Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 23 December 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: 7 days

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

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: 7 days

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 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.

New Discussions On The Lead

I think that most of the lead is stable, thanks to all the work we put into it, except for the second paragraph. It has three issues:

1. As it stands, the capsule description of the Boston Tea Party is confusing to non-Americans. In specific, it makes it sound as if colonists went into their own kitchens, removed the British tea that they'd bought, and destroyed it as an act of protest. That's highly inaccurate, yet it's what the sentence implies. It would be easy to change it to be unambiguous, and that's what I recommend.
2. The point of bringing up to BTP is to show how it inspired at least the name of the modern TPM. To this end, it's not clear that "No taxation without representation" has anything to do with it. After all, they have representation: the partiers are American citizens who have the right to vote for Sarah Palin, Rand Paul or anyone else who promises to cut their taxes.
3. Even if some argument were made for keeping the quote, the current phrasing is grammatically awkward, to the point of making me cringe. It must be fixed, one way or the other.

Now, it would be less than helpful for me to complain without offering an alternative, so here's a replacement paragraph:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians.

Feedback? Dylan Flaherty 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I added wording to avoid implying that every item in the lead was specifically decided ini the process. So, for example, my "record for posterity" does not imply that the wording about the original Boston Tea Party was specifically decided. Regarding your proposed change, maybe you have a point on that clarification needed, but your revision has less content. I think that a few key factoids about the original BTP are useful and appropriate, including the ones that are in the current lead. The "no taxation....." part doubly so. Once for being a key factoid about the BTP, the other because of the modern TPM having that phrase in mind, even if it is not a fully analogous situation. North8000 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the major issues of the lead have been resolved. As for the quote, I am against strongly against hiding facts. If we can find sources to confirm that "no taxation without representation" is currently a TPM slogan, we could have it read:

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a historical protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians. Their rallying cry of "no taxation without representation" has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement.

Better? Dylan Flaherty 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's a possible reference: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty. Dylan Flaherty 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you overall. But I think that "is a current slogan" is an overstatement, and a little off the track of its reason for inclusion. North8000 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We have citations for it being a current slogan. What other reason for inclusion do we have and what supports it? Dylan Flaherty 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's true and have cites, I'm cool with that. Other reasons for inclusion: it it a key factoid about the 1773 BTP which is being mentioned. Also, the TPM generally considers the situations to have some similarities. North8000 13:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note, the 1773 factoid was good to have.

This edit is not accurate: "The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping tea found on British ships into the ocean, while dressed as Indians.. Their rallying cry of "no taxation without representation" has become a slogan of the Tea Party movement."

This sentence, "dumping tea found on British ships. . ." makes it sound like they just came upon the ship, and randomly decided to destroy the tea. That's not what happened at all. As far as the Tea Party movement using "no taxation without representation" as a slogan, that's not exactly accurate either. They have named the movement after the 1773 Boston Tea Party because they have similar issues, etc. This paragraph should go back to the way it was. It seems this is an "over thinking," which leads to synthesis. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

1. If you have alternative phrasing for "found on", feel free to suggest it.
2. The slogan usage is cited, not OR/SYN.

Anything else? Dylan Flaherty 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Google search results for Tea Party movement slogan/notability:

• "Tea Party movement slogan no taxation without representation." Search results: 6,850

• "Tea Party movement slogan take our country back." Search results: 204,000

A "MyFoxNews" citation can't change history. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably should go back to where it was and then work out the new wording. Regarding Dylan's change, looks like Dylan is for, me neutral, (both have flaws) and Malke against. Considering that this is the lead of a 1RR/probation article, we should be double careful about changes. North8000 18:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of being for or against. You can't rewrite history. The colonists were not protesting the tea tax. They were really protesting Parliament's assertion that it had the right to tax the colonists. The tea tax itself was a mere pittance. It was the taxing itself. That is also what the Tea Party movement is protesting. The para, as it reads right now, is synthetic.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to say here. The paragraph is very clear about the notion of "no taxation without representation", indicating that it was as much principle as money that mattered to the BTP, and links to the full article on the BTP. On the other hand, we have no reason to believe this is true of the TBM, as it is associated with the notion that, despite having representation, our taxes are too high and are spent on things that, in principle, the government should not be spending on.

As for the WP:OR with Google, I don't see how it contradicts "has become a slogan". If we have good sources for "Take our country back", we can probably find a place for it somewhere. Dylan Flaherty 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To Malke. I thought that the BTP was to protest the tea tax itself. I learn something new every day. North8000 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The original edit had a perfectly acceptable sentance to summarize the Boston Tea Party, considering the event itself was linked to the BTP article. Any further detail can be found there if the reader wishes. Rapier (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the previous version was ungrammatical and did not draw the connection between the BTP and TPM. It had to be fixed. Dylan Flaherty 22:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rapier. Previous edit was better. Let's get back to it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to alternatives, but we can't regress to a broken version. Come up with an acceptable variant and we'll hash it out. Dylan Flaherty 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor quibble on readability: the 'ocean' part sounds odd, since it was in the Boston harbor -- which is a part of the bay and thus pretty far from the ocean proper (though technically connected, of course). And I think "into the harbor" is enough since Boston is already mentioned. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What does "Dressed like Indians" have to do with the subject? This seems like very minor extraneous information that has really nothing to do with the motivation for taking up the basic idea of the BTP. Furthermore the actual Tea Party article implies that this was a minor aspect. From Boston Tea Party "That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some of them thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians,". I say we remove this non-important connection otherwise it has to be expanded to correspond to the actual facts. Arzel (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

These are both thoughtful, reasonable suggestions, so I have implemented them. I won't claim it's perfect now, but I think it's better. Dylan Flaherty 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The source being used to claim that the Tea Party movement uses the slogan "no taxation without representation," doesn't actually say that. . It's just the newscaster recalling the slogan from 1773. If you watch the tape, you'll notice no one from the rally is saying it. Nor do the protesters appear to have signs with the slogan. Also, the ships were not British. They were American. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no America, except as a British colony. The ships belonged to the East India Company, a British firm. Dylan Flaherty 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was known as America. The British Parlament called it "America." After the tea incident, it became the United States of America. And the ships were American. The Beaver, the Dartmouth, and the Eleanor were American. Only the tea was owned by the East India company.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS. Dylan Flaherty 21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer a better source than that, such as an academic one, but as a compromise, I've removed mention of the nationality of ships themselves, as that's not really the issue. Dylan Flaherty 03:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, I looked up a few other sources and all detailed accounts of the incident say that the ships were owned by colonial merchants, sort of caught in the middle. That would explain why the ships themselves were not destroyed. I suppose there is a fine line about colonial ownership etc., which might be argued either way. Rewording it to avoid the confusion is a better solution. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The following strikes me as an unsupportable assertion that probably requires a copyedit treatment...

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement...has so far endorsed Republican candidates.

How exactly, does this "movement" itself endorse a candidate? While it is correct that many notables have ascribed to the general principles of the "Tea Party Movement" platform and have, themselves, endorsed candidates (eg. Sarah Palin), the notion that the "movement" itself does the endorsing is specious. There is no "single voice" that can authoritatively speak for "the movement" and any suggestion otherwise is a media concoction of convenience. Even moreso (and, perhaps, more importantly), it is the individual candidate's declaration of support for the TPM "platform" that establishes the association, not the other way around. Anyone else see a problem here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The movement is made up of groups. The groups endorse candidates. So saying that the movement endorses candidates is just a shorthand way of saying that TPM groups endorse candidates. We can also add that candidates have signed onto the Tea Party Agenda. This shows why a definitive list, compiled from already identified sources, of TPM candidates is overdue. We've discussed it before. It really wouldn't be much work.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Start on a Route out of Junk Status

Previously 2-3 articles on organizations were mentioned as models to help navigate this one out of it's junky nature. Until Misplaced Pages can fix things so that contentious articles aren't eternally unstable, I have decided that my life is too short to try to help fix bad ones by spending hours on each sentence. But if would could get a consensus here to start upgrading this into a neutral, good quality informative article, then I'm be game for helping.

One example (and a good place to start) is the "racism" angle. A careful read of even this junky article would make its clear the racism isn't a theme or agenda of the TPM. The fact that opponents have to dig so deep, trying to make headlines (or give massive coverage here) out of each time one person of the millions in the movement says something racist, followed by the TPM disavowing the person who said it says much. This article massively violates wp:undue by doing the same:

• Saying polls find that the majority to TPM people are white. Duh! Is this supposed to imply something for the gullible? Since the majority of USA is "white", any group that represents a cross-section of Americans is going ot be "majority white"

• Implying that a poll saying that a majority of TPM's say it's not the job of the US government's to assure that blacks succeed shows racism! Another implication for the gullible. Duh! It's a view held by many (pervasively by conservatives) that government's job is to gaurantee OPPORTUNITY , NOT SUCCESS. Whether it be for green, black, white, tan or purple people.

• (healthcare protest) 710 words dedicated to unsubstantiated claims that somebody said that somebody (of the zillions there) said something racist.

• One leader of one of the over 1,600+ local chapters puts an ethnic slur on TWITTER and this article gives that about 100 words?!

So, on one side (IMHO) we are dealing with TPM opponents trying to invent/gin up the racial issue as a tactic. But, on the flip side, there is the little-covered issue that I have been hearing/reading about of various reactionary types (whether it be the ones who see black helicopters, or racists etc.) trying to make the TPM their home, and presumably might try to get theri agenda into the TP agenda. So this "racial" portion would be a good place to start. Could we possibly get a consensus for major changes somewhat as implied by the above? Let's find USEFUL, INFORMATIVE INTELLIGENT sources the meet the WP "RS" criteria, which analyze / overview this area. And develop coverage from them And massively cut back on the overblown massively wp:undue quantity of coverage on these off-beat individual incidents or alleged incidents? Again, if there is a consensus vaguely along the above lines, I'm up for working on this. Otherwise not so much. Sincerely North8000 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Specifically on the racial polling point - your comment is true, except that the polling shows the splits are beyond the overall demographics of the US. I think the demographics sections does a decent job of giving an idea of the makeup of the TPM. What could be interesting is to add to the comparison of that - compare the demographics of the TPM not just to the US as a whole but also to the republican and democratic parties. Even batter, if more data comes out, expand that to include additional demographic data (income, etc).

A reorg in general could also be helpful. There's a section called "Views of supporters" - okay, why not just "views of the TPM"? It's hard because there is no true single view, but there are general areas - taxes, health care, government size, etc - put those as their own sections and move the views/comments from various sections into that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just focusing on the racial topics (gotta start somewhere) and so was not commenting on the polling section as a whole. I think that I agree with you on the polling data, but context and data would be needed to accomplish what you said. For example instead of saying "the majority of TP'ers are white", give percentages compared to the population as a whole. North8000 16:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some quick comments on the above opinions (from an article-improvement position):

• A careful read of even this junky article would make its clear the racism isn't a theme or agenda of the TPM.

It is good that the article makes this clear. The race issue elements discussed in the article should remain focused on where the TPers differ significantly from the rest of American society, as demonstrated not just by events, but by actual studies and polls.

• ...each time one person of the millions in the movement says something racist...

Millions, or tens of thousands — as more recent examinations into the actual size and extent of the movement seem to suggest — aren't being represented by the few examples given in this article. However, views by the movement on general race issues are. Obviously when racism is the subject, no "deep digging" is required, as incidents of that nature are by their very nature sensational and tend to generate their own headlines. It is interesting that when numerous examples make their way into the article, an objection is raised that the article is becoming a laundry list; yet when the examples are trimmed back to just a few, they are misinterpreted as an exhaustive list that took effort to create.

• Saying polls find that the majority to TPM people are white. Duh!

I agree with you that the article shouldn't convey that. The sources convey that the TPM demographic is significantly more "white" than the American demographic, and our article should clearly convey what the sources do. ("Duh!" stories don't usually have news articles written about them, while "Huh?!" stories usually do.)

• It's a view held by many (pervasively by conservatives) that government's job is to gaurantee OPPORTUNITY , NOT SUCCESS.

Reliable sources indicate most Americans agree that the government should do what it can to guarantee equal opportunity, while the TPers are significantly less inclined to agree, and our article should convey this. If the sources are being misrepresented to indicate this has anything to do with "guaranteeing success", it should be corrected. (BTW, an interesting discussion on this subject can be found in this book.)

• (healthcare protest) 710 words dedicated to unsubstantiated claims that somebody said that somebody (of the zillions there) said something racist.

I don't see the section to which you refer. There is, however, a section dedicated to substantiated reports of racial slurs, and anti-gay slurs, and anti-semitic slurs, all from the healthcare protests. That section is longer than it should be because some editors also wanted it to include a conspiracy theory about secret Pelosi-concocted efforts to fabricate a "racism incident".

• ...(IMHO) we are dealing with TPM opponents trying to invent/gin up the racial issue as a tactic.

Are there reliable sources that you could direct me to that support this opinion of yours? I am also unsure of what qualifies as an "opponent" of a movement. I am aware of skeptics of what the TPers purport to espouse, but skeptics aren't "opponents". Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I generally agree with what you've said here. Dylan Flaherty 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dylan, I agree with the majority of what you said. And also wish to bring up two points of confusion. When I was talking about views role of government guaranteeing opportunity vs. success, I was talking about the article's mis-use of that poll data, which was easy to do considering how badly worded the question.

When I was talking about opponents wanting to gin up the race angle, I was talking about trying to get a perspective for content, (and for seeing the obvious massive wp:undue violations) not to insert that statement into the article. North8000 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that we're in agreement, given what you just said. Are you suggesting that the TPM movement has not been rightfully associated with racism? Dylan Flaherty 02:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The core of what I'm saying is that currently, on the topic of racism or alleged racism, the article right now is mostly a bunch a random junk which massively violates wp:undue, plus massively mis-using primary source, and is lacking intelligent coverage. And that we should fix that. Find quality sources that analyze this intelligently and objectively, and go wherever they take us. North8000 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's start with:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/03/20/tea_party_racism

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39940.html

http://www.politicolnews.com/tea-party-racism/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/naacp-tea-party-race-debate-heats-sarah-palin/story?id=11153935

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/politics/main6694191.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/naacp-tea-party-race-debate-heats-sarah-palin/story?id=11153935&tqkw=&tqshow=WN (dupe)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_538750.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203169.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/naacp-releases-report-extremism-tea-party/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0714/Nasty-tea-party-NAACP-racism-feud-Who-s-right

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/14/is-the-tea-party-racist

Enough for now? Dylan Flaherty 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know. It's going to take some time to thoroughly read those. Sincerely, North8000 12:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Many good sources in the (and 4 that were just editorials) None except 3 EDITORIALS by anti-TP people say or claim the TPM is racist, and one pro-TP editorial says it's clearly not racist.

Quick summary:

• 1, #4. #9 Editorials by anti-TP people
• 13 Editorial by pro-TP person
• 2 Basically takes polls on reverse-discrimination questions, and mis-implies from the results.
• 3, #5/#7(duplicated) #6,#8,#10 #12 Good articles. General exploration of the issue, no conclusions.
• 12 94 Pages of material, focusing on "nationalist" angle. Did not read it all yet. Could be a good source of info, whether biased or not.

(had to take number signs out from the beginning of each, pretend that they're there)

Sincerely, North8000 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplication. I've gently crossed out my own line. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this forgotten? Dylan Flaherty 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, what I said at the beginning was: "I have decided that my life is too short to try to help fix bad ones by spending hours on each sentence. But if would could get a consensus here to start upgrading this into a neutral, good quality informative article, then I'm be game for helping." Wasn't sure whee we ended up on the "consensus". As the person that I most frequently "lock horns" with here (hopefully in a friendly way!) then if you are game with such an effort, than I'd also be game. But again, my life is too short to try to get to that end via. line by line debates. North8000 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party as Republican marketing tool

Dylan, I rewrote that paragraph for the reason I gave: that neither source says anything about "marketing tools". I'm still not sure what the original intent of the paragraph was. Did you write it? If so, maybe you can explain what you were trying to say. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What the source says is that "the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene". Rebranding is a marketing tool; you change your brand to attract a different demographic. In the case of the TPM, the rebranding is intended to attract conservative Democrats and independents (particularly those who lean towards Libertarianism) while avoiding the taint of W. As such, the source fully supports the text that you and Arzel removed. I suggest that you restore it. Dylan Flaherty 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to make it clear that this interpretation is not original research, allow me to once again quote that source: "Additionally, GOP leaders eager to maximize turnout this fall may do just as well by targeting the more traditional voting category of conservative Republicans as by expending energy and effort to target those who identify with the Tea Party movement." Dylan Flaherty 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, here's another section with restates some of the ideas in the first quote: "Whether Tea Party supporters are a voting segment that is unique and distinct from the more traditional Republican conservative base, however, appears questionable. There is significant overlap between Tea Party supporters and conservative Republicans, both groups are highly enthusiastic about voting, and both are heavily skewed toward Republican candidates -- although the latter somewhat more so than the former. Republican leaders who worry about the Tea Party's impact on their races may in fact (and more simply) be defined as largely worrying about their party's core base." Dylan Flaherty 20:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Marketing tool" looks like a selective interpretation. Saying that it is a related entity is fine but "re-branding" does not need to equal "marketing" in fluffy writing.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claim is unsupported and conflicts with our sources. It is trivial to source the fact that branding and re-branding are both marketing tools. Do you have an argument that has not been refuted? Dylan Flaherty 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A source does not need to be reliable, objective or knowledgable to meet WP "RS" criteria. Whatever source was used for that paragraph certainly illustrates this. "Rebranding" , "marketing tool" etc. all mean Republican control of the TPM, which is clearly false. North8000 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that Gallup Polls are known to be reliable and neutral, regardless of whether you personally agree with them. In any case, you are saying nothing about describing rebranding as a marketing tool, so I can only guess that you agree. Dylan Flaherty 21:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a big topic which could have a big discussion. But, briefly, both of those terms could only be applicable if the Republican party controlled the the TPM, which it does not, so I disagree. Why don't we start working on writing good content instead of spending a lot of time trying to game in swipes by opponents (and presenting them as fact) like this? And, no, that's not code for writing in the opposite POV, it's code for writing objective, informative content instead of the junk that this article is flooded with. North8000 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I will give this subject some time, in case someone might come up with a valid objection. Better to work things out here than create the false appearance of edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In light of the recent restoration, I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with "rebranding". Dylan Flaherty 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the meat of the source could be focussed on instead of the use of cute wording.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may have confused the meet with the condiments. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The term "rebranding" is mustard while the overall intent of the writer (to show that it is not necessarily a new party but instead a group focused on traditional republican ideals) is the Turkey. "Rebranding" simply isn't necessary to make that point especially if it starts leading the reader to believe that it is a marketing ploy. I could go a step farther and say that it isn;t even a condiment but a garnish. Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sharing your original research. However, I'm going to go with the source, instead. The language of pollsters is, not coincidentally, the language of marketers, so they use words such as rebrand and target. Dylan Flaherty 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those opposing the use of rebranding, for reasoning as stated by, e.g., North8000. Rebranding is in no ref whatsoever. Further, especially with hindsight, it is clear the GOP and the TPM are separate entities, not rebranded entities. Attempts to cast the TPM as rebranded GOP are WP:SOAPBOX. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your "ditto". As it adds no reasoning, other than contradicting our sources, it also adds no weight. Gallup is a very reliable source, so if they say the TPM is rebranded GOP, we go with that, no matter what your personal opinion might be. Dylan Flaherty 03:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gallup does not say it's rebranding. You do. Big difference. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"ore a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity" is not rebranding. It's saying it's kind of like rebranding compared to another alternative. But it's not rebranding. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you just contradicted yourself by showing Gallup does indeed call it a rebranding. Thank you for supporting my point so amicably. Dylan Flaherty 03:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Clever of you, but that is not what I said. Gallup called it more of one thing than another. That is not the same as calling it definitely that one thing. You really need to tone down on the snarkiness, and tone up on the RSs. The RS you are saying says it is a rebranding does not say that. That is your spin, and your spin only, judging by other comments here. You need to overcome this RS problem, not make snarky comments. Stick to the issues, not the editors. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It says precisely that. Please don't make demonstrably false statements. Dylan Flaherty 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says precisely that. But you said, "I'd like to clarify that I have no problem with 'rebranding'". They are two different things. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that is what the writer was getting at. Furthermore, since it can be misread as "marketing" (which everyone besides maybe Dylan agrees it is not) then it warrants a change. Of course, if we cannot come to some sort of alternative solution we could simply remove the problematic line. This single source is not that important and isn't worth the hassle. THe concern regarding if this is attempting to insert "marketing" or some sort of claim of ownership by the GOP makes it even more worrisome so remove it until we have a line that isn't such a headache. Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics does include marketing. Regardless, Gallup is a highly reliable and neutral source, and it is not alone. Any attempt to remove this against consensus will trigger dispute resolution. Dylan Flaherty 04:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If I might join in the hair-splitting, the current edit reads...

...and some observers have suggested that the "movement" is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.

That misquotes the source. It should read...

...and some an observers have, Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll, has suggested that the "movement" is not a new political group, but simply more like a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.

Now that we've noted the misquote, how is it that the observation of a single pollster/analyst (with its decidedly POV contextual connotation) rises to now inhabit the lede of this article? JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there are others but Gallup is pretty important: it's a reliable and neutral source. Dylan Flaherty 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Power to the people!!! Ditto and all that! Dylan Flaherty 04:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And what is with the scare quotes on movement? We have tighter neutrality guidelines than the source so these need to go. And yes, power to the people. Consensus is that the line is a problem. Anyone care if I remove the whole thing for now? Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't explain the scare quotes. Regardless, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV for you to remove that line, so I would not recommend it. Dylan Flaherty 04:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't made note of the "scare quotes" addition but it's yet another misrepresentation of the cited source. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it won't let me post political-transcripts-in-national/al-sharpton-it-s-our-term-tea-party-aims-to-cripple-obama-so-their-term under examiner.dot.com, so you'll have to combine the parts together. Dylan Flaherty 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to remove a line that consensus and the only RS shows is POV. There appears to be agreement that WP:UNDUE is another problem. Please remove the line at your earliest convenience. After all this Talk, the only one supporting the POV/UNDUE has not adequately supported his position and consensus is against him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It would be a violation of WP:NPOV for to keep that line, so I would not recommend it. Anyone else besides Dylan (no offence, we just already know you prefer to keep it) want to keep the line? It can always be reintroduced after being touched up but right now I think we should err on the side of caution.Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate fact that simply reversing a sound argument does not automatically yield a sound argument. You need to actually demonstrate how, of all sources, Gallup is non-neutral. Good luck doing that. And until you do, don't damage the article by removing this cited fact. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was just as strong (or weak) as the one preceding it. Anyways, the problems are not based on if the source is valid or not. Please see the above conversation.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that Gallup is anything but valid. Dylan Flaherty 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. It's not our job to guess what your concern is. Dylan Flaherty 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is already spelled out clearly so no guessing required. Three people have provided sufficient reasoning to alter or remove the line. Dylan still disagrees. The argument is valid but I do not think it outweighs the others. Time to remove it unless there are any other comments.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JMO, but I'm for allowing a bit more time for editor input. It is, after all, the wee hours of the day in much of the English speaking world and a little sunshine may help. I will, however, amend the current entry to correct the misquote and editorial mis-application of the scare quotes...and, even if germane, the appropriateness of this content for incorporation in the lede is still very much in question. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any arguments for exclusion that aren't already refuted, now would be a great time to summarize them. Dylan Flaherty 06:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hint: Making changes is not a good way to summarize arguments. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All arguments already appear above. By consensus, your refutation of those arguments was not sufficient to sway consensus, not even a single editor. JakeInJoisey's solution is really very good. After that extra time is over, and barring further input here that may change consensus, WP:DR might be your next step. I realize you said "DR is a failure, WP is a failure', but that does not mean it would not be a viable choice here or that the undue POV need remain unchanged. I hereby fully endorse JakeInJoisey's solution, including amending the current entry right now pending its ultimate removal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you know what consensus means. In specific, if it violates the rules, it's not consensus, even if it's a million to one. If WP:DR is so great, lead the way. Dylan Flaherty 06:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No. JakeInJoisey's solution is the appropriate resolution for right now. As to "violates the rules", that's been addressed above and need not be rediscussed. The POV will now be removed, if it has not already, and, after further time has passed, the entire phrase may be removed. If you are unhappy despite consensus, feel free to go to DR. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Jake, the Slate RS undermined most of what he was trying to accomplish. Dylan Flaherty 06:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you edited against consensus. I reverted. And Slate is not a RS as used in this context. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Jake... and ...what he was trying to accomplish.

Oh my. JakeInJoisey (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Dylan Flaherty is correct about the consensus. AfricaTruth (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This comment is the only edit of AfricaTruth (talk · contribs) to date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Now brought down by its own boomerang and indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV adjective

A recent edit removed "unprompted" from "Koch Industries issued an unprompted press release". This word is entirely neutral and is the result of a hard-earned consensus that cannot be ignored by a single editor. Unless some compelling argument is made here (not in an edit comment), this change is slated to be reverted. Dylan Flaherty 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You stated previously " overreacted by spitting out an unsolicited press release denying any connection..." If they were reacting, something prompted their reaction. The word unprompted casts aspersions on their motivations. I don't see how anything could be more neutral than simply stating they issued a press release. It's purely factual when phrased that way. —Torchiest /_edits 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is defined in terms of our sources, not your beliefs. One source states:

"Koch Industries, a major backer of myriad right-wing causes, issued an unsolicited statement last night in advance of Tax Day claiming..."

It also uses the word again:

"She said the unsolicited statement was prompted because..."

I think this is very clear. We compromised on "unprompted", based on some people feeling that "unsolicited" was too negative, yet that's precisely what our source states.

It's clear that we need to restore either "unprompted" or "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Every press release is prompted by something. Besides, I see no support for "unprompted" in the ref. DF, please quote the ref that supports "unprompted". Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict and I wrote this before the last two responses: Hello Dylan, I don't know about the hard earned consensus part....I don't recall any discussion on the term. Second, I think that about 90% of press releases are "unprompted". So, what is the meaning / purpose / intent of using that word to refer to this particular press release? IMHO by the norms, use of the term in this context would tend to mean "unusually pro-active", or "it was very unusual /significant that they did this press release without being a response to anything". IMHO if such is really the case, the the term is informative; if not then it is POV wordsmithing. North8000 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The point being made by our sources is that it was conspicuously strange for Koch to issue a denial when there has been no specific accusation. This is not my OR, it's in the original, so we must honor it. Dylan Flaherty 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's another source which accepts this word:

"Rachel points out the bizarre unsolicited letter that Koch Industries to Talking Points Memo..."

The usage here is not original, but it's endorsed. Dylan Flaherty 22:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's yet another that picked up on the original story, showing that we are not giving it undue weight. Have to love tertiary journalism. Dylan Flaherty 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

It also uses "unprompted". Dylan Flaherty 22:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not in the article, your choice of words here is beyond POV. "Accusation" refers to wrongdoing, and you are assigning that word to refer to the subject of giving money to Freedom Works.

I didn't have time to read and analyze the referenced material Is there some REAL meaning / informative value to "unprompted" or is it just swipes by an un-objective un-reliable "RS"?North8000 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The term is accurate and neutral. Dylan Flaherty 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple things. First, Crooks and Liars, TPM, and The Huffington Post are all left wing sites, and all of the linked stories are commentary rather than straight news reporting. Second, examine the context of the HP story:

"In the aftermath of the Greenpeace report detailing Koch Industries and Koch Foundations' funding of climate denial organizations and front groups, David and Charles Koch have refused to address key questions about their destructive role in funding groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Cato Institute. Instead, Koch Industries attempted to distance themselves from last week's tax day tea parties, even going so far as to send unprompted emails to news outlets including Talking Points Memo:"

That is clearly indicating that the press release was a reaction to some other event. Also, unsolicited is not congruous to unprompted. Unsolicited means unasked for. It doesn't mean without cause. Unprompted in the article text casts an inappropriate value judgment. —Torchiest /_edits 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that you highlighted a number of words in that quote, but did not highlight "unprompted". That seems like a selective reading combined with original research, so I'm going to have to disregard your conclusion. It doesn't help that you didn't offer an argument against "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about that word, I didn't feel it was necessary to point it out in the text again. I was pointing out the context, which indicates that there were events that lead up to the press release being issued, specifically, the Greenpeace report. As for unsolicited, I defined it. Its definition is not synonymous with unprompted. Finally, unsolicited is a loaded word in this context as well, since press releases are not something that is solicited for in the first place. Simply stating they issued the press release is as neutral as the sentence could be. —Torchiest /_edits 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your original research and personal opinions, but I still feel more comfortable following our sources. Our sources saw fit to highlight the odd nature of the press release, in that it was a premature denial. It's akin to Obama putting out a press release today announcing that he didn't have Palin murdered, only for Palin to go missing two days later and be found dead; the timing is significant and suppressing it is hardly neutral. Dylan Flaherty 22:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the timing is significant. Hence, the word unprompted is inappropriate, as something prompted the press release. I've made my points and will let others continue this. `—Torchiest /_edits 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with "unprompted", then I'm sure you'll accept "unsolicited". Dylan Flaherty 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If your point of view relies on left-wing sites with a predisposition against both Koch and the TPM, then I sould say that your suggestion is not acceptable. Furthermore, I don't see why you insist on adding a POV to the section when it is already quite neutral. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if we have to choose between our sources and you -- and we do -- then we go with the sources. If you have a better source, bring it. Otherwise, it's just your WP:OR against a WP:RS, and that's a losing move. Dylan Flaherty 01:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

False. It's not the job of people opposing adding POV from Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace to find a better source. Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace simply may not be used as WP:RSs in this context, and context is key. It's your job to find a RS for adding what is apparently your POV/OR. Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace is not adequate in this case for that purpose. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Rachel Maddow and Greenpeace aren't our sources for this. You're wasting our time by arguing against a straw man. Dylan Flaherty 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you not provide them as RSs for your soapbox? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The question remains: what are you talking about? Dylan Flaherty 03:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You want diffs for your own edits above? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam links/Full protection

New to this discussion (it came to my attention as the result of a discussion at WP:3RRN), but could someone explain why the links of the TP organizations in the "external links" section have been tagged as spam by Ronz (talk · contribs) and Barek (talk · contribs)? This seems to be the source of the revert-warring that led to full protection. Kelly 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Dylan Flaherty 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Kelly 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I should have posted here immediately after reverting, I apologize for the delay. I can't speak for Ronz, but here are my reasons:

It's actually more accurate to describe the links as linkspam, not what is frequently thought of as spam. As such, it would have been better of me to either remove the links, or to tag the section with {{external links}} instead of restore the less accurate in-line {{spam link}} tags which have a negative connotation which could be mis-construed to be a criticism or claim against the organizations themselves.

The argument for adding the external links to this article seems to be tied to WP:ELYES #1 "Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site. See Official links below.". If you then follow the link, there are two criteria for defining an external link as an official site - I believe that the sites fail the first criteria: "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Misplaced Pages article." The article is about a movement, and there is no single group of official site that controls that movement.

I believe that those links are much more appropriate in articles about the respective groups where they are true official sites for those articles. The links already exist in the articles for Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, and Tea Party Express. The only other use of those links in this article would be as sources where appropriate to support statements within this article, a use which already appropriately exists and which I do not dispute.

Granted, this is all a guideline, and discussion on this talk page can determine if consensus exists that a WP:IAR situation exists here. However, that requires a discussion - and I am as guilty as the others involved for not starting the discussion as I should have when I reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern here is that there's no single official TPM web site. By selecting some and excluding others, we'd be ruling on something that is beyond our ability to judge. Dylan Flaherty 02:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Barek and Dylan... There is no single TPM organization, so there's no website that could meet ELOFFICIAL.

Internal links to the respective organizations are already in the article, and each has its own official link.

FreedomWorks is not TPM. Suggesting it is in such a manner violates WP:NPOV.

While we're at it, I see a need for the links to coverage sites, but I find the Fox News and CNN pages rather poor in comparison to The New York Times' and BBC's. Given the links between Fox and TPM, I can see a case for keeping it. Anyone have good reasons for keeping CNN's? --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I can see the reasoning now. But using {{spam link}} was probably a bad call that led to the edit war. I have worked in the past with WP:WPSPAM, and implying that someone is a "spammer" for adding links is sure to generate a visceral response, since spammers are almost universally hated. Ronz (talk · contribs) says they are working on a better inline template for the future. Kelly 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz, and it appears everyone else now as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think all three of the Tea Party group links should be removed, since we should not be picking and choosing any representatives for what is a last and diverse set of groups. I also think the link to the SourceWatch wiki should be removed, as it is redundant to this very Misplaced Pages, except it is a liberal site. I would also oppose a link to a Conservapedia Tea Party page for the same reasons. I also think the Life magazine link should go, as it's just a pointless puff piece. The rest of the news links are more substantial and are appropriately balanced left to right. —Torchiest /_edits 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the reputation of SourceWatch as a source or external link on Misplaced Pages. If it's not highly reputable or redundant with Misplaced Pages articles or other external links, then it would be best to remove it.

The Life magazine link has lost much of it's value since the elections, and will only get worse with time. I'm not sure how valuable it was before the elections. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose removal of the {{spam link}} templates from the "external links" section and replacing it with {{External links}} at the top of the section while this is being discussed. Kelly 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You posted above that Ronz had mentioned a new in-line tag. I see on Ronz' talk-page that the suggestion for {{External links-inline}}. That might be a better choice, so that the specific links in question can be identified - at least until the above discussion concludes. Although, I'm also fine with using the {{External links}} tag - that's the one I'm most familiar with using anyways. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the page was unprotected, I went ahead and made the change I suggested. I won't object if someone has a better solution. However, I'd request that the tag not be removed until Kenatipo (talk · contribs) has a chance to come back and comment. All the best - Kelly 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree on waiting for Kenatipo.

Note that WP:ELBURDEN recommends removal of disputed links until consensus is reached for their inclusion. That said, there are far more important disputes and problems to address than the external links, and other problems with the article will not be solved by changing external links, especially POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't wait for my input. I'm taking a break from editing for a while. Thank you for your consideration though. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I've removed them given the discussions above. I also was bold and removed the CNN link which I'd mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to remove the {{External links}} tag at this point? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware, so I removed it. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

POV violation and edit-warring

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling removed a reference to a reliable source so as to be able to claim that only a single observer has concluded that the TPM is a rebranded GOP.

The mistakes described here were originally made by JakeInJoisey, but I reverted them with full explanation. I believe that Jake's edit was in good faith, though erroneous. However, by the time LAEC got involved, the error had been pointed out, so no assumption of good faith can be supported by the evidence.

I'm not going to join LAEC in edit-warring. Instead, I will point out that this change is clearly unacceptable and ask that the appropriate measures be taken. Dylan Flaherty 06:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you've been cautioned and sanctioned over this type of behavior before. Please keep your comments to content rather than making it personal to particular contributors. If you think there is a problem with a particular contributor, please use external processes like RFC rather than disrupting article talk pages with personal accusations. If your problem is with content, then keep the discussion to that alone. Kelly 07:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:DR insists that I discuss the issue here before going anywhere else. As an experiment, I reported a similar error to WP:AN/I recently, and I think we both saw that the admins on watch were uninterested in dealing with the matter. On the whole, as much as I appreciate your advice, I'm going to stick with following the rules, instead. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The mistakes described here were originally made by JakeInJoisey, but I reverted them with full explanation.

Let's please be precisely accurate here. The content was NOT "my" edit and I made no "mistake". "My" edit was to correct the misrepresentation of the source of the existing edit to include the singular nature of the existing source, omission of the qualifying "mostly like" and the removal of the POV "scare quotes". JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Jake, there's no disagreement about the need to remove those scare quotes; I admitted it from the moment it was pointed out, and I was careful to preserve their removal. The rest of the change you made was a mistake, in light of the additional "observers", but it was still much better than LAEC's change, as his came after I had added a citation. In his case, he definitely knew he was going against our sources. You get a free pass and a healthy dose of WP:AGF, he gets a dose of harsh reality. Dylan Flaherty 13:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's false. You were just told a few comments above to stick to the issues, not the editors. And don't spun this, again, as a JakeInJoisey "mistake". No one enjoys when you spin what they do.

Your edit was against consensus, and your added ref supported your soapbox that was also against consensus, not only above, but now below as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your claims about consensus. The sources we have are very clear on this matter: we have multiple statements by notable people in reliable sources, not just one. Dylan Flaherty 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm correct. You are intentionally misleading people and continuing your tenditious editing. At the point that you defied consensus and made the edit you did, you defied consensus. Things that happened after that point are irrelevant to what you did at the time. And issues were not just the refs but also the OR that you created out of thin air to push your view. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Just to make it clear that there's absolutely no question about the existence of multiple observers who see the TPM as a rebranding of the GOP, I've dumped some sources here.

Gallup (and restatements)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141098/tea-party-supporters-overlap-republican-base.aspx

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/07/02/gallup-tea-party-a-rebranding-of-republicanism/

David Weigel, Washington Post, 5 Myths

http://www.slate.com/id/2263063/

http://www.freedomworks.org/news/five-myths-about-the-tea-party

Other RS:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/25/opinion/la-oe-0725-mcmanus-column-tea-party-20100725

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704462704575590510679315310.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/07/palin

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011956-503544.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/17/201024/030

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/democrats-attacking-gop-as-tea-party

I think that's enough for now, but there's more where that came from. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine (though - Daily Kos as a reliable source?) - I'm just saying, keep it to the content, not the contributors. Kapisch? Kelly 07:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, no. Putting aside the Daily Kos for just a moment, I thought the whole point is that we're trying to determine whether, as LAEC suggests, Newport is the only RS saying this. What do you mean? Dylan Flaherty 07:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that, just as I did not do that which this whole subsection is about. Dylan has failed to achieve consensus above. He should stick to issues, not editors. Kelly has provided him with this advice. DF should reconsider his decision not to abide by Kelly's advice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If we really put those in context, they essentially say that TPM opponents (as a tactic) are saying that TPM is just re-branding / a tool of Republicans. The article should report opponents' assertions as such, not as fact. North8000 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

North, that wouldn't be context, it would be lying. Gallup is not a opponent of TPM nor is this a "tactic" on their part. It is, quite objectively, what the data suggests to someone capable of reading data. We need to simply stick to our sources, without trying to editorialize (read: distort). Otherwise, this article will sink back into the mire of POV that we found it in.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no basis, in common sense or the rules or whatever, for ignoring the existence of all of the other sources that share the observation of Gallup. Nobody has even attempted to provide such a basis, aside from the circular logic of LAEC's consensus claim. Dylan Flaherty 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with North. It is clear that opponents of TPM are trying to make any re-branding connection. It doesn't even make sense to say that the TPM is a "marketing" tool or a re-branding of the GOP. If the TPM is a rebranding of the GOP then GOP=TPM, thus you get the following insane outcome of this logic. This would imply that the GOP ran several races against itself during the primaries, it would also say that the GOP blames the GOP for not being able to take the senate because the GOP ran candidates against the GOP which resulted in the GOP having some candidates that were not as strong as GOP candidates. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Gallup poll said that there is a constituent overlap and that TP'ers usually vote Republican. There is NOTHING in there about "rebranding" or "tool of Republicans". And Dylan, you basically just said that Gallup was a source for the "rebranding" and "tool of Republicans" stuff. Dylan, how can we carry on a sincere discussion here when you keep doing that? Sincerely, North8000 16:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not say it is a re-branding, just that there is overlap in support. That is hardly surprising since the GOP is more conservative than the Democrats. The TPM is in fact a challenge to the GOP leadership and writers hostile to it, e.g., Sean Wilentz and Robert Altemeyer, have placed it in the tradition of U.S. right-wing populist movements. TFD (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arzel: suggesting that the conservative base faction of the GOP ran candidates in several races against establishment GOP candidates is pure, unfounded lunacy. That's almost as crazy as asserting that some Democratic candidates oppose actions of one of their own, President Obama! Really, stop the insanity!

North8000 and TFD also raise good points; it's not like the chief editor of Gallup actually suggested that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene, or noted that the idea the Tea Party supporters are a voting segment that is unique and distinct from the more traditional Republican conservative base, however, appears questionable. And it's not like David Weigel observed that the presence of a new political force that is not called Republican and is not tied to George W. Bush has given the GOP a glorious opportunity to remake its image, at a time when trust in the party is very low. Some liberals deride the Tea Party as a new bottle for old Republican wine. But rebranding works. (Even Coca-Cola eventually benefited from the publicity of New Coke.) Nothing in major, reliable news sources suggests the "tea party" movement is rapidly becoming just another faction of the national Republican Party, or that at this point, the tea party agenda (to the extent the amorphous coalition has one) and the official Republican Party agenda have largely merged -- because we all know that the TPers are absolutely not a vocal, conservative subset of the GOP, but actually an "opponent" of the GOP. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we repeating this discussion. So far is there anyone else who supports it? I see no problem with creating a line that says something similar but multiple editors see "rebranding" as problematic. It has been about 24hrs and no one agrees with its use except for Dylan and Xenophrenic. Can you clarify or respond to the concerns based on it being read as "marketing"? For now it should go and hopefully a line can replace it after it is worked out.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion and sources given above, is there anyone that still sees the "rebranding" sentence as problematic? Each of the concerns raised thus far have been addressed, and there does not appear to be any other concerns forthcoming. The text looks fine as it is now, but should any further concerns be raised they can be worked out. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, If one reads it closely, I think that Xenophrenic also disagrees with Dyulan.

If one reads it even more closely, it is obvious Xenophrenic was being facetious, and he agrees with Dylan and the reliable sources (and even edited the article in support of that agreement).

You've miscounted. There are only 8 votes that count, and those all come from the reliable sources. Xeno's opinion and mine have no weight on their own; it all comes from those sources. On the other hand, you have no sources, so a million of you add up to nothing. Consensus is not a vote, and reliable sources rule. Dylan Flaherty 02:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, that argument does not hold water on several levels. First,and foremost, we are discussing what the reliable RS's say, and what they say is that TPM opponents are saying "rebranding / tool of", they are not saying that such is fact. Sincerely, North8000 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not the case. Gallup, for example, is not a TPM opponent. Try again. Dylan Flaherty 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor of the Gallup Poll probably is a TPM opponent. "Gallup" may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't discount otherwise reliable sources because we guess that they might be biased.   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The current paragraph reads:

The Tea Party's most noted national figures include highly seasoned Republican politicians such as Dick Armey and Sarah Palin. Nearly all Tea Party candidates have run as Republicans. A Gallup poll shows almost 80% of Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans. Some, including Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport, have suggested that the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.

Previously raised concerns:

• 1) The "rebranding" characterization comes from just one source or person (Frank Newport of Gallup).

This concern has been shown to be completely unfounded. As evidenced by the numerous sources listed above by Dylan Flaherty, as well as others linked from within those sources, the same observation has been made by numerous distinct sources.

• 2) The "rebranding" characterization is just a tactic used by opponents of the Tea Party movement, and should be presented in that context.

This concern has been shown to be inaccurate. The observation has come from some sources that are not opponents, and based only on hard polling data. Some of the sources listed above do indeed explain that opponents have tried to trumpet the "rebranding" characterization for political gain (with CBSNEWS and Politico noting that the DNC, for example, was setting up a whole campaign to spread the word that Tea Party = Rebranded Republican Party). However, other sources sympathetic to the TPers have noted the rebranding as a GOP effort. The Wall Street Journal, for example, concluded: "But when GOP pollsters looked more closely, they figured out that tea-party voters were, in fact, Republican voters who had simply grown unhappy and found a new way to express themselves. Their natural inclination was to vote Republican, if given a reason to do so. Soon enough, the GOP chose to embrace the movement, and the tea-party message became the Republican message for 2010 ... Still, the re-branding was successful. Attempting to portray the rebranding observation as a tactic of opponents would be grossly inaccurate.

• 3) The text should not use the "marketing" word, which would be inappropriate.

This concern is moot, since the present text does not use the "marketing" word. Calling it a change in marketing focus, or calling it rebranding, express with equal accuracy what the above listed sources convey — and the wording is simply a matter of personal preference, as both are equally appropriate.
Xenophrenic (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebranding is something done with/through something that one owns /controls controls. The Republican party does not own or control the TPM. North8000 12:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

North, that's your reasoning, and if you were a reliable source, we could include it. Instead, we have reliable sources that disagree with you, and we need to go with them. Dylan Flaherty 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As discussed, it isn't the source that is the problem but the language used and the way than it could be read incorrectly. I honestly d not see why anyone would be against tinkering with it. So after 46hrs can we remove it since it is obvious that it is a problem? Again, it can always go back in after it is cleaned up. There is no reason to repeat arguments anymore and I assume everyone is bored of dealing with this.Cptnono (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cptnono: The sentence that has existed for a month has indeed been tinkered with over the past 46 hours, and is no longer a problem. Were there any further concerns, or changes you'd like to suggest? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how long it has been in. Enough editors have raised concerns with both "marketing" and "rebranding". "Rebranding" in one sense does work. Unfortunately, as soon as it is read as some form of marketing (which is what happened) it became problematic. I don't know what it should say just that it is not good enough. I explained above (before we repeated the conversation for whatever reason) in more details and I hope you scroll up and think of an altertnative based on that.18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we have multiple reliable sources that speak of "rebranding". That's the word, and it's entirely accurate. No amount of original research can change this. Dylan Flaherty 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Due

Rubin recently re-added a tag badge of shame:

In 1984, David Koch also founded the precursor of FreedomWorks, another group that organized and supports the movement.

The stated reason was:

it's clearly undue weight. Koch founded pred. of FW, which does not allow an inference that he has anything to do with it NOW.

It's actually the opposite of undue weight: we mention that Koch founded the precursor of FW because we then repeat Koch's statement that he has no connection with it, which is something of an exaggeration. Not only do we need both, for NPOV, none of this is OR. The connection has been noted all over the place: it turns out that Koch doth protest too much.

Given all of this, I don't see any excuse for the badge of shame. Unless a compelling argument is made and a consensus is formed, I will remove the badge in about a day. Dylan Flaherty 13:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that statement has even more serious problems than undue weight. It essentially asserts that FreedomWorks has a precursor organization and that Koch founded it. But it has no cite/source for either of those statements. The cite provided at the end of that sentence has nothing on either of these. North8000 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was the wrong tag. Our article (FreedomWorks) states that it (FW) was split out of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was founded by Koch. However, the article then goes on to say that CSE merged with Empower America and was renamed FreedomWorks. Both statements are sourced. It follows that it would be correct to say that Koch founded a predecessor of FW, but that statement is irrelevant in this article, even with the addition that FW supports and/or funds the TPm, and that Koch says he has nothing to do with FW and the TPm. From all the information so far reported by reliable sources, Koch's statement is accurate, not misleading, and only marginally relevant to this article, as all the statements connecting him to the movement are allegations. Emphasizing those statements which improperly allow one to infer that Koch's statements are not accurate is near to a WP:BLP violation.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like it's a totally irrelevant statement put here only for inuendo purposes. And the WP way of saying that is wp:undue. North8000 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

North, our reliable sources draw the inference that founding CSE makes Koch connected with FW. Why should we follow your non-notable original research over our reliable sources? Likewise, the claims of not specifically funding the TPM has been noted as being, if not outright false, entirely misleading, particularly given the AFP. As always, this is not a forum and we are not here to entertain arguments that are unsupported by our sources. Dylan Flaherty 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Our reliable sources draw no such inferences, only the polemical ones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling your bluff: immediately show that the sources are polemical or remove your tag. Dylan Flaherty 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated, it implies a causal link which is nothing more than original research. The sentence should be removed. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, to be original research, it would have to come from a Misplaced Pages editor, not one of the many reporters that Koch's spokesperson sent that strange press release to. Second, this is about causation: Koch caused the CSE to come into existence and caused part of it to merge and become FW. It's not mere correlation. Dylan Flaherty 04:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Taibbi

I removed the added section regarding Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia for lack of secondary sourcing. No current main stream articles of note are referring to this book in reference to the Tea Party. Given the magnitude of the Tea Party, we should limit book commentary to those that receive significant coverage. Otherwise this article would be littered with the comments of pretty much every author writing a political book, of which there are many. Use of the book itself is a primary source, and unless significat secondary sourcing discussing the books relevance to the TPM is submit that this commentary not be included at this time. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? Dylan Flaherty 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Or these.

I think we need to put "Griftopia" back in the article, don't you? Dylan Flaherty 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Lepore, Jill (2010). The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History. Princeton University Press. pp. 77–79. ISBN 978-0691150277.
2. Lepore, Jill (2010). The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History. Princeton University Press. pp. 77–79. ISBN 978-0691150277.
3. Slogan

• 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