Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 9 November 2010

Template:Controversial (politics) Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections at the Reference desk.

Develop Consensus of coverage of Koch funding / support

Per discussion at the end of the section on the lead, we're moving on to this section / topic.

Title of Section

I think that sections labeled "Opinions on" are always POV magnets. It's an invitation to, of the thousands of published opinions out there, just select the ones that push one's POV, and put them in here. It should probably be realelled "fundraising and support" which would also tend to improve the content of the section.

We should clarify whether Koch bros. actually supported the TP

If Person A gave money to an organization B that gave money to Organization C, that alone does not qualify saying that person A gave money to organization "C". However, if the linkage was much closer (e.g. they earmarked the money for "C" or said it must go to them) then one could say they gave to C.

Hi, I have been active on the Koch Industries page and related pages. I think that this is a very important point. I would point to this recent Wall Street Journal piece that seems to have Koch's most recent statement that makes precisely this point:

Rich Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, released a statement reading, “We have not provided funding to the tea party organizations which are being organized throughout the country and, until recently, we had never been approached by a tea party group for funding. We have publicly supported Americans for Prosperity Foundation since 1984 and Americans for Prosperity since 2004. We have never considered these institutions to be tea party organizations. Whether or not they are considered to be tea party organizations will not affect our support of them. We believe the tea party movement is a response to the growing frustration of many Americans to government overspending. We share these concerns and encourage citizens to express their opinions in a respectful and civil manner.”

MBMadmirer (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. And there does not appear to be any reliable sources to claim that the Koch brothers earmarked their donations to AFP Foundation/AFP specifically for tea party support.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the AFP is their baby. They don't need to "earmark" anything to get it to work to organize Tea Party protests. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were RS-established that the Koch;s control the AFP, then I think that that would be relevant to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• They included Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, groups born from a conservative think tank formed in the 1980s by members of the Koch family, who run oil-and-gas conglomerate Koch Industries Inc.
  • Election 2010: Birth of a Movement --- Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis Douglas A. Blackmon, Jennifer Levitz, Alexandra Berzon, Lauren Etter. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Oct 29, 2010. pg. A.1
  • (this is a big new profile of the TPM - we can use it as a source throughout the article)
• Die durchschlagendste Initiative der Kochs wird sich von kritischen Berichten aber kaum aufhalten lassen. David war einer der Gründer und Geldgeber einer Stiftung namens Americans for Prosperity Foundation, bei deren Schwester-Organisation Americans for Prosperity (AFP) die Anführer der Tea Party tatkräftige Hilfe beim Aufbau ihrer Bewegung erhielten. Die Kochs haben verneint, die Tea Party direkt zu finanzieren. Doch bei einer Veranstaltung von AFP im vergangenen Jahr erklärte David: "Vor fünf Jahren gaben mein Bruder Charles und ich Startkapital für Americans for Prosperity, und es hat meine wildesten Träume übertroffen, wie AFP zu dieser enormen Organisation herangewachsen ist - Hunderttausende Amerikaner aus allen Schichten, die aufstehen und für die ökonomische Freiheit kämpfen, die unsere Gesellschaft zu einer der reichsten der Geschichte gemacht hat." Seine Rede wurde von einem Dokumentarfilmer eingefangen, der sich eingeschlichen hatte (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JjQxPJOAfg).
  • Big Brothers. Die Zeit. Berlin: Oct 28, 2010. pg. 27, 2 pgs

• The units of the movement, however, have a powerful, opaque network of financial backers, including organisations such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. These groups appear to be providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds. But because they are registered as non-profit foundations they do not have to reveal their funding. David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, a Kansas-based energy and manufacturing conglomerate, have long funded Americans for Prosperity and are already making plans for after the midterm elections. The New York Times this month revealed that the Kochs intend to "develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity".
  • Local faces, billionaire backing Financial Times. London (UK): Oct 28, 2010. pg. 3

• Oldham infiltrated some of the movement's key organising events, including the 2009 Defending the American Dream summit, convened by a group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP). The film shows David Koch addressing the summit. "Five years ago," he explains, "my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. It's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organisation." A convener tells the crowd how AFP mobilised opposition to Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. "We hit the button and we started doing the Twittering and Facebook and the phonecalls and the emails, and you turned up!" Then a series of AFP organisers tell Mr Koch how they have set up dozens of Tea Party events in their home states. He nods and beams from the podium like a chief executive receiving rosy reports from his regional sales directors. Afterwards, the delegates crowd into AFP workshops, where they are told how to run further Tea Party events. Americans for Prosperity is one of several groups set up by the Kochs to promote their politics. We know their foundations have given it at least $5m, but few such records are in the public domain and the total could be much higher. It has toured the country organising rallies against healthcare reform and the Democrats' attempts to tackle climate change. It provided the key organising tools that set the Tea Party running. On the same day, Americans for Prosperity set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events. Oldham's film shows how AFP crafted the movement's messages and drafted its talking points.
  • Comment: The Tea Party: a deluded grassroots movement inspired by billionaires: By funding numerous rightwing organisations, two mega-rich brothers have duped millions into supporting big business George Monbiot. The Guardian. London (UK): Oct 26, 2010. pg. 31

• Also investing heavily in the race is Americans for Prosperity, a group started in part by oil and coal billionaire David Koch.
  • Hidden donors pour funds into campaign; A group with roots in the tobacco lobby is the latest to pay for ads attacking a Democratic House incumbent in Florida. Kim Geiger, Tom Hamburger. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 24, 2010. pg. A.34

• The Kochs have spent almost $250 million on politics, founding shadowy foundations like Americans for Prosperity and supporting the tea party.
  • Stick a pin in voodoo economics F. D. Bloss. Roanoke Times & World News. Roanoke, Va.: Oct 24, 2010. pg. 3

• The Tea Party Express rolled into Pasadena on Wednesday night taking advantage of a slight break in the rain to rally support from conservative voters less than two weeks before election day. Americans for Prosperity was founded by Charles and David Koch, oil billionaires who have denied connections to the tea party. At Wednesday's event, the Americans for Prosperity stamp was visible and in high definition. "That's our big screen and we sponsored the ATM machine," said Meredith Turney, California communications director for Americans for Prosperity. She pointed to the large digital television screen near the stage that flashed group's logo.
  • Tea Party Express rolls into Pasadena Brian Charles. Pasadena Star - News. Pasadena, Calif.: Oct 20, 2010.

And so on. This is just from the past week or so. I don't think there's any real doubt.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any debate about the Koch role in AFP. David H. Koch is the chairman of the board of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy foundation before that. There is something odd saying that a group that was founded in 1984 and rebuilt in 2004 is a tea party group. Clearly AFP supports tea parties. But the quote from Richard H. Fink from the Journal above illustrates the point nicely, as does the WSJ profile from Friday that you point to, that this is more a "working with" and a "providing support to" than a "controlling". MBMadmirer (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's no question about providing support, though not necessarily financial. Essentially, rather than the Koch's financing and running the TPM directly, they founded and finance groups such as AfP, which then train, organize, and generally encourage the TPM. We have video of AfP workers at an event, bragging to Koch about the size of the "parties" they organized.

Ironically, one of the products Koch Industries sells is fertilizer, which has led to trite analogies about how the TPM is a grass-roots movement fertilized by billionaires. Within that framework, however, the Koch's are not fertilizing the fields by sprinkling money directly onto them, but instead by buying fertilizer (AfP) and applying it.

To what extent this makes the TPM astro-turfed or even an unknowing tool of the Koch's is a key issue, but not one I'm qualified to speak on. It does, however, make it impossible for us to lead off by calling it grass-roots, because that would require immediately balancing it with many credible claims to the contrary, thus swamping it. The best we can do is, in a supporting sentence, state that it has been considered both grass-roots and astro-turfed. It's not our job to make the article reflect our own personal views of the Truth, only to accurately summarize our sources. This means we can't omit sources we personally dismiss. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are no credible claims that the TPM was not originally a grass-roots movement. There are some claims it is not now a grass-roots movement, but the issues are not at all comparable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with me: nobody doubts that it was originally grass-roots, but there're doubt about whether it is anymore. The lead sentence is about the present state of the movement, not its origins, so it cannot state that it's grass-roots, as that is a controversial claim. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really controversial though? I would point to the Gardner piece in the Washington Post as pretty clear evidence that it is grassroots or that large parts of it are grassroots. Perhaps a statement like "the tea parties are a grassroots movement that has gotten support from a number of existing conservative organizations." That seems to capture both points. MBMadmirer (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It really, really is. Since writing the above, I learned that I was mistaken: the very first protest appears to be turfed. See elsewhere on this page for more on that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that claim but I have never seen anything approximating conspiracy theories, and only then from advocates. So do you specifically object to language like "started as a grassroots movement which has received support from existing organizations." And if you object, what specifically, with references, do you object to? MBMadmirer (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but it's hardly a "conspiracy" theory to say that the Tea Party movement was organized and channeled from the very start by Republican groups, particularly those founded and funded by Koch. In fact, they brag about it. FreedomWorks, run by noted Republican insider, Dick Armey, came from Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy, the other half of which is Americans for Prosperity.

My objection is not to the mention that the TPM widely considers itself to be grassroots. In fact, I insist upon it, as it's relevant and verifiable. My concern is that we cannot endorse this disputed claim by stating it as fact. Instead, we need to attribute it and then balance it by showing the contrary point of view, in the form of citations from notable, reliable sources. Would you like to help us do this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which contradict the statement that the TPm was initially formed as a grassroots movement. Whether and when it may have been co-opted by FreedomWorks (or whether FreedomWorks just claims to have founded it) has not been established by reliable sources. FreedomWorks and AFP may be reliable sources as to whether they funded TPm (although it still appears to violate WP:SPS), but they are not reliable sources as to whether they were involved in founding the TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FreedomWorks claims to have organized the TPM from the very start. Even if you offer sources to the contrary, all you're doing is showing that there is an open dispute. In such a context, we cannot take sides.

Ultimately, you need to be very clear on what you're actually supporting. The strong version is that the TPM is 100% grassroots -- that it started that way and has stayed that way. The weak version is that, amid the GOP-run organizing and funding, there's some core of grassroots-ism in it. If you wish to claim the strong version, you would need to first build an alternate universe where it's true, as it's quite verifiably false in this one. Good luck with that. If you wish to claim the weak version, that's fine, so long as it's properly cited, but it doesn't allow for us to make any statement that might be mistaken for the strong version. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording Problems

The most glaring problem is this section uses badly biased detractor's wording to characterize the donations and the situation. Numerous factual mis-wording are inserted for their POV's to build on. For example, that

• the Koch's are the sole supporters of the TP,
• pretending that the TP is one organization; e.g. that anything done with / for / applicable one of the 1600 groups constitutes doing it for all 1600
• That giving money to a group equates to "manufacturing" the group.

North8000 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This is POV pushing again. The original edit Balloonman suggested was much more neutral and that's the one that was placed by consensus. So we could go back to that since it was neutral and by consensus. The articles do not show that the Koch brothers are funding the Tea Party movement. And the edit that claims the New Yorker "examined statements" is a weasel way of saying "financial statement" which of course is false. And also, the New Yorker article has one of the Koch brothers denying he's funded the tea party. So that quote should be included there for balance.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you paste that in here to look at or give us a link or diff to it? North8000 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article changes so often, it will take time to find it again. It's not there now, but it was. I'll look again later. Also, I just wanted to mention that Balloonman still had reservations about the New Yorker article because it is a dubious source. But we went with the edit because other editors were pushing for a Koch mention. But the emphasis is becoming WP:UNDUE and clearly POV pushing. The Koch brothers have not been there from the beginning, supplying all the money, pulling strings, etc. That's a patently false assumption and has absolutely no reliable sources. Also, the Koch brothers are not well known outside New York City. It's not like they're on a notability level like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The Koch brothers are just a couple of rich guys who got that way because they've spent their lives servicing their own self-interests. AFP does not supply money to any tea party groups. Rather, they sponsor free seminars on lobbying, hand out names of Congressmen and contact numbers, show people how to canvass, network, etc. It looks like they're just trying to piggyback their agenda onto the tea party members.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which (current) wording are we talking about? Could someone paste a copy here?   Will Beback  talk  18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, I'll go back and look for it later. It's not there now. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's not there then why are we discussing it?   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Give him/her a chance.....they might have a 2nd job besides Misplaced Pages.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the editor who started this sub-thread, so maybe you can help. Do you know which text we're discussing?   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But I just know how to do the headings! :-) I remember reading the discussion but I wasn't a participant at the time. I'll take a look. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The main part of the discussion was October 3rd - 5th and is in Archive #9. Now I'll go look for text. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing the Koch brothers edit. Here's the edit with the "examined statements" that suggests that Jane Mayer examined "financial statements," which she did not. .

I've searched all the variations and this edit is getting changed frequently. It seems, given it is dubious to begin with, it should be deleted. This isn't relevant to the Tea Party movement. There's no connection other than the AFP trying to get Tea Party members to advance it's agenda.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer echoed Greenpeace's statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Is this the text we're discussing here?   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Only Malke can answer on what he/she meant, but I'm guessing the the following is it:

In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer examined allegations that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch, Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

North8000 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow. When searching for it I noticed that we had 500 edits in 13 days. Makes me wonder how to ever get a semi-stable version. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that's not in the article anymore. Is the current wording acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it's my text, we should add that the statement is still inaccurate, and give relevant sources. AFP does not fund the TPM; it seems to fund individual TPms when they support AFP's goals. (At least, according to AFP.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the statement is true in an absolute sense, merely whether we've correctly summarized the source.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As a first step towards fixing the wording problems, I'd like to change the title to remove "fundraising and support" or "fundraising and funding", or something else that removes the "Opinions on" North8000 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wording problems there are, but I certainly agree to dropping the "Opinions on" text from the heading.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I put up the link above, don't know why no one seems to have clicked on it:

"In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer examined statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity..." This makes it seem like Jane Mayer examined "financial statements." There have been so many changes to this edit, it's morphed into something that is not recognizable to what the sources are claiming. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Scroll down the page: . Malke 2010 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we're discussing an old version. The current text says:

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer echoed Greenpeace's statements that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Is there any issue with that?   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems weasel to me. How did Greenspeace get into the mix? Did Jane Mayer mention Greenpeace? Where's a reliable source that says Jane Mayer and Greenpeace have a common thing for the Koch brothers. What's wrong with the original edit from Balloonman which had consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, any edit that says, "echoed so and so. . ." sounds like original research.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Echoed" is another way of saying "repeated". As for Greenpeace, I imagine that the sentence may be referencing this passage from the source:

• And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

I don't think it adds anything, and it doesn't look like Greenpeace was talking about support of TPM. I suggest dropping it, which would leave us with:

• In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

How's that?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jane Mayer article in The New Yorker is a reliable source. Why do we need to attribute it to Mayer as her statement or opinion? Why can we not use it simply as fact? Is there some other reliable source, apart from the Koch brothers themselves, that contradicts the New Yorker magazine? The factual content of the New Yorker article has been reprinted by practically every American news organization. If they found the information wrong, surely they would have been able to produce a reliable source to contradict the Mayer information.

If we had a section covering how the Koch family funding the Tea Party movement story broke (see the linked archive), then surely we need to give credit to Jane Mayer, but we also need to bring up Mark Ames of the eXile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

the eXile is a much less reliable source than the New Yorker. Do we have any independent source that says they broke the story, or commenting on their coverage?   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs the "Mayer said that...." format format is needed. When you say RS I think you are referring to the two paragraphs in wp:ver that place conditions for use. This does not mean that anything said by anybody meeting those two paragraphs is to be treated as unquestioned fact. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to Will, except not that Jane Mayer said, it has to be that she "claimed" it because she's only claiming, she has no proof.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WTA - we don't use "claim" for anything except for mining claims. We don't know that she has no proof. The New Yorker is famous for their fact checking, so it's unlikely they would have printed that unless they found evidence.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The New Yorker is a reliable source and we should not use weasel words here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010, you are posing an epistemological question. Luckily Misplaced Pages is not interested in the Truth. We only repeat what reliable sources say. If all the reliable sources say the same thing, then we print it – no question asked. If we find contradicting sources, then we weight the reliably of the sources and give each point-of-view due weight. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the narrower def of RS (the two paragraphs in wp:ver) which I think you are using has nothing in it about objectivity or knowledge of the subject, and since one can find lots of "RS's" (by that criteria) to say any particular thing that one wants, including on both sides of this question, by that standard, each sentence in a contentious area require about 20 man hours to work out (finding, collating and analyzing sources). I think that we're trying to find a consensus shortcut (shorter than that process) here, which is how it usually works in WP. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If the New York had found evidence they would have printed that. The article is very clear that it only alleges a connection. I believe "allege" is the original word that was there before.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Hello Petri, I'm not concerned with it being "true" but rather verifiable. I'm not posing an epistemological question, but rather I'm trying to avoid original research by insisting on specificity. Mayer is suggesting a connection as she has no evidence, and has not examined financial documents. The article should say that and not use weasel wording to suggest she's found evidence. When the articles says, "Jane Mayer said. . ." or, "Jane Mayer examined statements. . ." it needs to be more specific. What statements did she examine? And what did the Koch brothers have to say about that? Afterall, she did interview them. Quotes are there, they should be used.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that Mayer has no evidence? That seems to be merely a surmise. If a reporter said that the victim was driving a red car, would we say that's just an opinion because she has no evidence? Reports don't add footnotes to their articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

She quotes Greenpeace reports as her sources. That suggests that that is her evidence. Together with the tone of the article, that suggests it may very well be all she has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayer cites a Greenpeace report regarding the connection of the Kochs to Climate change, not regarding their connection to the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good comment, Will, from someone who has read the material being scrutinized. The article ought to clearly describe the situation of the source.-Digiphi (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

fund raising and support section

This section is not really about the tea party movement. It doesn't show any of the local fundraising by the tea party groups. It shows Michele Bachmann giving financial support to tea party backed candidates. That's not the same as giving funds to the tea party movement. And Michele Bachmann formed the Tea Party Caucus on her own. There are no tea parties participating in that.

Also, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Krugman's comments don't point to any specific financial support. Just because they claim there's a connection doesn't mean one exists. So the title of the section is misleading. That is why the original title is far more accurate: "Claims of astroturfing."

And this edit:

"The New York Times describes the Kochs as founders of the Americans for Prosperity, which they say has supported the Tea Party movement."

Who is "they"? "They say. . ." Are we saying the Koch brothers are saying AFP supports the tea party movement, or is the New York Times saying it?

What the NYTimes article says is that Tim Philips, through AFP, has been active in helping tea party groups in "get out the vote" drives. It isn't saying anything about supporting the tea party movement.

They listened to a presentations on “microtargeting” to identify like-minded voters, as well as a discussion about voter mobilization featuring Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity, the political action group founded by the Kochs in 2004, which campaigned against the health care legislation passed in March and is helping Tea Party groups set up get-out-the-vote operations.

The "They" above is a reference to the participants at an Aspen conference attended by wealthy Republican Party donors, and not to Tea Party members. It clealy shows the AFP "microtargeting" "like-minded voters." It doesn't show support of tea party groups, just "get out the vote operations." That's not the same as providing financial support, and sponsoring a free seminar is not financial support either. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure I undertand, are you suggesting that the TPM is supported and organized entirely from grass roots? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)+

That doesn't seem to have any connection to what Malke said which is simply that the reference was misinterpreted/misused and does not support the statement that cited it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

North, I think it's relevant, so I'm asking Malke for a clarification. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with North8000, I don't see any connection to the misuse/misinterpretation of the New York Times article.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you're not going to answer? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have answered See above.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And so on. There are numerous sources that refer to support, including direct expenditures, for TPM candidates from the AFP.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Will, it's probably best if you simply provide a link and not fill up the talk page with all these quotations. Could you please remove these and just add the links? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get them through sources that can be linked - though I've occasionally found links that can be added. I realize that it's a little harder to work around source quotations, but since we're here to summarize those sources it's worth the trouble. Meanwhile, I'm trying to collapse the quotes so they're less obtrusive.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, there seem to be two issues here. One is to add more material on general and local fundraising. The other is the question of AFP support. As I've documented above, the assertions that the AFP supports the TPM and TPM-endorsed candidates is repeated in numerous reliable sources. Therefore, attributing it just to the New York Times would be misleading. I suggest we redraft that sentence to make wider use of available sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit that I refer to and pointed out above, is using the New York Times for attribution, and this is not only misleading it's incorrect. As to the AFP, the sources you've listed are simply repeating these claims. They aren't offering anything new, such as their own investigative report, which shows any evidence or examination of financial records, etc., no any quotes from tea party group leaders who acknowledge their tea parties are financed and run by AFP. Also, AFP is being blown out of proportion here as if the AFP is somehow giving complete financial support to 1400 tea parties. There is no such reliable source that shows that.

And the fact that the Koch brothers deny supporting the tea party, and that there is no reliable source to show that their donations to AFP are earmarked specifically for "Tea Party movement support" seems to support their denials. That should all be mentioned in any edit regarding the Koch brothers and AFP. Also, the fact that AFP is holding seminars is also mentioned in the New Yorker article which does not in any way suggest that AFP is providing financial support to the Tea Party movement which is comprised of over 1400 groups, most of them grassroots and supported by local funding, usually through donations on their websites.

As regards the 9/12 groups, they are not tea parties. The 9/12 movement was founded by Glenn Beck to advance Glenn Beck's agenda.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing to note, is that you're saying that the AFP giving support to so-called 'tea party candidates' is somehow support of the tea party. That's not correct. Giving funds or other support to a political candidate is not the same as giving funds/support to any tea party group. Not at all. If a voter gives financial support to Joe the Trucker, who is running for Congress and also has tea party backing, the voter is not in any way supporting the tea party movement. The voter is supporting the candidate. To make the leap to tea party support is a synthetic one.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We have sources that say the AFP supports the overall movement and individual TPM candidates. If we have sources that say the candidates are not part of the TPM then that would change things. But giving money to individuals campaigning on the TPM agenda is clearly a form of support of the TPM agenda.

We have no evidence that sources are simply repeating each other. If there's evidence of that then we can work on it, but it seems to be just an assumption be WP editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not at all the same thing. That's synthetic. And none of those 'sources' you've given show otherwise. How does one support an "overall movement?" The Tea Party movement has no central leader, no central headquarters, no center for financing/donations, etc. One doesn't fund 'movements.' And the candidates are not running on a third party ticket called "The Tea Party Movement Party." Giving money/support to a specific candidate is not at all saying that one is giving money to the Tea Party movement.

And additionally, none of this has anything to do with the fact that the New York Times is being misquoted, and the title of the section is misleading. The reason editors here have called it "astroturfing" is because that defines the claims being made. The title "Funding. . ." etc., is misleading. You don't have a single reliable source to show that AFP is the funding source for the Tea Party movement. There is no such thing. Holding 'get out the vote' seminars in hotel ballrooms that are free to anybody who wants to show up, is not providing support to the Tea Party movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"How does one support an overall movement?" Lots of ways. By conducting training seminars for movement activists, by organizing events, and by campaigning on behalf of movement candidates, for example. The TPM does have candidates and an agenda. It may not have an elected leader, but people like Palin as seen as leading the movement. Anyway, if we have sources that say "X did Y" then it's not up to us to decide that Y is really Z, so therefore the sources are wrong.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All synthetic.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"All" of what? What text in the article are you referring to?   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel like, perhaps, the issue here is that there are a number of organizations and kinds of organizations in play, doing different things. Perhaps various organizations and the support that they offer should be listed. The Washington Post piece by Amy Gardner could provide a good guide to the organizations, the scope, and the functions. This could also allow for discussions of funding such as the Koch Family and Koch Family Foundations give money to Americans for Prosperity, while some other people give money to FreedomWorks, and yet other people give money to American Majority, while the Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express seem somewhat self-funding. That approach might address a lot of these issues. It might also deal with some potential WP:UNDUE issues that are in the current article. MBMadmirer (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Will, the logic you're leaning on is deeply flawed. Before addressing this discussion's original concern about the misleading/misquoting of the source I'm going to take two detours through your talking points.

1.)

That one or both of the Kochs made donations to AFP, and that AFP financially supported one or more TPM groups, and that therefore the Kochs are the financial backers of the TPM groups is a huge stretch (and includes the presumption that these facts are ironclad in the source). To that end you've asserted that AFP made donations to certain candidates and submitted that as evidence in support of your (ostensibly) primary argument that it's appropriate to state that the Kochs fund the TPM. You wrote:

...But giving money to individuals campaigning on the TPM agenda is clearly a form of support of the TPM agenda.

Sure.

a.)Here your point has reformed to conclude that the Kochs/AFP support the TPM agenda, which is a departure from your primary belief that they indisputably fund the the TPM.

b.)It is not clearly a form of support; not by WP standards and not for the purposes of this article. The TPM is a movement, not a national political party, and not a legal entity. There are, however, thousands of legal entities including non-profits throughout the nation that are associated with this movement. Consider the case of Mr. X:

If Mr. X makes a donation to the National Rifle Association, and the NRA later makes a donation to the campaign of candidate John Smith (who is officially endorsed by the Republican Party), Mr. X's donation IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THAT PERSON'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT of the Republican Party.

Any statement to the contrary in the article is synthesis.

c.)The business about the Koch assumptions and AFP activity may very well have a place in specific candidates' articles, if those articles already mention affiliations with one or more TPM groups.

2.)

Your presumption that AFP, and therefore the Kochs, "support" the TPM, whether emotionally, ideologically, or by participating in activities in which members of the TPM may also participate does not service your primary argument that it is appropriate to state that the Kochs fund the movement. You wrote:

"How does one support an overall movement?" Lots of ways. By conducting training seminars for movement activists, by organizing events, and by campaigning on behalf of movement candidates, for example. The TPM does have candidates and an agenda.

Sure.

a.)Here, again, your point strays from the cause you're trying to champion: the legitimacy of the statement that the Kochs fund the TPM. Whatever AFP does or does not is perhaps appropriate for the AFP article, and has no bearing on the debate over the value of the source.

b.)You're reaching. That one or more groups associated with the TPM have endorsed certain candidates, and that the TPM has an agenda, and that AFP made political donations or coordinated open-invitation events, does not classify AFP's donors as the financiers of the TPM, not even if they are wealthy. Again, consider Mr. X:

If Mr. X publicly supports candidate John Smith by ringing door bells, painting signs for rallies and even hosting a fundraiser in his backyard, and candidate John Smith is officially endorsed by the NRA, it does not mean that Mr. X supports the NRA. It's a reasonable suspicion that he subscribes to the NRA's doctrine—and this should be discussed on a political forum—but certainly not a fact. Furthermore, if Mr. X decided to make a financial contribution to candidate John Smith, even knowing that Smith is endorsed by the NRA, only an imbecile (or unscrupulous ideologue) would submit Mr. X's contribution as evidence that he finances the NRA.

You're reaching.

c.)The source does not lean on any primary sources, or any recorded statements of the parties it alleges to have performed certain acts, to validate its assumptions or any of your assumptions that I've examined here. On the other hand, there supposedly exist recorded statements of the concerned parties refuting the assumptions described in the source.

Returning to the main course of the discussion, I agree wholeheartedly with Malke. Not only do I agree, I recognize the source for what it is: woefully ill-suited to the scrutiny of WP standards, insofar as it is relied upon to support the content you want to see in the article.-Digiphi (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, these are all interesting arguments, but entirely beside the point. This is not a forum; you are not here to win a debate. Regardless of your own analysis, we have reliable sources that say otherwise. We also have a documentary which directly contradicts what Koch Industries claims, so although we should definitely echo their view, we must also show the opposing view.

I urge you to focus on what we need to put in the article, not what you believe to be the Truth. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're halfway right, Dyl (WP is not a forum). However, the analysis I provided is exactly what you need to understand the wrongness of the content you're advocating. You'll correct me if I'm mistaken. I presume that you're having trouble appreciating the exempla and analogy that I've arranged in my previous post. They are rhetorical devices not meant to be rebutted. They are hypothetical anecdotes, and you may find it useful to add (intra-personally) the passage, "and it would not be appropriate to include such a statement in a Misplaced Pages article," at the end of your reading of each one.

This is an encyclopedia and it has written policies regarding content. The examples that I have examined reflect the prescriptions of several of these policies, and include Reliable Sources, Original Research and Synthesis specifically.

BTW: I am in fact here to win a debate, and so are you (unless you intend to lose).*wink

-Digiphi (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try to be tactful, so please forgive me if anything seems harsh: that is not my intention. I have to say that I think you missed my point here: we're not here to discuss the Tea Party movement except to the extent that it is relevant to this article. With all due respect, you went on and on as if this was a Lincoln–Douglas debate. It's not. My actual interest in the TPM is quite limited. I just want the article to be fair and balanced. I don't really want to read all those words if they don't matter. Let's please focus on our job here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you want me to say Dyl? I'm sorry if you don't want to read, it's really too bad. It's part of the discussion process. I read what you write. If you don't feel like reading, then don't read, but also don't complain to me. You said your piece, like others, and I've given you my talking points back. Now do the real thing and let's have this debate. -Digiphi (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the lead, still.

I've held off from making any edits, other than reverting obvious vandalism, but it's getting worse.

Most recently, a second "national" was added to the initial sentence. This is on top of the comma after "grassroots", which implies that it's a movement that happens to be political rather than a political movement. The real problem is the "grassroots", which violates neutrality.

I put forth some clear arguments in explanation of why we can't state that the TPM is "grassroots", but the responses I've received have not answered my point in any way. Unlike "populist", "conservative" and "libertarian", which have strong, one-sided support, "grassroots" is countered by numerous, credible claims of astroturfing. As a result, we can only say it's been "called grassroots" and then say it's been "accused of being astroturfed", both with citations.

This has become a serious neutrality issue for the article, so I'm going to once again climb the BRD StairMaster with a substantive edit. I fully expect to be knee-jerk reverted, but I do request that, as soon as your legs feel less kicky, you come here and explain how we can call it "grassroots" when we have so many reliable sources that contradict this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a mess, at at the heart of it is a double standard.....a very high standard for inclusion of anything even slightly positive sounding about the TPM, and a very very very low standard for inclusion for anything negative about it. We have 710 words about an unsubstantiated "somebody said that somebody in the millions of TP'ers said something racist" and you choose one positive word to raise the bar 10 levels higher for inclusion on. What would you suggest we do about that one word? North8000 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my views are generally conservative, and I don't see this in terms of "negative" or "positive". The issue here is that we have only support for words like "populist", "conservative" and "libertarian", but our sources are conflicted on "grassroots" vs. "astroturf". All we can do here is state that there is some controversy; we can't take sides. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was rough. I think that our discussion has to take into account the words used. "Grassroots" is a positive/ complimentary term, but very mainstream in civil writing. "Astroturf" is a pejorative "attack" term. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No insult taken.

I think we need to understand that, while astroturfing is incompatible with being grassroots, there are more than two possibilities here.

It's quite possible to be neither grassroots nor astroturfed. For example, take the GOP itself.

An astroturfed organization not only isn't grassroots, it pretends to be.

In short, because the TPM is often claimed to be grassroots, all denials necessarily involve astroturfing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While the first tea party protests were organized by people like Dick Armey (i.e., astroturf) most of the organization has been done by individuals (i.e., grassroots). TFD (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. Find some reliable sources to back that up and you can include that as a counterpoint. We absolutely need to present both sides. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Altemeyer wrote about the Tea Party and while it presents his analysis of the movement, he seems fair in presenting the facts. But he has not published his report and therefore it would not be an RS. TFD (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. However, if he provided links to reliable sources, we could use those here. We just have to be careful to avoid original research. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it that this issue is an on-going multi-section debate in here?

Is the following not fairly conclusive and straight from the horses mouth

Feb 23, 2009

The Taxpayer Tea Party Movement is Growing - First wave of tea parties a huge success

This past week, FreedomWorks helped to organize "Taxpayer Tea Party" protests around the country

This is one month after President Obama took office.

I see nothing verifiable in this article indicating the existance of any widespread "grassroots" TP prior to this date. 75.88.83.74 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Paul

Using the looser of the two WP meanings of RS (just meeting the 2 paragraphs in wp:ver) on can find lots of "RS's" to say whatever one wishes on this, including grassroots, astroturf, and everything in between. . So where does that leave us?

One way to resolve this and solve some other problems with the article would be to build some credible content in the article on this topic (top down vs. bottom-up organizing, impetus, control) whether or not funding is an important issue here and if so, where does it come from) using RS's per the second WP meaning of RS's (reliable(on the topic) "RS's") and then summarize it in the lead. More work, but less work than the eternal instability that this article is headed for. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not a rhetorical question. When we have at least as much support for astroturfing as we do for grassroots, we have no choice but to avoid stating that it's grassroots. Later, we should mention both that the TPM generally considers itself grassroots and that many (and here we must cite specific, notable people both internal and external to the movement) consider some or all of it to be astroturfed.

I agree that we should go into some detail on the issue of funding, organization and support. But let's at least figure out how we want to lead off before we get mired in the details. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty makes appropriate wording choice arguments. Maybe the urge of the origin of the so-called "movement" was what ever "grassroots" means, that doesn't matter, but you may state they (citing source) consider ("call") themselves "grassroots". Anecdotes can be sources objectively. 99.39.184.178 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they cannot. Check out IRS. It is the rule for how we treat anecdotes. -Digiphi (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing at rules is not helpful. Here, you speak of some rule about anecdotes, but that term does not even appear on the page. You have to be a lot more specific than that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it. The first sentence of that page states Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources. The page defines reliable here, and states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians"

To that end, published is also clearly defined as "text materials, either in traditional printed format or online" and "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party." That scraps the possibility of an editor's anecdote and also that of a million editors' shared experience shaping an article.

Furthermore, a story posted to a blog will also never appear in this article, because the same policy also states (here) that "Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources," because use of primary sources frequently invites original research, even when good intentions rule the day.

An explanation of primary sources can be found here, and the standard for the consideration of blogs (found here) states that they "are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

This is why we will not include anecdotes in the article for the purposes suggested by the poster. -Digiphi (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what this has to do with the topic. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You begged for this post. Dylan Flaherty said: You have to be a lot more specific than that. Either you're not reading and you can't abide not submitting something, anything as a placeholder for a rebuttal, or you're trolling. Don't complain that my posts are too long, or dismiss them if you don't read them. This space is for editors. Make straightforward claims, and follow them up with rationale. Walk it like you talk it Dylan. -Digiphi (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to be specific, not merely tedious. You need to relate what you say to the issue at hand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, that won't satisfy my challenge, and you know it. I told you to not be dismissive. It tells me that you're intimidated and afraid of my talking points. You're fleeing the discussion. I'm inviting you to continue a real debate like an editor. Let's be adults together, you and I, and do this thing. Consider the points, reform your rebuttal, and bring this back to an actual debate. Let's get this show on the road. -Digiphi (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dig, you aren't in any position to challenge me, nor is this a place for pre-written talking points. That's the disconnect that's leading to your failures. You just have to stick to the topic instead of going on and on about irrelevant matters. I'm sure that this will encourage people to pay attention to you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the specific place for talking points. You can read about talk pages in WP:Talk_page. I'm still challenging you to continue the debate. I'm here to edit, and I desperately want to have this discussion about the article. I'm still waiting for this to get moving. Let's go. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Their Interpretation of" needed to go and should stay gone.

It's rightly so that Yeti Hunter removed this from "The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to.......and adherence to the United States Constitution" in the lead, and for many more reasons than they listed. The common meaning of that would be that the TPM has created a specific interpretation of the Constitution, and has defined their concern as being adherence (only) to that (non existent) special interpretation. This is not supported by the cite, and, as a sidebar, is also not correct. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe these words were added because, in their absence, it would sound as if we are endorsing the TPM interpretation of the Constitution, and also as if the TPM was somehow special for supporting the Constitution (an obvious falsehood). In fact, the TPM has a very distinct interpretation that is, if not fringe, certainly non-standard. Perhaps the way to solve this would be to find a properly cited adjective, such as "originalist" or "traditionalist", and use that instead. What do you think? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several thoughts on this:

1. Adding "originalist" would probably not be controversial, as such is a very mainstream view and arguably even a majority view. (certainly not fringe). But is it really true (supported by refs) that the TP's general emphasis on constitutionality is defined as having such a qualifier and is made conditional on it?
2. I think that listing it means says that it a focus / priority of theirs. (witness point #1 of the contract from America) with the highest (82%) support, with no qualifier on "constitutionality"). And since it is a statement of the TP's emphasis, it should accurately state their emphasis. I don't see where the statement in the lead it even posits or implies a special interpretation of the constitution, much less implying our support of such.

What do you think?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can get a citation for "their interpretation" of the constitution, it should be included. Either "originalist" or "traditionalist" would be fine, but only if these are definable positions on the Constitution (do either have a wiki article??), and more importantly can be backed up by RS. My concern with "their interpretation" is that it has something of the scare quotes about it (ie, it could imply that they're not really for "the constitution", just "their interpretation" of it). But merely saying they are "for adherence to the constitution" is so banal as to be meaningless - very few groups are openly anti-constitution. Although, in the absence of any decent definition of their position, this should be the default.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press calls it a "strict interpretation" - sounds accurate enough. Implies gun rights, intentions of founding fathers etc. Thoughts? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with "strict interpretation", although it's not ideal. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with adding "strict interpretation" or "originalist" as a compromise. But I would argue that:

• the sentence as-is DOES say something (it doesn't just say that they are for adherence to the constitution, it essentially says that such is a priority / platform item.
• Adding any of those qualifiers would make the sentence less accurate. It basically says that that priority/platform item is specifically about a particular interpretation of the Consitution. I can't imagine any credible source trying to say that such is the case across the TPM, and it also directly conflicts with the TPM statement of this priority/platform item, which is what sentence is covering. As an additional note, And, that platform statement is a credible source on this, a case where primary is not only acceptable but somewhat definitive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No platform will ever state that upholding the Constitution is unimportant, so if we take it as just that, it truly is banal, as YH said. We know that the TPM means more than that: they support a view in which the Constitution is much more limited in terms of giving out powers. I'd call it minimalist, but if we have references for strict, that works, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it is a statement that adherence to the constitution is amongst their highest priority "action items". IMHO this certainly is a statement.North8000 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the listed priorities should be put in the same order as mentioned in "contract for America", if applicable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although I think that including the modifier "strict" works well alongside that change. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to an abstract and paper about how the Tea Party views the U,S, constitution. It says "fundamentalist vision of the constitution". TFD (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that either "fundamentalist" or "originalist" would be good, with "originalist" being #1. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

While fundamentalist may be accurate, it could be a bit more neutral. I'm fine with originalist, too. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory?

The article states the Tea Party movement is conservative/libertarian (which is contradictory in and of itself), but the elections and candidates have shown that they are very much in the Republican camp rather than independent. Local and national analysts have said this, Rolling Stone has said this, and even the article indicates that Tea Party-supported candidates in 2010 were Republicans. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state this in the lede instead of presenting it as a non-affiliated movement that somehow becomes Republican later in the article? MSJapan (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Per sources there is significant elements of both in the TPM. The conflict of the latter term emphasizes one of the many reasons why it is not a part of the Republican party. Frequent clashes with the Republican establishment are further evidence of this. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that libertarians (especially the Libertarian Party) diametrically disagree with the Republican Party's official stances on most social issues, their "official" economic stances run hand-in-hand. In many cases, the chosen wording of several LP planks, regarding economic issues, originated from the GOP's wording of the same planks (despite the GOP, arguably, not having followed the precepts of their own planks). Since the TPM is singularly focused on economic/fiscal issues, the dual-label is more than appropriate. Gawain VIII (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be generally accurate to say that the Tea Party movement (as a whole) is solidly conservative on economic issues, but more leans libertarian on social issues. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar said it well. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You have it backwards. The most prominent Tea Party candidate and now Senator (Rand Paul) Is decidely Libertarian. If anything the GOP is moving towards the TPM on fiscal issues and has become more libertarian. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that your main statement is right. But it does not conflict with what Blueboar said and I concurred with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction: libertarianism is conservative, although not all conservatives are libertarian. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There are both types in the TPM, but I wouldn't agree with your description of Libertarians. Where Libertarainism and Conservatism conflict is on social issues. That "square" at the Libertarian party web site describes the difference pretty well. Liberals and conservatives are opposite corners, and Libertarians are at a third corner. Basically, Libertarians are conservative on fiscal, size of government, taxes issues, and liberal on social issues (e.g. legalization of drugs, "law and order" /vs. freedom type issues.) North8000 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly accurate to say that Libertarians agree with other conservatives on economic issues, such as lowering taxes, removing regulation and so on. However, while Libertarians are not necessarily conservative on social issues, they're also not really liberal.

For example, the liberal stance on gay marriage is pro, while the Libertarian stance is that marriage should exist only under contract law and as a religious ceremony. Likewise, liberals would argue for "gay rights", while Libertarians would argue for the government not discriminating against gays (such as in the military) while affirming the right of business owners to discriminate on this (or any) basis. In other words, when Libertarians have social views that aren't conservative, they are still defined in terms of liberties relative to the government (as negative rights, not positive rights) and recognize the supremacy of property rights over what liberals would claim are civil rights. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely hilarious that someone actually brought up Rolling Stone magazine as a viable source for answering the question of whether the Tea Parties are really just another name for a bunch of Republicans or if they really are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading description

Describing the "Tea Party" as "conservative" is utterly misleading. This is a far right extremist group. Soc628 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. We apparently cannot find a WP:RS reliable source which calls it "far-right". <redacted comment about the mental state of someone who thinks that sign is "far right"> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't? How about The Daily Telegraph, which calls it extremist, far-right and compares it to the English Defence League? Soc628 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 

The link is to a column, not a news story, and it does not call the Tea Party "far right" anyway. TFD (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about far right, but "right wing" is very easy to find, especially if you look at non-American sources. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost all American politics are viewed as right wing by the rest of the world. The ideology of any American political movement should be gagued within the confines of America. We don't go around using American sources to call Western Europe as being all far left. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's simply inaccurate. Europe isn't far left, at least not as a whole. If anything, the right has been doing quite well as of late. Likewise, even by European standards, America is not all right wing. Obama, for example, would still be considered a moderate liberal there, just as he is here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor page 10, November 1, 2010; Far-right gains across Europe per Friedrich Ebert Foundation: New Extremism emerges in Europe; Even in Germany, highly attuned to dangers of radicalism, 13 percent would welcome a "Führer" (The word Führer means "leader" or "guide" in the German language, derived from the verb führen, a cognate of the Old English words faran ("to make one's way") and fær ("road", "journey") and the Modern English words derived from the older terms such as fare now mostly used in compounds such as wayfarer and sea-faring....) 99.155.155.33 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If we could be the PRC for only one day expression of frustration from Hot, Flat, and Crowded. 99.60.126.138 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those far right extremists demanding we have a balanced budget. That just screams radical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "teabagger"

Would an unbiased source say the "teabagger" is not a pejorative term? I may be biased as I am not a democrat, but the term teabagging has a definitive meaning and it is a pretty offensive. The page could at least cite sources of Tea Party protesters calling themselves teabaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.47.43 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• How does this matter? Drmies (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why you would include a section about the label "teabagger" -- other than perhaps making a biased connection to the slang sexual term. Most people probably are not familiar with the slang term. It is unlikely that an article about New York or Winnipeg would have a section about "New Yorkers", or "Winnipegers" -- the term used by the residents of these two cities. A cute pun (Tea Baggers)that came and went does not warrant inclusion in this page. (Ukrcanadian (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

The Tea Party movement has apparently embraced the term "teabagger", giving it yet another meaning. Given its previous meaning, that might not have been wise. However, it's not our job to pave over their PR gaffs. We just report the (verifiable) facts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct, Dylan. The term teabagger is frequently used pejoratively by detractors of the TPM. On the other hand, there is no pervasive use of the term by prominent TPM figures in self-describing contexts. So it would be inappropriate of us to label people in the movement this way within the article. Ideally, we should instead describe them with their endonym tea party patriots, or better: tea partiers. Better yet—and to avoid POV complaints—we should probably just use members of, or people in the TPM when describing them in the article.

- Digiphi (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't believe in the necessity of a section examining the use of the term. The term shouldn't appear in the article at all, for the same reason that libtard doesn't belong in the Coffee Party article, even though some TPM-minded bloggers have used it to describe that movement. -Digiphi (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't judge the noteworthiness of material, the sources do. A dictionary considering it for word of the year shows that some mention is appropriate. I agree that a whole section may not be necessary, though. As long as it doesn't overwhelm the tea bag article again I don't care that much what happens.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to point out that the members of the Tea Party called *themselves* "teabaggers" at first, when their initial protests manifested themselves in sending boxes of tea bags to members of Congress. This term was used in FOX news broadcasts as well, until someone must have pointed out the current meaning of the word in the popular vernacular. I agree it can be used pejoratively by detractors of the movement. The reason it is important to point out that the 'baggers themselves coined the term and popularized it, however, is that it is a clear example of the right-wing media's effective use of the "victim" card (against the terrible, childish liberals) when challenged on their own mistruths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.192.207 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about the media and victim card doesn't have any bearing on what we do here. We have written policies that guide us in making edits. If you've witnessed someone using the term, or if you've observed an account of someone using the term, your knowledge is not a suitable source for the article, per policy. If an editor brings reliable sources describing the pervasive endonymous use of the term teabagger by members of the TPM, then we'll make the appropriate additions. Otherwise it's pejorative and doesn't belong in the article, per policy. -Digiphi (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall multiple editors previously submitting several RS on this. Are they no longer in the article?Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not populist, not libertarian

The Tea Party movement is not populist and is not libertarian, OK? We've been over this before.

There is a general consensus that it is conservative, maybe even right-wing. But it was funded by corporations like Koch, and thus it is not a populist movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that it's a socially conservative movement. For instance, 82% of the movement opposes gay marriage. The movement also opposes legalizing marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be an argument against it being grassroots, not populist. Populism is a stance, grassroots is an origin. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Their stance is not populist though. They are against organized labor, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the people who say it is NOT populist and NOT libertarian. Look up populism and libertarianism. The Tea Parties are usually neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seigoat (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you don't fully understand libertarian or populist. Also, it was not funded by the Koch brothers. The are grassroots organizations that have since recieved funding from a number of sources. The whole Koch conspiracy is nothing more than Democratic talking points used to try and derail the movement. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes.

Populism does not require being pro-labor, just claiming to represent the common people. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It WAS funded by the Koch brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they did fund it, but the movement is still populist due to its platform. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Its platform isn't populist either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide what it is. We're just here to summarize reliable source using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record (again), the sources in the article only allege Americans for Prosperity funding TPM groups, and that the Kochs are obviously the domineers of the entire movement because of their association with AFP is your original research. Even so, for all we know TPM groups could be funded by the ghost of John Holmes, but it would have no bearing on their populist tenets.

-Digiphi (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If we wanted to be neutral, we would not refer to the Tea Parties as "populist." Outside of the Tea Party movement itself, there is a general consensus that it is not.

If the Tea Party claimed the sky was orange, would that make it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that the movement is not libertarian. However, we have reliable sources which call it "grass-roots", "populist", and "libertarian", so this descriptors should be in the lede. We do not have a reliable source which denies it being "grass-roots", and I don't recall any which deny it being "populist" or "libertarian". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that one has to support the insanely corrupt unions in this country in order to wrap oneself in the mantle of populism is quite simply the most asinine comment I have read on this page thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We spent many many hours working out that one sentence, including reviewing and citing sourcing. Time to move on to the other ~800 sentences in this mess of an article. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we haven't spent enough hours on that sentence, since it doesn't even reflect a consensus of what the Tea Party movement's ideology is. There's a consensus that it's conservative, but that's about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Prepare to have you mind blown, Anon. No real editor will ever care about any consensus that you report. We have written policies and we deal with sources. -Digiphi (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:CITEKILL looks poor and shows that there is a dispute. As mentioned, there is no reason to define it like that when it can be handled in the next line with some clarification. Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM origins (2007 not 2009)

I joined the protests in December 2007, but since I know original research doesn't mean much here, I also found references: http://www.prisonplanet.com/tea-party-co-founder-concept-has-been-hijacked-by-false-leftright-paradigm.html and VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8 and thousands and thousands of more references from google to the 2007 and 2008 Tea Party:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+tea+party+2007 and http://www.google.com/search?q=Campaign+For+Liberty+tea+party+2008 . I know it's an inconvenient truth to have thousands of references challenging your beliefs, but nevertheless they are there. Late 2007 was the birth date, with rapid growth throughout 2008, and especially in protest of Bush's Banker Bailout. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that they are right, if one is talking about it's beginnings. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible. However, prisonplanet is not possibly a reliable source, and the video is not likely a reliable source. If it were a legal upload of a CNN broadcast, or if it were a Ron Paul campaign ad uploaded in 2007 or 2008, then it could be used (but you'd still need to put a time-mark for the information.) You'll have to find a real source, as difficult as it might be.

I've restored the note, but noted that you don't have a credible or reliable source yet. Many of the thousands of references note that (a) Tea Party movement opposed Ron Paul in this election, and some noted that his (second) "money bomb" in 2007 was on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, but few use the term "Tea Party" to refer to the (then) current campaign.

Also, the google searches in question needs to have the strings quoted.

As a further note, if you can find a reliable source, you can put grassroots in the lede, where it belong. Some of the blog entries from the search would also support grassroots, if they were reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The video is timestamped by Youtube as "November 11, 2007" so I don't know how you can claim its not a reliable source. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a copyright violation, and I'm not willing to watch the video to find a mention of the "Tea Party". If you can provide a time-mark, we could verify that a "Tea Party" movement was described, but it might still require a reliable source to connect it to the group now known as the "Tea Party movement". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the problem with grassroots is not that we couldn't find support, but that there was so much opposition that we could not ignore it. We'd have been forced to have a phrase like "which has been considered grassroots by some and astroturf by others". Is that what you really want? Likewise, your objection to calling it libertarian is based solely on your strict, personal definition of libertarianism. Misplaced Pages is not limited in this manner. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. Even so, if we can provide reliabie sources for the origin being grassroots, then that should be in the lede unless you can find reliable, contrary statements about the origin, even if there were reliable statements that it is not now grassroots, although I still haven't found any in the references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, we both know that there are already reliable sources accusing the movement of being turfed. Astroturf is incompatible with grassroots. No "interpretation" is needed, past knowing the meaning of the terms.

I'll say it again: we can only mention the claim of grassroots as an attributed claim, and then only when balanced by claims to the contrary. We do not get to disregard one side of this based on our own political views. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again; we do not have reliable sources to the contrary, only editorials, columns, and statements by politicians. We have sources that it is (now, at least, in part) funded by outside money, but I have not seen any evidence of reliable sources stating that that money changed anyone's views or was provided in a directed manner. Such a statement would be required for an assertion that it is not grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You can say it all day long, but it's entirely unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Nancy Pelosi's statement is entirely unconvincing, and not worthy of notice in an encyclopedia. If you can point to an assertion from a reliable source that the organization is not grassroots, I'll concede that point. None of the sources added qualifies. On the other hand, I can't recall seeing a definitely reliable source which stated it was grassroots; if there were any, they didn't stay long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing it doesn't come down to opinions. For example, your opinion about Pelosi is entirely irrelevant: she's a reliable source and belongs here even if we disagree with her. Reliability does not mean conformity with your biases. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, the sources you're leaning on are not appropriate to support the inclusion of that content per the language in Policies (IRS, NOR and Verify specifically). It is the (and only) rule for how we will decide on this issue. As editors we don't have any choice. Please read them from start to finish if you have not (it isn't fair to us if you have not). For starters, please consider the language from the Specific Contexts section: Academic Consensus Individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated-simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

And also: Statements of Opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. and ...when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

And also from NOR: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.

And very important, from Verify: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.

Please understand that the onus is on you (and the editors who agree with you) to demonstrate that the content satisfies the demands of the policies. Please think carefully and try to apply each of these maxims. -Digiphi (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By this logic I have to go change the "birthdate" on the Democratic Party wikipage to 1860, because I cannot locate any sources on the internet to "verify" it was born in 1792, even though we all know that was its origin. (goes off to edit article) ---- Theaveng (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You really should hold off on that. IRS does not limit sources to electronic media, or even sources which can be accessed via the internet. It's great if they can be, but certainly not a requirement per policy. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. Dylan et al., you're really all over the place. If you want the Astroturf/grassroots labeling debate, then post in the section for that. You can do the same for discussions about funding and populist/conservative stuff. Editors shouldn't have to debate you all over the page about the same issue. Things don't get done on talk pages where sections don't stay on topic. Don't get tricked into derailing them by Anons.

Theaveng North8000 Arthur Rubin: the article should reflect the date as accurately as can be sourced. You should find—and I'll start searching too—an RS that mentions the primaries Theaveng has found. Alternatively, find any RS from 2007 that mentions the TPM, and we can include it with an in-text attribution. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing policies I already follow does not persuade me to edit any differently. If you have specific issues with the state of the article, you are welcome to share them. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dyl, the word onus means the responsibility to demonstrate the propriety of your view. Several of us have now impugned either the appropriateness of the source or the way it's being used to support content. I've thrown you some bones and now I want you to go through the motions and make your case. This is a debate, so have at it please. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections to the removal of these tags? If so, please state them below. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Back on track: The question of the date. Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other in 2006 actually

1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

-Digiphi (Talk) 02:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not seeing Ron Paul mentioned in the sources about this movement. The name was shared for the rally a few years ago but nothing I see relates it with the movement. Am I missing a source?Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find. I support your edit. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in "The Virginian-Pilot" sources relates those minor non-notable events to the current TPM. As I've said in edit comments, no material in the article relates any political events before 2009 as being a specific part of the current Tea Party Movement. BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you said in your summary that you didn't want to take it to talk. So I'm sorry if that offended you. The edit summaries in the removals complain about the lack of association with the TPM in sources. The first source ref name "deseret" begins with the headline: Anti-tax-and-spend group throws "tea party" at Capitol

it says in the text "The event was part of what has become known as the Tea Party Movement"

If you want to remove the Ron Paul stuff, that's good and fine. But but leave the rest about the time frame of the event.

Actually that SLC paper is from 2009. Forget what I said. You're right scrap the whole thing. Sorry for the mix up. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No offence taken at all. This came up before and it is one thing that has annoyed me. Basically, it is clear that Paul's thing a few years ago was called a "Tea Party". However, I have yet to see a source that says it is the same thing as the movement. It appears unrelated and both groups of people jumped on the cheekiness of the historical name. If it was related I assume RS would have made it clear months and months ago.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... OK. Digiphi caught his own dating error in proposing that the Deseret source supported material on events prior to 2009. Good. BigK HeX (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag clean-up

I just went through the article and removed a number of tags, for a variety of stated reasons. If for any reason you disagree, I recommend explaining yourself here instead of launching into an edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, you just reinserted a whole bunch of tags. Presumably, you have some specific objection to their removal. This is your opportunity to explain them. Go ahead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it Bud. Those tags are there because the items to which they are attached are contested, and is each the subject of an ongoing debate on this very talk page. When there is consensus in an individual debate, then the tag attached to its respective content in the article will be removed (due either to consensus that the content is not controversial/tag-worthy, or consensus that the content ought to be changed). So we don't need a talk section to discuss the value of the tags. The ongoing debates concerning their objects does that for us. If you don't like the way one of those tags looks in the article, you should spend even more time working out the issues with editors in the corresponding discussion section. While the debate is ongoing and consensus has not developed, we do not remove tags as though the debate is ended. That is unfair to the readers and the editors in the discussion, and violates policy. If you're frustrated by the lack of consensus in a discussion, then you need to somehow make peace with that fact rather than removing the corresponding tags, because it subverts the editing and consensus building process.

This section is unnecessary, and encourages all the specific debates in other sections to migrate here. You should get rid of it. -Digiphi (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me I just realized that you've made a companion section to the already dangerous Tag section. This is ridiculously redundant and waste of space. I'm deleting "Tagstorm", and if you insist on having this discussion it can happen within this one section. -Digiphi (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dig, you seem to be struggling with the concept of justifying these tags, so I'm going to assume good faith and spell it out for you. The first tag I removed in that section was about url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html. The premise was that it's unreliable because it's an op-ed page. This is a misunderstanding of WP:RS; an op-ed page is explicitly stated to be reliable, just so long as the opinion is attributed. We attribute to Krugman, who is quite notable, so there is no reason for this tag. If you disagree, please explain. If you choose not to explain, then the tag will go away. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That tag doesn't indicate that someone thinks the NY Times isn't notable, nor that editorials are prohibited by WP policy. It indicates that the way the source is being used to support content has been challenged and is the topic of ongoing debate. I wrote once and I'm going to rehash that the ongoing discussions from other sections will not be dragged into this section to create break-away debates. The specific tags in question will remain until their respective debates have ended. However I'm not going to entertain your questions in this section in every instance that a tag is prematurely removed and needs to be restored. If the tags bug you, then you can participate in the discussions to speed them to conclusion. -Digiphi (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The tags have been removed. If you want to restore them, it is up to you to explain why.

I took the case of a single tag, explained why it was invalid, and then asked you to refute this. You have refused to. At this point, the most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you are unable or unwilling to do so. This is sufficient reason to keep the tag off the page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the now-removed tag next to the Krugman section was "{{verify credibility|failed=yes|reason=OpEd}}". As you can see, it clearly did invoke the op-ed status of the page as the alleged reason for its lack of credibility. Whatever Digiphi imagines, the tag itself contradicts him entirely. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... IMO, tagging a well-known Krugman op-ed for somehow being an unreliable source for assertions quoted from Krugman is pretty silly. I removed that whole set of tags. Looks like they were used as a weapon, rather than for cleanup. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing, I'm going to avoid speculating about motives. Instead, I'll just stick to the fact that the tags are not justified. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The {{verify credibility }} tags are not justified if the sections are properly marked as opinion. However, please discuss the {{verification failed}} and {{off-topic?}} tags. Mayer didn't actually say that, and Mad as Hell, if it does say what is quoted, only applies to funding of Tea Party events, not of the Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot fund your events without simultaneously funding your movement. The tortured logic you use to try to separate the two is unconvincing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research. You can be sure that I will give it due weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Mayer says that the Kochs founded (not funded) AFP, and AFP supports some TPE and training of TPM members. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They founded and fund it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want it in the article you'll need to purchase it's entry with a proper source. As to what Arthur Rubin said, and what you said in turn, it isn't original research.

If I fund an event which the TPM supports, I am not funding the TPM. Conversely, if I am funding the TPM, and the TPM funds a TPE, I am not necessarily funding the TPE.

Arthur gave an analogical example of the original research policy, exactly as is done on the policy page (here) such that ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

For the conclusions you've drawn to appear in the article, the facts would have to be analyzed and laid out in a reliable third party source, like a an op-ed in the NY Times written by Paul Krugman, for instance. We have a source that meets those criteria exactly. But−and this is a big but−any mention of the conclusions drawn by Krugman in his piece must be accompanied by attributions to the author at every instance, as per policy (here and here). It states that "when using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact,." -Digiphi (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, Digiphi. Also, Dylan Flaherty, please don't remove tags and then demand that editors "explain themselves" if they disagree with the removal. You haven't fixed anything, you've simply removed the tags. The tags are there because the article has problems that need fixing. The tags alert editors to look for the problems. Unless you've fixed something, leave the tags, and please don't make any more unilateral decisions that they aren't needed. Also, please see WP:OWN as well as WP:CIVIL. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, with all due respect, I am hardly the only editor removing those excessive tags. The big difference is that I pretty much stuck to removing one at a time, with a stated reason for the removal. I am free to remove any unsupported tag, and will use that freedom. All you have to do is actually support the tag and that will prevent me from removing it.

You need to understand that whoever puts a tag up is filing a complaint and is obligated to follow up on it. If they fail to do so, then that complaint is summarily rejected, and the tag is removed. That's the process. I encourage you to embrace it wholly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's correct Dylan, in part. The follow up you're looking for is taking place in the ongoing discussion on the talk page (this is the talk page). That people want the tags up means that the issue is controverted. You have several times explained to me that you've read all the policies and guides. Therefore, you are surely familiar with tags and understand why they are put in articles. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pelosi

The tag for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587745,00.html reads "{{off-topic?|reason=personal opinion, and no claim that the funding influenced the movement}}". The complaint seems to be without merit. First of all, the quote is in the opinion section, so being her personal opinion is hardly an issue, even if it were only an opinion. More to the point, she is notable and the quote comes to us through a reliable source. As for the stuff about how the funding did or didn't influence the movement, it has absolutely no bearing on the relevance of the quote. I move that we remove this spurious tag. If you disagree, please state your reasons briefly and concisely, referencing specific policy if needed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

-Digiphi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(formatting Digiphi's comment)

That tag is no longer appropriate, as it's in the "opinions" section, provided the quote is accurate. There's no justification for assuming that she means middle class when she says "middle class", though. We have a guideline against wikilinking within quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what place putting insults from an opponent has in the article. What next.....in the Barack Obama article, put in 2,000 words of what newspapers say that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin say about him? Plus 700 words on each unfounded accusation that was ever published in a "RS". And then if some "RS's" say that he's a Socialist, then change the lead description to "Socialist President". The double standard has made a mess out of this article. It should be neutral, informative coverage of the movement. If there are questions about funding, organization, how it came to be etc. then it should really delve into those topics, not just repeating content-free insults by it's opponents. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

North, you seem to be raising a different point from the tag comment. Mostly, you seem to be arguing against including criticism.

Neutrality requires us to include criticism, but the statement in question is more analytic than critical. It is Pelosi's analysis of the origins of the TPM in relation to the GOP. As such, I do not see anything in your comment that would be a compelling argument for exclusion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus on what is to be done. The polls and demographics need to go back into their own section or eliminated entirely. The so-called "funding" is nothing more than claims of astroturfing and that section should be restored. The allegations of racism, same thing. These section headings were contributing to the overall neutrality of the article. Without them, the article is misleading and POV pushing. That's how the article got the tags, which were not there before.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the reason I broke this section out was to get people to focus on this one tag. If you won't do this, please post in some other section or make a new one. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting on this tag. We need to come to a consensus as to what is to be done. The neutrality of this article needs to be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Analysis" from Pelosi? (Pause while catching my breath from laughing.) Actually, it doesn't matter. It's her opinion, and she's not an expert. The tag should probably be removed, but only if it's clearly marked as "opinion". I'm not sure the present state of the article has adequate marks, as it's been moved from an "opinion" section to a "commentary" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the show of naked bias, but you are still incorrect. While we do have to attribute the view to her, we do not have to hide it in an opinion/commentary/criticism ghetto. In fact, it is almost always wrong to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

I removed the so-called "Opinions" section that featured exclusively the old comment by Paul Krugman. It's WP:UNDUE to give him his own section when the "Commentaries" section is clearly where this type of comment belongs. Krugman's comment was formerly part of the "Claims of astroturfing," section which has been removed without any consensus. It would be best if this section were put back so that neutrality on the issue can be restored.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it had opinions by Krugman, Pelosi, and others (which were moved without comment to "commentary", rather than "opinions".) The paragraph still has opinions by Krugman and Pelosi. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All the content Arthur mentions ought to appear in an "opinions" section. Placing only one of those things and its source alone under that heading would be undue. =Digiphi (Talk) 17:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All of the "commentaries" are nothing but opinions. The whole section could be eliminated. There needs to be more edits about the Tea Party movement individuals and why they joined the movement, what their experiences have been, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. What do you mean exactly? Anecdotes from blogs? Description of polls? I'd have an obvious problem with one. Also, let's perhaps table the discussion of whether the whole section should be eliminated for the time being, and right now move toward agreement that if the section stays, it must absolutely be under the heading of "Opinions" or "Allegations of" or something to that tune. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ---- -Digiphi (Talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It can easily be titled "Opinions." It may have even been called that way back when. Also, we need to restore the Astroturfing section so that there's no question that these are allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

grassroots redux

I've restored the reliably sourced 'grassroots.' In looking over the discussions in the threads above, there is consensus for this edit. Also, there's no reliable source provided that shows the Tea Party movement isn't grassroots. I've noted Arthur Rubin, Digiphi, North8000, and myself all seem to be supportive of the edit. At the same time, the editor who objects has not provided any reliable source to show that the Tea Party movement did not arise as a grassroots movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that action. If you haven't seen this already, these sources lend weight to your (our) argument that the this should be reflected in the article.

Here are two sources, one clearly describing the TPM in 2007, the other back in 2006, actually, both arranged locally

1.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/158701?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

2.)http://hamptonroads.com/node/251871?cid=srch— The Virginian-Pilot

-Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to remove it now. We cannot have "grassroots" in the lead without:

1) Attributing it to named individuals.

2) Immediately balancing it with the view that the organization is astroturf (attributing this to such named individuals as Pelosi and Krugman).

I appreciate your bold edit, but the role of such boldness is to get reverted and open up a new discussion. In this, you have succeeded. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are no reliable sources that the organization is "astroturfed", only that it is considered "astroturfed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By that token, there are no reliable sources that it is grassroots. We cannot use either term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the three sources listed are reliable. (Well, at least two of them.) All of the sources (so far presented) to the contrary are political commentary. Even Mad as Hell doesn't state that it's "Astroturfed", only that some (OK, many, although not yet supported by quotes) TP events were funded by outside sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is for the 'grassroots' to remain. There is no policy on Misplaced Pages that demands that this must be attributed to "named individuals." And it absolutely does not need to be balanced by Pelosi and Krugman. Those two are giving their opinions. The newspapers that are calling the movement grassroots have sent reporters to attend these rallies. They've been there from the beginning. They've seen that this arose from grassroots efforts. THAT is what makes these newspapers reliable sources.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Dylan please examine the sources. Furthermore, the above Virginian-Pilot news pieces report Tea Party event as early as 2006, and report their local organization by community members. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the astroturfing, it belongs in a section called, "Claims of astroturfing." These are only allegations and not facts.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, all the citations for the grassroots are reliable sources. Boston.com is the Boston Globe website. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. We need more detail in the references, so that editors can more easily determine provenance. As for "Claims of astroturfing", WP:WTA suggests we not use that word. ("Claims", not "astroturfing".) Although I agree that all we have are "claims", that appears not to be WP:NPOV phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We can call it "Allegations of Astroturfing," or "Accusations of Astroturfing."Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans that ignores the rules and cherry-picks sentences from sources can damage an article for a time, but is in no position to make lasting changes.

Allow me to support my accusation of cherry-picking. The first article you cite in support of the grassroots designation is http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html. But if you read the entire article, you find lines such as:

"Although Tea Party organizers have insisted they created a nonpartisan grass-roots movement, others have argued that tea parties were largely created by the clamor of cable news and fueled by the financial and political support of current and former Republican leaders."

This makes it clear that the grassroots designation comes from the TPM organizers, and is genuinely controversial outside of the movement. This explains why we find sources on both sides of the issue, yet you wish to base the lead upon selectively ignoring contrary views.

Muddling the interpretation of the controversy is the demand that we rule absolutely on whether the TPM is grassroots or astroturfed, when in fact we are not in any position to do so. Not only are we obligated to show all mainstream views, there is no one answer to be found. Some parts of the TPM are grassroots, others are astroturf: there is no single, cohesive TPM that is just one or the other. In the quote above, the counterclaim is that it is "largely", not wholly, astroturfed. And for an example of a reliable source that tells this balanced view, you need look no further than http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685795. The last section is particularly relevant. You could also look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-tea-party-lesson-pass_b_779712.html, which says:

"Surely this election -- with the tea party mobilization both the authentic and the corporate Astroturf parts -- is demonstration of that."

Given this, an unattributed claim of grassroots origin is unsupportable by the sources. As for the idea of hiding all criticism away in a ghetto section, that is likewise in violation of the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No Dylan. The Borosage piece is an blog/op-ed, and Borosage's opinions may only be added in the the appropriate section for that, with the proper attributions at every instance. Furthermore, the sources available, and accessible to you as every other editor, report the TPM as far back as 2006, either expressly as "grassroots" in the text of the sources, or in language remarkably devoid of anything "astroturf". -Digiphi (Talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to politely note that you did not address my argument. But thank you for the incidental comments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "A momentary consensus-of-three-partisans" mean?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Which part is unclear to you? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer the question? Are you implying wrong-doing or are you not clear on consensus?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am clear on this not being a consensus at all. A consensus includes all editors, not just three out of four of the editors active on a slow Sunday afternoon. Moreover, a consensus cannot stand in opposition to the rules. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What rules? The edit is well sourced. You haven't shown otherwise. This has been a consensus, you just keep removing it. It was a consensus in the other thread, it's a consensus in this thread.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I'd also like you to answer the question, clarify the "consensus-of-three-partisans" bit. I don't get your meaning. I'd also like to see you write to the questions of the sources currently available to the article, and what you feel if wrong with them. Finally, please write to my denouncement of the Borosage piece, and by extension your suggestion that it's unreasonable or against policy to include in the article the conclusions reported in the aforementioned sources. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also. Agreement of 3 out of 4 concerned parties is, by definition, a consensus of whatever opinion the 3 share. However, the mission of this section "Grass Roots Redux" is not to reach consensus. It is really a discussion, started in good faith and for the edification of other editors, on the consensus previously developed in the original thread. The content has not changed, nor have the current event and sources reporting on them. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since "RS's" (by the narrower definition) are all over the board on most disputed topics, I tend to start on these things with a "what do you sincerely think" type discussion, and then move on to sourcing the consensus. If you look at nearly any metric of grassroots, the TPM is about as "grassroots" as any movement of that size can be. Not that it's 100% grassroots, but probably about 90% which is about as high as it gets. De-centralized, spontaneous, random beginnings, dis-organized, and frequently clashes with the establishment (the GOP) that many feel they are the closest to. If I had any qualms about it in the lead it's that the lead sentence is getting a bit adjective laden, and the term is a bit vague/uninformative (as is populist). That first sentence probably needs to get split into 2 more explanatory sentences. The "conservative/libertarian" probably needs a bit more explanation too, like "with both conservative and libertarian leanings" North8000 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were to say that 90% of the TPM organizations were grassroots, you might be right, but the distribution is such that this does not even entail that the majority is grassroots. The WashPost survey found that most of the registered TP orgs were unreachable, and that the remaining ones followed a power-law curve, with a few large ones that were financed by the usual suspects (Koch's orgs), and many tiny ones that were ineffectual and irrelevant. Is this what grass roots look like?

As for "both conservative and libertarian leanings", that's misleading. First of all, the TPM is 99% conservative. The other 1% must have wandered in looking for their AA meeting and stayed for the free beer. The libertarianism is not as universal as the conservatism, and some of our sources even suggest that it is injected by Koch instead of being a natural part. However, libertarianism is a form of conservatism, so there's no "both". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely grassroots. That other groups astroturfed is questionable, but there is no evidence that Keli Carender and the others who held rallies and then formed groups were doing so at the behest of a 3rd party organization run by the Kochs or anybody else. It's clearly grassroots, it is recognized as such by reliable sources like the New York Times, Newsweek, Boston Globe, Washington Post, St. Louis-Post Dispatch, the Los Angeles Times, and many others. All of these newspapers have sent reporters to these rallies, they witnessed the formation first hand, and they've called it what it is. There's consensus for the edit as well, so there's no problem here.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Links related to 3RR allegations in edit summary

God, Guns and Gay's

According to Tea Party co-founder Karl Denniger who has now left the tea party movement. In the meetings that he attended as Tea Party leader the debates in the Tea party would all end up over god, guns and gay's. And very little about the fiscal and economic problems of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You would need to at least link us to a reliable source for this quote. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Is this it - after six minutes - http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2222649 - Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Denniger, whether the founder of a TP group or the president of India, needs to be reported as having said something in a reliable source for it to be mentioned in an article on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, if a reliable source reports him making statements, exactly as you have described, they may be appropriate for the article about whichever group he might have been affiliated with (if there is one), but not on in this one about the TPM. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw quotes in reliable sources when I did the search, as I saw he is talking about the tea party in general not a specific branch, but I also am from the UK so I am not editing just joining in and doing a bit of research. It is true that Karl_Denninger is not presently mentioned in the article so he may well be a minor player. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not a reliable source. In the video Mr. Denniger, the co-founder of Fed Up, says that at a meeting of a Knoxville, Florida—is that it? I can't make it out in the video; some town in Florida, anyway—group the conversation ultimately ended up being about "God, guns and gays". Everything else is from the text of the page. http://market-ticker.org is an unaffiliated blog not authored by a professional and is not a reliable source, defined here WP:newspaper and magazine blogs. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, the new British Tea Party contrasted itself from the American one by saying "We are less concerned with 'God, guns and gays'". Yet another reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs such as http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/karl-denninger-tea-party-founder-tea-party-is-a-joke/ have links to videos that are primary sources. I don't think reliability can be seriously questioned anymore. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2222649 contains Denninger's own words, directly. Given that Denniger is notable, we do not need a secondary source to quote him; his own article is authoritative about his own opinion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, what a political group that is not affiliated with the topic of this article (such as the "British Tea Party") is reported to have stated about itself is not appropriate material from which to draw and mention conclusions for this article. Also, the organization, MSNBC, is a reliable new source. However, the content of the video, an opinion piece, is inappropriate to support content presented as fact in the article. Denniger's words in the video about the subject are limited to, verbatim, " It essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." .

Everything else is language from the blog, which is not a reliable source because it doesn't pass the test outlined here. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

When the leader of the new British extension of the TPM speaks of the American one as being fixated on the 3 G's, that's very notable, and our source is reliable.

What you say about blogs simply is not the case. Read the rules again and then tell me how any of that applies. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I should probably remind you that Denninger goes on at substantially more length on this subject, in the article you didn't read. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I've read the text of the source and it doesn't matter what Denniger states in it. I've written above that the text of the source doesn't matter because the source doesn't matter. You've asked me before not to quote policy to demonstrate the my disagreement with your suggestions, but I'm going to do it now anyway. We have very straightforward policies regarding sources and verifiability. The policy on blogs states that they "are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

The case of Denniger's blog is addressed by the blog policy, which states that "self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs , Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Also please understand that ""blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." -Digiphi (Talk) 21:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're familiar with the rules. Are you also familiar with WP:ABOUTSELF? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It states that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." That content may be appropriate for an article on the topic of Karl Denniger, and you may write that article, but it is not fair game for this article. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and "his own activity" is... founding the TPM. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, this is a pointless debate, because we reliable sources about his notable statements: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The text is still inappropriate, as much in HuffPo as a tertiary source as in MSNBC's report as a secondary source. Like MSNBC, the organization, Huffington Post, is a reliable source but, just like the MSNBC, it's the text of his statements in the video which are inappropriate to support that content in the article. It's the text that is being impugned, whether it's reported by MSNBC, HuffPo or treated as a primary source. I addressed this several posts above in this section, writing: Furthermore, if a reliable source reports him making statements, exactly as you have described, they may be appropriate for the article about whichever group he might have been affiliated with (if there is one), but not on in this one about the TPM. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, HuffPo is a secondary source here, as it directly refers to the primary source. We have reliable secondary sources finding his statements about the TPM to be notable. Actually, even as a primary source, he is speaking with an expert opinion due to being the founder of the TPM. In short, the quote stays. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the HuffPo piece summarizes MSNBC's (Dylan Ratigan Show) report on Karl Denniger's firsthand account of an overheard discussion, along with additional analysis. It's a tertiary source. And, if it was a secondary source, or even a primary source as the written account on his blog, the problems with using his story to support that content in the article are the same. Also, he's not speaking about the TPM. In the video he says, verbatim, "I've given two speeches at the local chapter here in Niceville, Floriad, and, uh, it essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." .

Also, neither the Huffington Post, nor MSNBC reported that Karl Denniger is the founder of the TPM. I've removed the quote from the article and removed it from the edit history. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to call you a liar to your face. Instead, I'm going to point out that there appears to be some disconnect between what you say and what anyone can see for themselves. For example, you claim that the HuffPo article does not call Denninger the found of the TPM, but the article starts with "Karl Denninger, an original organizer of the Tea Party". Something is very wrong with your comments, so I am simply going to disregard them as being from an alternate universe. Feel free to join us in this universe, though. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not calling me a liar, to my face. As you stated above, neither the HuffPo piece nor the MSNBC (Dylan Ratigan Show) segment report that Karl Denniger is the founder of the TPM. As to my comments, you don't have to read them, but you should understand why some sources don't make it into articles, and how they are supposed to be used to support content. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And back here in the real world, the HuffPo article is entitled "Karl Denninger, Tea Party Founder, Blasts Palin, Gingrich & 'Douchebag' Tea Party Groups" (emphasis mine). Really, come join us. The grass on this side of the dimensional portal is greener. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, the headline state states "Tea Party Founder" and reports that Karl Denniger co-founded the tea party group in Niceville, Florida, which he describes in his interview with Dylan Ratigan. He isn't the founder of the TPM, and the HuffPo piece does not cast him in that light. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this an argument against his views of the TPM being notable? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(And, to clarify, I don't accept your claim. At 4:29 into the interview, he is identified as "One of the founders of the Tea Party movement". Not just one particular group, but the movement. And that's not my opinion or yours, but that of two different reliable sources. I rest my case.) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying again on Fundraising and Support

A couple of weeks ago, someone proposed addressing this section so that we could pull off the tags. That attempt foundered on a large number of objections. I thought I would try to restart the discussion with some sample text that addresses WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other issues. I have a suggested drop in text for the whole section below. You can see this fully formatted in the context of a full page, as of Sunday morning, in my userspace at User:MBMadmirer/Tea Party Movement. Anyways, the proposed text:

Various claims have been made about the funding and support of tea party organizations. In October 2010, The Washington Post surveyed Tea Party organizations and found that approximately half that responded were not connected to a national organization and that 46% had received some funding from a national organization, with 10% saying that they get the majority of funding from national organizations. Gardner found tea party groups who claimed to be linked to, in order of size, Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, local Republican parties, the 9/12 Project, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty.

In addition to financial support, local organizations have received training from national organizations. For example, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, American Majority, and Campaign for Liberty have organized training programs around the country.

These organizations have some wealthy backers and the combination of organizational support to tea party groups and donors has lead to claims that the tea parties are astroturf organizations. In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor. In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity. Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles.

In addition so-called tea party candidates had fundraising successes. Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. Sharron Angle raised $14m in the 3rd quarter of the fundraising cycle.

I would very much appreciate additions. A good chunk of this is just re-organized text from the existing page, with some framework on the core issue from a recent story from The Washington Post. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Good call, Digitphi. The existing section is:

In September 2010 the Tea Party Patriots announced it had received a $1,000,000 USD donation from an anonymous donor.

Sarah Palin headlined four "Liberty at the Ballot Box" bus tours, to raise money for candidates and the Tea Party Express. One of the tours visited 30 towns and covered 3,000 miles. Following the formation of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachman raised $10 million for a political action committee, MichelePAC, and sent funds to the campaigns of Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. In an August 2010 article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, and Koch Industries are providing financial support to the tea party movement through Americans for Prosperity.

Kate Zernike, writing in the New York Times describes the Kochs as founders of the Americans for Prosperity, which they say has supported the Tea Party movement. Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the latter supplied in part by Charles and David Koch. David Koch of Koch Industries, who sits on AFP's Board of Directors, has help fund a number of Tea Party causes. His group is identified as one of the key groups, with FreedomWorks, behind the April 15, 2009 national tea party events. Its Hot Air Tour organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a Cap and Trade program.

MBMadmirer (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Let's please put this in the existing discussion section, or at least move this new section to a position immediately beneath the original, for the purposes of organization and keeping the original participants in the discussion. I feel very strongly about this. Would you please delete it and move the text, or at least move the section upwards? I'm going to drop a note on your talk page too. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's fine where it stands. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Astroturf" is the insult term hurled by their opponents, which sort of means "phony". If everything said in this discussion section were true, it would still provide no support for use of that term. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is why we can't state outright that the TPM is astroturfed. We can and should give attributed statements from notable sources which claim this, but then again, we should also do the same for claims to the contrary. With all of this complication, I don't believe we can safely call it "grassroots", though, at least not as a flat statement in the lead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(to Dylan) Well, it is a continuation of a discussion which you clearly lost, above, but I suppose it's acceptable for MBMadmirer to try to avoid the unreasonable editors.

(to MBMadmirer) Mayer still didn't say that. Otherwise, a reasonable approach. Perhaps Krugman and Pelosi ahould be moved to this section (in a separate "opinions" subsection), as their "commentary" is only as to funding. Also, needs to explicitly state "claims of astroturf" and be a reliable source, not just a marginally reliable source making claims of astroturfing, per North8000's comment.

(to North8000) I hadn't considered that. If my last comment to MBMadmirer were taken into account, would that solve the problem?

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I like the idea of moving Pelosi and Krugman into this section. I think it is important to include this as part of the description. As you note, the astroturf claims focus on funding, so I think it is important to include here. Perhaps a "controversy about funding" section more than opinion? MBMadmirer (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I must confess that I don't even know what the exact proposed change is. If I had my way we'd delete all of the "insults and inuendo by opponents" sections and instead start trying to substantively cover any areas that are the things discussed by the insults. If there is a question about donations/finances/funding, let's really cover donations/finances/funding as well as the importance/non-importance of such to the movement. If there is an accusation or inuendos implying that the movement was orchestrated into existence by "powers-that-be", then let's examine and cover that area more thoroughly. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't dispute this. Funding and support is genuinely an issue for the TPM. On the one hand, it very clearly states that it is grassroots. On the other, there are reliable sources which disagree vehemently. Ultimately, we need to put both of these labels aside and simply report the facts. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction to "(to MBMadmirer)" above: Reference is an example calling the TPM "astroturfing", I don't consider it adequate support for "claims that the tea parties are astroturf organizations." We would need a reliable 3rd-party source that the claims were made, rather than just a notable example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we should avoid the claim that tea parties are astroturf. I tried to contextualize it by describing the specific, demonstrable relationships that are elided to make the astroturf claim. That's why I included it. It is notable that people make the claim, and Paul Krugman making that claim seems to qualify to me as notable. MBMadmirer (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying we must avoid making the claim as an unattributed statement of fact, just as we must avoid making the opposite claim in the same manner. We are not going to be the ones to rule on this controversy; it's just not our job to do so and we are ill-equipped. Worse, it doesn't seem that there really is a fact of the matter. We have lots of reliable source saying some parts of the movement are real grass, and lots of sources (often the same ones) saying that the movement is now largely made of plastic. There is no single answer. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. It is all notable (and not-notable) opinion. That's why I cited Krugman, who is notable, for the Astroturf claim. MBMadmirer (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all a fan of Krugman, but as you say, he is notable. In short, I don't think we disagree. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR (2)

Rubin, if you'd like to retract your false 3RR accusation here, that would also be acceptable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I miscounted when I prepared the edit summary, although I didn't add the list of reverts. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours and 6 in 48, but never 4 in 24. And I also don't think you were gaming the system, as many of the reverts were only "technically" reverts; not simply undoing an edit, but generally an attempt to improve the article. (I think the attempts were misguided, but that's another issue entirely.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even count 3, but as long as we're agreed that there's no violation, I'm fine with that. Thank you for your response; I'm sure it was just an honest error. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's exactly what posting the diffs was meant to show.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If so, then its purpose has been served and now we can remove it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll hat the thread, but I won't remove my post. There was nothing wrong with it, and I've done nothing wrong.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't remove discussion sections from talk pages when the debate has closed. Eventually they will be archived. The whole point is to have a record of what has been discussed and what consensuses have developed. We don't just wipe the slate clean every time we agree on issues. The record of deliberations remains forever. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely true regarding our consensus on this article. However, it does not apply to what turn out to be false accusations that ought not have been here in the first place. Malke ought to have left me a warning on my talk page and then reported it to the appropriate venue. Instead, he cluttered our TPM discussion page with an issue that has nothing to do with TPM. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to accuse me of something that I have not done. Arthur Rubin accused you of violating 3RR. You did reach that bright line, but you did not go past 3RR. That's what the post shows. You refactored the comments into a drama that has been nothing but a timesink. Please stop these comments. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Links about "grassroots"

1. http://www.prwatch.org/node/9012 - Analyzes various TPM groups and identifies some as grassroots, others as astroturf.
2. http://www.iacenter.org/o/us/teaparty102610/ - States that the movement is now astroturfed. References additional sources in support.
3. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/pelosi-this-is-astroturf-not-grassroots-protest.php Pelosi interview, saying it's astroturf.
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html Tea party founder accuses movement of being hijacked by GOP.
5. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685795 Koch behind the current TPM.
6. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101025/NEWS0108/10260313/Tea-party-draws-many-to-politics Article ends with section on why it's not grassroots.
7. http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tea-party-donor-patriot-one-raymon-thompson Tea Party Patriots donor outed as Raymon F. Thompson, donor to GOP and Heritage Foundation, calls TPE astroturf
8. http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/tempest-tea-party Not grassroots
9. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/lobbying-clients-teaparties/ More on Dick Armey and astroturf
10. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/scott-payne-Tea-Party-movement-should-be-leery-of-Bachmanns-Caucus-99118569.html Perception of grassroots is essential, it says.
11. http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2684&posts=5&start=1 Differentiates between grassroots and astroturf
12. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/a-fissure-in-the-tea-party-movement/59994/ Concerns about lack of grassroots behavior
13. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/01/15/4431927-tea-partying-for-profit TPM groups as for-profit orgs

Those are just a few, and there's plenty more where that comes from. I post these to clearly establish the fact that "grassroots" is a highly disputed claim, even among partiers. There is too much dispute for us to state, without qualifications and attributions, that this is a grassroots movement. There's also some good material here about funding in general. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To pick a random choice, reference 6 quotes the chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party as saying it's "not grassroots". Nothing in the editorial voice. If your other examples are as bad, we probably shouldn't even mention the term "astroturfed". Have you anything better? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, so the the chairman of the state's Democratic party is not notable? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chairman of the Democratic Party has an obvious bias here and no evidence, just his opinion. This is becoming a timesink for everybody. Especially the links to Mother Jones and ThinkProgress, a George Soros production. The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement. There are reliable sources to back that up. There are no sources that show the grass is astroturf.

Nobody refutes Keli Carender and the others who organized rallies and set up blogs, and used social networking to get people to attend rallies, spread the word, etc. And then went on to organize tea party groups in the aftermath of the rallies. The articles of incorporation are there for everybody to see. If the article had more about the actual tea party members this would not be an issue right now.

Maybe if we get Kate Zernicke, the New York Times reporter who attends tea party meetings, to come and make a mention on the talk page that yes, it is grassroots, that might help close this out. It's obvious to the investigative reporters at the New York Times and other newspapers.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence from your response that suggests you have looked at any of the links. Therefore, I am weighing the value appropriately. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at every link, Dylan. You're using ThinkProgress? MotherJones? If the situation were reversed and any of us tried to use "sources" like these to delete an edit sourced from articles, not opinion pieces, from the New York Times, et al, I'll bet you'd have something to say about that. This is a timesink.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we have evidence that you read the URL's and prejudged them. That's progress. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what I said. I read the articles. And they don't say what your comments next to them suggest. And the Tea Party Express is not a real tea party. It's a bus tour. Everybody knows that and it doesn't mean the movement is astroturf.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It does when the bus is paid for by the GOP. My comments, for the record, are brief but accurate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are cryptic, and, when I can determine what they mean, are almost always inaccurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From this, I can only infer that you have failed to determine what they mean. If you disagree, you'll need to offer a concrete example, as opposed to hand-waving. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I've yet to see anyone actually address these sources. If you cannot do so in a manner distinguishable from "I don't like stuff I disagree with", we're just going to have to move forward with the removal of "grassroots". Let that motivate you to actually engage in adequately sourcing this article. Or sit back and watch me erase that term again. Your choice. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed #6; it doesn't support an assertion that the TPm is astroturfed. My wireless network is intermittent at the moment, so I won't check the others, immediately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not address it, you merely complained that the view was by someone who isn't neutral. That's exactly my point! We are obligated to give the view of a notable Democratic official just as much as we are the view of Sarah Palin. Not because they're neutral, but because they're not. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So every proponent will say grassroots and every opponent will say it's not grassroots. And if a newspaper carries their quote, it's an "RS" for Misplaced Pages purposes? And if a rant website has one biased person look at the other biased person's writing before publishing, they meet the "RS" paragraphs of wp:ver. May I suggest the 2nd def of RS which gets applied when these things are taken further, which is a source that is objective and knowledgable on the topic. (did their homework/analysis). And, if's largely grassroots (which is what I believe to be the case), then the term applies, and, if it's largely not grassroots, then the term doesn't apply. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some of the people shouting the loudest about astroturf are tea partiers, including one of the founders of the movement. It really is not as simple as left/right. Within the TPM, there seem to be genuine strands of grass, as well as fibers of plastic, intermixed. We cannot look at this cyborg lawn and rule it 100% organic, nor can we claim it is wholly artificial. We have to report what our sources say, and they say one, the other and both. It's not enough to be "largely" anything, because the TPM is not a single, cohesive group that can be characterized adequately by such a generalization, nor are we in any position to do so. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

:Here's what the 'sources' actually say: Every one of them confirms that the tea party is grassroots. All of them are talking about the actual tea party grassroots groups versus the "glomming on" by the Republicans and specifically the Tea Party Express which is a bus tour formed by a Republican PAC, and, the Tea Party Nation which held the Tea Party Convention.

Neither of them are tea party groups. Tea Party Nation was formed as a for-profit specifically to sponsor and profit from the first Tea Party Convention.

1. Blog that acknowledges Tea Party Patriots is grassroots and Tea Party Express is not. It's a bus.
2. Blog that uses information from a brochure. Uses Rachael Maddow and Frank Rich for "facts."
3. Blog: Talking Points Memo just repeats the Nancy Pelosi quote that she believes TPM is Astroturf.
4. HuffPo: Shows Denninger is angry at Republicans for stealing the "thunder" of the actual grassroots movement.
5. Looks like a blog: admits the Kochs "didn't birth the tea party movement."
6. Cinncinati News (an actual hard news source) says, yes, it's a grassroots movement and that Freedom Works is not grassroots. It's not a tea party either and it doesn't claim to be.
7. Mother Jones, talks about the recent election and claims that the Tea Party Patriots grassroots leaders borrowed a private jet to fly around the country to visit other tea party groups under it's umbrella. Acknowledges that the Tea Party Patriots is grassroots.
8. Mother Jones again, this time repeats complaints by actual tea party members who are complaining that the GOP “glommed” onto their grassroots movement, specifically the Tea Party Express which is not a tea party and never said it was.
9. ThinkProgress is a blog paid for by George Soros.
10. Washington Examiner says Congressional Tea Party Caucus founded by Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is not a tea party, a fact that is obvious since all the members need to be Congressmen.
11. This is a primary source called America’s Independent Party, that really only complains about the Republicans.
12. The Atlantic Monthly talks about how the Tea Party Federation, which is a loose organization of tea parties founded to address claims of racism, kicked out the non-tea party Tea Party Express.
13. MSNBC talks about the Tea Party Convention sponsored by the non-tea party Tea Party Nation, which is a for profit group and not an actual tea party.

Every single one of them acknowledges the Tea Party movement is grassroots, and they all mention the "glomming on" of the Republicans stealing the thunder and trying to co-opt the message. That’s it.

Suggest we go to Mediation Cabal and ask for intervention. See here. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your comments are entirely accurate. See below

1. This is not MySpace, it's the web site of a non-profit which exerts editorial control. In any case, the article is valuable for the quotes and references alone.
2. Yet another org, and chosen because it's a tertiary source for a secondary source that references primary sources. And yes, Maddow does count as a source, even if we dislike her.
3. This is a political news org recognized by secondary sources. In any case, contains Fox interview with Pelosi. Or is Fox officially not a reliable source?
4. As mentioned, when a founder of the TPM accuses the GOP of astroturfing the movement away from grassroots, this is a very high-quality source.
5. Contrary to your claims, this is what we call a newspaper. Not only does it declare astroturfing without attribution, but it also brings in a secondary ref to the "Astro Turf Wars" documentary.
6. Another hard news source, and it has an entire section called "Not Grassroots". Besides it own conclusion, it also contains a notable (if partisan) view in this direction.
7. Contrary to your summary, explicitly denies that it's grassroots.
8. As you admitted, it quotes TPM activists as saying it's not grassroots anymore. It also gives hard numbers. What is your objection to this article?
9. Who cares? This article is full of links and references that are relevant.
10. Hard news outlet directly stating that perception of grassroots is highly important to the success of the movement. The Caucus is given as an example of astroturfing.
11. Yes, it complains about Republicans. In specific, it complains that they're astroturfing the TPM. Primary sources can be used; we just have to be careful.
12. Another hard news source, and it directly states that TPM activists are concerned about a lack of true grassroots.
13. Hard news source talks about cashing in on what was once a grassroots movement. The key is Palin's involvement.

I am led to conclude that you skimmed without full comprehension. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, none of them are saying what you claim. What I've posted is accurate. The tea party movement is acknowledged as grassroots with the Republicans trying to "glom on." That's very old news. The movement is grassroots, it's notable, verifiable, it's well sourced with actual hard news sources, and it has consensus.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the conclusion you draw is not in any way supported by the sources. I suggest that you read these again, more carefully. 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke's right. :::

As for the "founder of the TPM" accusing "the GOP of astroturfing the movement", well 1.)He's not the "founder of the TPM". He co-founded a local tea party group, supposedly. In the video he only says, verbatim, "I've given two speeches at the local chapter here in Niceville, Floriad, and, uh, it essentially devolved into guns, gays, God, which is a fine conversation to have..." .

Everything else is written on his blog, which is not a "very high-quality source", but one prohibited for use the way you want to use it in the guidelines. Also, when anyone "accuses the GOP of astroturfing the movement," why would we treat it any differently than the instance of Nancy Pelosi accusing the same? -Digiphi (Talk) 14:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but you're repeating an error that I corrected earlier: he is "a founder of the TPM", not "the". The article identifies him as such, and barring some compelling counterargument, we are obligated to accept this. Likewise, you seem to be misunderstanding what constitutes a blog or a primary source, so your conclusion about reliability is simply wrong. I would appreciate it if you would be more careful about these issues in the future. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about the Mediation Cabal? I think we need outside intervention here.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems worth a try, if all the parties are willing. (And, yes, I'm a party, and I'm willing, provided the moderator is not someone I've had conflicts with.) We also need to specify what the subject of the mediation would be. Just "grassroots" vs. "astroturfed", or do we need to deal, in detail, as to what the sources say, whether they are reliable for statements of fact, and whether they support the statements written (or anything similar)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm for mediation. And it would be best to limit it to the discussion of whether to keep grassroots in the lead, and not replace it with astroturf. The question of whether to put the various commentaries and op-ed pieces about "astroturf" in under an "Opinions" or "Allegations" heading is a separate discussion and should remain so. If it needs mediation, we can always consider it later. This contention is about the lead, and we should tackle that here and now. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The focus seems to be Dylan's claim that his sources prove the tea party movement is astroturf. Also, on the commentaries/opinions section, I was thinking we could just call it "Views on the Tea Party movement," and break it off into a separate article. There's enough there and it an be added to. What do you think? I could make a subpage showing how it will all look. The article is way too long and needs to be lightened someplace. The 'commentaries' are not that relevant and take up space that could be used for including actual tea party movement content.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the core question is simply keep vs. remove grassroots from the lead. "Astroturf" is an insult term from it's opponents. Both based on reality and on the the pejorative nature of the term, I don't think that there is serious consideration of using "astroturf" as an adjective of the TPM in the lead sentence. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't support using either "astroturf" or "grassroots" in the lead. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. We could easily make the question "to keep or remove grassroots." The simpler the better. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

-Malke:That's a good suggestion about the commentaries, and we should explore it, but perhaps a little later?

-North8000:Yeah. If we're going to have mediation, let's design it to the question of the lead, and whether certain "sources" are appropriate to support declaring the TPM an astroturf organization for readers there. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Digiphi, definitely we can wait on the commentaries. I just wanted to mention it since you'd touched on it earlier. Okay, I have to attend to RL for a bit, so if necessary, I will go along with the majority and you can tell anybody that. When I get back, I'll write up the mediation request, if everybody would like that, then show it here first for comment. Then we can post it.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Whenever you get around remember to look for Arthur Rubin's input like he stipulated earlier. He probably knows what he's talking about, so we probably don't want a moderator that he isn't comfortable with. -Digiphi (Talk) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I filed the Mediation Cabal request. It was just a form that gets filled out with the bare basics. I would imagine we can edit it if something isn't right, etc. . Malke 2010 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Understand that your volunteering "mediator", Arthur Rubin, is from the Libertarian Party (United States)/Republican Party (United States) (the same as the Oil Coal Koch family). 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Refs

Hi

Is there some logic to the amount of refs used here ? Double and triple refs are the norm it would appear and five refs for one sentence seems a little OTT is plain crazy. Can someone try and get them reduced.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaos. Point taken. However, a lot of the content in the article, even individual sentences, is so heavily controverted both on and off Misplaced Pages that the apparent overkill of refs is necessary to satisfy the written policies and the page editors. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations". The New Yorker. Condé Nast. Retrieved October 5, 2010.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Items with VRTS permission confirmed