Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reliable sources.

Please remember to only use reliable sources for factual claims. Specifically, we never use Youtube clips as reliable sources. Further, just because a commentator (especially a particularly unreliable one like Michelle Malkin) makes a claim in an interview, doesn't mean it is sourced. Michelle Malkin repeating a dubious claim on a panel show on Fox News does not mean that Fox News "reported" that fact. Far from it. We need verifiability. Also, we never use editorials as sources for factual claims. Please, discuss here if there are any question about sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, YouTube is not a RS. There are exceptions, but the one under discussion, doesn't fit the exception. If that same video could be found on Fox's own web site, that would be a RS, or if Fox had an official YouTube channel (I'm all but certain they do not), that would be a RS. The problem with that video, like almost all YT videos, is that the publisher is unknown, is not a RS. In theory, the video could have been doctored. Now, if the video is accurate, it is not only Michelle Malkin, but Fox News personnel who state the 37,000 number of attendees at that Tea Party, and they also state the number 1500 for TPs nationwide. (As for Michelle Malkin, I have not seen any evidence that she is particularly unreliable, but she is a commentator, not a reporter, and that probably makes her less reliable for our purposes.) But until the video can be verified as published by a RS, it cannot be used. As for editorials, I find nothing in WP:RS specifically excluding them, and I have certainly seen a great many editorials cited as RS. One may not like a particular editorial source, but that doesn't necessarily make it not-RS.Sbowers3 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, liking or disliking has nothing to do with it. Editorials are not allowed for factual claims. Per WP:RS "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Worst Wikipedia Article Ever?

I visited this page for information on the 2009 tea party protests and found myself leaving dumber about the subject than before I came here. I'm not even going to make suggestions because most hot-headed wiki editors will gawk at the idea that their work is pathetic. But it's true... this page wreaks of immature, baseless claims and comments made for comedy hour and not as a encyclopedic source of information. This page should be deleted or completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.7.103 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you hoped to find here and on which claims and comments you disparage? Many of us would like to improve it but it has been difficult. Specific suggestions would help more than general complaints. Or feel free to jump in and edit yourself. Even as an anonymous IP you can edit, but it would be better if you got an account. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source

Please explain why an NBC-affiliate TV station is not a WP:RS. See here and here. I suggest that rather than delete a sourced statement, if you doubt the reliability of the source, the proper thing to do is add a {{verify credibility}} tag. And I further suggest that there is no good reason for deleting a hidden comment and no reason to delete a reference that is used for the rest of the paragraph just because you don't like one statement. I am restoring the reference and hidden comment. I will omit for now the statement you don't like until we have discussed this further. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Timeline of Tea Party protests

I would like to merge Timeline of Tea Party protests into this article. The textual part of the other article (the lede and History sections) is very similar to this article. The tabular part uses the same references that are used in this article. It's a lot of work to add the same material into the table of the other article and into inline references in this article. I want to make it much easier to add references. There are hundreds and hundreds of RS that should be added to this article and the other but it's not easy to format each ref for the table or for an inline ref. So I'd like to add the refs in a simple list format:

July 17 events

• about 75 protesters outside Rep’s Charlottesville, VA office
• About 60 gathered outside Cong's Newnan, GA office
• Nearly 60 gathered at Rep’s Oklahoma City office
• About 50 protested outside of Rep's Bellingham, WA office
• Dozens of protesters outside of Cong's Eureka, CA office
• More than 30 outside Rep’s TX office
• about 80 protesters marched to Sens' Martinsburg, WV offices
• About 60 local demonstrators against government-run health insurance

These would be in an Appendix section or in the References section after the inline references. The format above makes it very easy to add a reference, which will encourage editors to add references. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be merged, and then I think it should be trimmed. Do we really need to mention every time 50 or 60 yahoo teabaggers get together? No. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, merge and trim. There should be some criteria. When I see some of these I think 'well, that wasn't very impressive, if that's all they could get to attend'. These are really trivial demonstrations in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good idea, since it appears to me that this has less and less to do with the Tea Party Protests Feb-April and more and more to do with health care reform. The connection here that these protests are a continuation of that appears tenuous, in my opinion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll likely see "Tea Party" protests against immigration reform, Don't Ask, Don't Tell civil rights legislation, or whatever else the Obama administration focuses on in the future. Today, it's all about stifling any meaningful dialog about health care. If we're going to include every tea party protest for the next 4 to 8 years, the definition will need to be broadened greatly. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) These are indeed Tea Party protests because the protesters self-identify as and reliable sources identify them as Tea Partiers. The common thread between the February-April protests and today is opposition to big government and taxes, and favoring limited government and more liberty. (Read the references as to what the protesters themselves say and the signs they carry.) The reason for including small protests is to demonstrate that they are continuing to this day. We give the wrong impression if we imply that they ended in April. But I do plan to trim down the text even while adding refs. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. We do not need a list of everytime two teabaggers get together. It fails WP:N. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Put aside your POV for a moment and pretend that you are a reader looking for information about the Tea Parties. Pretend you're neutral about their POV; you just want to know who, what, when, where, and why. Those are the questions that a good article should answer. And they should be presented in inverted pyramid fashion with a summary of the most important information at the top, then less important info, then details at the bottom. So let's take the "when" question: Are the Tea Parties a one-time thing last April 15, a two-time thing including July 4; did they occur many times and then fade away, or are they ongoing? The answer is that they continue to this day, and show every likelihood of continuing for some time. They are occurring almost weekly, sometimes several times a week. Okay, "where" are they occurring? The answer is pretty much all over the country. Then there is the "what" question: What are they protesting? Is it one issue or a set of issues? Do the various groups show some cohesion in their choice of issues or does each group pick a different issue? Those are some of the Five Ws that a good article should try to answer.

The list of events helps answer those questions. They show a pattern of protests continuing beyond the big two days. They show that they are happening all over the country. They (can) show that the focus of the protests has changed over time but that the various groups are on the same agenda page.

This is far too much detail to put into the earlier text. I intend to shorten the text and summarize the pattern of protests. The details will be at the very bottom (before the references) out of the way of most readers but available like a reference for those who want more detail and might want to verify the earlier summary text. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you attempt to shorten the text and make it into actual prose before adding to the article? As it stands now it is entirely POV as it consists of arbitarily cherry picking which teabag events to list. Also one of the other users mentioned above, we are going to see the same teabaggers show up at healthcare reform, cap and trade, banking reform, DADT, gay marriage, and on and on. We already have a pages to discuss the context of those issues. Lets keep this article focused on the tea bag events of April 15h and a general background information on that. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Isn't the merging of the Tea Party timeline into this article under discussion? If so, why is there a (poor) attempt to recreate it here? TeaParty1 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a Wikibreak except for popping in now and then. So I don't really have the time and energy to do the merge. But while scanning the news I occasionally come across stories about TPs that I think should be part of the WP story. It is much easier to add these refs to WP on the spot than to try to find them much later, so I've been adding them to the list in a quick and dirty manner. But as you noted that results in a poorly formatted and incomplete list. So I'll gather the refs elsewhere just to have a record of them, then when the list is more complete and better formatted we can decide what to do with them. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've at least for now removed the Merge suggestion from the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, about 7,000 people protested August 19 in Akron, Ohio.[1] And several thousand protested August 15 in Atlanta, GA.[2] One of the reasons I wanted to put the list in this article is to alert editors to recent events. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence that the Tea Party Movement started in 2001 in Tennessee as the Tennesse Tax Revolt, taking the name Tea Party shortly after the protests and becoming a national organization in the following years. So, this needs to be checked out because it conflicts with the "against Obama" description of the movement. 70.108.81.2 (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated several times already elsewhere on this discussion board, the article is already experiencing some drift and is bloated with tangential information which may detract from the overall article. The so-called "Tax Revolts" of the past several decades (one in California in the late 70s and early 80s continues to enjoy much noteriety) are not "evidence" of the foundation of the so-called "Tea Party Movement". Now, while the "Tea Party Movement" is directly related to the "Tea Party protests", which is what this article is about, these events you reference are not. The use of tariffs to fund government has been a national debate FOR CENTURIES. The addition of the 16th Amendment to our US Constitution in 1913 marked a major shift in that discussion. This, in comparison, should not even merit a footnote, IMHO. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Locally organized" vs. "astroturfing"

The first line of the entry describes the Tea Party protests as "locally organized." Yet later in the article there are multiple references to allegations that they are actually organized by national-level political-action committtees. Recommend removing the "locally organized" phrase as a means of avoiding arguments regarding NPOV and, even though it's a stretch, weasel-wording. Alan (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The allegations over astroturfing are just that, allegations. The locally organized should stay. Soxwon (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

...and there's my point proven. There's too much controversy over the designation.. Alan (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are also allegations held by a lot of ppl that Obama is Kenyan, does that make them question his citizenship? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitur. There is documentary proof of President Obama's citizenship. No proof either way has been produced regarding whether the Tea Party protests are in fact locally organized or "corporate astroturf". Alan (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle is a sexual song?

Really? Come on. The Squicks (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not exactly. It's a song about a country bumpkin who behaves rudely. Here is the original, rude, English meaning, with refs cited you can read. The English don't always use proper English, especially when saying something rude, like calling us "yankee doodles." We got "Give 'em the raspberries!" from rude, old, English slang. ("Raspberry tart" rhymes with "fart.") Much of American, Australian, and modern English was once English slang. Read the refs cited (and others on line). What more do you want? Yet more academic citations? It is not synthesis to conclude the obvious. What does "yankee doodle" mean apart from "OBSCENE ONOMASTICS ..." in the very title of one of those refs? -MBHiii (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 12th protests

Someone should really add something about the March on D.C. and other protests that took place on September 12th, with most of these being against the Health Care reform, but also against higher taxes in general. (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009

We should also add a section on the Tea Party Express bus tour. A list of its stops and the crowds is at List of Tea Party protests. I'll also add there any September 12 events I find in WP:RS. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it's still taking place, so we can wait until tonight at least to see how it's reported. Also, just so we don't rehash the same discussion, when adding crowd figures remember to only use estimates from reliable third-party sources (third-party being the key words there). In general we don't present organizer estimates as statements of fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the September 12 "March on DC" was mostly about how country bumpkins have a problem with a black president. Am I wrong? If so, how so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockerspanielsarethebest (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source for that, please feel free to add it to the article. However, I suspect that the people at the protest would have no problem with any of the dozens of notable black conservatives in the United States being President. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does not cite a source for the size of the crowd estimates. The Daily Mail reported the size as being "up to two million." However, since I am topic banned, I can't add it to the article, although I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ABC attributes a value of 60,000 to 70,000 to the Wash. DC fire dept. Amayzes (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would be reasonable to source the 60-70K as an unofficial # by Wash.DC Fire - like they stated on their twitter post and to also ref the Daily Mail 2 million number. Ending with a statement that it's too soon to know exactly what the attendance level was yet. 208.53.112.25 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the text -- there are varying estimates so I cited 3 sources for the estimates and then provided a 4th source link to a photo showing the crowd from the air. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. There appear to be a number of folks who want to keep deleting any references to higher numbers. There are many, many references to larger numbers and many photos showing a sea of people BUT -- any such references are deleted as unacceptable sources. In addition, any references that show a wide range of estimates keep getting deleted as well. SunSw0rd (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the left in the US at least will be editing this page to reflect their wishes, but Wikipedia has some pretensions to intellectual honesty, so I doubt they prevail in the long run. The alterations I've just made show a larger number of people than the lower tens of thousands and give a link to a journalist's report of high 100,000's that he could vouch for. Tom Perkins, 2009/09/13 10:31PM EST.

The dailymail is a tabloid, not a reliable source. Other actual reliable source's reporting, along with official estimates from DC authorities, don't even come close to 1 million, much less 2. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a tabloid does not necessarily make a paper an unreliable source. Here's what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says:

“ My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. ”

Based on the bulk of RS, I'd say we should use the 75,000 number. The Daily Mail may be wrong but I don't think RS is a valid reason for deleting its estimate. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it was 75,000. ABC even reported it the crowd was up to 1.5 million. R32GTR (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is, the multiple photographs of the scene at the national mall all show a crowd far in excess of 75 thousand people. It is also the case that the main stream media outlets in the USA provided very little coverage of this event. There is one simple fact and that is this. The "ticketed" area of the national mall holds more than a quarter million people and that area was full and there was overflow. Therefore there was a minimum of 250,000 people there -- three times the 75K number. The multiple photos of the event show this very clearly. So why the big attempt to suppress the number in wikipedia? SunSw0rd (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with reliability, and you (or anyone here, really) looking at a picture and claiming "well it looks like a million+ to me" isn't going to matter much, per original research policy. There's also the fact that several fakes are floating around, such as the images swiped from the Promise Keepers march in '96. And to "R32GTR", ABC News did not at any time give a 1.5 million count. if more sources (and not just a repost of the dailymail's article) begin to cite 1 million or higher as a possible count, then sure, we can put it in. But as long as it remains an outlier in the overall reporting of figures, it really does not belong. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules don't address the censoring of "outliers". Is the Daily Mail a reputable source? If so, then their number should be included with the rest of the estimates. I'm not that familiar with the paper, but the Wikipedia article about it doesn't indicate that it's unreliable. A.V. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Even if the truth is more than a million, we have to use what is verifiable from reliable sources and we can't give undue weight to any one source. The number 75,000 is verifiable from multiple reliable sources so that's the number we should use even if turns out not to be accurate. Conversely, the Daily Mail is a reliable source so its number should be allowed but with language that indicates it is an outlier. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" cannot be used to provide a shield for demonstrably false information; as far as I know, Thomas Dewey really wasn't the president in 1948. A bit more food for thought on this can be found at the CJR...all of this junk apparently stems from a protester who falsely claimed ABC reported 1.5 million at the event. We do not need to reflect reporting that derives from falsehoods or mistakes. What may be worth covering though is the argument itself and the story of the false claims. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is just one policy. WP:UNDUE also applies: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."

We are not yet at a stage when we know what views comprise a tiny minority. We can say that the Daily Mail estimate is a minority view but it is a RS and should be included but with less prominence than other views. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We're far past that stage, bud, sorry. Dailymail's off-the-cuff description is in a definitive minority at this point. When we reach a stage where the crowd number inflation itself becomes enough of a story, then we can certainty use them as a source for that, though. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK Daily Mail doesn't cite their source. I see no mention of the false ABC rumor in the Daily Mail estimate. As editors, we should report not opine. The Daily Mail estimate of the crowd belongs with the other estimates. Would any other editors care to weigh in?A.V. (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Link drop and opinion: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21884 ; five times 70,ooo = 350,000; 2,ooo,ooo divided by five = 400,ooo; I'll guess 375,000. Supposedly, the Democrats were worried that there would be two million a couple of days before the event. htom (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) another link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/ ; he calculates close order of 800,000 (400,000--1,600,000) htom (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas media, aka the home of "journalist" Joe the Plumber? About as unreliable a source as one can get. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's got an opinion. htom (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. And we don't use the opinions of random bloggers as a [[WP:RS}reliable source]]. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Pajamas Media. I hate to paint in such broad strokes, but this source has demonstrated on so many occasions (including here on this discussion board) that it's an unreliable source that I don't understand why people even cite it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

michellemalkin.com has a photograph, as well as some time lapse photography, of the protest. I know her website probably can't be used as a source in the article, but it should debunk the smaller estimates of the crowd size. There's no way this was only 75,000 people, despite that number being reported by sources that are usually "reliable." But yes, I agree that the article should cite the "reliable" sources, even though it is obvious that they are wrong. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor reported that that photo and time lapse footage are from a different event. Perhaps the 75,000 claim really is the real number. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo the Christian Science Monitor is talking about is not even the one shown by Malkin or others, nor does it address the many other photos, video, or estimates from the Park Service which said it seems to break records. I haven't even seen that photo shown anywhere except on a page that exists to "debunk" it - not that I doubt that some place wrongly used it, and it's granted that I haven't visited every blog out there, but I have been to many of the "top" blogs and news sites and simply have not seen that photo anywhere else. - Glynth (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that and telling me. So maybe the larger claims really are correct. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. If there were a million or two million people, it would be self-evident. We wouldn't even be discussing it. Look at some photographs of million+ marches and you'll see the difference. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(Blowing off steam) The only reason it's not self-evident is because it's basically been buried by the mainstream media! Nobody even bothers to TRY to count the number of people there, they just throw out the number 75,000, which is completely ridiculous to anyone who's seen the aerial shots. Meanwhile, they claim those very aerial shots are either photo-shopped or from a different march, which is a completely asinine argument that can be applied to ANYTHING! --Js2849 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So if you want a photo, a real photo, here it is.Photo from high point on the Capitol itself. Reference article for photo here. This is a crowd in the greater than 250K size range. SunSw0rd (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll forgive us if we don't accept your personal opinion about crowd estimation as a reliable source, though, right? Tarc (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what you're doing by accepting ABC's personal opinion of the crowd size, though? --Js2849 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN reported "Tens of thousands". Anyone got another reliable source? --Happysomeone (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here [3] is another source, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher: "My colleagues say it was in the tens of thousands, probably around 20,00 or 30,000 ".--Happysomeone (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation asserts "313,000 to 433,000 attendees".

The New American asserts "300,000".

The Cypress Times asserts "1.5 million people".

The CNSNEWS agency points out that "no government agency makes official estimates of crowd sizes for such events." SunSw0rd (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrm;

1- Partisan, unreliable.

2- "Napkin math" ?

3 - OpEd

4 - An article about the size controversy itself.

I really don't see any of this as adding anything tangible or useful to the discussion. Tarc (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, CNS, Heritage Foundation, New American and Cypress Times are not considered a reliable source for anything but their own opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"NBC Nightly News", aired nationally the evening of 9-12, reported "hundreds of thousands" were there and backed it up using the same traffic-cam that was used for the YouTube time-lapse video. http://www.blinkx.com/video/thousands-pack-c-to-protest-spending/yfKGrATsI0-EKUKLbJ-SLg . or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32813988#32813988 NBC News reporter Tom Costello says "our own people think hundreds of thousands of people were here." Kenatipo (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is so biased. It looks like half the article is talking about negative response to the protests. The article should actually talk about the tea parties, and not focus primarily on attacking the tea parties.

Why? That would mean majority of politically charged pages would have to be re-written with the truth on Wikipedia. That is completely unnecessary. And, we know where you live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.70.253 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the Global Warming page? I submit that this politically charged issue carry the same standard as that one. Negative items reguarding this topic should be on a seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.83.130 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Teabagging" Section

The second paragraph of the "Teabagging" section violates wp:npov by overly ridiculing supporters of tea party protests. The first paragraph explains all the relevant information about the subject. I propose deleting it. Thoughts?  EJNOGARB  00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the merit of this request. It is reporting on how several prominent media figures used the term in a derogatory manner. Kinda hard to talk about what the kerfuffle was all about if you don't have direct quotes of what was said. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The reaction section that follows makes no sense unless one knows what it's a reaction to. And the response to the choice of "teabag" is a legitimate part of teh reaction to the effort as a whole. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So here is the discussion where editors have discussed their objection to the present edit, which appears to have been ignored. I also find the edited title 'Origins' to be without merit for reasons previously stated, namely that it is inaccurate, imprecise and illogical.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it simply Teabagging is not accurate enough, and can draw unwanted criticism. I would whole-heartedly agree with labelling the section as

==Origins of ''Teabagging''==

so that its accurate, reflects purpose of section, and is hard to misconstrue in the navigation header. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes made.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is or is not covering the Protests? FNC Ad in the Washington Post, WSJ, and NY Post

On Friday, September 18th, an advertisement for Fox News Channel appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post with the headline, "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" Problem was, most, if not all of the rival networks mentioned, covered the story in one form or another.

Associated Press, 9/18/2009

DaDoc540 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a "The article requested is not available." on that. The Squicks (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant this story here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the same marketing tactic they used on April 15. Brand reinforcement. Well, they are confident they know their audience, aren't they?--Happysomeone (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox, The WSJ, & the new york post are all the same company, this should be noted here even for an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.86.147 (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on private property

I don't really understand the name - are they condoning attacks on private property by mobs - which is what the Boston Tea Party was, a bunch of smugglers who were angry that cheaper tea was being made avalible from a different source and took direct action. It seems a strange role model for groups who I guess would want to uphold the rights of private property.

The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act, conducted by the Sons of Liberty for "Taxation without representation." The Sons of Liberty believed that if they where to be taxed by the British Government, that they should have some say in the matter. The Sons of Liberty where successful in preventing the off-loading of tea in three other colonial ports, but where unable to do so in Boston. As a result of the Governor's refusal to allow the East India Trading Company ships to return to England, the Sons of Liberty boarded the ships at night, thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the ship and dumped the tea over the side, rather then concede to what they saw as an illegitimate government authority. 64.151.2.174 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Add mention of 9/12 Project

Since there is a 9-12 Project article now, I want to link it to this one because they are very intertwined. I just don't know where to put it. --Triadian (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

what about fox actively promoting?

fox producer heidi noonan can be seen "whipping up" the crowd just before a fox "reporter" went live with a broadcast. shouldnt we include this when talking about the tea parties? [4] or [5] and heres rick sanchez talking about it... [6] isnt this relevant? --Brendan19 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is covered, even in the lead. Not sure if a huge block of material belongs in the lead however. --Tom (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks, tom. youre right. i dont know how i missed that. maybe i should try sleeping more. what should be cut from the lead? --Brendan19 (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I removed the assertion that "Obama" was being protested since the citation supporting it made the assertion, but didn't offer any evidence. Particular plans that Obama supports may be protested, but the bulk of the protests seem to concern actions rather than ad hominem attacks. La Rouche supported ads may have drawn Obama as Hitler, but even many tea party supporters disown this type of attack. It seems dishonest, therefore, to present it as the main target. Perhaps if someone could find a citation from a tea party supporter making that claim, the assertion would have some support. But characterizations from non-sympathetic sources are probably not reliable sources for the goals of a particular movement. --Ryan Wise (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I returned the wording, per the cited sources. The citation is from a reliable source and as for offering any evidence, the reliable source is the evidence (not to mention numerous signs and posters, comments from participants and countless editorials...). I assume the attendees were Tea Party supporters, were they not? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

April 15 protest public attitude surveys

I would ask that folks review the ground we've already covered on this and come to a better understanding of why a balance is needed here. Please go look in the archive, I'm sure you'll find this section has been revisted numerous times. Edits removing one side or the other will likely result in a wholesale edit to reach consensus.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral EL?

User:Redthoreau has added this article from Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, to the external links section. How is this considered a neutral source for this topic? From The New York Times: "Named after Mary Harris Jones, a militant union organizer and socialist who died in 1930 at the age of 100, Mother Jones magazine never had any doubts about its identity. Since its start-up in 1976, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, Mother Jones has proudly called itself radical, muckraking and counterculture." APK because, he says, it's true 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, I never claimed it was a "neutral" source. However, the MJ article is not being used to cite any claims in the article, it is being included as a WP:RS to the external links as an editorial on the "movement". You are more than welcome to also include a favorable editorial on the protests as well, per WP:Undue. Moreover, I purposely linked to the magazine itself in the listing, so that any interested reader can click on the Wiki article and make up their own conclusions on the objectivity of the source in question.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said you claimed it was neutral. We shouldn't include a favorable editorial to balance the Mother Jones editorial. We should only use neutral sources. APK because, he says, it's true 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would be your definition of a neutral source on this topic? (please include an example) Nearly every source that comments on the matter has an editorialized bent. Those sources with complete ambivalence on the matter usually don't bother covering it at all. Furthermore, the editorial views of reliable sources are allowed to be included to display both a pro & con position. This does not violate WP:Npov, which relates to us as editors and the vernacular we choose to exhibit.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Politico article currently used in the EL section seems neutral. You're correct when saying, "Nearly every source that comments on the matter has an editorialized bent." But there's no reason to use a source with such a far-left editorialized bent. The far-right equivalent of Mother Jones would be WorldNetDaily. APK because, he says, it's true 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) I recommend that you both review Wikipedia:External links before proceeding. In my opinion the only EL that should be included is the collection of photos. The Politico, Salon, and Mother Jones links are not appropriate for ELs. Those three links might very well be appropriate as citations for new content in the article, but not as ELs. And as for NPOV it relates primarily to choice of content, not "to us as editors and the vernacular we choose to exhibit." See WP:UNDUE. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey about hypothetical third-party.

It's marginally related to this article (as this article is about the protests themselves) but there's a survey which gauges the support of a hypothetical "Tea Party" as an electoral party. Noteworthy, however, it's been added (and re-added) with completely incorrect language. I think the editor who is adding this is misunderstanding the text of the article, but oddly enough, keeps removing the part that states the actual conclusion of the pollsters. Also, we really don't need the peacock language introducing this. I've corrected the text to just read what is stated in the summary at the beginning of the article and moved it down to the "Responses" section. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the poll is notable for now and I appreciate the addition of it into the article. I also appreciate shifting the mention of the poll (and accurate attribution) into the "Responses" section, where I agree it appropriately belongs.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading/Unrelated Assertion about Astroturfing

"Tim Phillips, head of Americans for Prosperity, has remarked that the Republican Party is "too disorganized and unsure of itself to pull this off."[9]"

The body of this section was claiming that it was wealthy personalities from the business sector and professional organizing sector organizing these events. It seems here to suggest that this may not be true because of an inability of the Republican party to execute such action [and thus suggests that the events are genuine "grassroots" movements]. This seems unrelated to the capabilites of the above mentioned entities to organize the Tea Party protests and I think it should be changed to reflect that.

Any suggestions on how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.31 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Using qualifiers in the lede

Why do we need "perceived" when a more accurate way of expressing this is simply stating, "The protesters say they oppose x,y and z"?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Motives of Protests

I think this article could use a list of exactly what the protests are against (or for). I can't really get any specifics from this article. Quantumelfmage (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent point. Unfortunately, we have the self-stated motives of the protestors themselves (high taxes, smaller government, federalism), and then we have the motives ascribed to them by those that disagree with them (racism & ignorance). If we do this, expect a lot of edit warring, fringe, and vandalism Rapier1 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, there are a number of precise entries in this article that should give you the information you seek. Try the second, third and fourth sentences:

"The events are in protest of perceived big government, President Barack Obama, the federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well. The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases, specifically taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes."

--Happysomeone (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't one of the biggest reasons from the get go that they are protesting is that they are all against government involvement in health care (regulations on the insurance industry, etc.)? I didn't notice this listed prominently as a preliminary reason in this article. It lists it twice later as if it were a later development or even a separate organization/event.Shanoman (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests are all about protesting whatever the Obama administration is presently focusing on, so the article will periodically change. Six months ago it was stimulus spending; now it's healthcare reform; six months from now it'll be immigration reform or climate or whatever they decide to push to the front burner. Sorry for the confusion, but it's a moving target. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a fixed target: big government. Obama gets dragged in because (a) he's president and (b) as such, he wants bigger government. 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. I'd be interested to see the evidence of what you state, that this administration's growth agenda is as overt as you suggest. Pres. Bush appeared to have the opposite intentions with respect to government expansion, but at the end of his two terms he presided over one of the largest expansions of the federal government in US history.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as motives are concerned - in the grand scheme of things the protests are less about the right or left paradigm and more about how neither party serves the people, it touts more libertarian ideals often weighing more on the conservative side. Many factions inside these movements describe themselves as 'libertarian' or 'conservative', often stating that "...over half of participants in the Tea Party are former GOP members." and that "The tea party movement really is a libertarian and RP'er* (sic) idea not a GOP idea." (* Note: “RP'er”, which refers to the adherents of 2008 GOP presidential nominee Ron Paul and his largely libertarian ideology.) Based on current happenings inside various factions of the movement, is that although some tea party members like that they are in the news, and the movement has grown, many original members have grown to loathe what certain media personalities have done to change the movement (which was more libertarian in nature back to more conservative leanings), with conservative media personalities often flaunting that they themselves created the Tea Party movement. Strangesteve (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed incorrect election categories.

Those categories are for articles about actual elections, not subjects related to electoral politics (see the other items in the category for a better idea of what this is for). Also, per WP:CRYSTAL even if the categories were appropriate for this article, one can't predict that this article will have anything to do with the 2010 elections. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding Ron Paul Tea Parties

I had added a blurb about the Ron Paul Tea Parties in 2007 in the "History" section. The premise for the undoing of my edits for the individual who reverted my edits was that they're "not the same thing." I would like some clarification and a bit of public debate here on the discussion board. The Ron Paul Tea Parties are indeed an early example of tea parties (it almost seems ridiculous that I have to point out that a tea party is, in fact, a tea party). The ideology is the same (small government), even if the events themselves are not hosted by exactly the same individuals/groups. That's why I added the qualifier "An early example of...". -- 76.105.15.70 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a good start there, but my point remains the same. While this singular idea is somewhat shared between Ron Paul's '07-'08 campaign for US President and the "Tea Party" protesters, this did not grow wholly from the Paul campaign. Rather than an evolution, the link is IMHO tangential, at best. Your point about the shared idea is well taken. I think it should be included somehow, but if we were to use the inverted triangle method of presenting information, this should not be the first item to appear. Kind Regards. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So, more specifically, I'm reducing and moving the Ron Paul mention to conform with it's relevance to this article, as I describe above. I believe this is an improvement. However, I'll hold off for now until we hear back from the contributor - in the interest of promoting an open discussion and observing Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'm not waiting forever. I propose to make an edit over the next week, then.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, changed to bring the info more into line with known context. Also decided, as it is the history section, to follow the chronology rather than gravity, so kept the Paul mention up front. Think it transitions well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysomeone (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-I was going to say, the Ron Paul Tea Parties were going on in 2007 way before these Tea Parties came around in 2009. It sure didn't start with Rick Santelli; the vocabulary was already in use. There is a lot of overlap, but let's not miswrite history. - Steve N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.50.100 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the point remains that while the Paul Campaign co-opted the Boston Tea Party as part of his run for president as a Republican Party candidate, that doesn't make him the "founder" of the Tea Party Protest movement - nor even a "quite large" influence, as argued below. I maintain this is a tangential connection, and it is properly weighted in its current form in the article. For example, if Paul were such a major influence, why is he not the public spokesman and principal organizer of the Tea Party Protests? --Happysomeone (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the ron paul 2007 parties -- videos and numerous references are avail on goggle and youtube but saw no mention here - seems as one person said the tea party thing has evolved since 2007 to take on a different ideology from Ron Paul, but Im sad to hear that people have removed that part of the entry. Not disputing the "tea party" movement became more popular in 2009, but it started much earlier in say 2007 or so. references can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Influence http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/06/tea-party-purge-%E2%80%93-a-cause-without-a-rebel/ http://www.freedomrally12-16.org/ http://www.teaparty07.com http://freepoliticsdotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/will-ron-paul-supporters-shock-nation.html Strangesteve (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's influence is quite large, and I say this as a non-supporter of Paul. Article on 4/15/09 Protests: [7] "Organizer Eric Odom". Who is Eric Odom? A big Paul supporter: [8] [9]. How about Paul's statement taking credit for the Tea Parties: "The concept of the modern day Tea Party began on December 16, 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul's presidential campaign came together and raised over $6 million online in one day. The tremendous success of that event led activists in the freedom movement and members of the Campaign for Liberty to begin planning today's Tax Day Tea Parties." [10] This all needs to be addressed in the article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that his statement claiming that he started it is enough to verify that fact. At the very least, we would need a few reliable third-party sources for it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your pick: [11] [12] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing information about organizing groups

The article seems to have nothing about organizations that helped organize the protests. These include Tea Party Patriots (TPP) and the Tea Party Express. These organizations obviously were (and are) important; why no discussion whatsoever in the article about how or when they started, their size, their funding, their leadership, etc.?

Some sources other than those mentioned in the article

• "Tea Party Patriots: Are they here to stay?". USA Today. December 4, 2009.

• Joe Garofoli (December 13, 2009). "Tea Party radicals gear up for 2010 elections". San Francisco Chronicle.

• Zachary Roth (November 12, 2009). "Party Foul! Tea Partiers Eat Their Own In Bitter Internal Feud". TPMMuckracker.

• Zachary Roth (December 28, 2009). "Majority Of Tea Party Group's Spending Went To GOP Firm That Created It". TPMMuckracker.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. In this regard, yesterday I added the following in the "Astroturf allegations" section:

Our Country Deserves Better (OCDB), the political action committee (PAC) behind the Tea Party Express, directed almost two thirds of all its funding to the Republican-affiliated political consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place. According to FEC filings, from July through November 2009, OCDB spent around $1.33 million, and of that sum, $857,122 went to a Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm named Russo, Marsh, and Associates, or people associated with it. Tea Party Patriots, a rival faction of conservative activists has denounced Tea Party Express as a creature of Republican political professionals that lacks grassroots authenticity, with one TPP member, who had examined the FEC filings asking: "What would the true grassroots people think if they knew their money is being spent in this manner?"

My contribution was deleted with the comment: "what is noteworthy about this blogger?" Talking Points Memo is a news organization and not just a "blog." According to its website (About section) It is:

one of the most innovative political news organizations in the country. Media watchers consider TPM the site to watch as the news business transforms from the old world of print to the online digital future. In March 2009 TPM topped TIME Magazine's list of 25 Best Blogs of 2009. "Talking Points," wrote Time's editors, "has become the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future." And in September of 2009 The Atlantic listed founder Josh Marshall among the nation's 50 most influential commentators. Its combination of breaking news, investigative reporting and smart analysis have made it a must-read for DC insiders, the media who cover them and politically engaged people everywhere.

In addition, the report is alleging facts (e.g. the FEC filings showing spending by the Tea Party group; quote from a Tea Party group member) and is not primarily cited for any opinions of the "blogger." My contribution should be added back in short order unless there is a further objection of merit.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the TPM postings (in fact, I cited two of them as potential sources). I agree with you that this should be considered a reliable source - there are several paid employees, who (I believe) were hired away from newspapers.

But I'm not sure that it follows that this is astroturfing. What we don't know is where the money came from that the PAC sent (via TPE) to the consulting firm, and we also don't know the extent to which the consulting firm used the money to simply organize protesters. (In my mind, "astroturfing" is where paid professionals are generating letters and other indications of political involvement by citizens when in fact there is no such ground-level interest in the issue; that's not at all clear.)

In other words, rather than using the existing astroturfing section, I'm suggesting that there be a separate section on "Organizations", which could include the TMP information without the inflammatory quote. But someone is going to have to do the work of figuring out when these organizations came into being, and what they did, and (ideally) where their funding came from, and how their leadership got to be in leadership positions. (TPE seems easier than TPP in this regard.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I have no objection to adding this in a separate (new) section.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of alleged astroturfing warrants its own second-level section, rather than the third-level section under Responses it has now. To that point, the allegations of astrotrufing are central to understanding the responses to the protests, not the other way around; covering the facts where it is now seems an afterthought. Any thoughts before I move it? Odd nature (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Russo, Marsh, and Associates is Move America Forward, BTW. Odd nature (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this information IMHO needs copyediting and appears redundant. The information added appears to suggest that yet another corporate-funded consultant shop, Move America Forward, is involved in supporting the "Tea Party Express". That's an interesting footnote, but we already have the guts of the assertion and it seems like this is getting into the weeds a bit. I'd suggest roping in this news story alongside the TPM story to make your point about the alternate factions of the Tea Party Protest--Happysomeone (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Adding Ron Paul/HuffPo Tea Party 'political muscle' comments to Tea Party Protests

I suppose this is partly an attempt to reflect some of my WP:NOTE concerns with some of the information that has been in and out of this article over the last several months. So here we have Ron Paul, cited by several contributors here as a strong influence on the Tea Party Protests, weighing in on the Tea Party Protest movement. So, is this notable? Then, we have from the same story a Tea Party reference to an AP story about the resignation of Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer, which reads:

Greer said there was a vocal group within the party that would say or do anything to embarrass him. He said if he didn't resign, that group would try to "burn the house down and try and destroy the Republican Party." "These individuals who have turned their guns on fellow Republicans instead of focusing our efforts on defeating Democrats have done nothing to serve our party," Greer said.

Interesting that he didn't name who the group was, but it seems fairly clear this is the Tea Party. So, also notable? And if so, how should this be written? And if so, under which section should it go? Anyone want to take a stab at it? TeaParty1? Xenophrenic? Anyone else? --Happysomeone (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually would agree that both the Florida quote--and the original NYT quote--are worthy of inclusion because they reflect both public perception and a real political development. I do not feel too strongly about their placement, but I'd suggest the NYT quote belongs in media responses and the Florida reference in political responses. Just my two cents, for what it's worth (which I'm starting to learn isn't too much, apparently). TeaParty1 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-effacing comments aside, there's merit in your contributions, as I've noted before. It doesn't simply work by dint of your pure genius. You need to build consensus. On balance, what about the Ron Paul quotes?

I bring these items up because I object to the ever-widening scope of this article. See WP:SS. Please see the discussion below, "Title and scope of article" and editor John Broughton.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some good questions. Here is a big one too: I think increasingly this entire thing is being referred to as the Tea Party movement, not just protests. I think a change in the article name might be sensible, given its increasing involvement in political races, etc. I do continue to feel that NYT article is worthy of citation and that the Teabagging section is entirely too lengthy in proportion to its relevance. But like you said, I do not sense much consensus on my views on those issues, though I do note another supporting comment for inclusion of the NYT quote above. TeaParty1 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Title and scope of article

The article currently begins The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States in 2009.

Obviously the word "are" is wrong; 2009 is over with. Perhaps the word should be "were" - that at least would be technically correct. That raises the issue of scope - if there are protests in 2010, do they go in this article? In that case, the article would be about nationally coordinated protests that began in 2009, and would continue to grow for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and ... protests? Or should we just cap the thing, by changing the article title to "2009 Tea Party protests", with another article like "Tea Party movement" covering 2010 and out, plus some background information from the current article?

Finally, since this article focuses on protests, where should Wikipedia cover other Tea Party-related things like the forthcoming Tea Party Nation convention in February - in this article (2009 protests??), or in another article, or not at all? Similarly, where should ongoing Tea Party-related groups be covered - in this article or elsewhere? I'm thinking specifically of the Tea Party Nation, the Tea Party Patriots, and the Tea Party Express, and of details such as when they were founded, their leadership, their size, their funding, and their goals. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! I am in firm agreement with the suggestion this article should be "capped" and renamed "2009 Tea Party protests", while a new article should be created, called "Tea Party political movement" operating under the general parameters you describe. Clearly, this remains an active meme — though IMHO serious doubts remain over how relevant this political trend actually is. Will we actually see an organized political party emerge this year? I would be very interested to learn about the details of this at a "Tea Party political movement", but not from the "Tea Party Protests" article.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be renamed, rather than "Tea Party political movement", the common reference seems to be just Tea Party movement. Thoughts? Publicus 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that this article should be capped and much of it, the part that doesn't deal specifically with the protests, should be budded off to another article. Also, I agree with Publicus that it should simply be called "Tea Part movement" as this is how most mainstream RS's refer to it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this productive discussion in the next section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Two suggestions on this article:

1.) The view of Americans toward the Tea Party movement (that is, the political popularity of it) is among the most important facts in this article, and maybe the most important. It warrants early citation in the lede.

2.) The amount of space dedicated to the pejorative "Tea bagging" is unwarranted. I believe the entire section should be removed. Any such organization or movement could include such a section. And that there is more space dedicated to this than the polling results is completely ill-balanced. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As for #1, the lede is a summary of what is in the article. There isn't much information about this, so it's hard to call it "among the most important facts in this article." Are you basing this on anything more than that Rasmussen poll (which you kept misquoting in the article)? That poll wasn't even about the tea party movement, it was about a hypothetical political party which has yet to emerge from the movement. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There were two polls that I cited. The first showed that a majority of Americans (51 percent) viewed the Tea Party movement "favorably" or "very favorably." And the second showed that a hypothetical Tea Party candidate bested a Republican candidate in a three-way race--and the Tea Party and Republican together decimated the Democrat. Those two polls tell the biggest story of this movement: That is has quickly (justifiably or not) developed a huge following of political consequence. That belongs in the lede and the article. And the tea bag stuff is stupid. It would be like dedicating a section of the Bill Clinton biography to those who called him Bubba, how it originated, every citation of it, etc. It's understood that a few media personalities who oppose this movement made that joke and I suppose they thought it was funny, but it doesn't even have a connection with the real purpose of the movement and just gutter talk. It should be removed. TeaParty1 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the poll, which is important to the article but not the lead, I would add an edit along the lines of, "a conservative movement increasing in popularity and supporting several Congressional candidates in 2010" to the lead. Both are easily cited and summarized. The poll information could be added to a separate section along with a mention of the first annual Tea Party convention being held in Nashville in February. Palin's the keynote speaker. Scribner (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "increasing in popularity" is cited anywhere, (and it rings of peacock words to phrase it that way). Back to TeaParty's comments, I don't see how you can call those two polls "the biggest story of this movement." You might personally find it the most interesting aspect, but they're not intrinsically part of the story (the notability is marginal, you rarely see them mentioned in stories about this). I'm not really sure how significant at all the hypothetical poll is. I find it highly unlikely that they're going to form an actual political party and run third-party candidates. More likely, they'll just publish "voter guides" supporting various GOP candidates. But that's all WP:CRYSTAL, so there's no need to address it now. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not serious in your claim that the tea party movement hasn't increased in popularity and you doubt a cite exists proving that fact. Also, I agree TeaParty1, the teabagger section should be at least reduced in size to about one third it's current size. The lead of this article needs smoothing over to make it more readable. But, yes, I support your inclusion of "increasing in popularity" in the lead. Scribner (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your own belief that it has increased in popularity isn't verifiable or reliable. We need sources for that. Also, what is meant by "increased in popularity?" Increased since when? Since it's a movement that sprang up this year, obviously it has increased since a year ago. But is it more popular now than it was when these town hall protests were taking place in the summer? That has not been demonstrated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the growth in popularity is basically this: One year ago, there was no Tea Party movement, so no one viewed it "favorably" or "very favorably." Now, nine months later, half the country views it favorably or very favorably, and 1 in 4 voters would vote for a Tea Party candidate over a Democrat and Republican, two long-established powerful political parties. When a movement arises from nothing and over half the country views it favorably, that has political consequence, and it's really the biggest part of this story--bigger than individual protests, bigger than a gutter phrase used by its opponents, etc. It now holds major political influence, and that's cited both objectively in polls and subjectively in comments by political experts (both supportive and opposed to the movement). This section deserves broader attention, including in the lede. And, really, I'd vote for eliminating the tea bagger section; it's not encyclopedic, really. TeaParty1 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're heading into soapbox territory now. But if your argument is that the movement is more popular than it was when it didn't exist, well, yeah, but so what? We wouldn't use that language because it would be redundant and ridiculous (just as an article about the movie 2012 wouldn't mention that ticket sales are much higher now than they were a year ago, when the movie was still being made). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If Bill Clinton's nickname "Bubba" had controversial significance than it would probably have its own section. This is part of history and this section should either have it's own Wikipage or otherwise exist as-is. I don't think it is even too long and is actually quite interesting from a sociological point of view. In fact, I don't think that the "teabagging" aspect is insignificant or "stupid" (sources?) at all; it demonstrates not only an interesting historical tidbit but also the existance and exercise of disapproval by certain sections of the populace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.31 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TeaParty1, I recommend finding some cites that say the Tea Party has increased or continues to increase in popularity instead of using the poll in the lead. Like I said, I'll support that inclusion. I'll see what I can find to help. Scribner (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree that the growth is self-evident. But I do believe the fact that about 1 in 4 voters now would choose a Tea Party candidate over a Republican and Democratic one, and that 51 percent of the nation views this movement "favorably" or "very favorably" belongs in the lede and, in fact, is the most consequential aspect of this entire movement. I do not agree that a handful of opponents using a gutter phrase to describe it--which doesn't even have any connectivity with the movement itself--is at all meaningful and, indeed, aside from fringe elements, mainstream media by and large has stopped using it after they were embarrassingly educated on its alternative meaning. Polls to the lede. Scrap the teabagging, or limit it to a sentence or two. As is, the article is clearly slanted in a way to depict the movement negatively, downplaying the most important aspect of the movement (its support and thus political clout) and overplaying some stupid word that doesn't even have any political relevance and is school yard name-calling. TeaParty1 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, overall, with the exception of putting the poll in the lead. One paragraph on the term teabagger is probably plenty. Also, omitted from the article is that tea partiers view themselves as fiscal conservatives, which should be included in the lead. I searched for links last night that state the movement has increased in popularity. I'm not finding much from msm stating the fact in exactly those terms. Scribner (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with these two suggestions. One poll does not a political movement make. In my opinion, Scribner the jury remains very much out on how popular this protest movement is. I'd be interested to learn more about that, but not on this page. This page describes the "Tea Party Protests". Once established as a political party or codified as a political plank (such as Contract for America), a Tea Party Wikipedia page should be established. This page shouldn't serve as a proxy for that.

I'd also oppose altering or reducing the 'Teabagging' section, at least for now. It's clear the term and it's affiliates possess some significance, such as recognized here by the Oxford-American Dictionary. Simply because you find it distasteful does not render it from discussion, as has been noted numerous times in this forum before.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick response: Why is this movement notable? It is notable because the movement is perceived to have political influence. What is the measure of that influence? Only two things: 1.) The fact that there have been a lot of generally well-attended rallies; and 2.) The two Rasmussen polls (and maybe others) that show that a majority of the nation views this movement "favorably" or "very favorably" and that a hypothetical Tea Party candidate is drawing the vote of one in four voters in a hypothetical race against a Democrat and Republican--and besting the Republican candidate. If you fail to reference that in the lede and then complete the article with all the trivial citations of "tea bagger," the article loses credibility and becomes (as it is now) quite obviously slanted against the movement. I don't think any of us want the article to be viewed that way, so those are my suggestions: 1.) Rasmussen polls (both) to the lede; and 2.) greatly tighten or remove the "tea bagger" put downs as generally inconsequential (which they are). TeaParty1 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I remain unpersuaded by your metrics. I agree that there is a perception of political influence, but 1) I challenge you to provide a basis for "generally well-attended rallies". Based on the attendance I see reported in the present article, I take that sort of statement with a healthy dose skepticism. As for polling info from a single marketing/opinion data company (Rasmussen), I think it's best that we hold off for now until we accumulate more data that is less prone to accusations of bias. The greater the data from a larger diversity of sources — that are presumably independent of the subject (see WP:GNG) — would bolster your argument for inclusion. However, I see you continue to press for a direct mention in the lede, which I think is inappropriate and unlikely, given the flexible and temporary nature of public opinion (see WP:NTEMP and WP:LEDE). Kind Regards. --Happysomeone (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New NBC/Wall Street Journal poll now shows Tea Party movement has better favorable/disfavorable support than either major political party: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2154426.aspx This and the two Rasmussen polls belong in the lede to capture most notable aspect of movement: its current political support. And I've reread that "Tea bagger" section. It's exhaustingly long, and it seems unencyclopedic. Fine to include quotes from opponents of the movement, but a section dedicated to name-calling by a few media outlets (some of which have apologized for using the word after they learned its alternative meaning) is juvenile and unencyclopedic. In fact, I think it's even demeaning and belittling to the movement's critics; surely they have more persuasive argument than the fact that some jackass somewhere came up with a sexually-oriented epithet that doesn't even make any sense as it relates to what the movement really is. TeaParty1 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I politely observe that you are focusing a bit too much on the least important (yet notable) part of the article? At some point, 'Tebagging' may indeed drop off the end of the story and be folded into the lede and moved & disambiguated, as Deep Throat is. But that time is not now. Frankly, in my opinion each section of article is bloated. You may not be aware, however, that the so called "news-style" is not the only article style found on Wikipedia (see WP:TONE). In particular, see WP:SS. Just as the film Deep Throat faded from popular memory, so, too may the term Teabagging. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, it would be presumptuous to declare it as such. Or at least until you can build/reach consensus. Which you haven't.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "teabagging" is a term used as a dismissive pajorative by those that disagree with the tea-party movement. It was used by commentators on a television network, and later its use was decried by that network as sophmoric frat house humor at its worst. Its continued use is only maintained by those that are steadfastly against whet the Tea Party movement stands for, so aside from a definative mention in a "critisism" section there is no point in including it in this article. Rapier1 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The continued resistance to this section of the article and the reasons given for removal only reinforces its relevance. IMHO, it's interesting an argument can be made that popularizing the sexual-association of the term with the so-called Tea Party movement was actually begun by the protesters themselves. If you could please review this discussion in its entirety (including the archived discussions), you might understand why it remains there, and probably will for some time to come. I'd say you have a much better case in the near term for at least reducing the scope of the 'Teabagging' section at the Tea Party movement page as events progress, rather than here where the term jumped from "frat-house humor" and the film Pecker and widely entered the modern lexicon. It depends on how culturally relevant the term remains, not on your personal scruples.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks' media reaction to the tea party movement

Re User:Brothejr's revert of my rather uncontroversial edit, let's discuss, per WP:BRD

• B for Bold (although I didn't think it a particularly BOLD edit at the time -- I thought it a rather uncontroversial edit that advanced the story in the article): I edited the article this morning to reflect a recent media reaction of a regular and serious public intellectual: New York Times columnist, David Brooks. I merely added to the media reaction section the following sentence, with citation:

In January 2010, New York Times columnist David Brooks, after reciting a number of opinion polls and other sources, suggested that the coming decade of 2010-2019 has the potential to become "The Tea Party Teens" in U.S. political history.

• R for Revert: User:Brothejr reverted, stating his/her reason: "Media responses: removed addition as it does not fit into the section and violates WP:CRYSTAL"

• D for Discuss:

1) I fail to see how a media reaction, by the regular and acclaimed New York Times columnist, stating that 2010-2019 has the "potential to shape the coming decade" does not fit in the section. The section is about "Media reaction" after all. This is media reaction, albeit not to the "tea party protests" (the name of the article) per se but rather about the tea party movement as a broader phenomena of US political history. So, number one, I believe that the NYT article reflects valid WP:V/verifiable information that should be subject to addition/improvement of this article.

2) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. WP:Crystal is about unverified speculation by Wikipedia editors. It is explicitly not about analysis done by serious sources in durably-archived media about what may happen in the future. If such a source asserts that so and so is possible, then a reference to that source, as was done in this case, meets the core WP policy of WP:V.

3) Are you concerned that this info from the NYT is not about the protests per se, but rather about the tea party folks (tea partiers???) as a movement? If so, then a separate discussion may be in order about whether this article is correctly named. Perhaps "Tea party movement" or "Tea party _______" might be better than the more limiting "Tea party protests." If this is a concern, let's start a new section to discuss.

What do other editors think? I would like to re-add the simple, verifiable sentence that I previously added and which User:Brothejr reverted. N2e (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask a simple question: does the addition talk/speculate about possible future events? If so, then WP:CRYSTAL applies. Brothejr (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, from WP:CRYSTAL: From point number 3: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Brothejr (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the more applicable policies in this situation are the ones concerning weight, fringe and relevance. The article section conveys significant media responses (not the response of one person in the media) to the protests that ranged from supportive to mocking/dismissive to highly critical - and several examples were given of each. Is there a significant segment of the media now expressing the view that tea party protests "have the potential to shape the coming decade", or is this one of many insignificant peripheral views held only by few? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic's WP:NOTE reasoning. This article should not be a repository for every instance that journalists decide to opine on this protest movement, just as we should not record every instance that a poll is conducted about the same. There are many, many, many Op-Ed articles that have been written about the Tea Party Protests — some more esteemed than Mr. Brooks — that do not appear here. IMHO, I somewhat dislike the so-called "Media Reaction" segment because it is so credulously derivative. But I understand it's relevance in the context of the political skirmishing and propaganda that ensued after these people gathered and made a statement. We do not need to breathlessly note each instance that a notable person pops up, however, and spouts off about it. Please don't add this information into the article.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL policy applies to a Wikipedia editor speculating about the future. Not only does it not include the speculation of experts, media, etc., but the policy even specifically references that such predictions are notable, worthy of inclusion and outside the parameters of this policy. It reads:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses.

I am reinserting it. Please do not continue reverting but feel free to discuss here. TeaParty1 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

TeaParty1 - I don't believe the WP:Crystal policy is the issue here; see above. You are inserting an opinion of an individual (and a poorly framed 'opinion' at that, as you meshed an article title with actual commentary, haphazardly) in a section devoted to "Media response". Is there really such a media response (provide multiple links, please), or just this individual's opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a New York Times column on the prospective influence of this movement over the next decade needs to be inserted in a section dedicated to its media coverage, especially in an article containing half a dozen off-the-cuff quotes from B-list media personalities, just because they said the word "teabagger." TeaParty1 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an other crap exists, so why not this argument. While your disdain for the whole "teabagging" mockery is noted, there is a major difference: The mockery was significant; across several news networks, talk shows and comedy shows, print media and the blogosphere. In fact, it became so pervasive that the mockery itself became the focus of considerable criticism (I think I even heard some apologies issued). Now contrast that to a one-off opinion piece by one individual. All I'm asking is: Is this a rare minority opinion we're inserting, or is it truly a media-wide position? I really don't know - honestly, I haven't been following it as closely as of late. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While the mockery might be 'significant' -it is not significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences. This is an article about -the Tea Parties-, so one can assume readers are coming to this page for information on the tea parties, not for a page on sexual innuendo and mudslinging. Media reaction, however, is intrinsic to the Tea Party topic, because since the Tea Parties happening media reaction to the Tea Parties became a topic, even contention, of the Tea Parties. Amonite: Feb 2nd 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The NYT quote you removed is a broadly held (polls) and broadly cited (media/politicians) view: that the movement is very politically consequential. TeaParty1 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove a quote. What quote should we be looking at here? As for broadly held views, they generally have numerous citable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a grand total of two polls on the recent influence of a hypothetical "Tea Party". I see very little evidence at this point of a "broadly held and broadly cited view". As a frequent contributor, TeaParty1, I can understand how this must be irksome, but my feeling is your direction is a bid leading. Be patient. I have a feeling we'll see a whole lot more of this polling in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections and the media echo-chamber will do it's best to interpret it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate seems remarkable, in that the original claim was not all that bold: a major media figure, in the New York Times no less, discusses the tea party movement and then closes by asserting that, while he is "not a fan of this movement[, he] can certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade." That's all. This definitely should be something that can be covered in the only extant WP article on the said movement: this one. Brooks and the New York Times are not the only media to be discussing the "tea party movement". See, for example, here, here, here, and here. These are sources I found, from across the political spectrum, in just five minutes of googling around. This expansion of the political phenomenon, from protests to movement, from short-term street action to medium-term organized political interest group, should not be excised from Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are these annual meme-style op-ed articles that discuss the Tea Party Protests really that notable? I'm not convinced.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move to Tea Party movement

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved to Tea Party protests, 2009'  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

}

Tea Party protests → Tea Party movement — More common usage. Publicus 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the renaming/move to Tea Party movement. TeaParty1 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a variant of this; I think most of the article should move to 2009 Tea Party protests, which should be a daughter article to Tea Party movement, and that the main article should have much less of what is now in this article (focusing on the broader matters of organizations, participants, the upcoming February 2010 convention, etc, with a section summarizing and linking to the 2009 protests daughter article. Otherwise, some of the information in this article will need to be removed, because the article will get too long.'

I am suggesting that a separate (daughter) article on just the 2009 protests is merited because they were so unusual and well-covered by the media, and because protests in 2010 are going to be seen as part of the larger movement, not something interesting in and of itself. (I also note the existence of List of Tea Party protests, which I also suggest be renamed List of 2009 Tea Party protests. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think I like it for all the reasons given above. Regarding daughter articles I suggest one modification:

• Tea Party protests, 2009 instead of 2009 Tea Party protests
• List of Tea Party protests, 2009 instead of 2009 List of Tea Party protests

Sbowers3 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea John Broughton. I like the idea of "2009 Tea Party protests" holding all the protest info, with a broader "Tea Party movement" article covering ongoing development of the movement/issues/events. Publicus 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John Broughton and nomenclature mods suggested by Sbowers3, which appear to conform with similar Wikipedia articles.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposals by John Broughton and nomenclature mods suggested by Sbowers3. I think that clearly a political movement has arisen at this time that is being discussed by journalists in reliable and durably archived media. At the same time, the Tea Party protests of 2009 were also notable, as is witnessed by the existence of a well-sourced and fact-checked article on the protests. N2e (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton that the protests should encompass a unique daughter article and that it should be capped at 2009. I would add that such an article would be smaller than the one we have here as this article also deals significantly with the "movement" and such information should be moved to the proposed movement article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like consensus here, but I guess we should wait until the 17th. In the meantime, here's some information (from a recent NY Times Magazine article) that I found interesting: -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

“Tea Party” has become something of a catch-all term to describe an impassioned and empowered group of populist conservatives. They are largely antigovernment, a lot of them are self-described libertarians, and many say they are new to political activism. It is easy to think of them as a singular entity and a growing one. “There is a new sheriff in town in American politics, and that is the Tea Party people,” said Lloyd Marcus, a musician from Deltona, Fla., who performs his “American Tea Party Anthem” at the events.

But in fact, there are many Tea Party groups across the country that exist under a variety of umbrellas, with different agendas and aims (Tea Party Nation, TeaPartyExpress.org). Some are organized into formal political-action committees; others are little more than a ragtag of protesters. It is not clear whether these Tea Party amalgams will ever grow into a functional and cohesive political movement that can actually get candidates elected to office. Fred O’Neal, an Orlando lawyer, recently registered an official Tea Party with Florida’s Secretary of State. “We are not the placard-waving, funny-hat-wearing people,” said O’Neal, an election law specialist who says he was an “Ed Muskie Democrat” in his college days. “We are willing to do the political dirty work.”

What’s evident is that a lot of Tea Party participants feel no special allegiance to the Republican Party or its candidates. In a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a generic Tea Party candidate outpolled a generic Republican, 23 percent to 18 percent (the generic Democrat drew 36 percent, and another 22 percent were undecided). O’Neal says he plans to recruit candidates to run for office against both Democrats and Republicans. “Glenn Beck would be the ideal leader for our group,” O’Neal says, referring to the Fox host and — according to a sign at the tea party in Orlando — someone who should be president.

(outdenting) I suddenly reallized that I'm not certain exactly what is the consensus. So let me summarize two different proposals:

• move Tea Party protests to Tea Party protests, 2009
• write new Tea Party movement article

OR

• move Tea Party protests to Tea Party movement
• write new Tea Party protests, 2009 article

I think I prefer the first option and I think that's what John Broughton proposed at the top of this section.

In the meantime I am starting a new List of Tea Party protests, 2010 article and plan to move the current List of Tea Party protests to List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Agreed? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm in favor of the first option, John Broughton's description above captures more of the details I was worried about.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This move was never made or never made properly. I have re-introduced the subject of merging here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Merge proposed

Just in case you didn't notice, there has been another proposed merge with the Tea Party movement article. Discuss.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the federal budget?

In the lead, it says they oppose the federal budget. Are you sure they oppose the existence of a federal budget. Shouldn't this say they oppose an extremely large federal budget or a federal budget that isn't paid for? Ltwin (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure most teabaggers know precisely what they are supposed to oppose. I'm sure a plurality would say they oppose the federal budget, not really knowing that the budget keeps the power on, but may or may not specifically oppose the 2010 or 2011 budgets. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy of the movement

I think it would be helpful to break down the different entities that make up this movement. Here are two segments from the Rachel Maddow Show that cover the different organizations, although the segments are probably too POV to use as sources. Below that is a list of the key groups we might include. Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34626539#34626539 (starting 2:45) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34815564#34815564 (starting 1:50)

• Libertarian anti-tax movement ~ Original pre-Obama activists
• Tea Party Patriots ~ Grassroots group with help from Freedomworks
• Tea Party Express ~ Bus tour run by consulting firm Russo Marsh and Associates
• Tea Party Nation ~ Holding a National Convention in February with Sarah Palin as a speaker. (Star Tribune news story)

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the last bullet point slightly, and added a source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The questions of "who" seem most relevant to the movement page so I copied this section over to Talk:Tea_Party_movement. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed genealogy does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.

Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The move

I moved the portions dealing with the movement's history, political positions, and external reactions to Tea Party movement.

The remaining material in Tea Party protests, 2009 should be focused on specific events and their characteristics. (As a side note, I think cutting it off at 2010 is premature.)

Anyway, I'm sure the move thus far is imperfect; we will probably want to add a bit more protest info to the movement article and vice versa. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

---

So many people playing games with history here, I dont where to write this. My opinion is that the TEA Party Protest should remain whole, as they are. My reason being that that that title more accurately reflects the history of 2009 up until polls showed them more popular than either the Republicans or the Democrats.

The TEA Party Movement Article should be a broad overview of the principles, values, issues, and activities of the group since it became more popular that the Republicans or the Democrats.

Next the proposed geneology does not work for me either. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.

Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses.

The TEA Party Movement and protests are not one group. There are about 20 major TEA Party groups and 50 minor groups. You can find a list of many of them here http://donmashakteapartyindependentdissent.blogspot.com/2010/01/comprehensive-list-of-tea-party.html

---

The proposed geneology does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.

Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) CynicalPatriot (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Photos

In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this? Might this be something the article should discuss? - the demographics of the Tea Party Protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Demographics of Photos"

"In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this?" Yes, the reason is because most Republicans are white and most of Obama's supporters are children. The left-wing media went to great lengths to make it appear as though racism was the key motivating factor behind the protests, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth: 99.9% of Republicans hold Obama in a higher regard than either Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, or Biden. As bad as Obama is, he's actually one of the better Democrats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.222.202 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please keep comments on topic.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of irrational and incorrect statements are the same ones used to propagate this "movement". Perhaps we can add those comments to the "Tea Party" article. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think comments like those left by 68.54.222.202 have any place on wikipedia. Even in discussions. Is it okay to remove this? Is there any substance to those comments to warrant leaving it up? Cpyder 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder (talk • contribs)

I disagree with User:Cpyder about the subject-related comments by 68.54.222.202 and hope we allow editors' comments to reveal what they do of the editor. I agree with Cpyder that the photographs don't seem to match the CNN poll which indicates 20% of the Tea Party protesters were non-white. Do we have better photographs in commons or in our personal collections which better represent this CNN poll as a source? If these photographs don't accurately represent the polled demographic of actual protesters, there should be photos out there which show many non-white Tea Party protesters, right? Let's see one, or reconsider using the CNN poll as an RS in this particular case. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Independence Day subsection possibly consists of a List of references

The first paragraph under the Independence Day and other post-April 15 Tea Parties subsection is almost entirely an embedded list of protest events. Wouldn't that paragraph be better titled by its own subsection name, for example: List of other protest events from April through June.

The next three events (June 29, July 4 and July 17) have only one sentence to describe each. Shouldn't these either be expanded significantly and placed in their own subsections or reduced to a few words and included in the "List of" subsection mentioned above?

The last event (Feb 4) occurred in 2010 and doesn't belong in an article about 2009. It should be removed.

By the way, the guideline for embedded lists says that "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed". Since we already have such a stand-alone list in List of Tea Party protests, 2009, wouldn't it be best to include any simple references in the aforementioned List article (if they don't exist there already) and remove the "List of other protest events..." subsection from this article altogether?

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost the whole article, not just that subsection, should be rewritten to summarize what is in the two List of TP protest articles. I would summarize along these lines: early events, February 27, from then to April 15, April 15, from then to July 4, July 4, July 17, from then to August 22, August 22, August 28, from then to September 12, September 12 Washington, September 12 not Washington, rest of year, TP Express, the National Convention, ongoing events.

The article should make clear that there were events almost weekly, not just on the big days, that they were all over the country, and should try to summarize the focus of the protests. The early ones were mostly about the stimulus, then they broadened into spending in general and the bailouts. From mid-July to mid-September they were mostly at Representatives' offices and were against proposed health care reform. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that someone will have to find reliable sources that summarize the protests as a whole (or in parts), not just news feeds that report one protest at a time. The article may not say that, for example, "The early ones were mostly about the stimulus" without citing verifiable sources for that opinion. We are not pundits or even news analysts, we simply summarize other peoples' analysis and judgements in encyclopedic form.

Please bear in mind that right now, the entire subsection is simply an embedded list and, in my opinion, should be removed, unless there is a strong possibility that this subsection will be improved with the appropriate inline citations for all analysis in the next week or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We have lots of RS for individual protests. I do not agree that we need RSs that summarize them. We can (and IMO should) say that various protests were about the stimulus and provide several refs (perhaps for larger events) to that effect. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the major disagreement I have with Sbowers and possibly others. I do think that everything needs RS when called on. Please see WP:SYN for a discussion of this policy. Since almost all news reports of individual protests are, in effect, primary sources, I think WP:PRIMARY applies as well.

For example, if someone added a {{citation needed}} template to "Many of these events were focused on opposition to state or local taxes and spending, rather than with national issues" here and no one responded in (say) a week, he'd be perfectly justified in deleting that sentence. Note that adding a few citations about individual protests are, IMO, not sufficient, unless you change the sentence to start off with "A few of these events...".

How do you pick those protests included in this article from all the hundreds listed in the two "List of" articles without engaging in original synthesis? Perhaps we could have a discussion on this topic in its own section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Which protests? below. (Sorry, I got bored. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend moving the article to Tea Party protests (without the year). Sbowers3 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I realize that as this article has transitioned from being the main article to a daughter article of Tea Party movement, identity issues are somewhat inevitable. I believe that it would help this article find its proper role in relation with the parent article if we removed the restriction to only 2009. --Izauze (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with moving TPp2009 back to TPp is that we'll need sysop help in deleting the TPp redirect. Then we can move TPp2009, preserving the history. Since TPp redirects to TPp2009 right now, I suggest that we table any movements until later and concentrate on improving the articles. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some consensus for the move, and no disagreement, I was bold and moved it. If it turns out that there is a consensus to reverse that, we can always move it back again. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least this discussion is taking place in the correct forum.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How did you move the history of TPp2009 to TPp without first deleting the TPp redirect? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph in the lead

The first paragraph says:

The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing big government,[5] President Barack Obama,[6] the U.S. federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters argue are wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well.[7] The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases[3]. Protests have been held on April 15, 2009 to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day,[6][8] over the weekend of July 4, 2009 to coincide with Independence Day, and on September 12, 2009 to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

In my opinion, the second sentence beginning with "Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing..." is mostly about the Tea Party movement as opposed to the protests themselves. This is true for the third sentence ("They oppose...") and the fourth ("The protesters also...") as well.

Since we already have a Tea Party movement article and in accord with the idea that the Tea Party protests article should describe the actions of the participants and how the protests have evolved, I suggest that the first paragraph be reduced to:

The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a larger Tea Party movement. Protests have been held on:

• April 15, 2009, to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day[6][8],
• over the weekend of July 4, 2009, to coincide with Independence Day, and
• September 12, 2009, to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Firmly agreed.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this heads more in the right direction. I might tweak here and there but the only substantial difference from what I would put is that I do believe there should be SOME brief mention of the nature of the protests or movement - even that's as simple as adding just "anti-tax" in there somewhere...

Also, if we're to create a small summarized list like that, it should probably mention that these are just a couple of what are considered the more important protests (there are obviously many others) --Izauze (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be an error of omission to say that protests were held on those three dates. Please glance at List of Tea Party protests, 2009. There were protests somewhere almost every week. February 27 had some 48 protests; July 17, August 22, and August 28 were other big dates. We should include those big dates, but should also say that there were many events in between those big dates.

The phrase "nationally coordinated" is a bit of a stretch. Take April 15 - it was an obvious date for a protest. Hundreds of individual organizers chose that date on their own without any "coordination" with other organizers. Similarly with July 4 - but some organizers chose not to protest on that date and instead chose a nearby date. The "nationally coordinated" phrase might apply to some protests, but not to most of them.

Sbowers3 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's substantial information elsewhere that supports the opposite of that claim. Do you have a reliable source to back that up (i.e. ""nationally coordinated" phrase might apply to some protests, but not to most of them")?--Happysomeone (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say we seem to agree that some sort of redrafted simplified Lead is in order. Perhaps be bold and just make the change in the best way you can and it can be tweaked from there. --Izauze (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please examine and change it as all of you see fit. I leave the who?, which? and citation needed templates for you to fix. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which protests?

Question: How do you pick the protests included in this article from all the hundreds listed in the two "List of" articles (List of Tea Party protests, 2009 and List of Tea Party protests, 2010) without engaging in original synthesis?

RoyGoldsmith's proposal: This one defeats me. Unless you had several, tightly-connected sources (probably news reports and/or analyses) that say this protest, that protest and this protest over here are important, by whatever criteria, you'd have to use your own judgement and that's against WP:SYN. And even if you did have such a series of reports, the article should really be named something like "Tea Party protests considered important by so-and-so". Unless you had several authors who reached the same conclusions.

Of course, you could Google-count all the Tea Party protests by date (one date at a time) and then choose the protests by proportion according to WP:PROMINENCE. But it seems to me that this might change weekly, as new stories are published for new protests and old stories become dead links. And I'm still not sure that this wouldn't violate WP:SYN.

In my opinion, the basic problem is that these protests are just too new to have acquired reliable, secondary sources. If we were writing an article about (say) Vietnam War protests then we could go to a long list of reliable, historical books and peer-reviewed papers to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. (I just did an Amazon search on Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement. All the books there were either too old [early 2009] or authored by someone who has a vested interest in one side or the other.) We really need a consensus of impartial books about the modern Tea Party, written by professional historians or well-known journalists. Without these, who's judgement do we trust about what protests to include?

This is only one proposal. Other proposals are welcomed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overreading WP:SYN. Take another look at its second paragraph: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly.

Your quotation says "summarizing or rephrasing a source". That's one source; it doesn't say "summarizing or rephrasing sources". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also read WP:NOTOR: "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research."

I agree with all that. But your quotation specifically states "without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts". All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be able to say "Many of these events were focused on opposition to state or local taxes and spending, rather than with national issues" (it's in the article right now) without proper citations. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Picking which protests to summarize here is simple editorial judgment subject to consensus. IMO it is not OR.

First I agree that, in the end, whatever we do is subject to consensus. But I feel that most editors will ascibe to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when forming their opinions. Either that or they'll lobby for a change in the rules themselves.

In regards to picking which proposals to summarize, I agree that it's an "editorial judgment" but it's not ours. It's the purview of news editors, journal editors, publishing house editors and so forth to make that judgement. We, as encyclopediac editors, should only summarize and paraphrase.

However, see my second proposal below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If we say (as I think we should) that there were protests almost every week and as reference we link to the List of TPp article, we are simply summarizing the List article. If we pick dates that had larger numbers of protests, e.g. February 27, we are giving due weight to those dates.

Sbowers3 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, I think. For example, if there were 40 protests across the county on Feb. 23, but there were cumulatively only several hundred, perhaps a thousand people total in attendance, that would not make it more notable than a few protests, or even one, with several thousands of people. The hierarchy is established by both of those metrics - and obviously certain dates were selected for their metaphorical importance (e.g. April 15).--Happysomeone (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Happysomeone is right about the size. I'm thinking of what RoyGoldSmith said about the Vietnam protests. There were hundreds of student protests all across the country, but which ones do you include? Do you give weight to the students at UPenn who took over Houston Hall or do you give more weight to the students at Columbia who took over the admin building, etc. And what about Kent State? And Roy makes a good point about the sources. That's why I look to the New York Times, who are biased, granted, but they do background checks and get the sources right, as does the Washington Post and the New Yorker, etc. Is it all right to use blogs if they are from the NY Times?Malke2010 02:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Malke. Don't be so sure that size equals importance (or that simple importance equals inclusion in the acticle). We should strive for significance, which is a much tougher nut to crack than importance. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith's second proposal: Leave the top-level section heading alone as "Protests", not "Major protests" or anything that implies that these protests are any different than any other protests. Anyone can create a subsection on any individual protest, if reliable sources about that protest can be found. However, he may not relate or connect any individual protest subsection to any other protest subsection unless reliable sources about that relationship exist. Any references that are found within the "List" articles will be considered as work still in progress; that is, subsections we haven't created as yet. (Of course, someone may create five or fifty new subsections tomorrow. :) After all, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress.

I wish to emphasize that, under this proposal, we would not be able to connect one event to another event, assuming most news reports are about one protest. Every subsection would be built in isolation, unless one protest's source said something about another one, in which case the reference would be about both of them.

For example, we could say in each subsection for two protests (say on Feb 24th and Feb 26th) that "This protest was organized by (say) the Tea Party Patriots" but we could not say in either subsection that "This protest [say on Feb 26th] was organized by the Tea Party Patriots, as was the February 24th protest" unless either reference mentioned that the other protest was organized by the same TP Patriots. It is not sufficient that both references simply mention the TP Patriots as organizers. One source has to specifically connect one protest another.

It is perfectly OK for anyone to agree with my first two paragraphs and disagree with my example. But then it is up to you to specify what will and will not be allowed so far as relationships between the protest subsections.--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like that organization. And agree, one protest should not be reflected back to another. This will keep things succinct. These protests could get bloated and separation will help tamp that down. But, again thinking of the Vietnam protests, lets make sure the content is significant protests. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a protest that the media is looking at. They might be just out to get some footage for the evening broadcast or the next day's print edition of the paper.Malke2010 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But how do we determine what's significant and what's not, except through original synthesis? This second proposal makes no assumptions about the significance of one protest over another; it says that all protests are equal, in the eyes of Wikipedia. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolution (I think): It appears I was wrong. I submitted my question to the talk page of WP:NOR here. This is what they came back with:

SYN is not about the selection of sources, it is juxtaposing items from different sources to advance a novel position which is not in any single source. What you [may be] talking about is the highlighting of some sources and downplaying or ignoring others; this is simply an NPOV or UNDUE violation, and nothing to do with SYN. You ask how to select a few representative sources from hundreds available? Try to list on the talk page the major and minor views about a topic, with a couple typical references for each. Then once all editors agree that the list is representative, pick the best sources for each, and you are done. An easy way to decide about the relative prominence is to find a "top level" secondary or tertiary source which describes all relevant views about the topic, and use it as guideline about their prominence. If no single top level source can be found, combine a couple of them. Bottom line: use common sense and gain talk page consensus.

I interpret this to mean that we can select representative sources by consensus. In the next week or two, I will be attributing all the references in the two "List" articles to their respective publishers. If you have used a reference about an individual protest for a citation in either TPp or TPm and it is not listed in the "List" articles, please insert it there. Eventually we'll have at least a hint as to which are the more reliable and can proceed from there. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article

The New York Times has a good article on the anniversary of the mass tea party protests. It highlights one activist, a Keli Carender, who is credited as being one of the first organizers of TP protests. Main points:

• She started on her own. The article doesn't use the word grassroots, but clearly that's what it was.
• It started with people who were not politically active, including some who had never even voted.
• Later she joined FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots.
• There are now weekly conference calls by TP Patriots to coordinate activity.
• She, like many Tea Party members, resists the idea of a Tea Party leader — “there are a thousand leaders,”

Sbowers3 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Great article, although it seems to be more oriented to Tea Party movement than Tea Party protests. I have already used it in TPm to replace an entirely circular and totally made up citation; to wit: "It would take a lot of work to prove this was the first organized event. It is easier to disprove this claim by citing an organized event that pre-dates it. Please see chronological list of events List of Tea Party protests, 2009." (This is exactly what KingStreetCafe replaced my citation-needed template with on Feb 2. Who says that the List of Tea Party protests is or ever could be complete? I can't believe that no one caught this for almost a month. It just goes to show that someone we trust (perhaps ourself?) must read every new reference. Sorry about the rant.)

I suppose that you could cite it too in the Background paragraph about Carender in TPp. You could even insert a sentence like "It has been reported[this-citation] that the first "Tea Party" event was organized by Seattle blogger Keli Carender", although, it seems to me, that is more relevant to the origin of the movement than to the protests themselves. Some of your points above would be great in a BLP of Carender herself (if she passes notability) but, again in my opinion, they do not belong in an article about protests. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New 1982 Background?

Aside from not being sourced, and perhaps not being neutrally voiced, does anyone think theres any merit to keeping the 1982 tea bag campaign (assuming it can be verified)? If so, perhaps it is better suited in a "previous tea party campaigns" along with ron paul's 2007 shindig and so forth. Unless we have a source that credits the 1982 campaign to the beginnings of the 2009 movement (which I doubt we do), it doesn't seem appropriate for the background section. For now I'll just add citation tags, but think we should keep an eye to moving or removing the material. --Izauze (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, if I don't see a defense or response sometime soon, my plan will probably be to remove it or greatly minimize it myself. --Izauze (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of tea or tea bags in tax protests and other citizen rallies is not new and is not confined to 1982. There are incidents of earlier events. Not every source is online and as Jimbo Wales said in a recent post, he's not willing to go to just online sources since he thinks it will reduce the quality of the content. A search of this kind will require looking at sources off-line. The edit as is, is not a problem here so long as it says, "citation needed." Therefore, it's safe to give it more time. I've been looking into this for this page as well as the Tea Party Movement, and as a volunteer editor on Wikipedia, my research gets done in between RL job/home responsibilities.Malke2010 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that the edit is fine as is with the "citation needed" tag. If that were the case, I could make up anything I want and add it to any article I want, and you couldn't remove it unless you could prove that it's not true, which in many cases is impossible to do. Sure, this could be a true story, however no sources are provided, and (apparently) no sources exist on the internet. Confounding this is the fact that the edits were made anonymously, making it difficult to contact the contributor to ask what his or her source is.

And it would be a ridiculous request to ask any contributor to do this editor's research for him/her. If there truly are sources available offline that would prove this event took place, it should not be the responsibility of other editors to research for your sources and verify their accuracy. If you want to add something to wikipedia using sources that are not online, you ought to provide them from the outset. If you don't, it qualifies as original research and should be deleted until you provide it.

And incidentally, I haven't been able to find proof that Bill Steensland or Jeannie Krell are real people. I google their names and the first link is to this article. CH52584 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to WP:VERIFY (sorry for the red link on the edit history), the inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. As is, the story is not verifiable. CH52584 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to say the same thing about citation needed tags and once deleted something because of it and got soundly reverted with a lecture. So probably the best thing to do is give it a few more days. As I said, it's perfectly legitimate to use off-line sources, not all books and journals and newspaper articles are accessible online. There is no emergency here and it might even be possible to find something online. It is a collaborative effort, afterall, and there's no harm in waiting a bit longer.Malke2010 04:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think I reverted this edit myself once. I just read through that all the way. That edit was just vandalism. I'll check TPM history.Malke2010 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I did.[13] Maybe the page needs protection.Malke2010 05:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's perfectly legitimate to use off-line sources. Just provide those sources when adding information. You cannot expect other editors to be able to provide off-line sources for you.CH52584 (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said other editors should provide off-line sources for me or anybody. I said off-line sources are allowed. Not all books are online but they are in libraries. So long as the book is properly cited, there should be no problem.Malke2010 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And if using offline sources, it needs to be properly cited before it's added to an article, is what I'm saying. CH52584 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. And the few times I've had to use one, I've made pains to include all details including page numbers, quotes, etc. So that someone searching out the thing will have an easier time of it.Malke2010 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us know if you find that info regarding previous adds of this material. I agree we're in no rush, but if no one shows up to defend it with sources, theres no reason to leave it up wrong. Also consider that removing the info might alert the editor that they need to look here. Alternatively, we could just summarize the addition in a sentence or two as a small part of the background per WP:UNDUE. --Izauze (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

98.231.39.212 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)I just discovered the "vandalism" tag placed/threatened concerning the information I have attempted to post in this article. I am a bit confused. How does the posting of information qualify as vandalism? I am obviously not in the 'in crowd' of Wikipedia and - in addition - do not as yet know all the rules and regulations. Obviously I could be wrong, but frankly, at this point it appears that someone simply does not want the truth to come out for some reason. I have posted two newspaper articles that report this event and encouraged Bill Steensland to post a short piece on YouTube, to which I also posted a link. If I simply need more citations I will be more than happy to search for them. Thanks in advance for your indulgence and any advice you may offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.39.212 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This: [14] becomes vandalism when you continue to put it back into the article without WP:RS and without removing the WP:SYN when other editors have noted problems with it in their edit summaries. In addition, other editors, including myself, have made WP:AGF good faith attempts to verify the content and have Googled the names and the claims made by the edit but have found no reliable sources WP:RS. Further, even if what is being claimed here is true, it has no notability. It is not widely reported. Therefore, posting this much is WP:UNDUE so it needs to be summarized and in a neutral, WP:NPOV, fact based way. A good suggestion for you to follow would be to read over Wikipedia policies, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE WP:SYN. In this way, you can make an edit that will have not only be a good contribution to the project, it will also stand a good chance of staying in the article. Cheers.Malke2010 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IP: I have posted the above on your talk page. Thanks.Malke2010 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See Also

The link to "Militias" was removed because:

• There is no inherent link between the topic of taxation protests and the militia movement.
• This is believed to be political posturing or smearing by providing a type of "guilt by association". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strannikcom (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tactics" section blanking

This is not the first time I've reverted this blanking [15] of the 'Tactics' section. I don't understand why this section is being targeted, but apparently it's bothering somebody.Malke2010 01:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke

Can I remind you about the rules on "consensus building". Discussing edits and deletions with other editors, outside of the discussion section.

thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the person blanking the section should be informed of this as well? CH52584 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing criticism

Why has this article got not criticism of the group? Seems a bit biased to me. As in the vast majority of "tea party" members are Republican party members and activists.

It's quite obviously an astroturf group, rather than grass roots. As in, events largely organised from within the Republican party, via it's members and activists.

The UK has a similar movement called "The tax payers alliance". Most centre right parties tend to set up these "grass roots" groups, to campaign for them.

As I said, plenty of sourced information and articles to suggest that most of these events were organised, and influenced from within the republican party

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is plenty of sourced information, then by all means add it. CH52584 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticizing Tea Party members for being Republican activists is much like criticizing Obama supporters for being Democratic Party activists... It's obvious and it's a non-issue.

Topper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.185.39 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Searchlight Protest

New protests in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, NV. Turnout ~30,000. [16] [17] MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Joke of the day, CNN reported "Hundreds of people, at least dozens of people." MookieG (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears someone wasn't watching their own video coverage. Dozens? Heh. The 30,000 number was given as a hopeful estimate, by the way, before even a fraction of that number had arrived. Do we have reliable counts yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

CBS: At least 9,000, AP: At least 7,000, AP: At least 9,000, NYT: May not have been quite 10,000, Las Vegas Review-Journal: Perhaps 10,000. There is an overhead picture at [18]. Somewhere I think I read that an early forecast was 5,000, then they upped it to 10,000. I thought CNN's story was an intentional joke but after listening to it, I'd say the announcer back at the studio doesn't have a clue. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NPR: "About 7,000" protesters. BTW, the first two cites are instructive per WP:VERIFY - cite#1 from the Christian Science Monitor attributes the "30,000" figure to organizers, while cite #2 from the Los Angeles Times attributes "9,000" to a police estimate and "organizers claimed more than twice as many".--Happysomeone (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Tea Party protests, 2009

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPp editors might be interested. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

TEA PARTY FORMED BY GOP

Joshzz50a (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears an important component of the Tea Party has not been mentioned.

The Tea Party was formed when Republican Strategists realizing that their candidates were about to be trumped by Democrats in the 2008 election, needed to devise a special strategy to win back the house in 2010.

They surmised that in order to gain the trust and more importantly the votes in the 2010 election, they would have to create a third "pseudo" party that opposed spending, the debt, etc. The leaders of this movement, "well healed" Republicans would pretend that they might even run their own candidates, but would ultimately give their support to the Republican Party, ironically the very same party that Americans blame for the deficit.

Economists blame the costly and unnecessary Iraq War along with the initial one trillion dollar bail-out given by then President Bush to executives of AIG, Citibank and other banking institutions. Later, it was discovered that much of the money went to pay executive bonuses, vacations, etc., but Bush gave the money to them without any stipulations.

The Tea Party is managed and funded by the Republican Party and therefore it is not surprising that the goals of the Tea Party are in agreement with the GOP. They main mission as has been acknowledged many times is gain control in order to lower taxes on the richest Americans. The richest 3% of Americans own 98% of wealth in this country. The Tea Party would like the middle class to be burdened with higher taxes while relieving the rich of paying any taxes whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshzz50a (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is our "job" to reflect the significant information contained in valid reliable sources. If you have a source that demonstrates that "The Tea Party was formed when Republican Strategists realizing that their candidates were about to be trumped by Democrats in the 2008 election, needed to devise a special strategy to win back the house in 2010", feel free to post that source here and we will see what info we can extract from it and use in the article. --Izauze (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Izauze's comment. As with any political entry there will always be differences of opinion, which is why limiting submissions to those that are based on reliable sourcing is important in order to keep up entry quality. --tagryn —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I've heard more than several Tea Partiers express outrage over numerous (perhaps many?) incumbent GOP congressman that haven't supported the GOP's platform well enough in the last ten years, especially in the last two years. If the Tea Party is a creation of the GOP, couldn't the result be likened to one shooting oneself in the foot? But if you have reliable sources to cite for your allegations, please submit them. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

founded by republicans?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/tea-party-republicans_b_170558.html

This "grass-roots" movement seems to be organized and founded by republicans. No wonder it doesn't address the war in iraq and is against taxes and federal regulation of companies who contributed to the crash. Oh and health care plans of course. Because americans spend the most for health care in the world and get the least of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.101.166 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits by users Jt14905 and 71.0.87.17

Folks, I've reverted your edits twice now because we didn't seem to be making any headway in the edit summary. 71.0.87.17, I don't understand how it's productive to remove content that is so clearly supported by the cite. What is you reasoning behind this?

Jt14905, I've got the same issue with your editing the words "counter-protests expressing support for the Obama administration" when that information is clearly supported by at least two cites and meets the burden of WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. How and what is the burden on the editor that adds this information, and where is this guideline found?--Happysomeone (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

---

CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I am of the impression that this whole article is an attempt at Progressive bias Propaganda.

I have been involved in the TEA Party Movement from the Beginning.

I was in DC on 912. Unless any of you have same credentials, my eyes on credibility trumps your propaganda.

I spent 3 hours correcting errors. And I included cites, usually not my own. I added the two polls in the summary.

I discussed the numbers in DC on 912 and included links to photographs of that events and obamas ignauguration. I also included links to photos of the Million man March and Promise Keepers. I included photos by CNN. These included language on how others had estimated crowd size at other events and invited the veiwer to reach ther own conclusion.

I discussed how democrats disgustingly call us teabaggers, full well knowing it is slang for a disgusting homosexual act.

I discussed how Democrats astroturfed ACORN and SEIU with cites. I discussed how SEIU thugs beat up a tea partyer. with cites

I discuss Republican Trojan horses. I discussed how both the Republicans and Democrats first demonized and discredited the movement. I discussed how now both Democrats and Republicans are trying to usurp and/or hijack the movement. all with cites.

And with flick of the wrist you erase my three hours of work.

PUT IT BACK NOW OR TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT TRUE!

I was there. I am a tea partyer.

Is this really the future that the Progressives, Obama and Wikipedia envsion for America's future generation. One where professional propagandists warp the minds of innocent children?

CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CynicalPatriot, it sounds like you're too involved in the Tea Party to be a neutral editor of this article. These diffs [19] [20] are completely un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for promoting your views or an organization. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

CynicalPatriot, your comment about being there and knowing what is true is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. If you add true facts without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. If someone else adds facts that you know are false, but are supported by references to reliable sources, then you cannot delete them. So go find reliable sources for all of your edits and add them as references.

You may (or may not) be totally correct in your claims but it's not enough to be right. You must be able to convince others that you are right. And the only way to do that is via verifiable and reliable sources and by writing with a neutral perspective and paying heed to other Wikipedia policies.

P.S. your three hours of edits are not lost. They are still visible and recoverable from the History. You can try to bang them into shape and reinsert them.

Other editors, please remember Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and gently advise CynicalPatriot how his edits do not comport with WP guidelines instead of quickly deleting those edits. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CynicalPatriot does not have enough of a neutral viewpoint to be editing this, or any other politically charged article. I am going to request that article protection be extended past 5 days or whatever it currently is. 68.101.143.168 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably overkill keep protecting the page over one editor. You might seek an article or topic WP:BAN instead, or just keep an eye on the user. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

75.168.57.215 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH, ONLY SOURCES. SO IF PROGRESSIVE PROPAGANDISTS CONTROL THE MAJOR MEDIA, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A RECIPE FOR RATIONALIZING PROPAGANDA.... AND, i AM FREE TO QUOTE ALL OF YOU THAT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH ONLY ABOUT HOW MUCH PROPAGANDA YOU CAN QUOTE FROM BIASED MAJOR MEDIA.. And you all feel comfortable that what you have done is made it so major media, censored by the owners of that media shall be the keepers of the truth.... and you see know downside to that... Do I here you all correctly? Sort of like the corrupt courts basically manipulating the outcome of a trial by using the rules to keep out evidence that is not consistent with their desired outcome... And on that basis, I feel compelled to make it know to the citizens of the USA that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, but rather a instrument of propaganda without any credibility. All of my stuff was cited, and you arbritrailty and unilaterally declared that my sources were not credible. You allowed a large portion of the article referring to tea party movement folks as Teabaggers to remain posted for a long time which evidences the bias of the editors of Wikipedia. (Teabagging being a pejorative American homosexual slang term for one man place his testicles in the mouth of another man. And none of you editors had the "neutrality" to know that was wrong? And then you would have the audacity of suggesting you lock me out of edits because I am not neutral? Please where does you mutual admiration and fantasy society meet? I challenge you to read the article and tally the positive and negative alleged facts, the negative alleged facts overwhelm the positive by an impossible factor considering that the tea party movement is now perceived more favorably than either the democrats or the republicans.. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your premises and intent. I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN STATING THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS CREATED A POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF BEING TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE BUT IN REALITY IS JUST COLLECTION OF PROPAGANDA FROM ONE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. Thank you for the following statement of Wikipedia policy... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth I will enjoy retweeting this over and over. Since most of America knows that major media is censored propaganda with a progressive agenda, it should not be too difficult to expose WIKEPIDIA as propaganda mongers. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY GROUP THAT OPENLY ESPOUSES THAT THE TRUTH WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY OF ITS CONTENT? My perspective is that WIKIPEDIA's policy would make German Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels jealous or am I not allowed to say that because some of you find my comparison offensive and/or I am not able to find cites because Goebbels was dead before the modern tea party movement started? (aka as yet another rule to censor while appearing to be reasonable) I am saddened by the world future generations will endure because people like you folks are complicit in promoting propaganda against a group of people fighting for the liberty of individuals and against the selfish interests of tyrants. Do you folks even think about the world you will be leaving your children when you act as willing accomplices in such censorship and propaganda? You make me sad for the future of the world. Your policy makes the major media, owned and representing the interests of wealthy men, the final arbitrators of history and the truth. But some I doubt you folks even care since I believe this is your intended outcome CynicalPatriot 75.168.57.215 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not such a bad argument against WP:OR. Originally Wikipedia aimed more at encyclopedic arguments, and the tendency for certain quack physicists, say, to put their own theories straight into the article was more the issue. In science it has been assumed that the media are (mostly) impartial arbiters, but in politics this could well be less so.

Even so, a WP:reliable source does not mean only a corporate media source. Wikipedia only wants sources that many eyes have gone over. For example, if your Tea Party organization establishes a Web site that you all agree represents you, then we can cite statements to that Web site. It is true that there are pushy editors who may still try to claim that this isn't a "reliable source", but I've had the same problem even for the American Sociological Association. And I dare say most of the pushy editors I've run into (not for this article, fortunately) were conservatives... Wnt (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As a slight corrective to the above, an organization's website is not a reliable source in the same sense that a third-party, independent source is. For example, "XYZ organization has 3 billion members" followed by a citation to XYZ's website is not acceptable, even if it's true. However, "XYZ organization claims 3 billion members" with the same citation would be acceptable. Even better, however, would be either statement backed by a source totally independent in terms of involvement or potential bias.

All of this becomes highly problematic with any subject where opinion itself is the issue and where normally reliable sources (e.g., New York Times or National Review) are considered suspect to those favoring one viewpoint or the other. But the only side Wikipedia editors should take in working on this or any other article should be on the side of Wikipedia's guidelines and principles. That becomes an extremely hard thing to accept or understand for anyone whose purpose in being here is to further or defeat a cause. Allreet (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the issue: YOU know that you are telling the truth. You've been there, you've been a part of it. But how are WE, the other editors, supposed to tell the difference between you and some lunatic who is lying? What if I edited this article and said, "There was a Tea Party Protest on April 15, 2008 in Denver, Colorado in which 300 protesters rioted and raped five teenaged girls to death?" Then, when my edit is deleted for lack of verification, I say, "I was there! I'm telling the truth! You don't care about truth!!" According to you, my changes should be kept-- a complete lie, preserved as truth on Wikipedia just because I said I saw it in person, even though the media failed to document it. To make the point, I could do it right now. I think I'll add that at least 60 of the Tea Baggers witnessing the rape were chanting "Kill the Anti-American sluts," because hey, I was there and I saw it and I know it's true. So how do you propose the editors tell the difference between a liar like me, and a truth-teller like you? Minetruly (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox News a source on the Boston Tea Party?

'The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation.'

And you used Fox News as a source? Fox News is politically biased!

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but the Boston Tea Party was NOT a protest of taxation. The tea incoming from the British East Indies, on the British East India Company Ships, was actually TAX FREE. The British were DUMPING GOODS, like Japan dumped cars in the 1980's. The colonists were PROTECTING THEIR JOBS, not protesting taxes. If the colonists were protesting taxes then they would have done so 70 years earlier, not the first TAX FREE shipment in 70 years. This is so Orwellian, you are all so creepy.98.165.15.98 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then if it were "taxation without representation", well now we have taxation with representation. Just cause your side loses an election doesn't mean you don't have representation.98.165.15.98 (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read Boston Tea Party. There was a tax; oddly, the protest came as the tax was reduced, because the reduction came in association with the Townshend Duties, which were intended as a precedent for higher taxes in the future; there were even competing economic interests i.e. Dutch smugglers. But there's nothing in that article about home-grown American tea. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fox News is politically biased" only shows your own political bias, which has no place on wikipedia. If you don't like the source/content, then please find a new one. CH52584 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Raising a question about sources is a legitimate point of argument, though I'm not so sure how much support you'll get for removing Fox News based on WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY guidelines. If you would like to challenge the reliability of a source, you are certainly welcome to do so at the appropriate forum, WP:RSN. For example, a consensus of several editors recently gave the opinion that [http://www.wnd.com/ WorldNetDaily] is not a reliable source.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but Fox News is no less reliable than CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS. The accusation from the left wing that Fox is biased is no more legitimate than the accusation from the right wing that the others are biased. CH52584 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends. It's not as simple as you appear to surmise, and advisable to avoid disputed sources.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You simply have to realize that someone could then object to any source for any reason. You should not avoid a disputed source on unfounded accusations--in this case, the political bias of a national news organization. All cable news organizations employ journalists and commentators. While the political leanings of the commentators might be obvious, it is painting with a very broad brush to imply that the journalists have the same opinions and let those opinions affect their coverage of the news. The article cited was written by a Fox News journalist, not Sean Hannity. CH52584 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You paint with a broad brush, and that is in error. I do not maintain that all news from Fox is suspect (although entire news organizations can be viewed for the purposes of Wikipedia as unreliable or unverifiable, as I outline below) My point is, as the guideline states, it's a case by case basis. You are correct to hypothesize that anyone can object to any source. That is allowed in the guidelines, which is why I say it is better to find a consensus source. But so long as it isn't a fringe view it should probably be included, but that might take some time if there is a dispute. However, just because you have a Cable News show does not automatically elevate you to "reliable source". For example, The 700 Club is a Cable News organization but is not widely considered as a verifiable source because of the programming's heavy reliance on Pat Robertson's personal opinions and religious doctrine. The gossip news show TMZ on TV, often found on cable TV, is not considered a reliable source. In addition, citing information from non-english sources such as Univision, another Cable News and entertainment network, is also frowned upon.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

CH52584

Can I remind you about rules on "consensus building". As in discussing article deletions and edits with other editors, outside of this open discussion page.

thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't need to, but last time I checked, consensus was the cable news channels and their web sites are credible sources on current events. Am I missing something? And any consensus that one cable news channel is more credible than the others is simply ridiculous. CH52584 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. If you reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines on this, you would realize your previous statement is in error. Consensus is constrained by guidelines, but there is no such "consensus" blanket protection for sources widely considered "unreliable". Even if they happen to air their content on Cable Television.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So then please show me where any consensus was reached that Fox News is unreliable. Or is this simply one user's opinion based on his political ideology? CH52584 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please show me where I stated there was a consensus reached that "Fox News was unreliable"? The point remains that sources included in content should meet the standards or the content is rightfully subject to removal. As I said before, "I'm not so sure how much support you'll get for removing Fox News based on WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY guidelines" and if that's an avenue one wants to pursue, well, there's a noticeboard for that. Good luck.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread something that I have written? "I'm not so sure how much support you'll get for removing Fox News based on WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFY guidelines and if that's an avenue one wants to pursue, well, there's a noticeboard for that. Good luck." I have no idea what you're talking about. If you think I'm trying to get Fox News "removed" from anything, then you would be in error. Furthermore, if you're not in agreement with the anonymous user that started this section and trying to argue that Fox News is not a reliable source for this article, I have no idea why this discussion is even being continued, or what point you're trying to make. CH52584 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't assume my intent or purpose, perhaps re-reading my responses to you might help. Rather than recast this entire conversation, I'd just point you to WP:SOURCES, the guideline on what are considered appropriate sources per Wikipedia policy. I'd recommend checking it out.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

Specific issues need to be detailed to support the insertion of an NPOV tag. I'm still waiting to see those specific issues described here, but I'll start the ball rolling with one obvious (to me) issue in the mean time:

• (1) The "Tactics" section does not seem to be the appropriate location for content describing unsavory behavior. Anti-gay, racist, anti-semite, anti-Parkinsons, etc., incidents do not describe "tactics", per se, of the Tea Party. The first two paragraphs qualify, but everything after that reads like a laundry list of bad behavior coupled with supporter's justifications of it -- not tactics. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They are violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT among others. Will remove with tag. MookieG (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that I said the section was inappropriate, not the content itself -- an easy misunderstanding. This could probably be easily remedied by separating the first two paragraphs under the "Tactics" section from the remaining paragraphs with another, more appropriate, section header. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: the section header, I have something more appropriate in mind. MookieG (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Later interviews have revealed the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol...

In the middle of the section discussing whether or not slurs were used (there is no proof that they did or did not, is the POINT), the author of this sentence demonstrates their left-wing, liberal, socialist bias by phrasing the statement as if it DID.

That's ALLEGED slurs. And blatant left-wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs)

By golly, that not only smacks of socialist editing, but it's probably communist and nazi editing as well! I'd be willing to wager my hard-earned paycheck this week that the author is a government bigwig, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was Barry Hussein himself. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, please try to hold your emotions. Yes, he may be overreacting on a simple slip. But there is no need to fight flame with flame. (For what it's worth, I agree with your sentiment) [WP:DONTBITE]

And, er, don't bite me either... I'm a bit new. Sir Scarfalot (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sir Scarfalot

Further Evidence of this Article's Left-Wing Bias

Out of a crowd of thousands of emotionally worked-up protesters, a few people MAY HAVE said a few bad words.

The allegations of the utterance of bad words gets as much printed space as the purposes and the grievances of the Tea Party Movement.

In my humble opinion, it's a ridiculous claim that the media focuses on the slurs more than the tea party--FOX News, who made the protests really take off (9/12 with Glenn Beck), made no investigation and immediately declared it as false. And I was reading the article and it seems to say much about how the Tea Party protesters are against taxes and nothing about how the same people are actually getting tax cuts, as (according to FOX) many of them are low- to mid-income average joes and the tax cuts give to the poor and middle class at the expense of the super-rich, who don't really need all that more anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.231.193 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonny Quick (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

What do you expect? Don't you know the midterm elections are right around the corner. MookieG (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, as true as your viewpoint may be (indeed is), verifiability is what matters! You cite FOX news, but are not specific. Please include reliable sources, there are plenty of them. And, MookieG, this really isn't the place for speculation. Sir Scarfalot (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Sir Scarfalot

Tactics section

There seems to be several reverts regarding the addition of the following statement: "No video evidence has surfaced to support of the claims of Cleaver or Lewis, despite the many cameras that recorded the events that day."

This statement is an accurate statement and the source provided does state this: "The ample videotape evidence shows that there was no such chorus."

I'm not sure why this is being labeled original research, as it is clearly stated in the source. If you continue to remove this statement and give this argument, please explain yourself further. Thanks. CH52584 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a conflicting source of information, then both should be included, provided they are both WP:RS. Here's the video, for anyone interested. Probably the result of an old guy's dentures while trying to yell "Kill the Bill" if you ask me.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement in question involves use of the N word and doesn't say anything about the supposed spitting incident, but that could be included as well. CH52584 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The web cite says no chorus but this article says no support for claims, which is different. he didn't claim a chorus. Cite also further on says uncoroberated, which is closer to truth, but you can't claim something hasn't surfaced - only that you haven't seen something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot130 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the primary reason "No video evidence has surfaced to support of the claims of Cleaver or Lewis, despite the many cameras that recorded the events that day." was removed is that this coda sentence inaccurately conflates all "claims" made by Cleaver or Lewis without differentiating them. This construction creates the false appearance that none of the claims by these two men can be supported "by video evidence" (both the so-called N word "chorus" and the alleged spitting). Clearly, there is video of the alleged spitting incident.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is just one of many reasons that sentence was removed. There are many problems with that sentence:

• It is sourced to an opinion site, yet deceptively presented as if it were a statement of fact from a RS.
• The "despite the many cameras that recorded the events" wording is original research, and not supported by the opinion source. The opinion source mentions only the "era of the ubiquitous camera", and says nothing about how many recorded the event.
• The opinion source offers what it amusingly refers to as "ample video evidence" — a single marathon documentary-length Youtube clip consisting of a whopping 48 second segment from the several minutes the congressmen were near the protestors. The opinion source wants us to believe that since the expletives are not audible on the 48 second recording made by this stationary videographer, they must not have happened at any time while the congressmen moved through the protestors.
• The "no video evidence has surfaced" wording is original research, and not supported by the opinion source. The opinion source only mentions finding no video verification at "one Youtube site", not the impossible to prove, silly statement of "no video evidence has surfaced" anywhere.
• One of the IP editors mentioned Politico having video, but this was all my brief search turned up. It doesn't prove anything any more than the previous 48-second Youtube clip does, for many of the same reasons. Neither are reliable sources, but the "no video evidence has surfaced" silliness goes down the drain, even though it is poor evidence. Why would Tea Party protestors (pretty much everyone there) cough up video proof of their own misdeeds, anyway?

There is a lot of spinning, damage control and speculation going on, which is why we need to stick with reliable sources only. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted my explanation about the arrest, detention, and identification, so I'll quote my source here for clarity (I think the quote is too long and distantly related to include directly):

"Asked about the Capitol Police account, Petrovic said it's not that Cleaver couldn't identify the suspect. It's that he wouldn't identify the suspect, because the police would have been "obligated" to make an arrest, which he didn't want.

"He was aware of that obligation and so did not make an identification," she said. "He saw who did it and he could have identified that person if necessary. But he chose not to."

As for the initial claim that the the individual was arrested, Petrovic said staff members mistakenly presumed he had been arrested because he was in handcuffs.[21]

This is why I think it's useful to explain the suspect being handcuffed is technically not an arrest but a detention, and the means by which Cleaver chose to avoid prosecuting the spitter. Wnt (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A third party came up with a very well written compromise to this dispute between another editor and myself. I would like to preserve it and believe the other two editors might agree. MookieG (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it here and I don't find it on your talk page either. Where is this discussion? In any case the article text can hardly be static so shortly after the event. I don't think I'm being controversial here - I just don't think it's reasonable to make it sound like Cleaver had one story ("declined to press charges") and the police had another ("failed to identify") when the Fox News reference makes it clear the two were saying exactly the same thing. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We didn't use the talk, it's in the history. Instead of "Cleaver said the person was arrested, but he declined to press charges. Then the police said the person wasn't arrested and Cleaver couldn't identify the person. Then Cleaver's office said Cleaver assumed an arrest had taken place due to the use of handcuffs, but chose not to identify the suspect to avoid the arrest he thought already took place"...... see where we are going. I'm just keeping it clean. MookieG (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The last edit removing "claimed to be" is fine since it doesn't belong after I restructured the paragraph, it now follows Cleaver saying what he heard and experienced. MookieG (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You all do realize that they, either actaul representatives or their aides, were videoing the whole thing as they walked through the crowd, and they havn't been able to provide any evidence that these slurs took place. Also the "spitter" can be clearly shown yelling, not spitting at Cleaver. As it stands it is clearly a one-sided view of the incident and in violation of NPOV. Options are to include the opposite point or remove the whole section for NPOV violations. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I clicked a video provided above that's shows that Cleaver was clearly the victim of say it, don't spray it. I also understand that James Clyburn is on the record saying he didn't hear the [racial] slurs to Keith Olbermann, which really goes against the whole Rosa Parks quote. Problem is that the section will be grow too large when all sides are addressed, especially when we address the Barney Frank expansion. Maybe you can help us deal the POV and other wikipolicy issues, Arzel. Another problem is that these types of articles serve as a coatrack and more time will be spent debating edits than actually doing them, which is why I like minimal inclusion. MookieG (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I do realize only one aide had a camera (he was long gone when the spitting happened), and they have no motivation to provide even more evidence about the incident. If someone isn't going to push the issue on an already detained protestor, they certainly won't be needing more video. Also, the spitter can be clearly shown to be also yelling, while spitting on Cleaver. As the article stands it is clearly a reliable-source-based view of the incident, not a speculative blog-based version of the incident, as required by Wikipedia policy. Options are to stick with reliable sources, or stick with reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to take unknown-source videos and blog speculation and interpret them the way you want. That is why Wikipedia requires us to use only reliable sources. I can look at that same video and say the guy obviously spit (since no one recoils from just words, or wipes "yelling" off of their face) at the congressman. Furthermore, he cupped his hands around his mouth to avoid being videoed while he puckered and spewed. The congressman identifies the spitter to the police at 2:44 on the video, but note the video source doesn't want us to see the spitter cuffed and detained. Wow, interpretation is easy. Here is another interpretation I dug up about this video:

Listen closely. It's not the whole crowd but it is the guy in the straw hat. Notice how he cups his hands and turns to shout directly at the black man walking in front of him. After the crowd shouts "kill the bill" he adds "then the nigger". He does it twice, once at 12 seconds, again at 14 seconds. Then he stops because the man he's shouting at is out of earshot. Not that I think he heard him in the first place.

I notice that Carson is missing from that section altogether, yet he is mentioned in many of the sources I've been seeing. Curious. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I listened to that over and over and don't here any slurs. I did see a black female police officer walk by the guy right after he was supposed to have said it the last time, and if he did say it she had absolutely no reaction, which I think would be suprising. Arzel (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be surprised if someone dropped the N-bomb. I'm shocked nobody did, at least using the videos provided here. I've never been spat on in my life, never. I have been sprayed [when they should've just sayed] hundreds of times including by my closest family. You missed the part of the video where Cleaver brings an officer back and couldn't identify the man standing in front of him. Who is Carson and what is curious?

Back to the point. I understand the RS argument. It's sad in these cases they choose to stay with a certain narrative instead of the facts. MookieG (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I also am not shocked that those protestors dropped the N-bomb, and it isn't shocking at all that they don't produce video proof of their misbehavior. If you'll re-read my previous comment, you'll note that I did not miss the part of the video where Cleaver identifies the spitter to the police (see 2:44 on the video clip). Oh, and Andre Carson was one of the black gentlemen being called "nigger" as they left the Cannon building. [22], [23]. It is curious that no Tea Partiers are eagerly offering up video (or audio) taken near the Cannon building where the epithets were actually hurled. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you believe Cleaver identified the man in that video [where he came with an officer and looked over, through, and behind the guy while looking perplexed], then you probably don't possess the rationale required to be non-partisan. I believed and told people the the spitting incident is true, based on the RS's that said the person was arrested and Cleaver declined to press charges. I now know better, and am quite embarrassed by my gullibility. I also imagined someone hocking a loogie in front of the officer escorts. I can safely assume the black caucus would have videotaped the stunt much like Jesse Jackson did when he attempted to illicit a racial response. Why didn't they use the tunnels? We all know why, and it puts any claims they have under suspicion. Which is all this is, mind you. The sources are only as reliable as the politicians. MookieG (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. What you see as a "perplexed" congressman, I see as a congressman pointing out the spitter, and answering several specific questions asked by the officer before that officer takes the man by the arm and leads him away from the scene before returning to question (and detain) the spitter. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of basic police procedure? We both agree the congressman was spit upon, but you would like it portrayed as accidental while the congressman might feel it was intentional. (Now this is accidental protestor spit!) These are interpretations you and I can't make. As for using the tunnels, I totally agree with you: Those black guys shouldn't have been on the streets - it just forces good citizens to spit and make racial insults; just as women should use tunnels lest they incite good citizens to behave sexist; and children should stay off the streets, too, lest they provoke good citizens to lewd and pedophiliac behavior. (You do realize there were several groups of congressmen escorted across that same street, right? But sure, that one black group really should have been relegated to the tunnels...) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

LMAO at your race-baiting, gender-baiting, all your other ridiculous strawman arguments. You have proved my point masterfully. I thank you. The sources say others didn't make the voyage, and the very white Steny Hoyer was escorted in a government vehicle. I also know far more than you do regarding police procedure. MookieG (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Noticing not a single rebuttal, I'll just say: you are welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you wish to revisit this discussion. Please explain here why you continue to attempt to insert the contested content about Breitbart offering money to Lewis for video proof from one of his two cameras of the racial slurs (or a lie-detector test, option number 2). It is partisan grandstanding, doesn't inform readers of this article of anything, and isn't even properly sourced. Please explain what it adds to the article here, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and when you finger somebody of a crime the cuffs come out and the guy is arrested on the spot. A google of the Carson guy says he heard "nigger" chanted 15 times. I can guess why the editors that introduced this to the article omitted that laughable part of it. MookieG (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Incorrect. When an event is alleged, it is standard procedure for an officer to speak with both involved parties, separately, before detaining anyone, unless there is a risk of flight or violence. As for your "guessing", fortunately Wikipedia doesn't allow that as part of the article editing process. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a battery that was not part of a mutual physical altercation and was also witnessed by an officer. There is also a great risk of flight in the highly populated public gathering. If I cracked you in the mouth [causing pain] and you walk away and come back with an officer [pointing me out], I get arrested on the spot. Period. MookieG (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a battery witnessed by an officer? The video contradicts that, or the officer wasn't doing her duty. But thanks for your opinions. Fortunately, inaccurate opinions and hypotheticals by Wikipedia editors aren't suitable content for articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This videotape is interesting evidence, but it will need some expert evaluation. I'm not so sure who is who here. My main concern is that it doesn't include any footage uphill from where the person with the video camera is standing, and near the end a woman says "oh my God" and starts running up the hill. So I don't know if some of the incidents occurred uphill and this isn't even the same interaction. I very much doubt that I could see spit in a videotape like this - bear in mind that there is a finite frame rate, and you'd have to slomo the image to perhaps find one frame with an elongated white spot that might or might not be a glob of spit. As far as the racist taunts are concerned, I hear one woman in the video repeatedly yelling something that might be it but I can't tell for sure. Obviously we don't hear ever word shouted by every one of the hundreds of protesters near the videocamera, however.

As for the handcuffs, the Fox News source says that someone was handcuffed - are they part of the liberal conspiracy? The most obvious interpretation - though not necessarily a correct one - is that the congressman pointed out the spitter to the police, who waited for a convenient moment (or perhaps to see who he would talk with) before capturing him. It is possible that on reflection or based on an apology or something the congressman then decided not to formally identify the person by signing a complaint, etc.

But the speculative nature of all this illustrates the main point: let's just stick to what the sources say. I don't know why there's such a debate about the incident when so many people who were actually there give such similar accounts of it. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

All reasonable observations, Wnt. Trying to prove something "did not" happen, based on less than a minute of video, from a single location and with limited audio, isn't something we can do here - considering the specific events could have happened any time during the several minutes the congressmen were in the proximity of the protestors. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart offers to donate $ for video evidence of slurs

• Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart has offered a reward of $100,000 (originally $10,000) for anyone who could provide video evidence that racial epithets were hurled at Congressional Black Caucus members at the Washington D.C. protest. Breitbart said the allegations were made as a way for the left, abetted by the mainstream media, to "marginalize" Tea Party supporters.

Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart has offered a charitable donation of $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if Emanuel Lewis could either provide video evidence that racial epithets were hurled at Congressional Black Caucus members at the Washington D.C. nationalized health care protest of March 20th 2010, or pass a simple lie-detector test. Breitbart said the racial slurs never happened and were only alleged as a way for the left, abetted by the progressive media, to "marginalize" Tea Party supporters. Breitbart alleges that, "By crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up," and he added, "Nancy Pelosi did a great disservice to a great civil rights icon by thrusting him out there to perform this mischievous task. His reputation is now on the line as a result of her desperation to take down the Tea Party movement."

Here it is for discussion. Here is the diff to see how it relates to previous sentences. Time for the two editors to discuss this instead of edit warring. MookieG (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess I count as the third editor, I'll try to be the mediator. MookieG (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, but this mention seems awfully tangential. I'd preserve the reference but remove the and reduce the content and combine it with the woman who accused the legislators of the bad behaviour, not the other way around.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the accusations againt the Tea Party people, it is perfectly fine to note Breibart's reward as a response to the allegations. Arzel (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As the 4th editor involved, I'll comment, too. 1) What "accusations against the Tea Party people?" Link please, since one editors assume they are a 'given'. I'd like to see them. I do know there were accusations against protestors made by Carson, Lewis, Cleaver and various office spokespeople. I assume there were some Tea Partiers in there somewhere, but... 2) Citing Breitbart, on Breitbart, for Breitbart is, as another editor observed, tangential. If it is significant enough to go into this article, then there should be ample reliable sourcing to cite. AJC appears to be the only source outside of the echo-chamber, and they give us this content:

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point…. Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.

Looks to me like he's challenging Lewis and his 2 cameras, not "anyone" -- and editors omitted the lie-detector part, too...why? 3) The "marginalizing" opinion of Breitbart, is cited to his blog; problematic, of course, but I don't see all his other opinions from that same piece re: the Tea Party, inserted, too. That could be a fun exercise, since we're now stretching the bounds of inclusiveness to include grandstanding by partisan pundits. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Now it's time for the original editor to argue for Breitbart's inclusion. MookieG (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time for any editor to argue for the inclusion of Breitbart. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What accusations? Seriously, the tactic section directly claims that people involved in the Tea Party protests were the ones making the comments. If you cannot accept this as a truth then that whole section should be removed as not relevant to the Tea Party Movement. Just because a large number of MSM sources are not reporting on the response doesn't mean that it cannot go in. The whole section is already quite biased against the Tea Party Movement, and per weight and NPOV there is no reason that Breitbart's wager cannot go in. Furthermore, you must be reading something into it if you think that he is only challending Lewis and his 2 cameras. If people are going to make race baiting statements like that of Lewis, then it is only appropriate that a response to the validity of those statements be included for balance issues. These are serious allegations that Lewis et al have leveled. Those to which they have been leveled against have every right to respond. What would be most interesting is if someone were to come up with video proving Breitbart wrong, and my question then would be is that notable? I think we know the answer to that. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You lost me, Arzel. You stated: "Given the accusations againt the Tea Party people, it is perfectly fine to note Breibart's reward as a response to the allegations." So I asked for links to these specific accusations against the Tea Party people, and links to Breitbart's specific responses to them. I would like to review them. I am still waiting for the links. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What links do you need me to repeat? The tactic section is full of links alledging that Tea Party protesters used racial slurs. Breitbart's reward along with his commentary is the response to these allegations. Lewis et al, have claimed that Tea Party protesters used racist language directed at them, the links are in the article (thus no reason to link them here). Breitbart, among others, claim this to be false, and Breitbart's reward is in reaction to the claims of racism. It is perfectly fine to include his reward as a response to the allegations of racial slurs. Arzel (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The links I'd like you to repeat are: "...links alledging that Tea Party protesters used racial slurs." If the section is full of them, as you say, then please display them here - thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently this article is comprised of thousands of words consisting he-said-he-said allegations, which are impossible to prove or disprove.

This article is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP inasmuch as it contains unverifiable character assassinations of specific persons shown in videos of the protest, as well as an entire national movement. (Note that I have been disciplined by a Wikipedia administrator for being in violation of WP:BLP merely for talk page discussion of Congressional testimony unfavorable to the Weather Underground organization -- no individual was mentioned. I welcome an opposing opinion of someone with an official position of authority at Wikipedia so, for consistency, together we can re-examine how the Weather Underground testimony bears upon WP:BLP).

The Breitbart paragraph complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is supported by an article in a national newspaper, written by Wall Street Journal editor, John Fund. It is also supported in articles by Breitbart himself, who has appeared on national television and given public speeches asserting the challenge.

The Breitbart paragraph is consistent with Wikipedia:Notability as demonstrated by over 85,000 hits resulting from a Google search of "Breitbart 100000".

Since Breitbart is a central figure in the Tea Party movement, his offer of $100,000 for proof addresses the credibility of the ubiquitous, unsupported "racist" charges by individuals in positions of vast power who stand to gain politically by spreading this charge. It is important that readers have complete information to determine for themselves whether it makes sense that evidence has not come forward to claim the huge reward, despite cameras everywhere and allegations that the "n-word" was chanted "15 times".

For the moment, I am not calling for strictly enforcing the Wiki policy requiring speedy deletion of the entire piece which violates the WP:BLP.

However, I submit that removal, of this single paragraph allowing Tea Party spokesmen to defend themselves, egregiously diminishes the balance of the article in violation of NP:NPOV. Further, I submit that repeated destruction of the Breitbart paragraph violates Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

Therefore, since this explanation should be obvious to any fair-minded person dedicated to editing in good faith, I am restoring the paragraph, consistent with Wikipedia:Be bold.

Freedom Fan (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been bold with your proposed edits, and they have been reverted, so welcome to the discussion part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. Please allow concensus to develop and the discussion to resolve instead of edit-warring to keep your preferred edits in the article.

Regarding the issues you raised above: you mentioned flagrant BLP violations, but I do not see them. Could you please be more specific in describing the content that is in flagrant violation? If you are correct, then the information should be removed from the article immediately — yet I do not see any deletions made by you. You also mentioned that the content is cited to an opinion piece by WSJ columnist John Fund, which is true, but please note that the content is written as a statement of fact, not opinion, which could be problematic. The most significant question being raised here is about the relevance of the content. (Please note there is no "notability" requirement for content in an article, but if there were, "Google Hits" would not be used to measure it ... or anything.) There doesn't appear to be significant reliable source coverage of this content, nor does its addition to the article further inform the reader about the topic of this article. There is already mention in the article that some have indicated belief the slurs didn't happen, or that they were staged, and there is also already mention of video (or lack thereof) support -- so what does the Breitbart paragraph add? Finally, I feel this statement of yours is nothing but personal opinion, conjecture and original research:

Since Breitbart is a central figure in the Tea Party movement, his offer of $100,000 for proof addresses the credibility of the ubiquitous, unsupported "racist" charges by individuals in positions of vast power who stand to gain politically by spreading this charge. It is important that readers have complete information to determine for themselves whether it makes sense that evidence has not come forward to claim the huge reward, despite cameras everywhere and allegations that the "n-word" was chanted "15 times".

When did Breitbart become a "central figure" in the TP movement, instead of one of a great many conservative activists voicing support for them? Since when does offering a donation to the UNCF (read: fat tax deduction; no net loss for Breitbart) for Lewis to provide video proof or pass a lie detector test, address the credibility of anything? You expect a Tea Party supporter (most of the people protesting, holding those cameras, right?) to cough up recorded proof of racial slurs when they won't see a single dollar of that money? Of course they won't; there is no incentive, and even less so if the holder of such proof is indeed racist and learns that money will go to a NEGRO college fund. There is no "huge reward to come forward to claim". We can fill the article with all kinds of content suggesting the racial slurs never happened, the homophobic slurs never happened, the anti-semite slurs never happened ([24]), but I think that does a disservice to the article. Should we add every comment someone makes, like this one:

But Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who condemned the reported slurs in a March 21 CNN appearance, told me that he still believes the story. "A couple of weeks before the alleged incident occurred, I was walking across the bridge in Selma, Ala., with John Lewis," said Pence. "I take at face value what John Lewis said. If John Lewis said he heard it, I believe he's a man of integrity. And I would denounce those kinds of statements in the strongest possible terms."

...until the section balloons to such a size that it overwhelms the article? I'm still waiting for a case to be made as to what the Breitbart silliness adds to the article. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to include everything, but there is certainly nothing wrong with including a reference that claims it never happened. Breitbart is clearly a central figure within the Tea Party movement, and when you make allegations that he is only doing if for tax deduction purposes you lose credibility with your reason for not including this. As for Mike Pence, what is he supposed to do? Say it didn't happen, he is a politician it is a lose lose situation for him to do anything other than condemn what might have happened. As for a diservice to the article, including every single accusation of racism certainly doesn't provide a very balanced view of the Tea Party Protests. Since we are using OR in the discussion, it is very likely that there are people that are making some of this crap up just to disparge the Tea Party Movement, and it is a huge disservice for Wikipedia to parrot those accusations without a response from those that have been accused. Arzel (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding a claim that it never happened? That's already in there (twice). Now why do you want to add another one again? And please re-read what I wrote; I never said Breitbart "is only doing it for tax deduction purposes" — please don't misrepresent. As for Pence, yes, he condemned what happened, along with a long string of politicians and even Tea Party organizers, but that isn't why he was mentioned. Since you apparently missed it, he also said he believes Lewis (the direct obvious of what Breitbart is claiming). As for your use of OR in the discussion here, that's fine, as long as you don't use it to justify content in our article. Since you say that section is full of links to accusations against the Tea Party folks, I'll remind you again that I am still waiting for you to specify those links. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also add to Arzel's comment the Rep. Lewis never claimed to have heard a racial slur, his aide did. I would also remind us that Majority Whip Clyburn told Keith Olbermann he also didn't hear the racial slurs. Which, I chose not to add when trying to control the size of this section. I predict an inevitable trimming of this section down to a vague summary to rid ourselves of the weight and coatracking issues. MookieG (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying the aide heard the slurs, or are you saying "the aide says Lewis heard the slurs"? As for what Lewis claims, FOX says he did, and I do recall these:

Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga, and Andre Carson, D-Ind., both members of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that a group of protesters hollered at them and called them the N-word. "They were just shouting. Harassing," Lewis told Fox News. "People being downright mean."

"It's okay, I've faced this before," Lewis told Fox News about the incident. "I haven't heard anything like this in 40, 45 years. Since the march to Selma, really." (I wonder what he heard in Washington that he hasn't really heard since Selma...) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be tangentally related. It will be interesting to see if this is covered. In any case it shows that there are people out there trying to intentially make it look like the Tea Party movement is racist. Arzel (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, sneaky republicans posing as liberals trying to crash Tea Parties in order to "marginalize" the left! Who will be first to pony up $10,000 for video proof that republicans haven't pulled this stunt before? These may be related as well: WaPo & Gawker opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems likely. Additionally, regarding the Gawker opinion. When they use deragetory terms to describe Tea Party protesters in the title of the article, they pretty much lose all credibility. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory term? I guess that would be a matter of personal opinion; I don't find it offensive at all, but I'm not as prudish as others. Some folks cringe at all things sexual, but that is a reflection on the person, not the terminology. Some of us judge the credibility of information by the headlines under which it is found, others of us weigh the merits of the information itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When it's being used as a slur, it's absolutely derogatory. Gays use queer pretty freely to each other, still a slur if used that way. Same with Nigga, the A doesn't make it OK. MookieG (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone here that NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Therfore, any and all well sourced points of view must be included. The fact that no one has claimed the $100,000 reward is an excellent counterpoint to the claim that the racial slur was used. All points of view must be included. Captain Lance Murdoch (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

any and all well sourced points of view must be included -- umm, hooey. You've got that entirely backwards. It is the case that to be included, a point of view must be well sourced; it is not the case that being well sourced means a point of view must be included. See, for example, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." (Italics added by me) BLP says you can't make accusations against living people without proof. The fact that there is no proof of the use of racial slurs is very relevant and very notable. Captain Lance Murdoch (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Points of fact:

• WP:BLP says you can't make accusations against specific living people, and doesn't apply to groups, organizations, mobs, etc. Also, your statement, "The fact there is no proof..." is silly; that is not a fact, and there is plenty of eyewitness proof. Did you mean to say, "The fact that Captain Lance Murdoch hasn't seen taped proof of the use of racial slurs..."?
• Breitbart didn't offer a "$100,000 reward" to anyone, despite the confusing wording used by some reporters. He offered to make a tax-deductible donation to the United Negro College Fund. If I had taped evidence of the racial slurs, I wouldn't see one penny of that money for it. There is no monetary incentive for me to produce that video. If I were a protester with taped evidence, there is doubly less incentive for me to produce that which would incriminate me. If I were a racist protester, there is triply less incentive for me to produce something that would incriminate me and insure money goes to the UNCF.
• Breitbart knows Lewis said he isn't going to comment on the racial slurs, and certainly isn't going to "provide more proof" and keep fanning the flames of the issue. Breitbart also knows it is logically impossible to prove something didn't happen - but he is making the claim anyway, probably as political theater. He knows his money is safe. The only reason his antics are known at all is because he has a media platform through which to spread them. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleged purging of Andre Carson

It's not a good idea to claim I'm maliciously "purging" somebody from the article based on my "opinions about Carson." If you can find a way to add him without grossly misrepresenting the cited sources, go right ahead. Jesse Jackson Jr. was also there, along with others from the Congressional Black Caucus [see article]. You seem to be missing my points in the edit summaries. Try reading them, please. MookieG (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Andre Carson added without disturbing other cited sources. The biggest problem is the many contradictions between the stories. MookieG (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for returning the content you deleted. I added additional referencing to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are lying as I have not returned content which I've deleted. You have, after refusing to discuss it here, and not explaining [in the edit summary] your desire to edit war. Don't worry, I've reverted it. You may choose to make separate detailed edits in the future [when edit warring]. Your rewording that "Several house members said three black lawmakers, André Carson, John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver were called "racial slurs" during the confrontation" is not supported by this source, as I've explained to you. Here's the diffs to refresh your memory. [25][26][27][28][29]. It would appear that you are mistaken, or maybe lying just as you did above. MookieG (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"don't play games" — "you are lying" — "try reading" — "refusing to discuss" — "grossly misrepresenting the cited sources" — "your desire to edit war" — no, MookieG, I am not taking the bait. Please let me know if there are any edits, yours or mine, you'd like to rationally discuss. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to add this, which is my opinion that you posted another "dishonest edit summary." Please stop attempting to sneak in a disputed edit under the guise of other edits, and address why you believe it's fine to misrepresent cited sources. MookieG (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, MookieG, I am still not taking the bait. Please let me know if there are any edits, yours or mine, you'd like to rationally discuss. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your rewording that "Several house members said three black lawmakers, André Carson, John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver were called "racial slurs" during the confrontation" is not supported by this source, as I've explained to you. Here's the diffs to refresh your memory. [30][31][32][33][34]. MookieG (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone got confused and bunched all the sources together even adding a new cite that was reprint of McClatchy. Reverted back to best version with footnotes properly placed. MookieG (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to say something is not supported by the sources, when you delete all of those sources. I have replaced all of the deleted content and all of the deleted sources, and since your edit summary indicates you are having trouble making sense of the 'content+citation to source' format of the information you are reading, I'll try to step you through the one example you have brought here for discussion. The segment you keep removing is:

Several house members said three black lawmakers, André Carson, John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver were called "racial slurs" during the confrontation,

and it is cited to the content in the following sources:

• And while most of the invective was directed at the health care bill itself, several House members said there was an ugly tone to comments made by some demonstrators against three black lawmakers: Representatives André Carson of Indiana, Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri and John Lewis of Georgia, all Democrats. NY Times
• Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said that racial epithets were hurled at them Saturday by angry protesters who had gathered at the Capitol to protest health-care legislation, and one congressman said he was spit upon. WaPo
• The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, lawmakers said. McClatchy

The sentence is obviously supported by the cited sources. If you'd like to tweak the wording or something, fine, but don't purge the sources from the article and then claim it isn't supoorted by sources so that you can delete the content. As for the several other edits and citations you simultaneously deleted along with the above sentence, you still haven't given an explanation. I would appreciate it if you'd discuss those edits here. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When going into great detail, we need to separate the cites to support the preceding sentences. That what I've done, and will continue to do. Misrepresenting cited sources is frowned upon, a form of POV, and leads to upset readers checking the cites to find that the sources don't support the statements. When having only two sources together, they must say almost the exact same thing. You are combining five, which are also contradictory to each other. MookieG (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your 74 edits to article space have given you great insight into Wikipedia editing practices, and what we need to do and shouldn't do. That aside, can you be more specific about your edit concerns? I haven't "combined" any sources, so I'm not sure what you are trying to indicate there. I did insert the above sentence, based on the 3 above cited sources, if that is what you mean - I believe the prose construct of that sentence accurately conveys the content of those sources. Your most recent edits give the impression that you wish to expand that part even further. Is this correct? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Play dumb all you want. I need not post more diffs to prove your disruptive editing and POV pushing [which, you have a long history of against the tea party movement and protests]. I am done trying to balance a section that violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT, among others. I will be tagging this article and we will get impartial editors to correct this. MookieG (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Falling back to the personal attacks, instead of discussion, yet again? Knock yourself out. I have no history with the tea party movement or protests, by the way, so I'm not sure with whom you have me confused. I do find the topics interesting, however. Please provide a succinct description of your edit concerns to support whatever tags you insert, as required, preferably under a new section header, so that all editors will know what needs to be addressed. Alternatively, you can seek mediation as suggested below. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please comment on the edits, not the editors. Base your argument on WP:RS, and if you can't agree, ask for mediation. You are going after each other, and that will not improve the article, which is the overall goal of Wikipedia in the first place. Rapier (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for mediation and was researching how to bring it about. Can you please help us expedite the process. The edit warring has been a simmer which is about to boil. MookieG (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)