Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 26 August 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. 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, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk.

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: 30 days

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: 30 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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism 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.

Attention: This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction: No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large. This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. For more information, see this page.

Redirected from Beandog . . .why?

I wanted to know what a beandog was, and was directed to this page. Is a beandog a member of the Tea Party Movement? If so, that needs to be explained in the text.Beau Tibbs (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

http://gawker.com/5659351/twittergate-how-internet-jerks-pranked-the-tea-party

Looks like it should redirect to maybe Neal Rauhauser instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Redirects for Discussion. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just some typos

Under Organization:

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

should be

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

for clarity and correctness.

Link to the Colorado shootings

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

Ross has retracted his statement. Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. TFD (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

See 2012 Colorado shooting. 99.109.124.90 (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a thought to express, please tell it to us. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The Real Tea Party

I don't know what "semi-protected" means, so I thought I'd post this here hoping that some one could add it. It seems like the etymology section should mention a connection brought up by many commentators and historians (a few links below) between the original tea party and the one today. As the article explains, the tea party movement is often perceived as populist but is, in fact, supported by many business interests, such as the Koch family. The original tea party is often thought of as a protest by irate colonists over exorbitant tea taxes levied by the British government. It would be more truthful to characterize the tea party as an illegal effort by tea smugglers to prevent the cheaper British tea from reaching the market, tea which was made less expensive by the Tea Act. Essentially the government's attempt to tax the same tea less in the colonies than it did in Britain in order to pay for local (meaning colonial) government expenses was a threat to business interests, i.e. smuggling. These expenses were previously paid for by local taxes on the colonists and were now being paid for by the British government.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/04/24/tea-parties-and-the-real-tea-party/ http://www.boston-tea-party.org/smuggling/organized-smuggling.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwoodfor (talk • contribs) 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link is to a blog which cannot be included. It also seems to present an unusual perspective. You need to demonstrate that comparing today's tea party with the original tea party is a notable topic. It may not however be important, what is important is what people today believe the original party was about. Incidentally, since the colonists switched to drinking coffee, the smugglers lost out. TFD (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those links were examples. There were two of them, one of which was to the boston tea party historical society while the other, a blog, refers to six different sources including Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson. I have included a few sources below conforming more to Misplaced Pages's guidelines, but you should keep in mind that whether a blog can be included is based on context. The five pillars of wikipedia, one of which is that there are no hard and fast rules, trump source guidelines. In this case, the blog in question is a good example of the dozens of sources which come up with a google search of "boston tea party today." You may be right that this is not the best source, but you would do well to be more specific in you criticism rather than arbitrarily dismissing an entire medium. Most news organizations now have blogs.

As for being notable, considering that the historical comparison is explicit in the name "Tea Party" and the populist nature of the Tea Party message, the questioning of this historical comparison is clearly relevant.

By the way, the switch from tea to coffee occurred over a long period extending at least through the civil war. Misplaced Pages's coffee article cites trade issues during the war of 1812 as an early influence. Being born and bred British subjects, the colonists likely went back to drinking tea the moment the war was over, even once they became Americans.

NPR news source Opinion Article by Stanford History Prof Pwoodfor (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are absolutely different, nobody has claimed that they aren't. The questionable thing is trying to pretend that that isn't obvious and "analyzing" it, and pretending that such an obvious thing is somehow an "expose'". North8000 (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Social conservatism in the Tea Party movement

There is a dispute on Social conservatism about whether the Tea Party movement is socially conservative. I'm hoping the editors here would be familiar with the subject and be able to help us settle the dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a point at which your POV becomes too obvious. I think you would be well-advised to specialise in another area for a few weeks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a movement defined by its agenda. Social conservatism (or it's opposite) is not on its agenda. Further, the two main political groups that make up its followers (conservatives and libertarians) conflict on social conservative topics. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is not socially conservative, but includes people who are. TFD (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Good clarification. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another attempt at votestacking by this editor, but this time with some unintentional humor included. Clearly, he's angling to import some editors who will back up his POV about the other article. And just as clearly, he isn't likely to find them here. His failure to understand this merely reveals his ignorance of the subject matter. Belchfire-TALK 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What a joke. The first paragraph of the article says the "movement" is conservative. And in the talk section editors now agree that the movement itself is not conservative, but only "includes" people who are conservative? Furthermore, the article still contains the controversial claim (with inapplicable sources) that the TPM is generally accepted to be libertarian -- and the entire debate over that claim has apparently been purged from the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 76.174.24.153 (talk • contribs) 22:10, August 10, 2012

Well, actually, the movement is fiscally conservative. It appears that many of the members are socially conservative, but it is not part of the tenets of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The movement is whatever its members believe in. This clearly includes social conservatism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Biddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, libertarianism, and a few hundred other -isms. So what is your claim supposed to prove? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's factually wrong on one level and makes no sense on another level. With substantial presence of of libertarians and conservatives in its supporters, the folks within the TPM have conflicting views on social conservatism, so characterizing them as one or the other would be in error. The "makes no sense" part is that an organization or movement is defined by its agenda, not what the views of what its supporters are on unrelated topics. By that standard, if you polled a bicycling club and found out that the majority of it's members like hamburgers, then by the logic that you just used you would characterize it as a hamburger club. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad analogy: bicycles and hamburgers are unrelated. Instead imagine that scientific polls show the majority of bicycle club members believe that cars should be avoided because of their environmental impact. In that case, it would be entirely fair to say that the club is composed of people who are proponents of bicycle riding, largely for environmental reasons.

It might be helpful to look at my comment to Collect. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on both items. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Still's comment to Collect makes no sense there, either. The TP's tenets are all fiscal conservatism. Their Social conservatism would be either a coincidence or a consequence of the (possible) fact that fiscal conservatism is associated with social conservatism. To extend your analogy to hamburgers, it's likely and as relevant that bicyclers would tend to eat less hamburger than others, because they tend to be more fit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording came as the result of a large scale mediation. As most of those are, it was probably a crafted compromise. But I think a good one. A few statements which make require a logician to digest/ make sense out of:

1. it's tenets do not "match" conservatism or libertarianism
2. it's tenets are the items that are in common to libertarianism and conservatism.
3. it's tenets are a subset of libertarianism, and so do not conflict with libertarianism
4. it's tenets are a subset of conservatism, and so do not conflict with conservatism
5. the closest philosophy to it's main theme is libertarianism
6. in a country where everybody sort of knows what conservation is, and few (even many of those who practice it) don't know what libertarianism is, and few understand what the TPM's tenets are, and few understand the difference between defining tenets and folks who are followers, it's very common to (mis)classify the TPM as "conservative"
7. Using USA meanings, the farthest philosophy from it's main tenets is liberalism, by the the USA meaning of liberalism. BTW, the very different NON-USA meaning of liberalism and conservatism, the TPM tenets are probably closer to liberalism.

Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, what sausage factory produced that? All we really need here is a Venn diagram. Belchfire-TALK 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good comment, but a few aspects of it (public perceptions differing from the reality, and dramatically varying meanings of terms depending on geographic locations) are complexities that a Venn diagram is not able to handle. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Racism

The section on Racism is marked as Undue weight. I personally would agree with this. The entire section is little more than he-said she-said quotes. I'd personally recommend removing the racism section altogether. Failing that, limiting it to the one poll that tracks the non-Tea Party and Tea Party opinions on the issue. If the racism section is kept, it should probably be moved under the Controversies section.

There are also several other collections of he-said she-said quotes in this article. I'm not sure any of them add much to the article. They just make the article as a whole difficult to read. This article is marked as only "mid-level importance" by wikipedia. I'm not sure that justifies walls of text that boil down to nothing more than opposing "yay for my side" comments.Magicjava (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That whole section is a bunch of selective trivia gamed in to give a certain impression. It's time to get it out. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

an obvious bias, i had an edit removed from the occupy movement page about the 5 members charged with a wmd plot, one already plead guity, yet somehow not notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if they made a twitter comment or somebody thought they messed with a BBQ grill it would be more notable. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:Undue, which specifically states, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." While there may be valid concerns about weight and presentation, wholesale deletion is not supported by the prevalence of reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully half the article is devoted to charges of racism. That's ridiculous. Ultra Venia (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is ridiculous. Not even 20% of the article is devoted to racism. Based on the prevalence of reliable sources, what would you suggest is the proper weight? Should it be expanded? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Teabagger Section Movement

The section on the term "teabagger" should be moved under reception, since it has nothing to do with the background on the movement, if not removed: it is purely name calling, not related to the background of the movement.

If this change is not made, then I suggest that sections be added to other articles to balance the POV. For example, the background on the pages related to liberal movements should be supplemented with a section on the term lieberal.

There are always instances of name calling, whether left or right, but these should either all be included or all excluded to ensure a neutral POV.

137.207.51.171 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The section is hardly name-calling on the part of the article, it is simply summarizing news reports of the word being used by Tea Party members earlier on, and documenting it's adoption by comedians and those opposed to the movement. The origins of the phrase teabagger are as old as the movement, and stood a chance of becoming an alternate name for the party. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is, however, not an "alternate name" for the movement. The term is not used as a name for the movement in the New York Times, which suggests it is not a common name for the movement. In fact see : teabagger, a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice. Seems sufficient to rule out the "they call themselves that" which was promoted. So your statement of what you "know" to be the "truth" - ain't. Collect (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I've NEVER heard the term used by supporters or opponents, or anywhere besides in this article. The same for the "somebody thinks that a TP'er sabotaged a BBQ grill" and the twitter comment and all of the other selected trivia that this article is loaded with. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

remove, time to debag the tea party, the term is an childish joke and serves no purpose here. pov pushing in an effort to co-op the intent of the term. only a fool would assume any member of this party joined to have its scrotum dipped, rather it is about taxes, grow up. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Only a fool" would assume that the article suggests that "any member of this party joined to have its scrotum dipped", because it doesn't say anything close to that. Selective removal of unfavorable content is "POV pushing". The article is over 160K bytes; a small sourced paragraph is not undue here, and honestly speaks more to the "childishness" of opponents than anything else. - SudoGhost 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Addendum: My comment above was based on this version, not this one. I don't think that the longer version is appropriate, and agree with the shortening. But I do think that some mention (such as what's currently in the article) is warranted. - SudoGhost 19:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it used commonly all over the Internet, and among everyone from politicians, to political commentators and comedians. It's very widespread, and I personally feel that removing any mention of it is just going to contribute to ignorance. Frankly, without the explanation of how the term came into common usage (and an explanation that it is not used by members of the movement itself), it can create impressions that it is non-derogatory and commonly-accepted as a self-designation. The fact that North8000 has never heard the term outside of Misplaced Pages seems rather shocking to me...and I don't even watch televised news. The word (as a political term) even became a finalist for New Oxford American Dictionary's "word of the year!" . To me, deleting it actually works detrimentally towards the TPM as it essentially "sweeps under the rug" any discussion or denunciation of it. (NOTE: I was referring to the editor who said "Remove." I don't think any members use it as self-designation at this point...though probably it was used that way in the beginning by a few non-"street-savvy" individuals.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether or not the term is used. It's a question whether or not it is approprIate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Allowing this section here implies similar sections could be added to the democratic or republican articles. --Magicjava (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. This isn't an argument for "removing all mention"; it's an argument for moving it into a more appropriate section. Belchfire-TALK 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in my "note," I was referring to DarkStar1st's comment, which appeared to be a call to remove all mention, Slick. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove it completely to comply with style of other articles that deal with similar issues. The term is derogatory, and it's use makes the article look amateurish. For good reason there is no section on "Spic" in wiki's Latino article, no section on "Rice head" in wiki's articles about Asians, etc. In all these cases the derogatory terms are either ignored completely or placed in their own seperate article. --Magicjava (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that people are born tea partiers and cannot change their political affiliations, or that other races created their own racial slurs. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no section on "Democrite" in the Democrat article, etc. The incluson of the term is unprofessional and not done in other wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicjava (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Democrat's haven't gained widespread media attention because of one of their own protestors carrign a sign identifying himself as a "democrite." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we add a secton to the Democratic article relating them to the KKK because Senator Robert Byrd identified himself as a member of the Klan?--Magicjava (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference there being the Democratic party and the KKK both existed before one individual joined both groups, which connects them about as much as Larry Craig connects the GOP with homosexuals. This was an instance where one member of the fledgling movement identified himself as a member of only that movement in a manner that created a media frenzy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And David Duke was elected as a Republican. (And none of this changes the fact that the KKK is Far Right.) These kinds of swipes are for the uneducated and ignorant, and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Byron - I agree with you when you say "These kinds of swipes are for the uneducated and ignorant". That's why you don't include such swipes in an encyclopedia. --Magicjava (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ian - With your ever changing justifications on why it's ok to include such a slur in this article, but for no other, I'm getting the feeling I'm wasting my time discussing it with you. Let's just agree to disagree. --Magicjava (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Duke is a former Democrat. And ran for President as a Democrat. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and IIRC also, Pol Pot was from the far left. Now, enough of the juvenile schoolyard sniping. Does anybody have a cogent argument against moving the verbiage concerning "teabaggers" to a different section? I don't think I've seen one so far. Belchfire-TALK 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What section would you move it to? --Magicjava (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Magicjava, "it is simply summarizing news reports of the word being used by Tea Party members earlier on," and " This was an instance where one member of the fledgling movement identified himself as a member of only that movement in a manner that created a media frenzy" are not two different things, they're just rephrasings of the same basic idea. Please actually read what I say before accusing me of anything based on what I supposedly said. All that's changed is you came up with different red herring comparisons to call the word a slur, and I pointed out the problems in those comparisons. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're saying the term is not a slur when even the text in the article specifically refers to it as a derogatory term. Twice. It says it's derogatory because it *is* derogatory. There's no other article on wikipedia that includes sections on derogatory terms for the topic that I know of. They're either ignored completely or placed in a separate article. The reason it's done is because including such things is amateurish, at best.--Magicjava (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: if it's such a derogatory term, then why is there an entire "Proud to be a Teabagger" movement among members of the Tea Party? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the NYT makes no such mention in any article, I think it possible that this is an "urban legend" - we can not make such a claim without strong reliable sourcing, and the NYT column makes clear that it is derogatory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I take it from the comment that you didn't click on that link. Until you do the necessary research, your viewpoint is not going to be persuasive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So someone "hasn't done their research" unless they viewed the video on a blog that you linked and drawn the same overreaching conclusion from that source that you did. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still - If you go to YouTube and search using the words "proud" and " nigger" you'll find videos of black people who are proud to be called the n-word. That doesn't change the fact that the term is generally considered derogatory. And if someone in the media were to do a piece about "Proud Nigger" videos, that wouldn't imply that piece should be referenced in wiki's article on African Americans. --Magicjava (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

not in source given

from the second source: Truth be told, though, for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left, which seems to have adopted the joke en masse during an earlier round of these protests back in February., the first source is of a sign with the words "tea bag", not "teabagger"

"Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" section should go

This is a 920 word section about some people saying that a few of the 30,000 participants at one event said something bad. And even that was never substantiated despite a reward being offered to do so. The whole thing should get deleted. Or, if it stays in a reduced form, it needs to be put in it's actual context which actions by opponents / media to give such a thing so much traction. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a popular misconception. There was never a "reward". Breitbart offered to give $100,000 only to the United Negro College Fund for video proof of the slurs. It is improbable that a TPer would cough up a self-incriminating video of racism, when they wouldn't see a single dollar for it. Pretty clever of Breitbart, if you ask me. The couple videos we do have of that moment show that there were no news media cameras near enough to the walking congressmen to catch any audio — just protesters there — and there is no monetary incentive for those protesters to make their recordings public, even if they have them. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

remove, per npov. This section serves no purpose other than malign the movement with vague unsubstantiated claims. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Do you see any logic in claiming: Sure, some of the "loud and angry" protesters called the gays "faggots" and "homos", left swastikas on the Jew's desk and fax machine, called the Hispanics "spics" — but call a black man "nigger"?!? That's un-American, and I refuse to believe it happened unless I see it on 3-D Video with Dolby surround-sound! It makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've re-read the sources; they indicate there was nothing at all "vague" about the reports, and far from being "unsubstantiated", they were actually eyewitnessed, and some were even recorded on video. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(added later) You just conflicted what you just wrote. First you said "of course there's no such video" to dismiss my reward note, and then a couple inches down to refute my "unsubstantiated" note you said that the video does exist. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no conflict in what I wrote. My response about existing video was to DS1's assertion about "vague unsubstantiated claims" in that section, and not your assertion about the n-word slur. There is television news camera video of TPers clearly calling a Congressman "faggot"; news video and audio of the faxed and voicemail bigotry; video of a Congressman hit with spittle (intentional or accidental, believe what you will), etc. As for the specific n-word report, of course there is no self-incriminating video, and there never was a "reward". Hope that clears things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

such behavior does not reflect the movement's principles and has been denounced by the tea party. the issue is weight, which is unbalanced in the article to the negative. perhaps you could write an article about the specific health care protest incident as it has no relevance here. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has said such behavior "reflects the movement's principles". This isn't the Principles of the Tea Party movement article; perhaps you should create one? As for "specific health care protest incident", to which of the many incidents do you refer? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would rather see serious sources that discuss alleged racism etc. in the Tea Party used. When we list a number of events that reflect poorly on them we are presenting a POV. While there is a temptation to make the Tea Party look bad, the function of the article should be to explain the group and report mainstream opinions about it. Much of the popular liberal conception about them is not supported in academic writing about them. TFD (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us full-circle back to the question that gets asked each time we have this discussion: do we have "serious academic sources" from which to draw good information? Previous consensus was that the "movement" was still too new, broad and ill-defined for there to be much in the way of serious academic study ... which is why we have an article predominantly sourced to news reporting. It's been several years, so are there now some better sources you could suggest?

If you are Editors feeling a "temptation to make the Tea Party look bad" should probably avoid editing the article, and the same goes for editors that are tempted to promote or whitewash (no pun intended) the Tea Party. Significant segments of the movement's history, whether they reflect positively, poorly or otherwise, should be explained responsibly and accurately in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is full of selected trivia selected to try to make the TPM look bad. Take a look at the Occupy movement article for comparison. They just excluded out a brief mention that 5 occupy folks tried to blow up a bridge (they even flipped the switch) with evidence so solid that they got arrested and indicted for it as "wp:undue" Here, we have a 890 word section on how somebody thinks that somebody in the 30,000 people said something racist, and that an unknown person damaged a BBQ grill line in somebody's yard after a TP person gave out their address, and a whole section on a twitter comment by one low level guy. And this has a "controversies" section which isn't even supposed to be in articles due to being a POV coatrack/fishing pole. This article needs huge fixes to get it out of junk status. Deleting this section would be just a start. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that song several times before, North -- I'll just direct your attention to the responses given each of those times. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Those were maneuvers, not responses. None even addressed the raised core issues. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your comment to me is grossly insulting and misrepresents what I wrote, as anyone can plainly see. Please retract. TFD (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, TFD; that was not my intention. I took your assertion, "While there is a temptation to make the Tea Party look bad", as a personal observation of yours -- I apparently misunderstood. I in no way meant to convey that you have or would edit in such a manner. I've reworded my comment to be more clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The fix of this junk article has been blocked by a few for an immense amount of time via various maneuvers. Someone has to do something. Not today now but sometime soon I plan to blaze through it and take out the trivia. Then we need to find more quality, informative stuff. I know that that will be harder, but maybe not that hard. In a reversal of the usual situation, the stuff I read in the papers and the news, from both supporters and OPPONENTS of the TPM is far more intelligent that the Misplaced Pages article on it. In the news opponents are acknowledging and challenging the TPM agenda as being focused large cuts in government, government spending, and taxes and saying that that agenda is a bad idea. Come to the Misplaced Pages article and you hear about a BBQ grill line that was cut years ago, or a twitter comment by low level guy years ago or 890 words on how somebody thinks that, somebody in a crowd of 30,000, (years ago) said something racist, or about behavior by individuals that the TPM continuously says that it opposes and which has nothing to do with the TPM agenda. I think that this article could win the award for the junkiest major Misplaced Pages article of all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "someone said that someone of the 30,000 people said something racist" and twitter comment material and Xenophrenic put them it back in. Also did org work to try to get more substantive content built. We need a section with real debates on the substance of the TPM agenda and I think I rearranged to start that.North8000 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets delete/leave that trivia out and start building a real article that isn't a laughingstock. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Lionel reporting for duty, sir! – Sir Lionel, EG 06:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, if it stays in a reduced form, it needs to be put in it's actual context... --North8000 Agreed. Let's do that. Wholesale deletion of significant matters in a movement's history and development, and covered in numerous reliable sources, is against Misplaced Pages policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As I think you know, I wasn't talking about the trivia part being discussed here. I was talking about the other half, the half with the commentaries. The trivia half should stay out. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove it or greatly trim. It's guilt by association. Using alleged actions of a small number of fringe fanatics to tar the whole organization.108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Other agenda items" section is misleading, should go

I've checked the link contained in the reference to the "no hire" section. It's a Think Progress story that takes you to the Tea Party Nation (TPN) blogs, but not a specific blog entry. Further:

• The Think Progress article says the TPN blog entry was written by someone named Melissa Brookstone. There are no articles by someone with that name anywhere in the TPN blog.

• The Think Progress article says the TPN blog entry is named “Call For A Strike of American Small Businesses Against The Movement for Global Socialism”. There are no TPN blog entries with that name.

So either the TPN blog entry never existed or it's been removed. Either way, it doesn't seem the contents of the blog entry represent TPN's agenda.

Just in general, trying to pass off a blog entry from a blog where anyone who signs up can post as an agenda item is a bit dubious. Therefore I've marked the section WP:UNDUE.

Also, the Think Progress article never claims the actions by Brookstone are part of the official agenda of the TPN. Therefore, I've marked the section WP:OR.

Note: My entry here has been extensively edited due to originally mistaking a different blog entry for the one being talked about by Think Progress.

--Magicjava (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything in this article sourced from hyper-partisan, truth-averse Think Progress. Belchfire-TALK 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made some sort of error. When I click on http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/, I see the article. It's by Marie Diamond and is entitled "Tea Party Group Urges Small Businesses ‘Not To Hire A Single Person’ To Hurt Obama". Please try again, using a different browser; there may be some bug on your end. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, about Brookstone, look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/tea-party-melissa-brookstone-occupy-wall-street_n_1020710.html. Then look at http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/liberals-at-work. In other words, the blog entry was hidden/deleted, but we know it's real. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More sources:

• http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/10/randian-action-for-victory-2012-pull.html
• http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/235049/20111020/tea-party-nation-small-businesses-should-stop-hiring-melissa-brookstone.htm

Note how this is not just being reported by leftish or non-mainstream publications. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Internet does not have a delete button. You can't unpublish something once it gets noticed. Here's an article that contains the full body of the now-missing post: http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4178:a-moment-of-pure-astonishment-again Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the main point which is that that this isn't an agenda of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still - I can see the Think Progress article just fine. But the Tea Party Nation blog entry it refers to does not exist in the Tea Party Nation(TPN) blogs. Since we have the text of that blog entry from other sources than the TPN blogs, its a reasonable bet the blog entry was deleted from the TPN blogs. From that, it doesn't seem the blog entry represented the TPN agenda. --Magicjava (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, considering Think Progress's reputation, it's more likely that the portentially reliable sources copied it form Think Progress, who made it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

After some searching, I found a post where the Tea Party Nation (TPN) specifically says Ms. Brookstone's post does not represent the views of the TPN. Here's the relevant quote: "Melissa Brookstone wrote a blog on Tea Party Nation, which we featured on Tuesday. Tea Party Nation features a lot of blogs and bloggers. The only time something is an official position of Tea Party Nation is when it comes out under my byline or the Tea Party Nation byline.". The link to the entire discussion is here: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/threatening-the-left --Magicjava (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Even so, reporting a blog entry "that anyone can post", even if it were reported by a reliable source, is not something we should consider as indicative of anything other than the poster's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you. --Magicjava (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My $.02 on the above arguments after reading the sources: A TPer named Melissa Brookstone does exist, and she did post a "call to action" on the Tea Party Nation website. It did briefly stir up some minor chatter, from both supportive and critical perspectives, before the TPN removed the post from their website. Less obscure sources like this, this, and FOX's take establish that the post was indeed made, and probably hastened the removal of it from the website. That being said, describing it as "an other agenda", with it's own section no less, of the Tea Party is not really supported or convincingly conveyed by existing sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation: referring to sources of information as "hyper-partisan, truth-averse", instead of considering the actual information, is unhelpful -- which is why sources such as FOX News aren't scrubbed wholesale from the project. "Considering their reputation," that is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. We must always evaluate sources for reliability and POV (and other factors). On those very rare occasions when Think Progress publishes unvarnished truth, it is invariably a case where they are parroting information available elsewhere. There is no reason to use them as a source. Belchfire-TALK 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonesense. We must evaluate sources for reliability, yes, but not for POV. I'm not saying that Think Progress has "established a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that Misplaced Pages requires of sources used to support assertions of fact, but citing "POV" as a disqualifying factor is incorrect. See FOX News reference above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

POV = unreliable in many respects (but typically not on matters of fact.) 19:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since someone has to argue for what they want in order to try to get it, agenda is pretty obvious. Even if the F grade source was accurate on who said what, that would be one person's idea for a tactic to achieve an agenda, it's not the agenda. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's funny. We all agree that the post was made, that it generated huge responses from all sides, and then the post was deleted by TPM, which disavowed it. This is what we should be reporting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that further reinforces that it is not an TPM agenda item. A totally different argument might be whether to cover it or not under a different heading. Regarding article quality, I think that that would be whether it view had any substantial prominence in the TPM. Opposing media would cover if a TP supporter did a loud fart; that keeps certain wp:policies from excluding it, but still wouldn't be quality/informative article stuff. But if that view had some acceptance at at least a regional scale (or within a larger one of the 1,000 TP organizations) then it would be informative to cover it. But again, certainly not as an agenda item. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that trolling blogs open to the public hoping to dig up dirt is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Definitely WP:UNDUE, IMHO. There's already too much he-said she-said unsupported innuendo in this article. There's over 100k of text in this article (WP:SIZERULE), most of it couldn't get published in the National Enquirer. We should be looking for ways to make this article smaller, not bigger. --Magicjava (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur's position is persuasive. And I agree with Magic that this is UNDUE. I think there is a consensus that this is not encyclopedic and should be deleted.– Sir Lionel, EG 06:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I see your point, particularly where inclusion can be a subjective / cherry picking situation. But that's going to be a tough one. The media one will require find "coverage of coverage" sources to integrate it. I do think that the debate on the TPM agenda should be a core and high level item. Right now it is contained in "commentaries on the movement" which has that tag and situation. We'll have to see how we can evolve this. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Would suggest deleting non-essentials first, like the "In 2011, Newt Gingrich said he liked the Tea party". I'm not sure even Newt Gingrich cares what Newt Gingich thinks about the tea party. I'm certain no one else does.--Magicjava (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So I went through each paragraph of the "Commentaries on the movement" section to give my thoughts on how they could possibly be used as starting points for a discussion, or possibly deleted. Here's what I came up with:

1. According to The Atlantic... May be useful in a grass roots/astroturf discussion.
2. "Tea Party supporters", says Patrik Jonsson... May be useful in discussion of composition or racism, but probably should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
3. Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has said.... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
4. Mark Mardell of BBC News... May be useful in an agenda discussion, but probably should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
5. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
6. Dan Gerstein, a former Democratic political advisor... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
7. Ned Ryun, president of American Majority... Could be useful in a party affiliation discussion, but perhaps should be deleted due to WP:UNDUE.
8. According to Arthur C. Brooks... Could be useful in an agenda discussion.
9. Noam Chomsky has compared... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
10. In an April 2009 New York Times... May be useful in a grass roots/astroturf discussion.
11. In a September 2010 piece for Rolling Stone... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
12. Observers have compared the Tea Party... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.
13. William J. Bennett, contributing an opinion on CNN... May be useful in a ground game/GOTV discussion.
14. Obama commentary... Probably delete due to WP:UNDUE.

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

agreed all of the above are undude and would help focus the article of the actual movement rather than pundits spin on such. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. About the only thing that I'd disagree with at first glance is that I think that the Obama commentary should be reduced, not eliminated.

One other note. I think that "commentary" is a massive over-generalization. Many of the above are just opponents trying to "score points" against the TPM. That is "tactics" that is not information about the TPM. That is very different from a real writer or analyst trying to do real writing or analysis (even if slightly biased). North8000 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with North that "Commentary" is overly general; not very useful, in fact, as a section. It's simply a compilation of opinions from recognizable individuals. It's a fact of life that everybody has an opinion (no, I won't quote the popular comparison to a body part), and these sections have become a dumping ground for a huge pile of them. The great majority of these opinions are about aspects already covered elsewhere in the article (Agenda, Composition, etc.). We could move all those opinions into the existing topic sections (Magicjava has already made a good start on identifying the specific topic each opinion relates to), thereby eliminating the commentary sections. Then we could examine each of those topic sections, and reduce the opinions and commentary in each down to only what is necessary to convey the relevant points of view. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed --Magicjava (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the quotes that didn't seem like they were contributing anything to the article, the ones marked WP:UNDUE above that no one objected to. I'll start integrating the remaining quotes into the article shortly. BUT I'd like some input from folks who want to keep the Obama quotes. What value do you see in them and how should they be merged into the rest of the article? I need help on this because they just don't seem relavant to anything to me. --Magicjava (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that paragraph #'s 2 and 4 represent Obama debating/tackling the TPM agenda and are good to keep. Paragraph #'s 1 & 3 are his and his mouthpiece's (misleading) description of his own actions and should go. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I took out #1 & #3 on this basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add my opinion of remaining two Obama quotes just to give idea of trouble I'm having with finding a use for them. 1st quote talks about how Obama is trying to cut spending and "tighten belt". It's absolutely ludicrous. 2nd quote talks about how tea party must come up with plan on what should be cut in budget. This is just factually incorrect, as it is President's job to submit budget to congress every year and Congress's job to pass a budget every year. I understand Obama is noteworthy person, but these particular comments don't seem noteworthy to me. --Magicjava (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert-to-reinsert bundled 2 different "racial" areas

One section (the somebody "said that that somebody of the 30,000 people said something bad" and twitter comment section) I think has been discussed a lot, nobody posted any argument for it, and nobody weighed in in favor of it except Xenophrenic by trying to war it in.

The other section which is basically just accusations / commentaries from one side and commentaries from the other side. There may be some confusion, we hadn't discussed this. IMHO keep some of it in under a different title which reflects the actual content. Like "accusations of racism and responses". If it stabilizes as it is now and certainly doesn't get bundled with the "trivia gamed in for effect" then I would then intend to bring back the accusations/commentaries material under such a modified title. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

even after the massive 20k cut, this article is still longer than the GOP article, something must be unbalanced, clearly slanted to the tea party is bad side. i suggest we ditch the comments by obama and anything else not related to the actual party. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking about the section I deleted, no I don't think it should be reverted. It was discussed (it was the only section on racism marked "undue weight") and it was poorly written to boot. I don't mind adding a much smaller section on racism at some point in the future, but the old section should stay gone. Even now, after I deleted the entire 10k racism section, there is still too much space given to racist accusations in the article.I do support deleting all the Obama commentary. It's WP:UNDUE IMHO. Obama has talked a lot about the tea party, but he has not said anything noteworthy. --Magicjava (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I 90% agree with you. But I think that intelligent commentary from both sides is a good thing. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

but the sheer size of the article would reflect either notability, or complexity. is the tea party really more notable, or complex than the gop? if not, why the long article? at least half is he said she said about things not core to the movement. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to compare apples to oranges; a political party to a political movement. The GOP has been around more than a century and a half, and therefore is well known, established and can be described more succinctly. The TPm, by contrast, is a mere 3 years old, and is still very dynamic, changing and still grasping to define its own identity. You would experience less confusion if you were to compare the movement to another movement; say, the Occupy movement, which at last glance was at 182K (larger than this article) and still growing. "Movement" articles will settle down (and shrink) eventually, once the subjects are no longer new and in a state of flux. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"I don't mind adding a much smaller section on racism at some point in the future, but the old section should stay gone..." --Magicjava

That's not how we fix a content issue that you have described as possibly "Undue" or "poorly written". Instead of wholesale deleting it now and re-adding it in the future, how about fixing it? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it because no one objected to it being deleted, not to re-write it later. I'm just saying if someone wants to add a racism section later, I won't object, so long as it's fair ly brief. --Magicjava (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you keep bundling in / reinserting the trivia section along with the one being discussed. Pleqase stop. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Magicjave, I'l try to fix / balance/ shorten the section under discussion. It does look like a bunch of quote shopping to synthesize something right now. See what you think. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit. Will do more later. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is the Racism section is just like the rest of the article: a collection of overly long quotes. If we're going to keep the section than is should be summarized succinctly down to no more than 3 paragraphs. --Magicjava (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. It's like 60% of the rest of this article. Selective quote, polls, factoids, specially selected by the Misplaced Pages editor to try to give a particular impression. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar: But since the TPM is really defined by it's agenda, I think that arguments for and against it's agenda would be a good area to build. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just trying to delete as much of the existing junk as possible before adding new stuff.--Magicjava (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic keeps trying to war in the "total trivia" half of it. They just reinserted. It's clear that there is absolutely no consensus to have it in something like 5 to 1 against having it in, with good arguments made by all 5. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a strong charge there, North8000. But the fact is, I'm not adding it or "trying to war it in" -- it's been there for years. You have boldly removed it, and I merely put it back: WP:BRD. So let's discuss your removal of what you mischaracterize as "total trivia". How about we start with the best and most persuasive of your 5 "good arguments" to do so. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New racism section improvement, still needs work

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

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

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

Some of that work you are doing looks good. Why not do it without blending in reinsertion of the trivia block with it. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We both know there is no "trivia". Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding dates to items on bullet list would be good idea. --Magicjava (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power". All three of these are policy issues, not issues of prejudice. Claiming they are based on bigotry is liberal POV pushing. --Magicjava (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that "liberal POV"; can you point me to a source I can read to educate myself on it? Also, the lead paragraph of Bigotry seems fairly clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The first source to read is called "the law". Gay marriage, for example, is against the constitution of most states and DOMA is federal law. Liberals don't agree with the law and, IMHO, have some valid reasons for that. BUT that doesn't change the law. The POTUS has refused to enforce the law in this case, that is not disputed. Any groups, be it LGBTs or other, who can influence the POTUS to not enforce the law probably has "to much power". And so on. When you try to place a POV above the law and refer to those who want the laws enforced as bigots, you are POV pushing. And please don't remove my tags until we've finished the discussion. --Magicjava (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a source to read on this "liberal POV" you referenced, and you directed me to read "the law". Is that were I'll find a description of this "liberal POV" you referenced? That doesn't make sense to me; could you provide a link to this "liberal POV" in "the law" or a specific reference? As to your comment beginning, "When you try to place a POV above the law...", can you specify to whom you are addressing, and quote the specific content in our article to which you refer? (I do not see where that has been done.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The POTUS has refused to enforce the law in this case, that is not disputed. It is debatable, however, as to exactly why POTUS decided to do so, and for what policy reasons. You've stated that LGBT groups influenced POTUS not to enforce DOMA, hence they have "too much power." You might want to consider that is actually an opinion, not an indisputable fact. In 2011, after examining the numerous federal lawsuits filed over DOMA, and after every court (using different standards) found Section 3 of the act unconstitutional, "the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases." Currently, four of those cases are pending USSC review: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (12-13 as BLAG v. Gill), Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (12-15 as Dept. of HHS v. Massachusetts, 12-97), Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (12-16 OPM v. Golinski), and Windsor v. United States (12-63) If the POTUS had arbitrarily decided to stop enforcing a long-established and constitutionally settled federal law prohibiting gay marriage, speculation that it's really because LGBT groups "have too much power" might have more merit. As it stands contrasted with the facts and existing proceedings regarding its constitutionaly, it's just a POV. Hope that helps put some perspective on "the law". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

and of those polled, how many do you think are familiar with, say, OPM v Golinski? I'd hazard a guess it is none. The sources you reference probably not factors in the poll results. --Magicjava (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have put your finger right on a problem that has been repeated much here. Polls on matters of policy, programs etc. are presented as indicating views not covered by the poll e.g. racism. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, that poll is specific to the state of Washington. I have long stated that a one state poll should not be used to imply general attitudes about a movement that is national. Arzel (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We really should include a section in this article defining what we all recognize as the glaring differences in attitudes between Washington State Tea Partiers and National Tea Partiers. Which sources should we draw from? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

more likely that Washington state's general values are to the left of the nation as a whole . As are Oregon's and California's (Hence the term left coast). The poll is a 7 state poll and checking what 7 states where used may be worthwhile, especially since other polls have shown the tea party's demographics to be similar to the nation's demographics as a whole, withe the exception that tea partiers tend to have higher education and make more money. ;)--Magicjava (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"more likely that"...

That indicates speculation; something we should avoid in the construction of articles. Also, we were discussing the Washington State poll (you quoted it above); are you now indicating you wish to begin discussions on the 7-state poll instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the clearest point there is that there is no basis for implying that a Washington State poll is representative of the country. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No argument from me on that point. But neither our article, nor the reliable sources, imply that the poll is representative of the country. It just focuses on Tea Partiers.

"The data tells us this opposition and frustration with government is going hand in hand with a frustration and opposition to racial and ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians." ... "The tea party movement is not just about small government or frustration. It's (also) about a very specific frustration with government resources being used on minorities and gays and lesbians and people who are more diverse."

Definitely not representative of the country. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Going back to "lesbians and gays have too much political power"—was that really the question asked? If so, I (and any honest competant pollster) would predict that the answers to other questions would be pushed to the conservative side. And the interpretation (above) seems to ignore the cognitive dissonance effect, and the fact that asking far-right or far-left questions tends to move the pollee in that direction on other questions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of that poll statement was:

Compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.

Has your personal prediction (or that of other pollsters) been published in reliable sources that we can review? I'm sure we can have an entertaining discussion about "cognitive dissonance" and other psychbabble, or about how answering one poll question influences the answers of subsequent questions (note: the above question was the last in the series), but we should leave that to sources more qualified. I do note that many of the questions (and the sequence in which they are asked) in the above poll have been carefully developed and used over the past few decades by information analysts and poll researchers -- so this isn't a one-off, errant survey we're dealing with here. But all of this misses the actual concern raised above: "these are policy issues, not issues of prejudice. Claiming they are based on bigotry is liberal POV pushing." This is a misstatement. No one has claimed they are (or are not) based on bigotry. Those poll results are in a section titled "Public perception involving issues of race and bigotry"; and the data is definitely about "issues of race". Sure, there is also content on bigotry in that section, but Magicjava has mistakenly conflated the two. Perhaps a clearer header and more succinct presentation of the polling results would help. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The geographic issue is interesting but a sidebar. Two of the polling question are on policy issues, the other involves assessment of the amount of influence a particular group has. The synthesis-by juxtoposition asserts that these establish racial attitudes, not only is this unsupported and baseless synthesis-by-juxtaposition, it is also clearly an error to derive one from the other. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to move that item into the general views area. That will solve some of the problems. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't indicated where this alleged "synthesis-by-juxtoposition" exists; could you be more specific? I don't see it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wasthington State poll simply has no place in a national article. The Poll is limited to residents of the state, and AGAIN is trying to be used to imply beliefs by the movement as a whole. Not sure if that this the Synth that North is referring, but it is synthesis of the material because it presents the poll out of frame. Arzel (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And the disruptive edit you just made relates to this ... how? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't give me that, you have been the sole source of disruption on this article for over a year. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I have. And you are the Easter Bunny. But if you feel my edits are a disruption to you, then I must thank you for that high praise -- better than a barnstar. Please use more care in seeing that your edit summaries at least come close to describing the edit. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen

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

Rasmussen is a valid pollster. Democrats don't like him because he only polls "likely voters", and tend to lean to the right because a good number of younger Democrat leaning people don't vote. Other pollsters using "adults" or "registered voters" which also result in different numbers. There is no "correct" way to poll. In 2008, for example, the likely voter model didn't hold up because of enthusism of younger voters. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He grossly overstates Republican likely results? -- but is more accurate than anyone else at election day, which rather suggests your premise is dead wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We are not using the polls to support facts merely saying what there findings were with inline citation. If you can show that their polling results for a specific claim are inconsistent with what other firms have found, then we can consider replacing them. TFD (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

LOL. There is little in this article which does not represent the views of the opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't overlook it, NBMATT; an outline of the opposition isn't part of the TP agenda, hence its absence. Also, any opposing views would undoubtedly be mere trivia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ground game"

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

I thought the metaphor referred to warfare, even if it came from American football. I guess not. See Wiktionary definition 5. It probably should be changed to "local political activity". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it meant "executing the boring fundamentals" or "grinding it out by attrition". --Trovatore (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the US. I think that it could use a better explanation or different word, but such is one of the more minor issues with this article. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That it may well be, but that's not an excuse not to fix it. I'm from the US too; I just think that (i) we do need to consider international (or just unfamiliar-with-football) readers, and (ii) even if we could be assured that all our readers are rabid American football fans, it's still language that's too informal/imprecise for an encyclopedia article. --Trovatore (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Zernike

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

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

I'd accept "journalist". "Reporter" requires a citation, under the circumstances that the articles she's written are not reporting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Pared 2010 election items

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

"Media coverage"

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

I think that that is more appropriate. The section IS pretty bad. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

example farm doesn't really exist, so i put trivia back, which is most of this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "Example farm doesn't really exist"? Ten Pound Hammer • 18:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

click the link and view the article, there is no text, just a tag. This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples. Please improve the article by adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples. See Misplaced Pages's guide to writing better articles for further suggestions. (August 2012) i will send to afd after the notice has time to congeal. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That might be because it's, you know, a WP:Template – identifiable by the curly brackets around it – used to flag issues in actual WP:Articles. (Sort of like {{Trivia}}.) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

this article is too long.

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

1. "Scenes from the New American Tea Party" Washington Independent, February 27, 2009; Retrieved April 24, 2010.
2. Alex Koppelman Your guide to teabagging Salon.com; April 14, 2009

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Items with VRTS permission confirmed