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 Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mead has made an error describing "Paulites" which I corrected. A neo-isolationist, does not trade with others a non-interventionist does. since ron paul is the latter, do we really need a source claiming "paulites" are as well? my edit was undone with the following, "no source provided to show Paul uses that description for his supporters in the Tea Party movement" Darkstar1st (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this before. Isolationists called themselves "non-interventionists", but neutrality requires us to use the terminology generally used in academic writing and newspaper reporting. TFD (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the two are not mutually exclusive, isolationism means no trade, the other does not. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/26/news/la-pn-ron-paul-diplomatic-relations-with-cuba-at-florida-debate-20120126 Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to set wiki-lawyering and other agendas aside and get that really stupid statement (that everybody here knows is wrong and nobody here has claimed to be correct) out of the article. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st, your source mentions neither term. In any case, your qualification of the descriptions used by Mead, which are presented in quotes, is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i reject the premise one needs a source to clarify one's supporters believe the same. the link i provide was an example of Paul being the opposite of an isolationist, opening trade with long time enemy Cuba hardly fits that definition, would you agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is calling Ron Paul an isolationist, so your concern is misplaced. Also, please note that "Paulites" is a term created and defined by Mead in his essay, to describe a particular set of views held by some Tea Partiers. Finally, please note that Mead refers to Paulites as isolationists only with respect to military actions and alliances, not trade and economics, which is basically the same thing as calling Paulites non-interventionists. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you try to have your edits conform to Wikipedia standards? Thanks! — goethean ॐ 18:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mead obviously made an error about Paul; nobody here is defending it, just wiki-lawyering to keep it in. If the error stays in the least we can do is put in accurate material as well, doubly so since it is a living person that Mead mis-characterized. Actually, extraordinary / contentious claims about living person need multiple sources. The erroneous material should be taken out until multiple sources are found for it, and it's very unlikely that multiple sources will repeat what is an obvious error. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made in the article is that is what Mead said. Only if we stated as a fact that Paul was a neo-isolationist would the issue of contentiousness arise. Although certain writers have tried to re-define "isolationism", that information properly belongs in another article. TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the erroneous statement about Paul belongs but the correct one is off-topic? If this article is specializing in allowing only erroneous statements, we should re-title it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gothean, which specific policy did my edit violate? which policy did you cite to undo my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mead obviously made an error about Paul... --North8000

Mead refers to "trends" by large groups of people, not specifically to Paul's politics, although he does choose to name subgroups after Paul and Palin -- probably not a good practice in the long-run. Politicians are known, individually, for their shifting stances — especially on foreign policy — while large groups tend to be more stable in their defined demographic. Mead's essay studies large subsections of the tea party movement, not a particular politician. Does anyone know if Paul has responded directly to Mead's analysis yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed this exact issue at length previously, so this discussion is a bit tendentious. I'll repeat that Mead is a highly regarded expert in his field. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to correct "errors" made by credentialed academics writing within their field of expertise in the most prestigious publication on the issue of foreign affairs. If there is a different view we can add that, but we should not second-guess the experts.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "tendentious" I assume that you mean that your preferred version is still in there so you would prefer that there not be further discussion?  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to WP:TE.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul has repeatedly rejected the term isolationist. evidently large groups of the population do not understand the difference. "The lead story in today's The New York Times refers to Ron Paul's "non-interventionist foreign policy views," in contrast with the paper's usual description of his position as "isolationist," which is both pejorative and inaccurate. Isolationism suggests not merely a bias against the use of military force but a desire to avoid any engagement with the rest of the world, including trade, diplomacy, immigration, and cultural exchange. Paul has never been an isolationist in that sense.", Jacob Sullum,Jan 2, 2012 Darkstar1st (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This article is not about Paul. It's about the TPM. Mead is not writing about Paul, he's writing about the "Paulite wing" of the TPM. Also, if you're going to cite a webpage please add the URL. It's inconsiderate to make your fellow editors hunt down the text.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/02/ron-paul-does-not-call-himself-an-isolat Fat&Happy (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief mention of the Tea Party, but none of Mead. If folks want to summarize what the NYT and Reason have to say about the TPM's foreign policy views that'd be fine. But that doesn't alter what Mead says about those views.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will, the original link i found the article set off wp spam filter http://www.opposingview*.com/i/politics/2012-election/ron-paul-im-no-isolationist. the larger issue is Mead is just wrong and i think most people realize such. the two terms have vastly different meanings. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you have said. Repeatedly. If most people who are considered to have expertise in the subject → the only "most people" that really counts here – realize that Mead, considered an expert on the subject, is wrong in an important point he made in a premier journal on the subject, it shouldn't be all that difficult to provide an article of equivalent reliability to refute his conclusions. Personal opinions of any of us on this page don't constitute effective refutation (or confirmation, for that matter). Fat&Happy (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mead is not writing about Paul, he's writing about the "Paulite wing", that would be like saying Christians do not believe in Christ. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we have sources which say that Mead is wrong on this issue then let's include them.

Christians believe all kind of things (not all the same), including things which Christ never expressed opinions about.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is clearly an implied (erroneous) statement about Ron Paul.North8000 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

99.112.212.201 recently added a comment from an intelligent op-ed (and sourced to it) which was critical to the TPM. To the folks who are forever warring to maximize anti-TPM material here, putting in intelligent high level stuff like this is the way to do it, not warring and wikilawyering to keep in stories on a twitter comment, BBQ grills or spending forever to keep in what you know to be an mis-characterization (isolationist) of Ron Paul that even you know is in error. Do you really want to list "I wikilawyered to keep the the TPM article in junk status" on your mental list of Wikipedia accomplishments? North8000 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This maybe a useful addition in the vein of North8000's comment, Will the Tea Get Cold? (March 8, 2012 issue) by Sam Tanenhaus of Skocpol's and Foley's books (in Further Reading) and the book Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution by Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots. The current review relates to the Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

And here is a Review Essay by Reihan Salam in March/April Foreign Affairs The Missing Middle in American Politics; How Moderate Republicans Became Extinct, regarding the Skocpol book and Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by Geoffrey Kabaservice, who writes for the National Review. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the wikilink for a FA article already included, David E. Campbell. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where to start on this. There is a few feet long of critism, based off of Non-Neutral Sites. But when you see the Occupy Movement's page, there is not even a critism section even though they have a worse track record. WTH. Left Wing Bias as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without even going into NPOV issues, this article is so filled with pettiness and irrelevancies it is completely UNREADABLE. I suggest setting a (low) maximum byte limit and going from there.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Needs to be completely rewritten. I'm wondering if Wikipedia has a place where the disparity between what is being done to this article and the Occupy Movement article could be examined. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually it's a good article on a controversial topic--the critics here are expressing their own political views about the movement, rather than sober analysis of the article. They have no specific complaints. The article covers all the major points, uses good sources, has a balanced tone, and is quite thorough. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it to be 90% junk and the article to be in junk status. Most of it is trivia (tweets, BBQ grills etc. 2nd hand rumors that someone in a crowd might have said something bad etc) gamed in to leave a negative impression. POV warriors have made it so difficult to fix that most people have either given up or aren't trying to fix it. Yes, probably the worst article ever, at least on a major topic. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that the Tea Party is not an organized anything--it's a mood among some voters, and that rumors are what it consists of and what gets covered in an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are getting closer there. I think that it is an agenda,a mood, an identity and name associated with it. In a very loose sense a movement. Certainly can't treat or cover it as an organization. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you. The TPM is well-organized into different groups around the country and the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it IS true that the one common theme everywhere in TPM is fiscal conservatism. I guess that what I meant was that the organization aspect is secondary and that it is not monolithic. And that pretending that everything that everyone with that agenda does is ABOUT the TPM is how all of the trivia got gamed in. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'm thinking its time to try to fix the article North8000 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, a total rewrite is in order. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own concern (and extensively and an ongoing one in feedback here) is the amount of trivia. To take out all of the "one low level guy did this" and "one low level guy might have done or said this" stuff. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TPM is mostly a collection of personal activity --such as wearing costumes (is that trivial or representative?) --as for issues they mirror standard conservative themes. "fiscal conservatism" for example covers multiple contradictory themes (cutting budgets, cutting taxes on rich, cutting taxes on middle class, cutting deficits, cutting benefit programs, reduce borrowing from China, cutting waste, cutting the cost of medical care--all very different themes that show no TP unity. As for political unity their first big hero was a Massachusetts liberal (Sen Brown)--and one of their more famous candidates kept insisting she is not now and never has been a witch. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also TP elements not in favor of stopping tax breaks for fossil-fuel interest, per Talk:Tea Party movement /Archive18# Energy Policy resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 108.73.113.5 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your question is in my proposed fix below. In short, editors would not put in trivia because they think it is representative. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you use biased sources, you get a biased article. Use sources from here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a bit confused. Wikipedia is not a conservative political outlet. It is not owned by Koch Industries. It does not have to toe to party line on the Tea Party's agenda. It will use neutral sources such as The New York Times, not your partisan bullshit rakers. — goethean ॐ 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel's thoughts are mine exactly. Plus NYT isn't exactly a shining example....it's about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, and less than many of the sources that Lionelt linked. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Wikipedia-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Wikipedia's requirements. As for "trivia", I won't be relying on North8000's fine opinion as to what is or isn't "trivia" (or "junk", or "ABOUT the TP"...) until he has been published, and has developed the requisite reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Legions of equally unsubstantiated "Me too!" responses, with nothing more to advance the discussion, will be similarily considered. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "trivia" I meant putting specially selected local (specially selected from the millions of things that have been said or done at the local level) and putting into the top level national article. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"local"? "top level national"? "local level"? Interesting flip-flop there. TP apologists cry foul when the corporate and big money interests backing, promoting and steering the "movement" are pointed out, insisting the TP is just individual "grassroots" Americans organizing at the local level with no hierarchy or leadership. Yet when the focus is on these individuals, especially the ones who step up and take the reins in this movement (like the ones mentioned in this TPm article), the TP apologists throw the buggy into reverse and instead cry foul, insisting that these are just "low level" individuals, and dismissing them as not representative of the "top level national" movement. Yes, North8000, it is quite transparent what you really mean when you refer to particular article content as "trivia". Why do you suppose the WSJ, NYT, CSM, WaPo, Politico et al, "specially selected" these things to feature in their reporting, and which of those "millions of things" would you prefer to add instead or in addition? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Malke 2010. I guess my one other thought about treating it more as an agenda than an entity is that the latter has been used as a false premise to game in other material. Imagine that someone coined a term for people in favor of Obamacare, the "Careites". And pollsters found that people who favored Obamacare were also more likely to favor getting rid of laws against pedophilia. Considering the Careites to be an entity could be used as a basis for saying that the pedophilia poll material is germane to the Careite article and gaming it in. Such is obviously unrelated, but such has happened in this article. (for example, poll data on topics that have nothing to do with the TPM agenda)North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, you make an excellent point. The article is loaded with that. Let's work-up a plan for a complete rewrite. We can start with an outline. Also, Lionelt has made a very good point about the biased sources. The article is top-heavy with them. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt has indeed made a point about biased sources, and has even provided a link to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not? The left leaning bias of the NYTimes is legend. I agree that they do check their facts, but they are very selective about the facts they present and are very artful at how they present that selection. Mitt Romney will always be presented on the front page in a negative light, and Obama will always be presented in the positive. Mitt Romney could personally save the life of Mr. Salzberger, and his newspaper would find a way to make it sound much less than what it was. If you don't appreciate that, you haven't been reading the same NYTimes I've been reading here on the Left Coast. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worst article ever- proposed step 1 of fix

Take out the trivia and non-germane material. Anything that is not somehow ABOUT the TPM in general or some national (or at least regional) level aspect of it should go. This criteria would apply to the core topic of the coverage in the sources. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I replied above. Let's start with an outline for a new article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to start nuking out the trivia and items not ABOUT the TPM per above. Then's we'd have an article 1/2 the size of the current one. And then rbuild with quality relevant stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with me on the nuke thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two that came to mind are the "propane grill damaged by a mystery person" and the "twitter tweet" items. Looks like the grill one is already in progress and so I plan to take the twitter tweet (by a low level guy) one out next. Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on the propane grill incident--I read the articles and no person accuses the Tea party of any vandalism. The TP vigorously denounced vandalism. While Democrats accused REPUBLICANS of stirring up trouble--they did not accuse tea partiers. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Wikipedia article also does not "accuse the Tea Party of any vandalism". It does, however, accurately report that a Tea Party organizer from one city in Virginia, and the Chairman of a Tea Party organization in another Virginia city, posted what they thought was the home address of a representative who was voting for the health care bill -- and urged fellow TPers to visit him personally at his home to express their anger. It was relevant enough that other TPm leaders felt compelled to denounce the action.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has a following in the Tea Party movement, called the posting of Perriello's brother's address "appalling." "I think that is way over the line," he said. "I don't think it's close. It's an appalling approach. It's not civil discourse. It's an invitation to intimidation." (Link)

The section deals with more than just a cut gas line. It also is not about what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing; it is about the perception left with the public about the Tea Party activists, and how they handle it -- as noted in the first source article cited. (IMHO, they handle it with the pat response like all the others: denounce it as "not representative" of the whole group.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "propane grill" was just the brief tag for it. It's also about 10 other things that have nothing to do with the TPM other than a Wikipedia editor wanted to put them in there for effect. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even if all of that were not true, and everything that you said true, it still wouldn't belong. This is the top level article about a national US movement. Local items, much less local items seletected by wp editors for POV effect do not belong in there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I prefer to abide by Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, instead of your proposal to edit war your POV edits upon the article over the objection of other editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism

Not exactly, but that is the POV some editors have gamed into the article. The actual core belief that unifies them is the pretense of fiscal conservatism while Obama is in the White House. There was no "national movement" against fiscal irresponsibility until after Obama was elected, and poll after poll show TPers to be quite split (and even contrarian) on taxes, deficit and other fiscal matters.

• accused REPUBLICANS ... did not accuse tea partiers

Oh, yeah ... totally separate folks there. The sources must have been confused.

• posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party

You appear to have misread. Neither Rep. Perriello nor his brother are TPers, and the intimidation attack wasn't "against the Tea Party".

• Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con.

Finally, a common sense suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The edits North8000 is attempting to make are legitimate. Nobody is suggesting an edit war. Please don't throw around labels like that. Everything mentioned above is nonsense junk that has been gamed into the article. These are legitimate edits and should stand. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to take your comment seriously when you say "don't throw around labels" in the same breath where you accuse editors of gaming "nonsense junk" into Wikipedia articles. North8000's proposal to delete content he doesn't personally like, over the objections of other editors, is the very definition of edit warring. A word-search of "nonsense junk" in Wikipedia's policy pages comes up empty, so I'll have to ask you to be more specific in describing your concerns (besides the obvious dislike of unflattering information usually exhibited by POV editors). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited articles DO connect, for example, the BBQ grill incident to the Tea Party Movement. To wit:

At the same time, the vandalism threatened to be a public relations disaster for the fledgling Tea Party movement, which has tried to argue that it is, in the words of Dick Armey, the chairman of the umbrella group FreedomWorks, “more well-mannered” than protesters on the left.

Leaders of the movement tried to contain the damage on Thursday, denouncing the violence and distancing themselves from those behind the acts. Some suggested that outsiders were responsible. In Colorado, where Representative Betsy Markey was among the Democrats reporting threats, Lesley Hollywood, the director of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, said, “Although many are frustrated by the passage of such controversial legislation, threats are absolutely not acceptable in any form, to any lawmaker, of any party.”

Much of the media coverage of the Tea Party Movement was negative. Media coverage of the movement regularly featured people bringing loaded guns to political events, people calling politicians racist names, people comparing the President to Adolf Hitler, etc. Wikipedia reflects the media's coverage of the movement. The fact that conservatives want to eliminate coverage of this material, and to make Wikipedia reflect the conservative media's coverage of the TPM, is unsurprising but irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worst article ever- second attempt at step 1 of fix

My proposal is to take out all of the local trivia. Everything where the core of the item refers to actions by people who are not of national stature in the TPM or of national stature. And specifically to start with removal of the twitter tweet and propane grill paragraphs. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nominator) Per extensive supporting arguments over the last 6-8 months. WP:undue, massive POV problem, not germane, wp:synth violaitons by juxtaposition, not relevant, emblematic of the junk loaded-with-POV-trivia state of this article, and too narrow (specially selected from tens of thousand of local item) to be included in the top level article of a national US movement. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that you are supposed to vote for your own proposal. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, no one is supposed to vote for the proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with North8000. Xenophrenic, my friend, relax. Time marches on, new things arise, and the article must change to keep up. There's far to much here that is undue weight, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Editors have always been encouraged to improve the article rather than removing sections which contain material which editors personally dislike. That invitation stands. Find prominent scholarly analyses of the movement and summarize them fairly and neutrally. I doubt that anyone will stop you. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who is doing it please stop with the invented "personally dislike" criteria crap. Persons say that are missing wp:agf by two levels....BIBF- Baselessly Inventing Bad Faith. My proposal is to take all trivia out. And dozens of people have said that the main problem with the article is that it is loaded with trivia. So, central to improving the article is removing the trivia. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, your near-constant advocacy, which has lasted for how many months now, of removing all of the critical material from this article, and replacing it with a more sympathetic narrative, has absolutely nothing — nothing, I tell you! — with your personal devotion to the Tea Party political agenda. I know. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that baseless guess at an insult has already been proven wrong. See above when I applauded putting in higher level criticism of / material negative on the TPM (rather than gamed-in trivia) North8000 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tactic here has been to make too difficult / time consuming to fix the article so that nobody does it. In that light I'm not playing the game of dealing with your last few sentences literally as crafted. On the other items, anything where the core of it is about a national figure would not fall under the "local" criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "tactic" here is to understand what you are really proposing. If you can't point me to an argument in support of your proposal, then I think I now understand perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing you to anything will not change anything. A year has shown that you flatly want to keep the trivia in. To put it nicely. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You exhibit the same lack of care in reading the past years events as you do in reading reliable sources. I ask you for a reasoned argument behind your proposal, and you balk -- more of the same. Let me know if you ever want to work on article improvement. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in your games, North8000. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Xenophrenic, stop going on about all that. The trivia North8000 is talking about is nonsense junk blown out of proportion. The article should better be titled, "What the Left-Wing Wants You to Believe About the Tea Party Movement." It's that obvious. One article from the New Yorker, and suddenly the Koch Industries has some kind of conspiracy going. Some nutty neighbor sabotages a guy's gas grill and suddenly the TPM is all about terrorism directed at Barack Obama (by way of a gas grill in Maryland? Seriously?) It's nonsense junk, and it needs to go. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must be talking about two different things, Malke. I don't see any content about a sabotaged gas grill. I don't see any content about a nutty neighbor. I don't see any content about terrorism directed at Barack Obama. Are we even discussing the same Wikipedia article? If your outrageous characterizations of what is really in the article is an attempt to argue North8000's position by employing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule, well, you failed -- I see through your attempt. The content North & I have been discussing is not attempting to convey anything about gas grills, nutty neighbors or terrorism against Obama. The content we're discussing is about the serious escalation in threats, violence and confrontational rhetoric coming from the TP movement as observed by the public and reported on in countless reliable sources. From the disruption of the town hall meetings (remember those?), to the tangible anger at the health care protests and the countless specific reported incidents from TP "leaders" -- if it were "trivia", it wouldn't be so widely covered in the news report sections of reliable sources. You began your comment with the word "Seriously", yet as I read your post it became evident that you had no intention of discussing the actual content seriously. Please let me know if you change your mind.

Oh, and as for your proposed article name change, in order to meet your description we would have to rewrite the article based on left-wing commentary sources, and it would look nothing like what we have now. What we have now could accurately be retitled as "What the Words and Deeds of the Tea Party has led the Public to Believe About the Tea Party Movement". Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, I find the combination of your intense disdain for the TPM (as you have communicated many times here) combined with saying that the negative trivia inclusion is "intended to convey" (or similar "to show that" type comments on prior occasions) to be very indicative of the problem that we need to fix here. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what needs to be fixed here. Xenophrenic, you've got to relax and stand back and let other editors offer their views and suggestions. You react so strongly and so quickly to him that it seems to be keeping you from hearing what North8000 is trying to say. Compromise is the only way to function on Wikipedia as you well know. I've seen you do it before, my friend. There's nothing on Wikipedia that is that important that it can't be revisited, reexamined. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]