised to see the first lock I've seen in ages and Malke's first day back happen at the same time. Just when I thought the article was getting better and everyone was working together well, too.  :/ Well... I guess that's my cue. Good luck guys. Izauze (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem with the first paragraph hiding the fact that this party was created by Murdoch, the first mention of the tea party is by a fox news personality!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.11.60 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Gadsden flag is not flown at rallies as "an alternative to the Stars and Stripes". Citing an obscure article by a second string journalist as the reference does not make POV any more true.

"Tea Party activists have embraced the "Don't Tread on Me" flag and its message.[40] Nationwide it serves as an alternative to the stars and stripes[41] for Tea Party protesters upset at the current government yet still feeling patriotic."

This is nonsense. The Gadsden is flown as an expression of disapproval and defiance of what is viewed by participants as over-reaching by the Federal government, but it is in no way viewed as an alternative to the flag of the United States. If whoever inserted this line bothered to attend a rally or at the very least reviewed photographs, they would find just as many Stars and Stripes, if not more. The statement cited is nothing more than a subjective opinion of an inconsequential journalist and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.135.213 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but I've seen it in photos from different rallies and a news article about sales of the flag have gone way up.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Which means somehow that people at rallies consider it an alternative to the Stars and Stripes and not simply an expression of disapproval with the state of the Federal government? Based on what? Sales? Care to speculate on the sales numbers of U.S. flags versus Gadsdens? Any first-hand quotes? Anyone bother to actually ask a person at a rally if they considered it an alternative to the Stars and Stripes? Anyone bother to ask a tea-partier if they consider the U.S flag a symbol of the Federal government instead of a symbol of the nation? The statement by the author is nothing but a subjective assumption. If I go to an Earth Day rally and fly an Eco flag, does that mean I fly it as an alternative to the Stars and Stripes? It is a logical fallacy and certainly nothing resembling objectivity.
I just noticed this in the article and I agree with the OP. Copying the language by Diane Macedo in an online news article does not suffice. Can you cite any known Tea Party participants making such a statement? The unknown OP is correct. That you have seen the flag in photographs of Tea Party events is insufficient to deduce that "it serves as an alternative to the stars and stripes for Tea Party protesters". It is a logical fallacy and has no place in an impartial article. Please find some real cites for this assertion. Otherwise, it needs to go. Thanks. Digiphi (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

First Tea Party

http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/132356/a--tea-party--to-protest-paterson-s-taxes/ This is recognized as the first Tea Party of 2009 and needs to be added to the background/history or early local protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.255.50 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Tea Party was truly 100% LIBERTARIAN, and has CITATIONS over on the ARTICLE for "BOSTON TEA PARTY" which began in 2006. PLEASE CORRECT THIS ARTICLE'S MALFEASANCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.162.145 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The tea party began before 2008, and is not a reaction to obama. Here is just one example from 2007. (skip to the final 10 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb4HW3I82lg --Axcess (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wrong Video of Health Protest Spurs N-word Feud Guardian News; April 13, 2010
  2. ^ Hoft, Jim (April 13, 2010). "Anything To Slander the Tea Partiers: AP Invents Phantom White Man Who 'Heard' Slur". Big Journalism. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=79282&page=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_8&oldid=1142446336"