Template:Pbneutral

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:

And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.

Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.

This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.

99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Pork barrel. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest

But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.

Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This? Video: Tea Partiers, Sponsored by Big Oil, Speak Out Against Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine). 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good is an anti-reliable source. If something appears there, it makes it even less likely to be accurate. Still, there may a reliable source for the fact that some TPmms (Tea Party movement members) are against subsidies for and/or against Big Oil, although you haven't yet produced one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is anti-reliable, can't find it: WP:anti-reliable ... ? 99.181.156.238 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, founder of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, says ending that ethanol subsidy would amount to a tax cut for everyone else. "Mr. Norquist says that violates the pledge," he says, "but when you look at what tax-payers have to pay [in higher food and energy costs], it's a tax reduction."

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin calls to eliminate energy subsidies this one is from Politico.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol and this is from the LA Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in Sarah Palin too? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Reason (magazine)'s Reason.com ... Mitt Romney's Embrace of Ethanol Subsidies is Enough to Make Tim Pawlenty Look...Less Bad! by Nick Gillespie; May 31, 2011 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time

One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman (Jr.), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.

from GOP presidential contenders are cooling toward global warming (Denver Post) 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy subsidies hard to quit for GOP candidates on Politico.com and In an Era of Partisanship, Who Are the Grown-Ups? by Katie Howell of Greenwire on the New York Times published: June 8, 2011. 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb

In 2010 Exxon Mobil Corp., the most profitable company in the world, earned over $30 billion in profits on gross revenue of over $350 billion and paid no U.S federal income taxes. In fact, the industry receives over $4 billion per year in direct taxpayer handouts to promote drilling - as if the energy industry needs to be motivated to drill. This contradiction is obscene. (New York Times)

Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor

The targeted tax breaks for the top five oil companies – Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips – account for about $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years, or $2 billion a year.

99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:

Fred Upton, who was first elected in 1986, discussed the decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Let’s face it — it is a bad idea,” he declares.

from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...

Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From June 26, 2011; The San Diego Union-Tribune's SignOnSanDiego: Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies by John H. Reaves. 99.35.13.202 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented on most of your references, but this one does not say much of the Tea Party. It might be appropriate in other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin on this one, too vague and all-inclusive to be in just the TP movement wp article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See related http://energytomorrow.org by the American Petroleum Institute. (Fossil fuels lobby). 99.181.136.35 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The greenwashing fossil fuels lobby TV ads? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that, but stay focused on this section. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: GOP Rep Seeks to Stop Kids from Learning about Energy Efficiency on TreeHugger by Brian Merchant, July 18, 2011.

The Tea Party crowd's aversion to better energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is well known by now: A straightforward, industry-supported 2007 bill signed into law by George W. Bush has now been falsely construed as a 'light bulb ban', and pushed as the latest overwrought metaphor for freedom itself slipping away into the cold American night. Of course, it's mostly little more than opportunistic grandstanding. ... Sandy Adams (R-FL) has introduced an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill that would "would limit funds for any DOE website 'which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents,' according to Politico. In Adams' cross hairs is the Dept. of Energy's "Energy Kids!" website ...

99.190.80.55 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Energy Information Administration for eia.gov 99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See United States Department of Energy for "DOE". 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See George W. Bush or more accurately Presidency of George W. Bush for Executive Branch of the United States. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from Republicans Seek Big Cuts in Environmental Rules by Leslie Kaufman, published: July 27, 2011 in The New York Times ...

Environmental regulations and the E.P.A. have been the bane of Tea Party Republicans almost from the start. Although particularly outraged by efforts to monitor carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas linked to the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, freshmen Republicans have tried to rein in the E.P.A. across the board — including proposals to take away its ability to decide if coal ash can be designated as a toxic material and to prevent it from clarifying rules enforcing the Clean Water Act. ... “It is already like a wish list for polluters,” Mr. Dicks said, “and it is going to get worse on the floor.”

also see Environmental policy of the United States, Energy policy of the United States, Climate change policy of the United States, and Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration #Climate change. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party Republicans should have a wp article. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any different article, but the title might lend itself to decreasing the confusion of this article. But you can get to where you want to go from here. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the fossil fuels lobby/Tea Party Republicans holding-up progress on lowering the Federal debt with 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis brinksmanship be part of this section? 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

See United States public debt, but it needs improvement in its graphs, for example clarity of Presidency of Bill Clinton era verses Presidency of George W. Bush era. 99.35.14.231 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See National debt by U.S. presidential terms, focus on increase in debt/GDP % ... 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.231 (talk)

How about this, with a quote from Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation regarding post-carbon sustainability ... Crashing the bus: why we should watch the Tea Partyby Erik Lindberg, published Jul 30 2011 by transition milwaukee, archived Jul 30 2011. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party. Ron Paul and his supporters are the Tea Party, those that have joined the Tea Party after Ron Paul's original Tea Party still endorse the key planks of his platform: Limited Government, Lower Taxes, Cutting Spending, and stopping unconstitutional wars. If people disagree with one of these, they cannot be considered Tea Party, as they (planks) are all brought together by the Constitution, which Paul ALONE made popular in 2007-2008 primaries until the Present 2011 Presidential run. Bachmann jumped on the band-wagon and is not a TRUE constitutional conservative. Everyone saw the popularity that Ron Paul enjoyed and they are trying to steal the platform from him. This wiki article does a disservice to the Tea Party. (SJT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbobrains (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although true, we have an allegedly reliable sources that there are "Paulite" and "Palinite" wings of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I type like Guido talks. I haven't seen Guys and Dolls in years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(At least when it comes to foreign policy perspectives.)   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Freedomthinker is trying to add information about Kenneth Gladney to this article. For such a controversial and heatedly disagreed over article, it is not going to be possible to add uncited information. Here are three articles I found, from three consecutive years, showing progress on the story. It should be possible to put together a neutral paragraph describing the events, if we can get consensus to do so.

• Union Calls for Civil Discourse Prior to Alleged Beating at Town Hall – Fox News (August 11, 2009)
• Trial date set for last summer’s “beating” involving Tea Party, union workers – Riverfront Times (July 15, 2010)
• Alleged Union Beating Case Finally Goes to Trial – KMOX (July 11, 2011)

I think this might be easier to do once the trial is completed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the trial have to do with it? North8000 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the verdict will get coverage and make the event sufficiently notable to mention. Right now it is only attracting local news coverage. TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

either we remove all racial controversy, or include all. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no double standard. And this meets a much higher standard than items currently in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trial's result would help clarify the validity of Gladney's disputed claims that he was attacked. I think that is significant enough to merit mention, again, as I said, probably pending the results. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North8000's latest addition violates various policies. We cannot call people thugs, we cannot provide only one side of a story that has not been proved in court. We cannot provide undue emphasis to a story that mainstream media has ignored. TFD (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that I was in the process of rapidly improving, balancing and citing the material which, and was clearly doing so when you deleted the material. I fact I was entering an edit removing the word thugs when your uncalled-for removal had an edit conflict with it. And I had entered 4 balancing edits within the preceeding 7 minutes, a process which you interrupted. This is material covered in several RS's. If there is an arrest and charges, there is no requirement for a final court disposition for coverage in WP. What is going on here! North8000 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links I posted above were some of the few I found that were actual news pieces, instead of opinion pieces. The main problem is, with a highly sensitive subject like this, you're going to need to get your entire edit properly written before adding anything. Adding such non-neutral text like that without any citations is going to get someone to immediately revert, without waiting for any fixes you had in mind. I'd suggest either writing up your entire, balanced text before adding it, or putting a version here for discussion before adding anything. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not post POV text and add balance later. Try writing your complete addition off-line or in your sandbox. However, I fail to see how this story is relevant, as it appears to have received zero coverage in mainstream national media, and even Fox News Channel is now ignoring it. TFD (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the standard is consistent with the stuff that is already in there, (e.g. twitter comment, propane grill line cut by an unknown person etc.) that's fine. But I'm not OK with a double standard. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use the presence of poor standards to justify bad edits. Rather, identify text you believe should be removed. TFD (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is the responsible of the editor deleting text to make a good faith effort to find a source 1st. It was also your responsibility tdf to add the balance you sought rather than delete the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure not applicable if the editor believes it doesn't belong in the article in the first place.TMCk (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does certainly belong, especially in the article's current configuration. I'll rework it off-line and put it in. This article has a history of slow motion POV warrioring, most notably via a double standard for material to be inserted. That particular section is the worst case in the article for reasons which I will not repeat here. If my insertion gets reverted, it's time for more eyes here via an RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this incident is important? TFD (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more important and more relevant than the other items in that section, and would bring at least a shred of balance to it. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think there are so many people trying to balance the article? I haven't heard anything about this being a cheerleader article for the tp. there never seems to be any mention of pov pushing the other direction. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the racism section(s) of the article are a bit out of balance in their current configuration, but make sure whatever you end up adding doesn't contain unsourced accusations of SEIU being "thugs". That is definitely unencyclopedic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balance does not mean we balance pro and anti-TP views, but that we balance various mainstream views. No mainstream views of the TP are positive. TFD (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No mainstream views of the TP are positive." Are you serious? North8000 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, you're just dead wrong there. The very size of the movement belies your statement. Plenty of mainstream conservative commentators have positive views of the Tea Party movemennt. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said mainstream. TFD (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, you might want to step back from this, as your biases are a bit strong. If you don't consider any conservative commentators to be mainstream, you will not be able to edit or discuss this article in a neutral fashion. Fox News is obviously a mainstream conservative news and commentary source, as are newspapers like the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. If you can't conceive of any conservative views as being mainstream, you've compromised your ability to edit political articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mainstream conservative views of the Tea Party are positive either. And please learn to distinguish between news reporting in "conservative" media and commentary. TFD (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, I specifically stated news and commentary. And I believe you're confusing the Republican establishment, which do not like the Tea Party movement at all, with conservative commentators. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Aquitted.[1] The jury did not believe Gladney and the trial has not been covered in major national media. TFD (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that result, we can now discuss whether the information is worth adding. I would say there are two angles. Similarly to the small town Tea Party guy, we could probably dismiss this as an isolated incident. Alternately, it could be included to show that the accusations of racism and violence in the other direction were without merit, at least in this case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disparage "small town" Americans like that. You'll find that most real Americans come from small towns. Could someone fill me in on the racism element of this Gladney story? As for incidents of racism in general, we should probably note that each of them are isolated incidents - even those not in this article. It shouldn't be hard to find a TPer on record as describing each one as an isolated incident in various reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot include it to show anything, unless we have a source that makes the connection. BTW, the defense lawyer has "received death threats from Tea Party members, who had Gladney speak about the incident at Tea Party gatherings". But I would not include that either. TFD (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Pssst ... it was Molens who received death threats, not the lawyer.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if his racial tweet is notable, it should not be in the "slurs at healthcare protests" section. I don't think it's notable, but the restoration in an inappropriate location needs to be fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to go. A twitter comment by a low level TP person is a massive npov & wp:undue violation. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As I stated when I initially removed it, I think it violates WP:UNDUE, since a small town Tea Party Twitter page is insignificant in the scheme of the movement as a whole. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One note on the most recent edit summary. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for all article material. It's not a mandate for inclusion of any material, so that is just a requirement to include, not a reason to include. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, sources are necessary but not sufficient. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has advocated that something must be included just because it is sourced. The edit summary contained the adjective "relevant". This has been discussed in the archives before here, as Arthur Rubin and North8000 advocated the Sonny Thomas material be scrubbed out of the article previously in January 2011 (based on material that had been in the article shortly after Sonny Thomas tweeted that racial slur in March 2010). The material appeared in the racism section, not the healthcare protests subsection, but it was somehow altered in the last 48 hours such that it was moved into the wrong place. Retreading old ground in the archives, it is relevant to the issue of racism in the Tea Party that a Tea Party leader communicated a racial slur to a large group of followers. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE i think it and most of the negative sections should go. if not, where is the balance? are there any sections devoted to positive stories about tp people? Do we really need to add a racism section to every group of 3 or more mentioned in wikipedia? racism happens all the time and most people dont even know it. my favorite are urban pc people who grew up privileged but like to complain about being oppressed while addressing their friends by racial, homophobic, and sexist names, because the people they call those names are ok with it because they know they don't really mean it and really are about equality. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, also responding to AzureCitizen. How is comments by one low level TP'er, disowned by the TPM, informative on racism in the TPM, and to a degree significant enought to be included in the top level Wikipedia article on the TPM? How is that not a massive UNDUE violation? Do you see such things iin the top level US Democratic party article? Each time a low level Democrat says something bad sounding that gets covered, we put it in the DNC article just for negative effect, even though it is not informative on the DNC? What junk! What a massive npov/wp:undue violation. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

@Darkstar1st (added; lost in previous edit conflict). Except for occasional charities, and heroic actions, good news is rarely reported.

@AzureCitizen

• He's not a TP "leader".
• It was removed from the "racial slurs" section because of agreement that it didn't deserve a separate heading. Removing "Dale Robertson" from the subheading would provide appropriate placement, if it weren't WP:UNDUE.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have to agree with the above. The guy founded a local Tea Party group in a town with a population of less than 20,000 people, and was roundly denounced and disowned by the movement as a whole. His comments are not representative, and including them violates undue weight. As I said, the other incidents included are far more significant. Including this just feels like "piling on" or building a case against the TPM. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, with all due respect, promptly deleting the material again with an edit summary asserting a "clear 4-1 consensus" is a bit disingenuous given that two other editors (Gothean and Xenophrenic) promptly reverted the deletion earlier today (making it 4-3, but consensus is not about "votes" anyway). Further, stating "Until further discussion and argument for its inclusion occurs, it should remain out of the article" ignores WP:BRD in that the material has been part of the article since shortly after Thomas made the tweet in March 2010; except for one day in January 2011, it's been there continuously in the racism section. Do you feel BRD doesn't apply here? Why? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits of it, inclusion of this would have severe problems. The only argument made for having it in there has been a faulty one (being sourced is not an argument for inclusion). I think that the actual one has "if it leaves a negative impression about the TPM, I want it in" which is not valid. And then then try to misquote/mis-use policies to keep it in. This article has been locked down in junk status too long. If we can't leave such obviously inappropriate material (including assive wp:undue violation) out, then it's time to get more eyes on this e.g. via an RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, why do you keep asserting that the only argument being made for it's inclusion is that it is "sourced"? AzureCitizen (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only argument that has been made lately. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the incident was widely covered in mainstream news media in connection with the TPM, it should be covered in the article. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that that is your preference, or are you saying that such coverage is enough to force inclusion into any article with any type of connection to the covered story? If it's the latter, let's try putting some mud into the top level DNC article and see what happens.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points, AzureCitizen, so I've undone my own edit pending further discussion here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "...it should not be in the "slurs at healthcare protests" section." --Arthur Rubin

Yeah, it really should. Reliable sources report that "Thomas said he texted the remark to the Web site in March while attending a health care rally in Washington, D.C., where he was heckled by supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants." The very same rally where the anti-gay slurs, 'nigger' slurs, anti-semetic slurs, spitting, etc., were all witnessed.

• "...a small town Tea Party Twitter page is insignificant in the scheme of the movement as a whole." --Torchiest

That's nice, but the content isn't about a Twitter page. Your strawman interpretation aside, it is about racist and bigoted sentiments expressed by TPers; just like the ones displayed on signs at protests, shouted at rallies, faxed to congressmen (or left on their voicemail); posted on official websites. Washington D.C. isn't a "small town", and the repercussions included the cancellation of appearances by state-level politicians, not just local candidates, and coverage on national cable news networks is not insignificant.

• "He's not a TP "leader". --Arthur Rubin

Yes, he is. As much a leader as any other TPer that organizes official rallies, runs official websites and conducts official fundraising for the movement.

• "The guy ... was roundly denounced and disowned by the movement as a whole." --Torchiest

Incorrect. (Unless you are referring to sources that I have yet to see.) First, the TP movement has never denounced or disowned anything or anyone as a whole. Another TPer from the adjacent county denounded Thomas' words and sentiments as not representative of the movement as a whole.

• "The only argument made for having it in there has been a faulty one..." --North8000

I haven't seen the argument to which you refer. Would it be possible to get a link to that discussion? My personal reasons for reverting the deletion is rather straight-forward: It is one of many reliably documented incidents of racist sentiment expressed, and reported on, in the context of the wider "Racism & Tea Party movement" issue. While that wider issue section could do with better encyclopedic treatment in this article, adhoc removal of specific segments of content from that section based on personal NPOV interpretations isn't productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, please don't accuse me of using strawmen. I'm discussing this in good faith. Thomas tweeted his comments to the Twitter account he ran for the local party. His Twitter feed currently has a measly 405 followers, hardly a large viewership, or worthy of note, in my opinion. No one at the event he was attending was aware of his tweet at the time, and it was not a public spectacle with thousands of people seeing it live, as the Dale Robertson sign was. That is why it does not seem as immediate or important to me.

As for your second statement to me, one of the sources already referenced includes the following text: "'I don’t think it says anything about the movement per se,' state Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Clearcreek Twp., said on the same day Tea Party officials from around the country formed a federation to counteract perceptions that the groups are racist, unsophisticated and disorganized." Perhaps my reading of that is not precise, but it gives the impression he has been denounced, doesn't represent the movement, and the movement doesn't want to be associated with his statements. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the 'strawman' word above, and I agree that it wasn't the best word choice to convey my feelings that you were arguing about a tangential issue and missing the main point. Arguing about how many people saw it (Thomas' slurs simultaneously appeared on the groups official website through an embedded Twitter feed, versus the mere dozens - not "thousands" - that witnessed Robertson's sign at his indoor event) also misses the main point. Thomas' actions ended up on CNN, and caused state-level politicians to cancel speaking engagements, but that also isn't the main point. The reason that content is in the article is not because of its stand-alone "importance", but because it is part of the larger dialog about Racism & the Tea Party. You cited the "federation's" efforts to more effectively respond to that public perception (they were not responding specifically to the Thomas incident, by the way, as the timeline doesn't mesh), and that is also (or should be) a significant part of the dialog about Racism & the Tea Party. Editors deleting content "because it doesn't represent the movement" are misinterpreting the reason the content exists in the first place. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, putting in this non-notable incident because because it "is part of the larger dialog about Racism & the Tea Party" sounds like classic POV synthesis to me. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the synthesis part of that comment in particular. I've already said this, but to me, it reads like it's "building a case" against the Tea Party. These are the actions of individuals, not anything to do with the stated platform of Tea Party groups. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no synthesis involving the Thomas racial slurs, unless you are referring to the newspaper sources tying it in to the wider efforts of the "Federation" to address public perception based on such incidents -- and that kind of synthesis isn't against Wikipedia policy. The "case" has already been built, as is evidenced by the "Federation" feeling the need to respond; groups like the NAACP demanding a response; the studies launched by think tanks and universities to try to more thoroughly understand this public perception; etc. Of course individual actions are done by individuals, and of course those actions have nothing to do with the stated platform of Tea Party groups -- no one says they are; were you going somewhere with that? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your revert violates the 1 rr rule here, plz self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My single revert doesn't violate any rules; but if it makes a big difference to you, you can consider my revert officially self-reverted (not that it will make a physical difference in the article, as other editors have since reinstated that same content pending proper discussion). Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You re-inserted the material-in-controversey twice within a matter of hours, a clear violation of the 1RR rule. Everyone has been nice in not reporting you. And you didn't self-revert as you said you would. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't, North. I re-inserted the material-in-controversey just once, here. My second, and only other edit today was here, where I reworded that already reinserted content to improve it, and added an additional reference. Everyone knows there has been nothing to report (although now we have editors claiming they are intententionally violating the 1RR rule). Nice to see these fine examples of editing collaboration. Good luck with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, yes I did self-revert my one revert. I clicked the (Undo) button, and was informed that I couldn't undo it because other edits had been made. My self-revert had effectively been done by another editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the pov pushing has become comedy. this article and it's editors are the laughing stock of wp, bravo. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been locked down in junk status by POV warriors too long. It's time to get more eyes on this. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, this entry doesn't detail how the NY Times issued a correction concerning the supposed racial slurs that were supposedly hurled at various Democratic Congressman. They issued the correction because they stated there WAS NO EVIDENCE that such slurs were ever uttered. Indeed, no evidence has ever been produced. An entire section pointing out isolated racial slurs shouldn't even exist in the first place, unless of course various authors of various entries make note of every single isolated offensive sign or slur uttered at every other political protest that is held in the United States; we all know the likelihood of that happening. As for Dale Robertson, everyone who actually does matter in the Tea Party movement has stated that they have never heard of him and that he is a complete non-player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that NY Times story, and it turns out they say exactly opposite of what you claim here. Not surprisingly. As an aside, I'd be interested in seeing two reliably sourced lists of TPers who "actually matter" and TPers who are "complete non-players". It could be enlightening. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is becoming hard to follow the comments, and impossible to locate section names from renamed sections. note, it is customary to rename/move only after discussion and consensus with the section creator and comment authors. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Aurthur Rubin reverted this which I guess is partially responsible for the full scale protection now, but, I added this into the header which I believe warrants to be in it:

It has been speculated that the Tea Party was created in the interests of the Koch family, to undermine environmental regulations such as cap and trade. Many groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity were started by the Koch family to advocate political goals.^[1][2]

Some of the core groups were created by the Koch family, it's heavily funded by the family and has promoted the Koch's goals explicitly, I don't see why this isn't in the header. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been speculated, some may consider these weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2011

The assertion that Koch is at all involved with the Tea Party is speculation, and shouldn't be in the lede. The best facts we have are that Koch supported/founded organization A which supports (some) Tea Party organizations. The speculation may be notable enough to be in the article, but, while I could imagine circumstances in which even proof that the Kochs founded/funded the Tea Party would be notable enough for the lede, that would require more than opinion columns of magazines and newspapers. You're asserting even less:

1. The Kochs founded FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperty.
   • True.
2. ... to advocate political goals ...
   • Partially true; some of the organizations have charitable counterparts.
3. (omitted statement). (Some) of these organizations support (some) Tea Party organizations.
   • True, but evidence that it's a significant part of the funding of those Tea Party organizations is missing.

Conclusion: The Kochs (partially) funded the Tea Party.

• Perhaps true, but not proven, as the Kochs don't control the organizations in question. In fact, one of them split from the Kochs' control. Speculation to that effect might be reasonable, if not necessarily notable.

Speculation: The Kochs founded the Tea Party.

• Almost certainly false. There is absolutely no evidence nor credible speculation of anything but the Kochs taking advantage of the Tea Party movement to support their (the Kochs') goals.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CartoonDiablo's contribution is clearly factual and well-founded. It is only by vetoing the use of several reliable sources through the use of hot rhetoric such as that exemplified above that the ideologues on this talk page have succeeded in having the article avoid mentioning well-known facts, such as that the Tea Party is bankrolled by reactionary billionaires. — goethean ॐ 23:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been speculated" is automatically weaselly. If one were to write "Mayer and Zernicke have speculated...", then that would be accurate, although we could still argue undue weight, and the second sentence "Many groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity were started by the Koch family to advocate political goals", has little to do with the Tea Party, even though probably true. We also have claims that Ron Paul created the Tea Party, and claims that it really was grassroots (i.e., no one person or organization "created" it), and was co-opted by the Koch organizations. There seems no credible way to determine which of those claims should be in the lede. Perhaps something along the lines of:

Mayer and Zernicke have speculated that the Tea Party was created in the interests of the Koch family, to undermine environmental regulations such as cap and trade.[a][b] Ron Paul asserts that he created the Tea Party[c], and others^[who?] have stated that the Tea Party was originally a grassroots organization.[d][e]

With references taken from the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all of the specific assertions about the Koch's were true, that would still leave them with only a small impact on the TPM. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream sources say that the first protests were organized by people like Dick Armee and the Koch brothers and other business people provide funding to several TP groups but the TP grew through public support of about 15-20% of the population as a reaction to the economy and the election of a Democratic president with an ancestry of which they disapproved. TFD (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more commas in that sentence would go a long way towards clarifying what you believe they say the Kochs' involvement is/was. And, considering the current "Background and history" section doesn't support that viewpoint (those viewpoints?), adding some RS-supported text to that section might be a higher priority than just changing the lead. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do both, add the influences into the background (as Dick Armey and the Koch brothers created groups like FreedomWorks) and add it into the header. Plus, FW and others are hugely important in the movement, I'm not sure if this is in the article but a good guide is "The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?".

--CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put in just the real, known, factual information instead of trying to game in opinion from one or the other end of the spectrum trying to tell people what to think? North8000 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, maybe we can arrive at a compromise. Those who wish to smear the Tea Party can put in their admitted speculation about the Koch Brothers. In return, it will be made sure that George Soros's name is prominently mentioned in the opening paragraph of any organization with which he has had any contact, no matter how remote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...but the TP grew through public support of about 15-20% of the population as a reaction to the economy and the election of a Democratic president with an ancestry of which they disapproved." Hey, by all means, let us throw in the racial stuff too. Because the assertion that race is responsible for the opposition to Democratic policies has about as much evidence supporting it,( that is to say, none)as the assertion that random Tea Party gatherigns all across the United States somehow had something to do with the Koch Brothers. This entry is already a laughingtock as it is; why not go all the way into the realm of self-parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one mentioned race. Do you think that asking about Obama's birth certificate is racist? TFD (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No one mentioned race."

Oh, of course not. I'm sure the "president with an ancestry of which they disapproved" part means the Tea Party has a problem with Ann Dunham's English roots... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have a problem about whether or not he is an American. If you think that is racism, then please say so and not beat around the bush. TFD (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that was was the intended meaning, the proper phrasing would have been "president whose citizenship status they questioned", not "president with an ancestry of which they disapproved". Disapproving of a person's ancestry is racism (or, at best, classism). Questioning citizenship status is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys seriously? Whoever is comparing the Koch Brothers to Soros needs to realize Soros wasn't personally involved in creating groups to be part of a political movement. On the second point, the article I mentioned shows how FreedomWorks (and the other groups the Koch's were involved in creating) are extremely important to the movement and is in fact "real, known, factual information". The fact that we're arguing over "compromise" when the information is right there and should be in the header of the article is ridiculous.

Edit: The Atlantic report is in the article, it's essentially undeniable that the groups created by the Kochs are very important to the movement. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's just have the info in instead of stuff telling people what to think about it / how to characterize it. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic report doesn't support significant involvement of Koch with the TP. Even if you accept the implication that those three organizations are central to the TP, only AfP is a Koch organization. FreedomWorks is a former Koch organization (to be precise, a split from a Koch organization; it has been speculated that the split was over goals, rather than a personality conflict), and dontGo seems only to have a tangential relation to Koch.

The implication above (by CartoonDiablo) that Koch was "personally involved in creating groups to be part of a political movement" is without a source, credible or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming FW counts as Koch group the statement is correct and well sourced, if it's just AfP then it's one group. The fact is, even if a single group that's important to the movement is created by Koch family (let alone funding of other groups) it makes them have a huge influence on the movement and certainly should be in the background especially when they're involvement in political movements is well known. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say were true and sourced, it still wouldn't belong in the article. (Evidence that the Kochs controls AfP is limited, and that statement would be required for Koch's name to be relevant to this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said is both true and sourced and should most definitely be in the article. Even with AfP being a murky issue, The Kochs created an important group to the movement (FreedomWorks) and have acted within the group during the movement, or to put it another way, are a part of the Tea Party movement. To say this doesn't belong in the header, let alone the background is ridiculous. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. The Kochs created CSE, and Armey took part of it to be FreedomWorks, with another part remaining under the Kochs influence as AfP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever has editing access to this article, please correct the term "intellectual grandfather" with the correct "father," - or "intellectual godfather," if you must.

Yup -- the Atlantic reference actually has "intellectual godfather." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal more must be included in this article about the birth of the modern tea party movement.

On December 16th, 2007 - the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party - Dr. Paul's grassroots supporters effectively launched the Tea Party movement with a massive fundraising "money bomb" for Congressman Paul's campaign.

This money bomb raised six million dollars, shocking the political establishment and its pals in the media.

As the movement has grown, Ron Paul has been called the "Father of the Tea Party," or its "Intellectual Godfather."

Cited to what? If I recall correctly, Paul's "money bomb" campaign fundraising had nothing to do with the present Tea Party movement, even though Paul invoked the Boston Tea Party like so many other politicians have over the past century. I have seen a lot of Paul's supporters try to paint him, however, as somehow having something to do with the "birth" of the present movement even though reliable sources seem to indicate otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is widely referred to as the "godfather" of the movement: "the man dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party' by Fox News", "...Tea Party voters who could credit Paul with being their philosophical godfather.", "Paul, often dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party,'", and "Paul's mix of libertarian and Republican politics has prompted many to call him the 'intellectual godfather' of the tea party movement.", for just a few recent examples.

Oh, I have no doubt that some have referred to Paul as the "intellectual godfather", just as other individuals have been called "the voice of the Tea Party", "Mr. Tea Party", and "the face of the Tea Party", etc. (Bonus points if you can name each of the individuals wearing those monikers!) My point was that his 2007 campaigning, even while making Boston Tea Party references, was unrelated to the formation of what we now call the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article discussing exactly how credit started shifting from Ron Paul to Rick Santelli. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article. I rest my case. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a gander at WP:PG. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Hodgepodge of Trivia

Too many poll results and newspaper editorials are used. The vast majority of the article is pointless trivia and needs to be removed. Rather than the result of scholarly research, the article is clearly the result of a battle between opposing right and left-wing positions. A simple Google search is more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.48.177.4 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is a mess, and has had little or no progress. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an unfair assessment. the article developed through news stories. We should now re-write it based on serious writing which has since emerged. TFD (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your second and third sentences. How do we start? North8000 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely trash the current Wiki article and do a rewrite based on academic sources, if there exists solid coverage in high-quality RS. The article should be a stub right now, IMO anyways, since there had been little more than news articles to draw from. BigK HeX (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We should agree that the source and the material should both be high quality and where the source says that the content is about the TPM. For example, if a reputable source covers that Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi said "The Tea Party is xxxxx", that doesn't mean that "The Tea Party is xxxxx" goes in as fact. We're talking about higheer standards than the ones that got us into this mess. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of books have come out in the last few years: A New American Tea Party by John M. O'Hara, The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, The Whites of Their Eyes by Jill Lepore, Mad As Hell by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, and Boiling Mad by Kate Zernike, to name a few. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I last looked there were few sources available on line, but my most recent search shows a huge number of hits.[2] "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism", the second hit, for example would be useful. TFD (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should also agree on what to keep in the stub. I'm think that the only stuff that stays is what 3/4 of us agree should stay. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the most controversy on this page has been regarding books and academic sources. I recall that there were serious objections to using Rasmussen's book, for example. And folks have argued that we should delete the Meade paragraph. This article might have made more progress if there had not been so many complaints about the use of sources that meet Wikipedia standards.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I think that the Meade situation was an anomaly. A decent quality source which clearly made an erroneous inference. I don't even remember the Rasmussen issue. Most of the issues have been about the pure crap which most of this article consists of which no quality source is even saying is informative about the TPM. . North8000 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that any academic sources have been presented. We have however had sources written by academics and they are controversial because we are reporting the opinions contained within them without showing what weight they have. TFD (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look through the anthropology/sociology journals when I get to college at the end of next month --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the big question is should we follow BigK's advice above, and delete it to a stub and then build with just quality stuff? North8000 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. The only reasons that I can see to do so are illegitimate, purely partisan ones. — goethean ॐ 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the status quo is a complete, absolute, total, miserable failure, with zero progress for at tleast he full 9 months that I've been watching it. Do you have a better idea of what to do different? North8000 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your assessment. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing would be inappropriate in this case. The existing article is well-sourced and the text is generally presented with the NPOV. Deleting sourced material would be disruptive. If there are problems let's fix them rather than discarding the article that's already here.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you are implying that sourcing means that the material should be in the article. That is absolutely not true. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that sourced, neutral material in a stable article should not be deleted without a good and specific reason. The proposal here is to delete everything in the article, and I just don't see any justification being given for that drastic action.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your first sentence, you must be talking about a different article. This thing is an unstable, POV wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of an occasional skirmish, this article has been fairly quiet since November 2010.Edits over Time If there are POV problems then discuss and fix them. Aside from the endless complaints over the Meade paragraph, and vague arguments over the racial material, I don't see any significant disputes on this talk page. Rather than deleting all of the contents of the article, and arguing over every re-addition, it'd be more productive to focus on whichever areas you think are particular problems.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are severe POV problems, mostly via insertion of irrelevant wp:undue junk just for effect, and as part of an OR racial construction. But approx 2 editors have blockaded any forward progress. It looks like nuking it to a stub and rebuilding it with quality stuff may be the most realistic way left to make progress. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest addressing the problems directly. If editors disagree now about editing decisions then starting fresh won't make them more likely to agree.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, the racial incidents were just completely made up out of whole cloth by Wikipedia editors. — goethean ॐ 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out) The article was put together presenting views when they appeared but since then research has looked at many of the issues including the organization, make-up and objectives. At present the lead says, "The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.... Commentators... have suggested that the movement is... a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies". Lots of speculation with no weight assigned to the various opinions. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you propose text that would be more comprehensive?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say it, but the first paragraph is the ONE thing in the article that has arisen from a recent, very thorough input process. Like a full blown RFC/ mediation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good reason not to stub the article: most of the contents have been worked out following long discussions to represent a middle ground. Throwing all of that out and starting over again with the same arguments that have already been settled seems very unproductive.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one paragraph that has arisen from such a process. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Please review the talk page archives. Many parts of the article have been drafted or altered in accordance with discussions on this page. I think it'd be hard to find a section that hasn't been discussed here.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed? Yes, drafted in accordance with the discussion here...not likely. Most participants (like myself) have simply given up on this page. It is little more than an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party Movement with obscure claims of racism and manufactured links to extremism. If not for a couple of specific editors, this page might actually be a neutral presentation of material, unfortunately that is not the case. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, progress on the article has been blockaded, mostly by 2 people, preventing any progress from coming out of discussions. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to actions that have blocked "progress"? Diffs? Threads?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 50% of the last 50,000 words of this talk page. The most recent one is one line up. from this post. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a helpful answer. If there haven't been any specific problems then we shouldn't be making general claims that cast aspersions on other editors. Let's focus instead on addressing identifiable issues.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkey god incident is a perfect example. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement. The incident was not made with respect to any Tea Party Movement aspect. It has no relevance to this article at all, other than some Tea Party guy said it and the will to try and marginalize the movement as a whole. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that material dates back to May 2010. Have you initiated an RFC or mediation about the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Will, there's another example of "Can you point to actions that have blocked progress". implying that their statement about taking out one of the many many many many many many irrelevant pieces of crap in this article is less valid because they did not dedicate the huge effort of an RFC/ mediation to this only one of many many many many in the article. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to solve disputes is through the dispute resolution steps found in WP:DR. If you don't want to follow them then don't complain about the result. An RFC isn't a huge effort.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real RFC needs to be to nuke this junk article to a stub and start rebuilding it with quality, relevant material.North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the same editors are involved why do you think the outcome of a rewrite would be different than the existing article?   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence in the Racial Slurs section relating to Dale Robertson needs to be removed as WP:OR

however, as of May 2011[update] he is named the "President & Founder" on the TeaParty.org "Founder" section

None of the sources are related to this statement. There is some OR linking to the now non-linked and apparently orphaned founders page. In any case even if it is true it is still original research. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research to say that Robertson is listed as the "President & Founder" of TeaParty.org, when that website says so? [3] On what basis are you saying this information is untrue? Was it never true, or has the president changed? Presumably once a founder always a founder. Please explain.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] This page, and a screen shot are used as the source for the statement (all of the other sources are actually misplaced and should be immediately before the sentence). That page is not linked anywhere within the teaparty.org website. I went to the home page, and it is not anywhere, chalk it up to lazy website management, or simply being unaware that old pages can still be directly accessed if not completely removed. Regardless, this is original research. Some editor found that page and made that statement. We need a reliable secondary source to make the connection. WP policies are so clear on this I am suprised that you would even question it. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he will always be the founder of the group, but based on the "About" page there is no mention of him. Arzel (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the website still has a page listing Robertson as the president and founder. Unless we have a source that says someone else is the president then I don't know why we'd assume the job is being held by someone else. The webpage is a reliable primary source for its founder and president. The status of links between pages on the website is a minor technical detail and shouldn't be used as the basis for an edit. That would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make that statement? Here is the policy statement (my highlight)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Access of that page must be typed in directly. Thus that page is only accessable with a specialist knowledge. This is a clear case of WP:OR, please don't provide yourself an example of the previous discussion. Arzel (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't have to type that in directly to access that page, nor is it only accessible with a specialist's knowledge. Just Google "dale robertson teaparty.org founder" and it comes right up as the #2 result at the top of the page, which is pretty straightforward and easy to verify. Hope that helps clear things up. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once one has accessed the source, then no specialist knowledge is required to interpret the text there, which plainly identifies Robertson as the "President & Founder". Since we have a direct link to the page in question, no specialist knowledge is needed to find it either, though I don't think that's what the policy means.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is pointless to discuss this any further. Policy rules regarding WP:OR have always been dependent upon the article in question. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been provided that anyone else is now the president of the group, so I don't see how it is original research to use the group's official site as a primary source for a very simple piece of information. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel you are right 99% of the time. I'm not sure this one is in the 99%. North8000 (talk)

a moot point, the whole section and much of the article is a violation of wp npov. time for the long overdue extra set of eyes on this article. i support north8000 idea of scraping the article and reducing it to a stub. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actuall BigK's idea, but I support it. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since he is the founder of teaparty.org, not the tea party movement, which is the subject, why is it even included here? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even really a general Tea Party movement founder at all? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know he was the founder of teaparty.org. At this point, all we know is that the webmaster claimed he was founder. If it's not linked currently from the home page of teaparty.org, we don't know that it's a current claim. In any case, I also report stubbing, and adding only sourced material about the movement, rather than about members of the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all material about members and leaders of the movement would result in a stub anyway - since movements are made up of members. It'd be hard to write about any political party or movement without talking about the individual of which they're comprised. Most of the history section is on the activities of individuals. The entire "composition" section refers to members. The "impact on 2010 election" section is all about members. What do you see as the desirable outline of an ideal article with no mention of members or leaders?   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if the real wording was stated rather than implied the OR would be more obvious.

however, as of May 2011[update] wikipedia editors noticed that he is named the "President & Founder" on the unlinked TeaParty.org "Founder" section.

Since there is no RS to make the statement, it has to be OR. I also bring this particular issue up to help illustrate the various problems with this page in general. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems doubtful to me that saying "Dale Robertson is the founder of TeaParty.org" is original research. However, if there continues to be concern over the TeaParty.org website not being intra-linked together very well, just fix the problem by adding another reliable source separate from the TeaParty.org website. For example, here's a link where Dale Robertson is being interviewed in person by a host on Washington Journal (on C-Span); right at the start, the host refers to him as "Dale Robertson, founder and president of TeaParty.org..." and then continues interviewing Robertson on his political views. Additionally, the text of the link leads with: "TeaParty.org Founder and President, Dale Robertson, discusses the role, mission and goals of the TeaParty.org political movement." AzureCitizen (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is from 2009, the statement I have reported is OR from 2011. I am really quite suprised that editors are defending the OR statement. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the reference cites at the end of that sentence (there are six of them) is the source citation for the statement that Robertson was going to sell the TeaParty.org domain name? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of stories like those about Robertson and Mark Williams conveys the impression that the Tea Party is racist, which is advocacy. Instead, we should use rs that explain how the Tea Party is seen by informed writers. TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to try gel and serve up a proposal, it is to nuke this article down to a stub and then rebuild it from high quality sources. Prior to the people would propose parts to be kept, and any part getting a 2/3 "keep" vote amongst those responding would be included in the "stub".

Before we start weighing in discussing, does the above look like OK wording for a proposal? I.E. is the WORDING OK, even if you oppose the proposal? North8000 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) So the question at this point is, does the wording look clear and neutral? North8000 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, can you put the exact wording of the proposal in quotes? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• YES, but I am not hopeful that it will happen. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I think the wording is clear and neutral. As the writer I did my best to make it that. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Please make a proposal that's consistent with normal Wikipedia policies and procedures. Creating a special 2/3 rule for this page is inappropriate and contrary to the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• yes Will, we have read the wp rules and are working in good faith, please push instead of pull. you have a great mind and are an asset to wp, help us fix this mess. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggestion has no merit. It goes against Wikipedia policy. The article is well-sourced. Some editors have recently decided that they don't want to use news sources anymore, they want to use scholarly books instead. Fine, re-write the article using better sources. That's no reason to nuke the current, well-sourced article. The article emerged organically out of a debate on the talk page. It is not a copyright violation; it was not cut-and-pasted from another website. It was written by Wikipedia editors. If you would like to improve it, do so through talk page debate.

Proposal, take 2: Nuke this article down to a stub and then rebuild it from high quality sources. Prior to that people would propose parts to be kept, and any part getting a strong consensus to keep would be included in the "stub". North8000 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We either reduce it to a stub based on high quality rs or we do not. I do not support retaining part based on votes, especially since it would not be based on high quality sources. If it is good material then we should be able to find good sources when we re-write it. TFD (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If folks want to increase the quality of the article then a logical way would be to focus on the most poorly sourced items first.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind WP:BLP, I might agree, except the problem is WP:UNDUE weight, rather than sourcing problems. And voting seems a reasonable way to determine what the most relevant sections of the article might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) Yes, the main problem in WP terms is wp:undue. More specifically, a collection of trivia which has some connection to the TPM which is not about the TPM has been put in. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTINGISEVIL is a long-standing Wikipedia principle. Wikipedia works by consensus, not voting.

Anyone who cites WP:UNDUE should be prepared to explain what "due weight" would be and why.

I'm not sure I understand how WP:BLP is relevant, other than the fact that everyone in the movement is a living person.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, I don't disagree with you, but the question arises "what goes in the stub" and I was just trying to allow for that. Perhaps you could write the proposal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither sugestion has any merit whatsoever. I oppose blanking the article, or any sections of the article. The present article is well-sourced. It was composed through an organic process, mediated by debate on the talk page. It does not violate Wikipedia policies. It is not a copyright violation. There is no legitimate reason to blank the page. The fact that User:Arthur Rubin brings up WP:BLP, a policy which has no connection with the present aticle whatsoever, shows that the editors in favor of blanking the article are desperately and unsuccessfully grasping at any policy that they hope will bolster their arguments. The editors who propose to partially blank the article want to remove the material which is critical of the Tea Party Movement and to retain the sympathetic material (see Have one's cake and eat it too). The problem for these editors is that Wikipedia articles must reflect what has been written in the media on the subject, and the media has not acted as much as a purely uncritical, obtusely enthusiastic cheerleader for the Tea Party Movement as these editors might have hoped. Because the media coverage of the Tea Party Movement has been partially critical of the Movement, this article must reflect that criticism. Thus the concerted effort to whitewash the article of all critical material is a distraction, a waste of our time and actually prevents us from improving the article in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy. There is no legitimate proposal here to debate. — goethean ॐ 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem. In WP terms it is massive wp:udue violations, in real world terms it is just a bunch of irrelevant junk that has some relation to the TPM but which is not about the TPM. And persons have blockaded any progress at getting that stuff out. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. This article reflects the media coverage of the TPM. The incidents which you label as "irrelevant junk" have been covered by the media as related to the Tea Party Movement. That's why this article treats them as...related to the Tea Party Movement. The article's coverage of what you deem "irrelevant junk" (translation: events which you feel reflect badly on the Tea Party Movement) is appropriate and are in fact required in order for the article to have a neutral point of view. The article cannot ignore incidents which (you feel) make the movement look bad if these incidents were covered by the media as connected with the Tea Party Movement. They were covered as such, and thus they must be included in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been built from on-going news coverage. Since then serious studies have been made of the TPM. The problem with news coverage is that reporters work with deadlines and limited information. Commentaries provided tend to be the most controversial sound-bites. What is believed today may turn out to be wrong tomorrow. The guy carrying the racist sign gets his picture in the paper. Over time, scholars sift through the news reports, meet Tea Party supporters, conduct surveys, compare them with similar groups historically and in other countries, and make conclusions. The academic community then forms a consensus about which of the various views are accurate. The result is a reasoned description. TFD (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, fantastic, fabulous. Use better sources to improve the article. But this talk of reducing the article to a stub is just...not worth discussing. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to re-write the lead based on good sources and then re-write the individual sections. TFD (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lead is the only thing in this whole article that was developed from s substantial consensus process. The problem is that there is a large amount of sourced irrelevant material in here, put in only for effect. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested add to Background and History section: "The first populist tea party movement came in the form of colonial-themed dinners during the Centennial Celebration, marking the country’s hundredth birthday, in 1876." sourced to this article from Lapham's Quarterly: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/roundtable/the-first-populist-tea-party.php Brevoorthistorybuff (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers specifically the Tea Party Movement of the 21st century, not the history of such movements. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly his "rant" was the impetus for the movement, yet it's not mentioned in the article. Seems like a glaring omission. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at the beginning of the history section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the move that Xenophrenic just made to re-order the sections, and I'm wondering if the other controversies section is another case of WP:UNDUE weight. Every large organization has bad apples, but it seems like every single negative action taken by someone who claims association with the Tea Party is included in this article. The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of these events should be compressed down, at least. For example, describe in a sentence (or two at most) what occurred, and then a general statement about official responses from Tea Party groups. Whole sub-sections for every event is a bit too much, I think. 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)

I never oppose condensing material if it can be done without losing important, meaningful content; however, my understanding is that the Tea Party Movement has been — and has been portrayed by the news media as being — dogged by racial and other controversy since its inception. It seems to me that racial controversy and instances of apparent bigotry have been a fundamental feature of the movement. The introduction to this article, however, does not refer even indirectly to any controversial aspect of the movement. Nor does it mention Obama, who I think it's fair to say is a focus of a large proportion of Tea Party anger. just as way of gauging the focus of the news media (which I believe that this article is required to follow), the terms '"Tea Party" tax OR taxes' gives 67.8 million Google hits[5], and 47,000 Google News archive hits[6]. '"Tea Party" +racism +racists +racist' gives 30 million Google hits[7], and 8,000 Google News archives hits[8]. My point is simply that racial etc. controversy has comprised a significant portion of the media coverage of the TPM. However, the introduction to this article treats the TPM as a purely intellectual movement! This over-emphasis on political philosophy is due, in my opinion, to the influence of Wikipedia editors who have strong sympathies with the TPM. — goethean ॐ 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that the intro is the only section of the article with which User:North8000 seems to be relatively okay with. The rest contains too much "junk" in his opinion; i.e., material which presents the TPM in a bad light. — goethean ॐ 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [emphasis added]

If the intro does not mention the controversies then it is probably incomplete.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only real controversies that are specifically about the TPM are opposition to their agenda, that their agenda is a bad idea, wrong-headed etc. and opposition to their political actions, initiatives, speeches etc. The other crap (i.e. that a TP'er kicked a dog or posted a bad twitter comment or might have cut a BBQ grill line) are not really about the TPM, there are lots of newsfeeds on them in the real world because ad-hominem/mud-slinging attacks work, and have been thrown into the article for similar reasons. They shouldn't even be in the article, much less the lead. And if they stay in the article, the the real both sides must be covered. The other side is those saying what I said above. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article about kicking a dog. Hyperbole isn't helpful.

The TPM doesn't make speeches or take political action. Individuals do.

While we're working on fixing the rest of the article, can you propose some text for the lead that will cover the TM controversies you think are relevant?   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North800

That is a fascinating and revealing comment, User:North8000. Per my Google hits numbers above (admittedly a crude method), fully one-third of the online discussion of the Tea Party mentions the terms 'racism', 'racist', or 'racists'. But your position is that this article should completely ignore the controversies associated with the Tea Party Movement! I submit that your position is incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — goethean ॐ 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get the article out of crap status, coverage of those areas should be coverage based on quality sources which are discussing that issue itself (e.g. racism or alleged racism of the TPM). It should not be coverage of tweets etc. (out of such context)(and even if they made the newspaper) by an individual which a WP editor has put in just for effect. Could you imagine me going to the top level Democratic Party article and putting in a section on some bad comment made by some local member of the party? It wouldn't last 2 minutes based on wp:undue. Here we have people fighting to put/keep that kind of crap in. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the better pieces on the TGea Party Movement was written by one of the top living Foreign Policy experts in the world and was published in Foreign Affairs magazine, an unimpeachable source. You and your co-partisans, of course, went completely berzerk over our use of that source. — goethean ॐ 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you referring to? I don't remember ever going bezerk over any such source. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any normal discussion, Foreign Affairs would be considered a reliable, uncontroversial source. But on this page, we argued over it for six weeks. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use it as a source. TFD (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't use Foreign Affairs as a source? — goethean ॐ 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think my standards are a little lower than TFD's .... I would use it as A source (not as gospel, but a A source.) At least it is overview/analysis of the TPM rather than trivia inserted without such and just for effect. But you mis-stated the history on this. The issue was that it included one clearly-incorrect word, and in the roadblocked situation here, it took 14,000+ words of talk to take out one clearly-false word. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that we still have Wikipedia editors who consider themselves to be more reliable sources than Walter Russell Mead writing in Foreign Affairs. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic books journals are the best sources because they are peer-reviewed and writers must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions and when they express opinions must explain their degree of acceptance. If Mead had written his article for an academic journal then we would be clear whether his description was generally accepted or merely his own opinion. We could then look at later papers to see the degree of acceptance his views had, whether they represented academic consensus, a majority view, a minority view, etc. Instead, Wikipedia editors must decide among themselves what weight to assign the views. TFD (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, I'm not sure whose comments you are responding to. If mine, you have characterized it. Wanting to leave out one obvious error the source made does not equate to what you describe. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comments, which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy and mission. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize what reliable sources have written on a topic, not to weigh in with what he assumes is his expert opinion on matters of public policy. Mead is an expert, writing in Foreign Affairasc magazine. You are some random guy on the internet. You have no authority to "correct" a leading expert writing in a reliable source, or to inform us what is or is not obviously the case or what is right or wrong about anything. I am sorry that you find this difficult to understand. — goethean ॐ 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, the mis-application/mis-statement of policy that you just put forth is very common, and of interest for various reasons unrelated to this.....if you would bear with me, may I ask you a question? (even if you do do not agree with my "mis-application/mis-statement" terms, which I assume you don't) You have basically just said (restated in more neutral form) that it is improper for a group of editors to say that they feel that an rs'd item should be left out of the article because they feel that it is clearly false/in error. (as a sidebar, in this case, there was really nobody arguing that the item was correct, the arguments for inclusion were along the line of your last post) Where specifically in Wikipedia did you get that from? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Summarize in the article what notable authors with expertise in the field have said on the subject. It escapes me how you can think that your own personal opinion is more valid, and more deserving to be enshrined in this article than Mead's. That said, if sustained talk page consensus agreed that a source should not be used, obviously that is okay. But I don't think that we have had consensus here on any matter, let alone your opinion that Mead is wrong. Frankly, I thought that the six-week conversation about Mead's comments was perfectly insane. It should have been a two minute conversation, with you told to take your complaint to the WP:V page. You and your fellow Tea Partiers opposed Mead's comment because he called Paulites isolationists — which they are. Mead's comments were approved by the editors of Foreign Affairs magazine. Did any readers write to the editors and complain about Mead's mischaracterization of the foreign policy of Ron Paul's Tea Party followers? I sincerely doubt it, because Mead's comments are perfectly accurate. You tried for six weeks to have his comments removed because you just know that he's wrong. Luckily for our readers, Wikipedia policy is that what reliable sources say matters, and what editors say doesn't. — goethean ॐ 02:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that abstract discussions like this won't result in any improvements to the article. Unless someone is going to propose an edit this thread doesn't seem like it's going anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if editors feel that a reliable source is in error, they should attempt to produce a reliable source or sources that contradict the erroneous statement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it.

Now you are saying that what Mead wrote in Foreign Affairs was just so completely wrong, that no one bothered to correct him. Clearly, you do not understand what it takes to get an article published in a journal ilke Foreign Affairs, and what happens when an author makes an obvious error of fact in a journal like that. Thank you for clearing up my confuision. — goethean ॐ 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this difficult to believe from a journal as respected as Foreign Affairs. Even if this is true, how do you prove your case if there are no sources rebutting it? Shall we just take your word for it? That's not how we write an encyclopedia, I'm afraid. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, so, based on the sentence from wp:ver which you quoted, you are saying that that, beyond saying the verifiability being a condition for inclusion, that wp:ver also weighs in on the "inclusion" side of that controversy, because the material is sourced? 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the criteria for inclusion is WP:NPOV. But to argue against the inclusion of Mead's comments, you would have to argue that his comments on the subject are not significant or notable, which is not a plausible argument. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the opinions expressed are notable? TFD (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we back to discussing the Mead view, yet again?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big argument was about whether or not Mead used the term "neoisolationist" correctly. But the problem with the article is that the opinions presented are taken from non-academic writing and therefore we do not know the degree of acceptance they have. I assume that Mead's description is generally accepted, but you should use a secondary source that explains Mead's opinion and the degree of acceptance it has and then you would avoid discussions about whether or not Mead was mistaken. TFD (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Affairs a peer reviewed journal and is the leading journal in the field. Mead is, according to this, the James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College. I'm not sure how much more academic we can get here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not peer-reviewed. But the main issue with quoting the opinions expressed in an article, peer-reviewed or not, is that we cannot establish the degree of acceptance they have. That can only be determined once other writers have discussed the article. TFD (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is, and the peer review process generally insures that material is within appropriate bounds of academic acceptance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is incorrect. Foreign Affairs's website says, "We do not have fact checkers and rely on authors to ensure the veracity of their statements....we try to avoid using footnotes".[9] Many of the articles are written by members of think tanks, politicians and civil servants. TFD (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for my questions was different, not even that Goethean was initially trying to beat me over the head with their mis-interpretation of wp:ver, but that it is a common mis-interpretation which is of interest for other reasons. . Overall, I think that, on a scale of 0 -10, TFD is shooting for an "8" regarding quality of source for inclusion, which is great. I'd put Mead at a "5" and am willing to settle for that as an improvement from the "0" that most of this article is. "5" means use them, but when they make an obvious error that nobody on either side here says is correct, that we not use that portion of the material. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, peer review should contain a fact checking component, but they are not synonyms. Some articles are written by members of those groups you mention, but those authors usually are also credentialed academics or people with a great deal of experience in relevant areas. None of this alters the fact that it is the leading journal in the field. This is pretty much the Wikipedia gold standard for sources we're talking about here, and taking the stand that Foreign Affairs is something we shouldn't be using would generally be considered laughable. So I'm wondering why we are entertaining this notion here, or is there something I'm missing since I did not participate in the six week debate (?!) mentioned earlier in this thread? Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two different topics. The endless debate was over the one erroneous word. TFD is pressing for higher quality sources. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That facts are not checked and are unsourced makes it less than desirable for factual information. What do we do if someone challenges the facts? Have pages of discussion. But in this case it is used as a primary source of opinion and is certainly rs for that. But the issue is what WP:WEIGHT to assign the opinions expressed, which becomes a subjective decision by editors. It is after all a current events opinion journal. BTW, FA published an article by Earl Ravenal of the CATO Institute, where he uses the term "non-interventionist".[10] TFD (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many reliable sources written by credentialed experts suffer from the same lack of fact checking; at least FA is upfront about this matter. Occasionally, this comes back to haunt publications and publishers (Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, James Frey), but no one can seriously suggest that Wikipedia stop relying on The New York Times or Random House. If someone wishes to challenge an article from a prominent peer reviewed journal written by a credentialed academic from a leading university, then let them lay their sources on the table and we'll have a look. But we're not going to throw out a gold standard source with nothing more than assertions and weird policy readings. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree on several of those comments and characterizations, but this is talking on at least 2 different topics at once and isn't going anywhere. I think that TFD's comments are good guidance, and see no real open issues here. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no open issues, then I propose we remove the tag from that section of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news is full of references to the impact of the Tea Party members in Congress on the debt ceiling negotiations. The dust hasn't settled yet, but it appears that this will be significant enough to merit a section. We have sections on "Agenda" and "Impact on the 2010 election cycle", but we don't have any section to cover "impacts on legislation" or a similar wording. Does anyone object to starting one? What would be the best heading?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Impact on 2011 debt ceiling negotiations". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would do for a subsection, but it'd be nice to have a more general title to cover other legislative activities where the TP politicians have had an impact. "Legislative impact"?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the relentless attacking of the TPM as "Terroists", "Hostage Takers", and so forth I can see this section being little more than an attack section unless carefully worded. However, this article already has a ton of problems already so it would probably fit right it. On a side note I wonder if the MSM realize how much they are pissing off a large section of the population on a daily basis. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least it would be ABOUT the TPM, which most of the crap in this article isn't.North8000 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way they certainly are missing the obvious boat. This is basically a collision of ideologies / principles / intended directions for the country, (each fighting for their beliefs which got them elected) and the MSM are making it out to be just people who can't get along. And, a strategy point of those who want to make sure this doesn't come up again before the next election. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading these comments, one would never guess that major portions of the news media are directly owned by conservatives and effectively used to ideologically alter the American political discourse. But I guess having a victim mentality is part of the conservative ideology. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...right...How much is that bridge you are trying to sell? Arzel (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with U.S. terminology. Under some definitions the media can be seen as conservative. TFD (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the brink of going completely off the topic/article. I guess one germane point of what I said is that we should just use really intelligent analysis/overview sources ..... avoid past mistakes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be great if someone could have a go at writing a bit more about the Tea party political philosophies and their influence over congress. (As someone from overseas whose stockmarket (as many are) is holding its breath waiting to see what happens with the debt ceiling, it would be great to understand why this is happening. In international terms, this probably deserves more weight in the article than the intricate details of the racist views that some members have) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts

• The deficit-reduction deal outlined Sunday night bears the unmistakable stamp of tea-party conservatives, who, ironically, may not even vote for it in the end. [..] The plan's total deficit reduction falls well short of many tea-party targets, and if other cuts aren't agreed to in coming months, the deal's automatic, across-the-board spending reductions could result in as much as $600 billion in defense cuts over the next decade. In addition, the final deal makes it harder for Congress to block additional increases in the debt ceiling. The plan requires a two-thirds vote to deny the president additional installments of new borrowing between now and 2013. And neither increase is dependent on passage of a balanced-budget amendment--a key conservative demand. Those perceived flaws may stop some tea-party lawmakers in the House from backing it when it comes up for a final vote there, on Monday or Tuesday.
  • Deal Bears Stamp of GOP Leverage, If Not the Entire Party's Support Patrick O'Connor, Carol E. Lee. Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.: Aug 2, 2011.
• Republicans, pushed by their conservative "tea party" faction, had sought steep cuts in federal spending before agreeing to allow more borrowing that would further increase the national debt.
  • ROUNDUP: President Obama announces deal to increase debt limit Eds: Quotes Obama, adds details of planned budget cutting process Frank Fuhrig. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 1, 2011.
• What has held up a deal? [..] A small number of Tea Party Republicans then demanded that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. That gambit failed but ate up weeks of negotiating time. [..] What will be the effects on the 2012 election? Tea Party Republicans can look their electorates in the eye and say they kept their promise to control spending, so boosting their prospects. Mr Obama has appeared weak and done his chances of a second term no good at all.
  • Debt hits the ceiling while political reputations lie in the gutter; US standoff [Scot Region. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 2
• Raising the debt ceiling is normally routine but Republican members of Congress, especially a hard core allied to the Tea Party movement, have used it over the last month to hold the White House hostage.
  • Front: US close to debt deal but credit rating still at risk Ewen MacAskill. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 1
• An official close to the president said it might be possible to raise the debt ceiling by just enough to cover the next few days if Congress needs more time to get the deal finalised and approved. It was a comment that reflected lingering anxiety over whether the compromise being hammered out would satisfy the Tea Party wing of the Republican majority in the House and their government-strangling agenda. It will fall to John Boehner, the Speaker, to bring them into line when a vote is called but, as recent events have shown, party discipline is not a Tea Party priority. Not helping is the mood of antagonism that has engulfed Capitol Hill and all of Washington in the past several days. The struggle over the debt ceiling has been responsible for "an enmity that in my 37 years as a legislator I have never seen",said Senator Charles Schumer of New York. Much of that bitterness has been centred on the lower chamber and the tensions that have blown up not just between Republicans and Democrats but also between the factions within the Republican Party, thanks to the Tea Party faction.
  • US leaders edge towards debt deal as clock ticks to default deadline. The Independent. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 4

Discussion

this should help muddy the water 23 tea party republicans voted yes to debt, only 17 voted no.  :::http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/01/us/politics/how-different-groups-voted-on-debt-compromise-bill.html?ref=politics

I suggest we collect sources here and then draft the text.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thin them to where it sound like the writer is doing overview/reporting,analysis and less where the writer sounds like they are on a soapbox. I see the latter there in both directions, so it's not a matter of them all going either way. North8000 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a few to get the ball rolling. Let's find better sources to use instead.   Will Beback  talk 

I'm more of a "get it done" type....how /bout you pick what you think are the 2-3 best sources and write a paragraph or 2 and put it in? This isn't as risky as it sounds; IMHO anything done in that/this frameworks is 99% sure of being much much better than the irrelevant trivia crap that this article is full of. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of these sources are that good, and four out of four thousand isn't a useful sample anyway. There's no rush. Better to take a week or two and get it right (more or less) instead of rushing.

What are the best sources on this so far? Magazines and newspapers? What's the most TPM-friendly media outlet, and what's their take on it?   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not looking for friendly vs. unfriendly to the . I'm just looking for stuff that looks like overview / analysis/ reporting on the big stuff vs. where it sounds like the writer is on a soapbox. And, unlike the rest of this article, not trivia thrown in for effect. Will, if you feel like it, just pick the sources and write it. I'll bet such would be fine. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing the following text (indicated in bold) in this paragraph from:

On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs at a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them.[251][252] Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".[251][253] Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times".[254][255] Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."[254] Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

to

On March 20, 2010, during a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them.[251][252] Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".[251][253] Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times".[254][255] Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."[254] Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

The reason is reference 251 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040903716.html) only reports what the black congressmen said instead of reporting it as fact. This is in contrast to the Frank incident, which is proven and presented as fact by the source. Rather than try to explain the differences in a lead-in summary sentence, I say we just cut that part out and get to the facts. I have been involved in a long discussion on my talk page about this but that has stalled and it would help to get other editors' opinions. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People also say that they were spat at:

Some African-American lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, a hero of the civil rights movement, have said that tea party activists yelled racial epithets or spat at them as they arrived at the Capitol for the final vote on health-care reform legislation in March.[11]

— goethean ॐ 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see now that the spitting is included. I approve. — goethean ॐ 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spitting incident was always mentioned, but regarding Cleaver, not Lewis. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for perspective, the real fix is that something about a few unknown individuals possile saying something bad shouldn't even be in this article. Something a few unknown goofballs might have said is not material about the TPM and also a massive wp:undue violation. But I support CWenger's proposed tweak. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the whole event was a huge scam manufactured for effect (wp:selfsourced). lawmakers never cross the street, they use the underground transport. they purposely walked thru a group of protesters trying to bait them into action. a cash reward was offered for audio or video evidence, non has been produced, yet several versions not containing the alleged attacks. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if someone had stepped forward with audio or video evidence, they would have received a cash reward? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's any coverage of this event in the article, except for Mark Williams' response to it. [12][13][14] — goethean ॐ 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]