Talk:Tea Party movement

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

Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

removing mead's incorrect analysis of the tp policy

dr paul himself has proved mead is wrong in his essay. perhaps there are more errors as well given this oversight. i suggest we remove the flawed essay in its entirety. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

missing from the section is pauls view on trade. rp would trade with NK, syria, libya, and anyone else still in the axis of evil. rp feels isolating the people ruled by dictators only makes them more likely to follow a tyranny as it is the only source of food and medicine. instead we should continue trade and the people themselves will overthrow corrupt governments. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If we quote Mead, we must use his terminology. TFD (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I read Darkstar1st's comment as a suggestion that we should completely remove Mead's comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The latest addition to the section quoted Ron Paul as to what he thinks should be important foreign policy issues for the Tea Party. That would be a fine source for rebutting comments about his policies in those areas; it does nothing to disprove an analysis of what his followers (in general) seem to believe. In both religion and politics, people are notorious for voicing belief in and support for a concept or specific leader while simultaneously performing and supporting specific actions and positions diametrically opposed to some of the leader's positions. E.g., the current and previous chairmen of the Republican National Committee have both voiced disagreement with theories of Obama's non-Hawaiian birth; that in no way means that sourced comments such as "many [most?] Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the U.S." have been proven false. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

you are correct, i am for removing mead entirely. mead either does not know the difference between the terms, or the voting record of rp. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good. There's also a more general challenge here. In reality, once you get off of the main "platform" of the TPM, you have a diverse bunch of people (mostly conservatives and libertarians, with each of those terms themselves being diverse) with an equally diverse range of opinions on other topics. Attempts to say "they think this about XXXX" are likely to be problematic unless XXXX is one of the tenets clearly on their agenda. I suppose talking about it as a dicotomy is less problematic and at least hints at the diversity, but again, not in a manner that was clearly erroneous as this was. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph. Mead is a notable and qualified commentator. the claims here that the material is erroneous is unsourced and is just the opinion of Wikipedia editors. Below, North8000 writes: "We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives." I agree which is why this material is important to keep.   Will Beback  talk  12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could just drop the erroneous parts about Ron Paul. ? North8000 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Xenophrenic is correct, in that Mead is not talking about Paul, per se, but rather about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Since this is a view attributed to a distinguished expert, we need to be careful about asserting that it's erroneous.   Will Beback  talk  18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It says "personified by Ron Paul". Is this written by the Wikipedia editor or by Mead? Besides accuracy issues we have BLP issues. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. Mead is a highly respectable source, writing about the TPM. No one has shown that he is incorrect. It's fine to add other views of the TPM's foreign policy. However this article is not about Ron Paul. While Paul may be an important ideological leader of the movement, he is not the movement. Even if we found conclusive proof that he is not isolationist, which we haven't, that would not alter the Mead material on the "Paulist" wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(added later) Will, first we have the question of whether or not those statements are from Mead or from the Wikipedia editor. You have to pay to see the article which I didn't do, so that's why I asked if somebody knows the answer to that question.North8000 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If only we knew.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

are ron pauls own words not proof enough? do you have any proof he is an isolationist. his voting record of opposing trade embargoes should be proof enough. regardless of your opinion of the sources relevance, many here have objected to its inclusion. would you be willing to remove it until a replacement source or additional source be located? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First, no, Paul's words are not sufficient to determine his own stance, much less the views of the TPM. Politicians often say one thing and do another so they are not definitive sources for their own policy positions and activites. Second, this is not about Paul himself but rather about the TPM. We can add more sources if we have other views of the TPM foreign policy, but simply adding material about Paul's foreign policy views would be inappropriate for this article. That material would belong in the Paul biography or in Political positions of Ron Paul.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul may prefer the term non-interventionism and it may be more accurate/neutral. But we should stick with what the source says if we are reporting it. TFD (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to my previous question, and, I feel, an important point. Is there ANYBODY here who can answer the question.....did Mead actually say that....particularly the strong statement "one personified by Ron Paul "  ?

I answered you above, obtusely. See this.   Will Beback  talk  11:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I read that whole section and I don't think that it answers my question. Narrowing it even further to help sort this out, my question is were the specific words "one personified by Ron Paul" written by Mead, or by a Wikipedia editor. I'm not out to criticize anybody, I just thought that if those were written by a Wikipedia editor, we could solve this by scaling back the wp:editor-written summary, and leave the overall material in. I might just assume that and do that, don't hesitate to revert me (no hard feelings) if someone does not like it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I added one word to soften it up. Then I did some checking. Ron Paul even advocates ending our trade embargo with Cuba! The implied "isolationist" statement about Paul is clearly wrong. And no, we don't have to put in stuff that we all know is wrong. The world is full of clearly wrong stuff in "RS's" that is not in Wikipedia. I think that the Mead source and material is good for this article. Will, you have access to the source.....what do you think of rewriting this to use Mead material other then the Ron Paul stuff? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not about Paul. It's about the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. Show me which trade embargoes the TPM has policies on and we can add that.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this has any relevance whatsoever. The fact is that Mead called the Paulite wing of the TPM 'neo-isolationist', and User:North8000's opinions about Cuba, and User:Darkstar1st's opinions about Ron Paul, have exactly zero bearing on that fact. The dubious template needs to be removed immediately. I've already removed it once, but was of course immediately reverted by one of our resident foreign policy experts. — goethean ॐ 22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone provide any sources which dispute Mead's characterization of the Paulite wing of the TPM. Since it's presented as an opinion of Mead's, I'm not sure how the "dubious" tag applies. Is the dispute whether Mead said that, or whether Mead's opinion is correct? If the latter then that's a non-starter since it's the opinion of an expert.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will scroll up to view the primary source RP, stating in the 2008 fox debate he is an non-interventionist. since the two terms have such a degree of variance, meads opinion should be reconsidered in favor of a different source. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If we were writing about Paul that might be informative. We're not. We're writing about the Paulite wing of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

so a paulite operates contrary to paul? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not something we need to decide. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

is rp not a rs about paulites? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Ron Paul say about the Paulite wing of the TPM? I haven't seen any sources for that.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, please review the definition of isolationist, and rp voting record, no rs needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't about Ron Paul.

I think it would be acceptable to add a parenthetical comment to explain. something like "(Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.)" What would we use as a source for that? I saw a mention of a 2008 debate, but I don't see a link.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds good to me. thx for meeting in the middle, kudos in the true spirit of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, addressing only older statements. Will, you are making up stuff. Specifically, what you are saying is that something being said in a "RS" mandates inclusion unless a explicitly says that it is wrong. That is faulty on several levels. Nowhere in WP does it say that. Second, source typically don't spend their time explicitly7 addressing false statements. Finally, NOBODY has come forward to even say that the words in question were even written by Mead vs a WP editor. As it stand currently, the faulty argument is built upon a faulty argument that is built upon a faulty argument. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making up anything, and I consider that an uncivil accusation. I don't see where anyone has provided sources which show that the cited article is an incorrect source for the author's opinion, or that the author's opinion of the Paulite wing of the TPM is incorrect. If I've missed it please provide it again. As for the accuracy of the summary of the source, which exact phrase are you questioning?   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the one I've explicitly asked about about 4 times, and, after multiple requests, you won't even answer whether or not the source actually said it. It's "one personified by Ron Paul" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the author does not use the word "personify". The relevant passage may be this: "The first is that the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinites. Ron Paul represents an inward-looking, neo-isolationist approach to foreign policy that has more in common with classic Jeffersonian ideas than with assertive Jacksonian nationalism." If there's another word that's better feel free to suggest it.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's good material, and even making a good point, but he erred in his choice of words (neo-isolationist) with respect to both Ron Paul and the libertarian types within the TPM. Non-interventionist would have been more accurate. Still have to noodle on that. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least it's about the TPM, and an attempt at summarization/analysis, which makes it better than the crap that 70% of this article consists of. My gut feel is to tweak the wording a bit to emphasize that these are Mead's opinions. And leave it in. But if we're going to have incorrect statements about Ron Paul in here, then correct ones on that topic are also appropriate. Then I think we need to find some more quality material for that section so that this isn't nearly the only thing in it as is presently the case. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is Mead's view. I don't buy the assertion that he is mistaken. Let me suggest an analogy. Let's say Senator Jones calls himself a progressive. A political science scholar writes that the "Jonesian" wing of the Democratic Party is liberal. Would we say that the scholar is mistaken, since Jones calls himself a progressive rather than a liberal? I don't think so.

There are a number of newspaper op-eds and and commentaries on the TPM foreign policy. It'd be great to add more views.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We still need a source for Paul's assertion. Can anyone find one?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on folks, I was told there was a source for Paul calling himself a "non-interventionist". Does it exist or not? If we can't find a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been asking for this since the 13th. If 30 days pass without a source I'll delete the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, did you ever look for a source? see above where i answered your concern by explaining RP said those very words in the debate last election. you seem to be changing your story a bit, 1st you wanted a source about the paulite wing, now you a source about paul? a google search of ron paul turned up several sources stating he is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, here is one http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/goldwater_is_to_reagan_as_ron.html the same could be said for the tp foreign policy as a whole, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/165445-rand-paul-and-the-tea-partys-foreign-policy there is a chance that you may or may not be pushing a pov consciously or sub-consciously. would you consider taking a break from this article for a month? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence that needs a source is the one added as a compromise: " (Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.)" Neither of the links you've provided seem to say that. The RealClearPolitics piece discusses Paul as a non-interventionist, but it does not say that Paul calls himself one. At most, it could be used to say that "A freelance writer based in New Jersey has called Paul a non-interventionist", but that'd be silly. Is RealClearPolitics even a suitable source? The Hill blog says that Paul "bristled" at the term "isolationist". It's a better source but it still doesn't say outright that Paul calls himself a non-interventionist. Maybe it's unsourceable. I did look and I couldn't find one. No big deal - as soon as we find a relevant source we can add back the sentence.

As for my editing of this article, I haven't touched it since May 19. I don't think I've caused any problems so I don't see any need to intentionally stop editing it.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, so the 2nd link in google: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas, ron paul Darkstar1st (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. We could summarize that source as saying something like "Paul says that the proper foreign policy is non-interventionism". It has nothing to do with the TPM, but would be added just to show a potentially different side of what Mead calls the "Paulite wing".   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's no objection I'll add that text using the Antiwar.com article as the citation.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still not true that we need to include relevant words of a respected commentator if we know that they're wrong. I made an attempt to fix it, by unlinking isolationist, as Mead, if accurate, clearly means something by "neo-isolationist" which has absolutely nothing to do with our article or the standard definition of isolationist, but Will reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to link it as a redlink neo-isolationist, indicating we have no idea what it means. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, we don't get to decide which sources are right or wrong based on our own person interpretations. I see that the term is now linked to Grand_strategy#Neo-Isolationism, which is fine. If there's no objection to the text and source posted above I'll add those.   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What's with the {content} tag? The edit summary says it was placed in lieu of reverting the deleted {disputed} tag,[1] but that was added without explanation either.[2] What, exactly, is being disputed?   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Racial issues

An editor removed the racial issues section, saying "this whole section is a debate between rs, one side says yes racist, other side says no, lacks consensus. the tp members themselves polled said not racist, removed as npov".[3] If there are valid or notable opinions presenting both sides, neutrality requires that we report both, not that we remove the section. TFD (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle. But I also agree with comments made in the past that much of the section consisted of content that was not noteworthy and only marginally related to the Tea Party movement, if at all. Perhaps this would be a good time to move that content here to the talk page and try to develop a consensus on what parts have relevance and their due weight instead of leaving the section that obviously just "growed like Topsy" out there. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the above isn't directly about the TPM, it's about peoples stated opinions about the TPM. We gotta get this article moving out of the junk hole.

Darkstar didn't take the worst wp:undue stuff out which is that massive stories which aren't even directly about TPM. All of this "racism" stuff should get condensed down to about three paragraphs carrying the analysis of some objective sources. In a few days I'm going to start taking out the worst most blatant wp:undue violations unless someone has a better plan. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We would be better off using better sources so that we could ensure that the opinions are either informed or notable, and readers would be able to see the weight that the various opinions have. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except I'd look for informed and objective. We need real analysis by writers, not quotes of talking points from political operatives. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You will not find objective sources - it is up to us to ensure that this article is objective. What we should find is sources that explain weight applied to different points of view. TFD (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We could debate that one later. Right now even what you described is a step above what we have now which a lot of stuff that is not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can each of you cite just a couple of these sources that would meet your collective requirements of "objective, informed and notable", as a starting point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the hard part :-) I found one a few months ago which was an article in The Economist, I put it in talk here and think I could find it again. I think that what I really most had in mind is that the material is written by someone who is trying to analyze and cover the topic, not somebody who is just reporting on what Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelozi or a political operative said about it. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.economist.com/node/17361396?story_id=17361396 from 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections (the twitter one and the "somebody claimed that some unknown person said something bad" section. Massive wp:undue violations, and they they aren't even directly about the TPM. And then evolve the racial issues section. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to start. This wp:undue disaster has existed long enough. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I took out the "controversies" heading and promoted the items under it up one level. Start to resolve the long tagged NPOV violation of that heading. Also took out the section the twitter comment. A TPM-disclaimed twitter comment by a person who happened to be one of zillions of local TP leaders is NOT material about the TPM. Big wp:npov:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't in their edit summary, Xeno just put the twitter item back in. This is just the worst of the worst of what needs to come out, and we can't seem to make any progress. If we can't start getting rid of this based on talk page discussions, then broader RFC about the huge amount of junk / wp:npov via wp:undue violations that are in here that need to go. What say you all? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, North, it's right there in my edit summary - please check again - and yes, I did put the racial slur incident back into the "racial issues" section. You removed it, claiming it "...is not material about the TPM" in your edit summary. Well, yes North, it is. Racial slurs by a TP leader and organizer, that resulted in cancellations of appearances by various politicos and candidates at a Tea Party rally. It is very relevant to that annoying little part of the movement's history that has gotten so much press play: the racism issues. I'm sure many of us would like to see the "worst of the worst" racism incidents expunged from the article, but the fact remains that the whole racism association subject needs to be neutrally presented and explained. It isn't going to just go away if we just scrub all the events, incidents, commentary, studies, polls, analysis and examples from our article. Simply nitpicking away at personally selected mentions of it in the article, one after another, isn't moving us toward solving the real problem: the lack of an encyclopedic treatment of the whole race issue plaguing the movement since its inception.

Let's work on developing that encyclopedic treatment of the issue. Do that first, and you'll find the need for the present disjointed laundry list of examples and anecdotes will disappear, and we won't need them anymore. Removing them now without first properly addressing the whole issue is inappropriate, and might be misconstrued as leaving the article in a POV state. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought that those events do not merit mention. I don't see how you can address the larger issue if you cannot even agree that these minor incidents have no relevance. 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Xeno's comment, why don't you try to come up with some real sources (I.E. real summary or analysis) that discusses the issue or even that such an issues exists? Not talking points quoted from operatives of their political opponents....real quality sources? The fact that this article is so full of 100% crap / wp:undue violations on that putative issue (I.E. a whole section in the article on each time somebody who is in the TPM movement says something dumb on the topic, or makes an unsubstantiated claim that some mystery person in the TPM said it) makes it look like a desperate attempt to manufacture an "issue" where there is none. But don't take my word for it, can anybody find a source which substantively summarizers or analyizes this putative issue to even say that it really even exists anywhere except in the claims of political operatives of it's opponents? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I, and other editors, have posted good sources here many times over the past two years. However, I'm as guilty as the next editor of not finding the motivation to do the heavy-lifting required to improve the article. Also, comments like "...or even that such an issues exists", tend to dampen any optimism one may have that a serious, intelligent collaboration might finally be undertaken.

Let me ask you this: Of the sources that I have seen that "summarizers or analyizes (sic)" the issue, to use your phrase, how shall I evaluate them to determine which come from "operatives of their political opponents" and which do not? Shall we just assume that any source that says anything critical or unflattering about the movement has obviously come from political opponents? Please define the necessary criteria to be met (in addition to Wikipedia's requirements) to qualify for use here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM. And drop the 2,000 words of this article that is not ABOUT the TPM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which 2000 words would those be? And, again, what are your criteria for such sources? The only thing you've offered as a source of analysis was your one piece by the opinion columnist in the Lexington blog printed at the Economist link you mentioned above. That opinion piece devotes a mere two sentences to the issue, in this paragraph:

Some call the tea parties an “Astroturf” phenomenon—not grass-roots types at all but the dupes of big business. To others they are merely the most recent incarnation of an ugly right-wing and sometimes racist populism that has surfaced before when times are hard. Such allegations are misplaced. Corporate money has indeed found its way into tea-party coffers, but if you attend a tea-party event you will generally find that it is indeed a self-organised gathering of citizens dismayed by what they see as the irresponsible behaviour of an out-of-control government. Strands of racism can be found on the movement’s fringe, but most tea-party groups have done their best to snip these off.

Not exactly a scholarly, in-depth analysis of a complex issue that has dogged the TP for two years now; one that has filled countless news cycles, spawned debates, prompted national polls, and been the catalyst for university studies. Am I to understand that is representative of the kind of sources you would like to use as a foundation? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my post, it said "I would settle for just being summary or analysis and be ABOUT the TPM." What you are inferring that I said is a modified straw-man version, implying that I said "scholarly" in there and that I offered that piece as a scholarly example. I never said either. And then you are responding to your straw man version of what I said instead of responding to what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You must not have read my response to you; I never inferred that you called the opinion piece in TheEconimist.com a "scholarly" example. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll note that it was I calling that opinion piece 'not scholarly'. Implying the use of straw men is itself a straw man assertion, allowing you to avoid my still unanswered question about what your criteria is for usable sources. When I asked for examples of "objective, informed and notable" sources, your only submission was this opinion piece. Back to the question now, North? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A start on the 2,000 words would be the section on the twitter comment that you put back in. A twitter comment by a local leader that was not on behalf of the TPM, and which the TPM said has nothing to do with them is not material ABOUT the TPM, and, on top of that, a massive wp:undue violation. This is a nice first example. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Racial slurs by a Tea Party leader and organizer on a Tea Party website that caused cancellations from a Tea Party rally has nothing to do with the TP movement? I'm not sure I follow you. The politicians intending to speak at the rally, but then cancelled, disagree. The coverage in local papers on up to a whole segment on CNN also indicates otherwise. I do see that another local leader of a Dayton TP chapter disagreed with the Springboro leader's statements, but that seems to be par for the course. For every Thomas, Williams, Robertson, etc., expressing certain sentiments, you can always find another TPer to step up and say, "Doh! That's not really representative of the movement!" Viva la diversitie!

I agree with you that no single TPer individual speaks for the movement, but it is disingenuous to suggest that content about racial issues related to its members, leaders and policies is not material ABOUT the TPM. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opening changed my words again. I never said "nothing to do with the TPM"; I said it is not ABOUT the TPM. I can see that if you are going to make it a 2 hour job to even get one item that is one of the worst wp:npov/undue out of this article, then it is going to require a different approach to get this article out of junk status. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet again you are confusing my original choice of words with a quotation of your words, and yet again you are mistaken: I was not quoting you. I hope you are clear on that now; if not, I will patiently explain it to you yet again until there are no more misconceptions. I will also patiently continue to await your answer to questions (we're up to 3 now) you've been avoiding while diverting down these tangents. (1) What criteria should our sources meet, and (2) How is the "spics" slur content not about the TPm? (Note that at least one quoted TPer even felt the need to speak in defense of the movement because of that very event.) (3) If you're goal is to get items out of the article that you find objectionable, and you can't suggest source criteria (or sources) we should use for this project, and you are having difficulty clearly explaining why TPm-relevant content should be purged as "not ABOUT the TPM", should we instead try to bring some fresh perspective on the article through an RFC? It seems we haven't progressed very far beyond our mutual agreement that this article could use some serious rework. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The first two I already answered and this is the first time I've seen the third so some of those comments are out of line. But happy to recap and expand on the first two and and answer the third. 1. In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife. 2. First I now noticed that that section has even more problems. It is reporting a twitter tweet as something posted on the organizations web site; a conflict with one of the sources, and the other source had no details on the basis for making it sound like something more than a twitter tweet by an individual. But, answering your question directly, this material is about what an individual did, not ABOUT the TPM. A more direct way to achieve ending wp:undue violations is to say, on controversial material, limit it to things that are directly ABOUT the TPM, not things that are just SOMEHOW RELATED to TPM. 3. Your question #3 started with two false implied premises making it unanswerable without writing a book. But the fresh prospective / RFC is a good idea. We should mutually structure it well so that it actually resolves the issue. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess to make it specific, my proposed RFC question is a proposal to completely remove the twitter section and the possible-slur at health care protests section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that makes it more specific, or less specific. First, I should reiterate that my hopes for the RFC is to address the section presently titled "Racial issues", with an eye toward treating all of that subject matter (including your identified sections) in a more encyclopedic manner. My proposal might achieve your desired results anyway, as I expect many of those specific events will be at least reduced to mere footnotes, if they remain at all, as content is summarized and information is presented in encyclopedic rather than anecdotal-example format. We've been sparring recently because you've been pushing to simply excise relevant material outright, while I've been pushing to map out a plan to properly replace it. I know you've argued against the relevance of some of this content, but not convincingly. I'm sure you can find support for content removal simply because some editors will find it unflattering, but I think an actual policy-compliant reason will need to be presented during an RFC.

When you say "possible-slur at health care protests", I assume you mean the protests in Washington, DC during the weekend of March 20-21, 2010, when the health care reform votes were taking place? The naming of that section is a little problematic. Just to be sure we're on the same page, that is the same protest where:

• Protesters called Frank multiple anti-gay slurs like 'Faggot'?
• Protesters called Hispanics spics and threatened gun violence (yeah, our boy Sonny was there in DC)?
• A protester spat on Cleaver (intentionally, or accidentally but refused to apologize - no difference to most of us)?
• Rep. Anthony Weiner was called "Schlomo Weiner" and had notes left in the hallways about him & Rahm Emanuel in the shower, signed with swastikas?
• Protesters called Waxman a liar and a crook?
• CBS described the protesters as loud and furious, and reported "anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them"?

Is that the same protest where some partisan whacks say its absurd (and even a fabricated conspiracy!) that some black congressmen could have heard the n-word, despite several eyewitnesses saying they did, simply because the protesters haven't coughed up a video recording of themselves saying it? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, sincerely, your post is quite impressive. I mean this sincerely that it gives me hope that you want a good process and a good article vs. just pov'ing. And, in context, it is a sincere relief that now I'm not sure what to think. What do you think about first trying the new thread at the bottom? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What a curious response, considering my post is just a reiteration of the position I've held and expressed many, many times over the past months. I am encouraged to see your expression that you are pro-good article and against POV'ing the article; now let's see if we can put those good intentions into practice. See you in the discussion thread below. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case

this quote from an already quoted rs "Macallistar" was removed, why? unless their is any objection, i will replace it. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which quote? Diff?   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

the section title is the quote. i didn't include difs as i do wish to drawn attention to the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording was inserted into an existing quotation as if it were spoken as a single phrase, which it was not. I reverted it primarily for that reason, but also because you had removed the word "black", which was the descriptive word forming the basis of the source article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

would you object to me adding the qoute in it's entirety? how do you feel the meaning was changed with my abbreviated version? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not object to you properly adding quotes. There is quite a bit more we can add from that source article to expand that section of our article, if that is the intent. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Source? Could editors please be more helpful in their posts - some of us edit articles besides this one and it's hard to follow obscure references like this.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, it simply part of the same sourced already used, its actually the rest of the quote already used. why an editor choose to leave it out, or why when i added it, the passage was removed is a mystery. unless someone will expand on what else they would like here, i will simply add the above back as before. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The same source already used for what? If you're going to post a request then please add enough context that other editors know what you're talking about without having to spend 20 minutes searching through deleted edits.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

there is only one reference to rs mcallistar, and the source has not been deleted, no search required, the current version includes mcallistar. i would just like to add a few more words from the rest of the sentence, would you object? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched for "mcallistar" and "Macallistar" but didn't find anything. So I don't know what you're asking about.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From this Washington Post article, and more specifically, this text from that article:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.

"I feel like the tea party movement is at its core a good thing for America. It is a group of citizens that have not been previously involved," McAllister said. "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior."

McAllister, who has spoken at several tea party gatherings, said the movement is more diverse than news clips show. "There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case," he said.

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

xeno thx for the update, but you haven't explained why you deleted that line, or what other words you felt were missing for me to add it back? do you still object to the words being added? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I did explain. Start from the bold print directly above. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i will make the delineation. in the future, please do so yourself rather than delete a rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I never deleted a RS. I returned a quote to it's actual structure. If you wish to add more quotes in the future, please do so properly. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

i see the difference. in the future, please help preserve relevant content instead of delete it, especially when it is from the same exact interview. thx in advance for just correcting my poor grammar, rather than deleting it, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

except last time you deleted the words instead of correct the format, why? next time, just and the cooma or whatever it was you did and leave the text plz, thanks for your help in advance! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, as in the past, I always do. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

but you didnt, you deleted the words, what am i missing here? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But I did, as always, and I wasn't the one that deleted 'black'. All I did was a revert. Be more descriptive, and I'll help you find what you are missing. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not over-quote a minor figure. It might be better to summarize this view rather than to quote it verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, please see the other section, i suggested all of these are minor figures whose opinions would not be included except some people characterization of their skin color makes them relevant somehow. to me, that is racist, determining a persons relevance not based on words, but skin color, a shame. this whole section is a mistake. racism exist in all political spectrums, including every known event here smacks of npov gaming. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to the quotes, the difference is between a quotation which appeared in one newspaper article, and comments which have themselves become newsworthy and have been repeated in multiple sources. The two issues, the composition of the movement and it's policies and rhetoric, are separate. It's possible to have a multi-ethnic group which holds racist views and it's also possible to have a mono-ethnic group which does not. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources, giving weight proportional to views according to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, we have to do more than that. We need to write a quality, sourcable article and source it. And making a section on each time any TPM person says anything bad is definitely both npov gaming and contributing to the current junk article status. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The way to write a "quality, sourcable article" is by verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view, with weight according to prominence. If individual remarks get significant attention in the context of the TPM, then they are appropriate to discuss here.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What you just said is included, but it takes more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What "more" are you thinking about, specifically?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

something more than hymietown and loot the jews which is absent the democrat party article, as well as the kkk and members. the article is not about the past, but the current tp platform. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the KKK is already there. As for the other two examples, exactly how would you word them, what reliable sources would you cite, and in which section would you put them? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean Howard-Hill, leader of the National Republican African American Caucus

why isn't Brandon Brice described by his most notable achievement like the others here? he owns, i meant writes on a blog called hiphoprepublican.com. yet he only gets "black speaker at a tea party rally" title? i added it once, it was removed, i will add it back unless there is objection. “One of the best examples I have found of the growing diversity in the resurgent Republican movement has been Hip Hop Republicans” - Brandon Greife – Political Director of the College Republican National Committee. “While some blacks lean conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, Web sites like HipHopRepublican.com raise issues important to blacks that many Americans are concerned about health care, affordable housing, the economy, the environment and education” -The New York Times Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that his blog is his most notable achievement? Strange that he doesn't include it on his resume or website. The description used was from the cited source. We could, I suppose, add in your other sources you just mentioned and create a mini-bio of him in this article about the TP movement, including his scout merit badges, his teaching creds from Rutgers, his FOX News appearances, etc. On second thought, let's not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

here is a better description that describes him as the spokesperson: http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/07/21/hhr-radio-exclusive-interview-with-brandon-brice/ Brandon is a long time active blogger and spokesperson for HipHopRepublican.com Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above descriptions (including your most recent link, which itself just provides the description and link to an old 2009 version of his personal website) provide interesting content for a Brandon Brice article. Was there a question here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

yes plz scroll up. i asked why you deleted a notable achieve on the order of receiving praise from the times and other rs, as we as being known as the spokesperson. i am a bit confused why you deleted this title and replaced it with "a black speaker at rally", not a note worthy title at all, agreed? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He was a blogger, and a spokesperson for a website -- you are saying that is a "notable achievement" you wish to add to the TPm article? Why? He doesn't even reference those hobbies on his resume or website anymore. One would assume being a Policy Intern for the Speaker of the House, or an Economics teacher at Rutgers, or a regular political contributor at FOX News would be a bit higher up on his "achievement" list. Like I said, that is content better suited for an article about him. He is referred to in our article as "a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally" because that is how the source article refers to him: he's African American; a black conservative TPer (the very subject of the article, by the way). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

would you be ok with including he is both a black speaker and spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

unless there be further opposition, i will re-add hiphoprepublican and leave the word black. a shame given the age we live a mans accomplishments come after his skin color when describing him. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably address the concerns already raised before asking for "further opposition". And you haven't said anything about adding his accomplishments. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, if he did a twitter comment, THAT would be the basis for a huge section in this article! But only if the comment sounds bad.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your animosity toward Twitter is duly noted. Not understood, but noted. ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

it was an allusion to the fact a 130 character text ranks below a blog post and lolcats. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. So the animosity is not directed toward the medium used, Twitter, but toward the 130 character brevity of the racial slur? Strange, as it is one of the longer expressions of racist sentiment I've seen; usually it is just a caustic word or two. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons it's rates so low is that it is so so spontaneous and instantaneous (per WP 78% pointless babble or conversational) that it is the bottom of the bottom of the barrel regarding being a meaningful indicator of anything. But at the moment I was chiding you about a double standard about suitability of material for the article. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the main reasons you rate it so low, you mean? While the fact that it tends to be "spontaneous and instantaneous" may reduce its value in your eyes, those very same qualities also mean the communication is likely to be more truthful, less guarded, and far less nuanced and prepared. In other words, closer to his actual thoughts, rather than what he might vocalize in polite company -- and that speaks volumes about the broader racism issue we've been discussing. By the way, your "78% pointless babble or conversational" is not "per WP". Per actual WP, those percentages are from a single study of 2000 tweets a couple years ago, and are refuted by by Dr. Boyd, who explains that the tweets are only "pointless babble" when read by those for whom the tweets were not intended. But we stray...

You lost me with your reference about "suitability of material for the article." Above, DS1 suggested adding "spokesperson for hiphoprepublican.com" as a further description of Brice. That baffles me because Brice is no longer one of the spokespersons for that website, Brice no longer lists that as one of his interests on his resume, and Brice no longer mentions HHR on his personal website. In addition, when I asked DS1 what motivation he had for adding that, he says because it is Brice's "most notable achievement". Yeah, I LOL'd too. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Partiers gaining support from whom?

The following text was added to the Public Opinion section of our article:

A CBS News/New York Times poll in April 2011 showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling. 63% oppose raising the debt ceiling.

I checked the CBS poll, located here, and it says nothing about the TP gaining or losing support on anything. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it says nothing about the Tea Party at all. Why was this added?   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

you clicked the wrong link, view the actual source listed on wp. Opposition doesn’t just come from “extremist” Tea Party members Will, the poll does mention the tea party a few times, read the original poll here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056239-503544.html Darkstar1st (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the debt ceiling and the TPM appears to come from a partisan blog, Hot Air. This is the CBS page on the debt ceiling, it doesn't mention the TPM.[4] The view that the poll "showed the Tea Party gained support from non-tea party members in their opposition to raising the debt ceiling" does not come from the pollsters. It comes from Ed Morrissey. Considering how much grief we had over citing the opinion of a distinguished professor, this doesn't seem like the kind of source we should be using, especially for assertions that are not clearly factual.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

then you did not view the cbs link above which mentions the tp a few times. why is there so much opposition to a poll about the debt ceiling that mentions the tp? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is linking the two, which CBS does not do but which Morrissey does. IOW, it's his opinion that they're linked and he's just a partisan blogger - his piece is lower than an Op-Ed column on the reliability scale.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

which still lies miles above a tweet. consider balance here, and allow some public opinion that reflects the tp beliefs such as the debt ceiling, not just polls about how many people are not in the tp. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we don't cite 'tweets' as reliable sources for statements of fact, either. No one has disallowed content on TP beliefs, numbers of TP supporters or public opinions. I brought up your content addition to the Public Opinion section here for discussion because you made factual assertions that were not supported by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

i have tried to add more recent polls, from the same polling sources and have been deleted and reported for warring. why is it so hard to present positive info about the tp, and so hard to remove negative info about tp even when many question it's relevance. is there support for outside help, if so, who is willing to begin the process, as i may not be on wp for awhile, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really that hard to add and remove content, if you follow Wikipedia rules (or "use the system", as some call it). However, there are quite a few rules, and learning to edit within the constraints of all of them does take some time and practice. There are a number of noticeboards and dispute resolution facilities dedicated to helping resolve various editing issues. For issues generally about content 'relevance', you might submit a request for comment (As North8000 and I are considering above), or if you have a more specific and defined content relevance issue, you might post it at the NPOV Noticeboard. Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Darkstar's comment

It's going to take some work and/ or several more neutral people involved to rise this article out of junk POV status. The people who want to keep it that way know how to use the system to make it so that every tiny step out of the hole would take dozens of hours of work; at the moment my life is too short for that. Not sure what is next here. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a general list of what you feel is specifically making it junk POV. If you could give an idea of what you want, then others can work on it when you're busy.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Just to clarify, I didn't mean that I'm particularly busy at the moment, I meant that I've gotten to the point in life where I realized it's too short to go spending dozens of painful hours for each tiny step out of the hole that this junk article is in, an equation that the skillful pov warriors have created.

The first thing to go should be the twitter section. It's not about nor informative about the TPM. And even if it was (which it isn't) putting a whole section in an article about a national movement about one local leader's personal tweet is a massive wp:undue violation.

Second is removal the 710 words about "somebody claimed that somebody in the crowd said something bad" at that health care protest. Has all of the above problems plus two more. It's unsubstantiated that anybody said anything, and also of course, nothing about who allegedly said it.

Again, thanks for asking. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I took a brief look at it (doing some other stuff right now), but here are my current thoughts. The reasoning for the Twitter section, from my understanding, is a bit sketchy, but might have precedent. I need to look into it a bit more, but the reasoning seems to be that the actions of a prominent member, which had an effect on how it was treated, it thus, notable in the section. While Notability isn't inherited (everything that the politicians say isn't necessarily notable, and neither is everything that happens within the Tea Party), it is worth looking into. I'll be happy to do that once I get a chance (should be later today).

The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated". That's not quite right, or necessarily what we should be looking at. It has been addressed by many high profile politicians, of both parties. Remember, we aren't looking for the Truth, as awful as that may be. We are looking for verifiability. It is VERY well sourced that there was a controversy regarding the incident.

My suggestion is to reorganize the section so that we have those who confirm it occurred, such as Emanuel Cleaver, Barney Frank, Andre Carson, John Lewis, Heath Shuler, Andrew Alexander, Richard Trumka, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and counter point it with the people who have expressed doubt, like Andrew Breitbart, Bill O'Reilly and Thomas Sowell. That way, we show them the controversy, and allow them to make up their own minds as to whether it occurred or not. That sound good?

Homo Logica (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any improvement would be nice. My one thought that comes to mind is: Wp:verifiability is a condition for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. A main reason should be that it is informative about the TPM, while meeting wp:undue criteria for being in an article with a topic of this scale/scope. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you do think it should be mentioned, but that it shouldn't have as long of a section as it has? Homo Logica (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

given the balance here, perhaps one less negative comment on the tp would right the vessel? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to Homo Logica To be honest, I think that both of those two should be completely dropped. I didn't include the Dale Robertson one because that person is or was a prominent TP'er vs. one of the countless local leaders. But I forgot to include the propane grill damage committed by some mystery person conjectured to have been maybe motivated by a tp'er comment...that should also go. To say anything else would be disingenuous, but I'm ready, willing and eager to compromise ANYWHERE to finally start some forward progress out of junk status. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so (I want to be certain I understand your objection, so please bear with me), you are objecting to the material on grounds of WP:EVENT, or is because that it is Notable, but being included in this article gives WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would have to answer from two perspectives. One is trying to create a quality article which is to try to be informative and not misleading, not distorted by pov goals, with limited space/reader time in this article with a large scale topic. And taking that from two angles, something that one nobody or near-nobody in the organization said serves absolutely no purpose under any of the above. It not ABOUT the TPM, is ABOUT what a near-nobody or mystery-person said or did. The flip side is that the ONLY reason it's in there is to provide the impression that such nastiness is a party of the TPM agenda, or is even tolerated by it. The other perspective is looking for Wikipedia policies/guidelines to support that. And that is it is a massive wp:undue violation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As a general principle and not in reference to any specific issue, if a non-notable person makes a comment and it gets picked up by multiple news sources with headlines like "TP member makes newsworthy statement", then at some point it becomes about the Tea Party movement. That's just a fact of how politics works.   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North, before we continue, remember to keep cool :-). I know that you have put in a lot of effort, and I want to help. Frustration is understandable. Remember, we all just want to make it better.

So, focusing on the article, you're talking about WP:EVENT, if I understand correctly. Now, the criteria for an event are:

• WP:EFFECT -- The long-term effects of the event.
• WP:GEOSCOPE -- The area effected.
• WP:INDEPTH -- How thorough the coverage is/was.
• WP:PERSISTENCE -- How long the coverage is/was.
• WP:DIVERSITY -- The variety in coverage.

Now, an event can be very difficult to assess, specifically because it's nearly impossible to know long-term effects. Since the section doesn't go into the effects, let's assume there are none. The scope of the coverage is as wide as the article (the entire US). There were quite a few in-depth reports on the matter, as sourced in the article. The persistence is hard to determine: while the event itself is no longer covered, it is referenced still. The diversity of the coverage has been quite wide, as represented by the 14 sources provided for the section. This is why it would be difficult to remove right now.

My personal opinion is that the long-term effects will be negligible, and thus, it will be relegated to a sentence or two, if it is mentioned at all. However, that isn't right now. For the moment, it seems as though it is relevant enough to be included. A good way to think about it (in my odd way of thinking), is that if everybody in the US started declaring the Democratic Party was made of poopie-heads, including an analysis of how it could be, it doesn't matter that it is childish, stupid, and patently wrong. It is still notable. (See: told you I have an odd way of looking at it.)

An alternate option, that might be more efficient, and a better compromise between the two stances, would be to make a separate article for the controversies. A bigger undertaking, but it would take it out of the article, and make room for things that specifically deal with the Tea Party, and not any of the controversies.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

i like the idea for a second article about controversies. the democratic party was and is full of racist, yet no mention in the wp article, because that is not the party platform. a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me, Corrine Brown (D-FL), Hymietown. Jackson, loot the Jews., Sharpton, Dick Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization. This is all about the Jews, Billy McKinney. undue, plain and simple. without outside help, the tp article will continue to be maligned, possibly by editors pushing a pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Darkstar1st, as is immediately evident by the supporting examples you struggled to find (Corrine was calling the Bush policies racist, [5] but nice try; Sharpton never said that, nice try; McKinney reliable source? ...) While it is true that racism can be found everywhere, there is no mention of it in the Democratic Party Wikipedia article because there is no relationship between racism and the Democratic Party. In fact, to the contrary, comparing the Dem article to, say, the Republican Party article, we see that it is officially part of the Dem's platform to support Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, and favor more immigration and cultural diversity -- stances antithetical to those taken by racists. The parent party of the TPers, by contrast, is against affirmative action, views immigration less favorably and (if their representatives are any indication) is less diverse. The reason the article about a 2 year old movement mentions racism while the article about a 200 year old political party does not is because of the weight of the existing reliably sourced content covering that issue. You see, the new TP movement is still struggling to define itself, so that void of defining information is presently being filled by whatever limited reliable sources we presently have. Right now that includes a very significant amount on this stuff related to race. As Homo Logica noted above, this race-related content may indeed wither in relevance (and consequently weight and presence in this article) over time — but that doesn't mean we need to suffer what is, IMO, unencyclopedic presentation of that content right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you realize the kkk was started by democrats who had members(alleged ex-members) sitting in the US house only a few years ago? the civil rights movement was opposed by democrats. none of this has anything to do with less tax, which is the tea partyz only agenda. have you contributed anything to this article about the tea party that is neutral or even positive? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I know the actual history of the KKK, and I know that there are Democrats in the US House of Representatives, and I know there have been folks from all political parties that opposed the civil rights movement. Yes, I've contributed a lot that is neutral, even and positive. Have you made contributions to any article that accurately conveyed content from cited sources, utilized proper grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation? ;-) I consider all of those to be positives. We're straying from article-relevant discussion, but feel free to continue on our personal talk pages if you wish. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you are advocating OR of the worst kind. You are basically saying "I know this (your controversial opinion) about the TPM, and so I am going to find and select situations that build the picture / opinion that you pre-determined.North8000 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done no such thing. I'd ask you to substantiate that ludicrous statement by pointing out exactly where, but I've been through that unproductive tedious exercise with you before, and I'd rather not waste all that time getting to your inevetible retractions. Instead, I'll cut&paste exactly what I said -- to refute your "You are basically saying..." typical misrepresentation crap. Please try to apply at least a minimum amount of basic reading comprehension this time around, North: "I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues." Got it now? "My" opinions (controversial, pre-determined, or otherwise) have nothing to do with what I advocate. I'm advocating for the replacement of that list of examples previously added by editors, "select situations" if you prefer, with an encyclopedic treatment of the issue based on reliably sourced scientific studies and polls and objective examinations of the issue. We have some sources already cited that convey certain correlations and findings, but not many, so I've even been (unsuccessfully) prodding you to help me identify more sources. Now enough with the unsubstantiated attacks already, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Homo Logica. First and foremost, thank you so much for the work that you are doing here! And just to emphasize, I have 100% thankfulness and zero frustration with you. I had wp:npov rather than wp:event in mind, but wp:event is a good place to find some guidance, even if not specifically a content guideline. There are thousands of things that have been said by TP'res that have been covered by the media. Selecting just a particular few bad sounding ones out of the thousands for this article represents creation of an artificial construction by pov editors. Per Darkstar's examples, you don't see even a mention of any of the in the Democratic party article. I think that your 2nd article idea is a pragmatic way to a solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

North8000 and I share a dislike for the series of "This TPer said/did this bad thing" example list in the article, but for markedly different reasons. If I understand North's position correctly, he feels the list of examples is a POV attempt to create an "artificial construction", or a false narrative about the movement, implying that the movement is racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc., — and he would like to see much of that content removed outright. I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As with other parts of the article, I don't think there is enough quality sourcing to effect such a replacement. The TPM article is likely to remain clumsy while the topic itself is so new. BigK HeX (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically on the suggestion of moving controversies into a separate daughter article, I'm torn between the obvious benefits and the potential pitfalls. One concern that I have is that merely critical or unflattering information might be misdescribed as "controversial" just so that it can be scrubbed from this article and hidden away in a less trafficked article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is zero reason to separate out the coverage that some Tea Party supporters may find disparaging. The fundamental problem is that this article is based almost entirely on recent events. It will be quite some time before proper weighting can be judged less controversially. BigK HeX (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That was addressed further down. That's why I proposed altering the name, so that it doesn't come off that way. The intent, is to leave the material that relates to the Tea Party Movement's official policies, and general positions. Then, we have the other article for perceptions of the Tea Party Movement. That way, this article doesn't put WP:UNDUE on the perceptions and controversies, and the other article can go into more depth on the issues, so that a full picture is given.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is the entire problem. There are zero "official" policies. Pretty much every stated goal of the Tea Party represents only a singular opinion. Once you open the door to include those opinions in an article, then WP:NPOV requires that we consider including an entire range of opinions with comparable notability. BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Controversies

No problem. So, I'm thinking that we should move over the following sections:

1. Fundraising and support
2. Public Opinion
3. A good portion of Obama administration
4. Commentaries
5. Media Coverage
6. Tea Party's view of media coverage
7. Racial Issues
8. Mark Williams Islam Comments
9. Use of term teabagger
10. Other Controversies

Then, we condense them into a smaller section in this article (I haven't done a thorough review of everything, so it's hard for me to determine exactly what that should be.)

Homo Logica (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are all the sections that focus on controversies (from my cursory check). Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, don't forget that we'd need to leave behind a summary of the material moved. Second, Fundraising and public opinion are core issues and should [not] be moved wholesale.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [amended]   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. That's what I was addressing with the latter part. In that it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article.

Fundraising and Public Opinion, from my first glace, shouldn't be moved. The reason I added them, was because of the contents. Fundraising and support focuses almost entirely on the Koch brothers, as an accusation, which has been disputed by the Koch brothers. Public Opinion, I'm a little more leery on, but again, it seems to focus mostly on how people approve or disapprove, and how it shows they do not represent the average American.

I fully agree that those sections are relevant. The current content of them, though, is more towards it as criticism. I meant the contents of the sections. Not anything that would be in said sections.

Homo Logica (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If we remove all of the critical material and keep everything else then it would be a POV fork and a violation of [[WP::NPOV]]. Just about everything in the article could be considered a controversy one way or another, so it's important to only move those self-contained incidents which are not core to the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referencing just the things that were unflattering. I was talking, specifically, about material that represents something for which there is a controversy, in the truest sense of the word. Under Fundraising, for example, the Koch brothers were accused of funding the Tea Party. So, we present both sides. The accusations, and the responses. Just as with the racism claims. Accusations and counterpoint. Let them make their own decisions, we just present the controversy. Looking at WP:POVFORK, though, it occurs to me that Perceptions of the Tea Party would be a more NPOV way to do it (this is also a response to Xenophrenic). I definitely didn't want to limit it to just pulling out the critical stuff.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up as far as potential duplication: Tea Party protests also touches on the issues of racism allegations, early Koch involvement, etc., and the National Tea Party Federation article was created about the organization formed as a result of "unflattering" events. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll try to make the rounds to similar articles, catch everything up together, put in similar stubs, and link to the new one. Any more concerns on the matter from anybody before I go through them?

Homo Logica (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents. I wasn't out to remove topics where there is criticism, I was just out to remove junk that doesn't belong the article. My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved. The new article is a pragmatic way to get there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it appear that you seem to use the term "junk" to reference material that may be disparaging to the Tea Party, regardless of the coverage and sourcing? BigK HeX (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

North's concern (correct me if I'm wrong, obviously :-P), is that the amount of material in this article, puts WP:UNDUE on some of the more sensationalist events, which detracts from the rest of the article, making it not WP:NPOV.

Also, North, I'm in definite agreement that the sections should still be there. I was specifically talking about the material that is currently in the sections, as it relates mostly to the perceptions about the Tea Party Movement, and not the Movement itself.

Homo Logica (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly think that is related to the problem where there is little other than (perhaps) sensationalist material to cover because the subject of the article is really too new to have settled, stable assessments. When we have to rely on newspapers as the dominant source, there are going to be issues in weighting, but I don't think anyone has tried to make the case that the "controversial" material covered in the article has not had comparable coverage and exposure to the material describing certain people's view on the Tea Party's goals. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BigK, you misunderstand me. By "junk" I mean (primarily those three sections) material that isn't ABOUT and the subject of the article, basically those three subsections. And sourcing is irrelevant to that question.

BigK, I think that you hit the nail on the head. Except that the issue is related to newness but goes beyond newness. IT IS NOT AN ENTITY, right now it is just a phenomena, we keep trying to cover it as if it was an entity and the people within it as if they were an organization or an entity. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Socialism or just plain antisocial?

Some comments on a few of the points made above:

• "The first thing to go should be the twitter section." --North8000

I've seen reference made to a "twitter section". There isn't one. There is, however, an incident where a TP leader and organizer expressed racist sentiments while attending the health care reform protests. While he did use Twitter as his media selection to post the slurs on a Springboro Tea party site, the media vehicle he used isn't at all germane to the issue. In my opinion, misdescribing it as a 'twitter section' is merely one part of a multi-pronged attack routine attempting to minimize the relevance of content (usually followed by descrediting the source, and finally by trying to distance the source from the "real" TP movement). We also do not have a "cardboard sign drawn with crayons section", but we do have another expression of racist sentiments by a TP leader/organizer. We don't have a "lol blog post on teh interwebs section", but we do have another expression of bigoted and racist sentiment by a TP leader/organizer. The reason these are issues is because of the message, not the choice of media used to convey it.

• "My first case in point in this article would be the section about the twitter comment." --North8000, but then we added the N-word slur incident,
• "A good place to start would be to delete those two "incident" sections..." --North8000, but then we added the cut gas line incident,
• "But I forgot to include the propane grill damage..." and "My gut feel is that would be those three sections I noted; the other sections just need to be improved." --North8000

Okay, so we're up to 3 incidents and counting. Am I to understand these to be North's candidates for transferral to the proposed Criticism and/or Perceptions sub-article? Homo Logica, on the otherhand, has listed at least 10 — not just incidents, but whole sections — to move over, but adds, "it would need to be summarized over here, with a link to the other article."

I may need a little help to understand the direction of the discussion, as well as any shared goals we are trying to achieve. Are we discussing moving just 3 incidents over, and "improving" the other content here? Or if we are discussing a massive transferral of content, do you intend to retain but "summarize" individual incident content here, such as the Thomas, Robertson, Williams, etc., sentiments? I don't see either of those as actual solutions to the real problems outlined above, just a relocation of the problems.

• "The health care protest part is a bit more complicated. You have stated that it is "unsubstantiated"." --Homo Logica

A little clarification seems to be needed: All three of the "incidents" ("spic" slur, "nigger" slur, and the severed gas line) are from the health care protest part. As are the "homo" slur, the "schlomo" slur, the "liar and crook" slur, the "faggot" slur, the swastikas notes, the spitting incident, the “Warning: If Brown can’t stop it, a Browning can” gun violence threats; the brick through Rep. Slaughter's window, etc. While they are all from the 72-hour period of protests surrounding the March 20-22, 2010 Health Care Reform votes, some confusion has been generated by giving some incidents their very own sub-header in the article. As for the "unsubstantiated" misnomer, all of the incidents do have multiple first-hand eyewitness corroboration; but I think the label is supposed to allude to the lack of additional audio/photo/video recording evidence, which all of the other incidents have, to support the "nigger" slur incident. (Because just that one particular slur would be so out of character at those protests, right?)

• "In the areas where the content is disputed, I propose that we go to sources where the writer is writing what appears to be journalistic material directly ABOUT the TPM on whatever the topic is, and we are using that material written by them. This sounds like a loose standard, but it does rule out things such as when the writer is just report on what Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh said, or people throwing in a story that a local leader kicks dogs or wrote something racist or beat his wife." --North8000

'Or wrote something racist', like Sonny Thomas did about "spics"? Looking at the presently cited source entitled Racial slur by Tea Party leader hits home, I can see why you might feel the source is only talking about that one bad apple, and not about the Tea Party. Would it satisfy your concerns if we replaced that source with a more detailed follow-up report source by the same award-winning investigative reporter, and more broadly titled it, Springboro Tea Party tries to weather controversy, where it explains the relevancy by detailing the following about the movement:

National group tries to organize — While the local controversy unraveled, officials from Tea Party groups around the country met in Minnesota to form a federation designed to coordinate the messages communicated by local groups such as the Springboro Tea Party and counteract charges of racism and disorganization undermining the national message. John Green, director of the Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, pointed to the Reform Party, formed by Texan Ross Perot, as another grass-roots political group that encountered problems because of its decentralized organization. “There’s no control,” Green said. Still, Perot won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. In 1998, Jessie Ventura was elected Minnesota’s governor as a Reform Party candidate. Can the Tea Party overcome controversies such as the one in Springboro and match or surpass the Reform Party’s accomplishments? “Nobody knows if the Tea Party will be that strong,” Green said, looking ahead to November. “If the economy continued to perform poorly, the Tea Party may be a factor in the fall elections.”

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a little direct, I am a little exasperated....six months and many hours wasted so far with no progress in the junk areas. I very much appreciate and thank you for the diligent work that you did with this post.

First a quick factual disagreement. In the twitter section, one of the sources said he "tweeted" that and the other said he posted on a twitter page, which is the main place where twits and tweets go. There is no indication that it was anything above a lowly tweet, one of the zillions of tweets done by people participating in the TPM, specially selected because it sounded bad.

What I propose is those three junk sections out, by whatever method. They are not ABOUT the TPM. They are about things a few people said or did that have nothing to do with the TPM's agenda, selected just for inuendo purposes because they sound bad. If they stay, then both sides should be covered. One side is that they are somehow indicative of the TPM = reporting them as if they were info about the TPM as the article currently does....the other side is that the selection and over publicizing of negative sounding but irrelevant or non-indicative material illustrates the type of tactics that their opponents are using. The latter would also be sourcable. And I think that the material and source that you described at the end of your post is good....the kind of stuff that I was saying that should replace the current junk with.

What the TPM movement is about is it's agenda. Finding stories about comments by participating individuals that has no relation to the TPM agenda is NOT information about the TPM.

Again, for emphasis, sorry if I sound a little direct, I am a little exasperated....six months and many hours wasted so far with no progress in the junk areas. I very much appreciate and thank you for the diligent work that you did with this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Direct is good, and the exasperation is understandable; no apologies necessary. On the "factual disagreement" you noted between sources on Thomas' racial slurs, there is no conflict: both are correct. He texted his statements to the Springboro Tea Party twitter webpage, which also placed them on the Springboro Tea Party main website via a live link (both have since been scrubbed). His apologies for the slurs were also posted on the Springboro Tea Party website (also now scrubbed). I don't see any sources that refer to a "lowly tweet", or that speak in any detail whatsoever about his chosen method of posting his text messages. All the sources, without exception, focus only on the statements he made and the repercussions of those statements — not the vehicle through which he made them — so our use of those sources should reflect the same.

“Certainly, the tweet from Mr. Thomas in which he used a racial slur was enough for me to remove myself from any connection with him. But just today, someone pointed out to me the links on the Tea Party page. I do not want to have my name associated with this organization,” Oda said in an e-mail on Tuesday, April 6.

I also do not see in any sources conveying Thomas' slurs were "specially selected because it sounded bad", so perhaps you could provide a link to support that. I'm fairly certain Thomas' statements didn't just sound bad; they are bad. They were 'selected' because it was a news story that state senators and other political notables were cancelling their scheduled appearances at a political rally because of them. If you are implying there is some doubt about Thomas' racist sentiments, reliable sources also note photographs of him in his "White Pride" T-shirt, and his other posted statements such as:

Let it be on the record, I detest and denounce any Fed, State or local gov’t interloping in my healthcare decisions whatsoever! I’m 110% against any of this fucking ObamaCare and will not acknowledge that son of a bitch either until he proves he’s a legally binding person who sits in that office. There’s a reason it’s called the White House."

To your other point, I must admit confusion as to why you have selected and labeled as "junk" these particular 3 of the many similar content items. You say they are "things a few people said or did that have nothing to do with the TPM's agenda," but that also applies to the other items. I'm also confused as to your suggestion, "If they stay, then both sides should be covered," which sounds to me like expansion of a section that already takes up 21% of the article, and which Homo Logica has described as putting "WP:UNDUE on some of the more sensationalist events, which detracts from the rest of the article, making it not WP:NPOV." (Note: my objection is not against properly covering all sides, but against unproductively expanding an already mishandled large section.)

Yes, the "Tea Party movement is about it's agenda." But this isn't the Tea Party movement. This is a Wikipedia article on the Tea Party movement, and as such it will contain information on the TP agenda (in as much as we struggle to ascertain exactly what that is), AND on it's origins, it's significance, it's history, it's notable (for good or for ill) personages, it's influence, and significantly held opinions about it from across the spectrum. When you state, "stories about comments by participating individuals that has no relation to the TPM agenda is NOT information about the TPM", I can only reply: Wrong - this article is not just about the TPm agenda. Perhaps "TP Agenda" should be the focus of a spin-off daughter article? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Antisocial ... Antisocial behavior? 99.43.138.160 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the title of this section is about. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess Anti-socialism ~ Criticisms of socialism. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did kind of leave that up in the air, didn't I? The title of this section came about as I was reading Homo Logica's comments above where s/he contemplates naming a sub-article Perceptions of the Tea Party, and I was reminded of past discussions on what the related section of this article should be named. It morphed between variations of 'Racist behavior', 'Racist and Homophobic behavior', 'Bad behavior', 'Racism, Anti-gay, Anti-semetic, Islamophobic and violent behavior', 'Inappropriate behavior', 'Controversial and bigoted behavior', etc., and I remember thinking "it all sounds antisocial to me". So my guess would be: both. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

i know, lets call it "behavior unanimously condemned by the tea party that is included in this article to push a pov that has nothing to do with less tax, the only issue the tp unanimously agrees". Darkstar1st (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source that conveys any unanimous position held by the tea party. A collection of such sources would be very handy. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, I think that the probably the most obviously pervasive items in the TPM agenda are reduced taxes and reduced government spending. Is there anybody who doubts this? On the other hand, you are trying to claim that behaviors and agendas universally rejected by the TP are agendas or attributes of the TPM!!! North8000 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So... no links? I see.

So... behaviors by the TP are universally rejected by the TP. Ooookay.

Oh, and a routine correction (I should make a template for this): I am not "trying to claim" anything. When I convey to you what reliable sources have conveyed to me, please don't confuse me with the source. Alrighty? I have faith in you; you can do it!

Saying the TP agenda is reduced taxes and government spending is about as specific as saying, "the TP agenda is about politics", and is hardly exclusive to the TP. Sources like this one (thank you for digging that up, Darkstar1st) are constantly confounding me by saying things like "Americans think Medicare is currently worth the costs ... Among Tea Party supporters, 41 percent say the cost is worth it, while 46 percent say it's not", or "Overall, a majority of Americans, 76 percent, thinks government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for the elderly, and 56 percent say the same for the poor ... Tea Party supporters, meanwhile, are split -- 47 percent say it's the government's responsibility, and 48 percent say it's not." Unanimous positions ... Ooookay. TP is about as unanimous on government spending and what taxes to cut as they are on racial and other social issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That data that you provided does not conflict with what I said on the no-brainer list of their political agenda/priorities. And the problem with the three junk section is that there is not even a claim by a RS that those tweets and spouts are indicative of the TPM. Some editor just put them in there by an editor for inuendo effect. with no RS making any claim of being indicative of the TPM. That's why those three sections are junk. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And perhaps therein lies the source of your misunderstanding. Reliable sources do not speak of "tweets and spouts" when they are conveying information about racial sentiment and the Tea Party. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer. Where in those three junk ones is there any RS making any such statement about the TPM? There isn't. That is the point. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Closer? You lost me. If what the CBS source provided doesn't conflict with your assertion, then that means both are true: Smaller taxes and government are their agenda & they have no clue what that means or what they support. I guess the "no-brainer" description is more applicable than you knew. I also still don't see 3 "junk ones" that are any different than any other "ones". I'm looking at the Robertson, Johnson, Frank, Williams, etc., incidents for something you believe is there that isn't in your specified 3, and I'm not seeing it. Could you point out this "point" you are making more clearly, please? They all look equally problematic to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

perhaps 8000 was referring to the poll being about medicare, not racism. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Xeno, I meant that we were getting closer to the core issue on the three junk ones. What I also had in mind is that when you said "I am not "trying to claim" anything. When I convey to you what reliable sources have conveyed to me" you seemed to be acknowledging the same criteria which I say that those three junk ones violate. The do not have any RS making any claim that these incidents indicate racism on the part of the movement. They are just selected for innuendo purposes....only implying that these things said or allegedly said by individuals (and rejected by the TPM) are indicative of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see what separates your 3 selected examples from the rest of the examples. You say your 3 examples don't have RS indicating racism in the movement, but you can make that same claim about all of the examples. You say your 3 examples were selected "for innuendo purposes" (by the Press, or by Wikipedia editors?) and aren't indicative of the TPM, but you can apply that same statement to all of the examples. So I will repeat my request above; can you please point out what all the other examples have that your special 3 do not? They all look equally problematic to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Been really buried (and will be off "the grid" next week, so if you can bear with me on a short response.) There are actuall 5 that have the particular issue that I'm taling about, but two of the (Dale Robertson and Islam ones) at first glance appear to have a top TPM official which, if such is the case, is a mitigating factor. So, for simplicity, let's leave those two out of the discussion.

I short, the difference is that the other material is ABOUT the TPM. Not that they are perfect, but they do not the glaring issue that those three have which is that they are not ABOUT the TPM. For example, if Newspaper writer John Smith writes an article saying that dog kicking is pervasive in the Mayberry Chess Club, that is a statement ABOUT the TPM. If he wrote an article saying that Larry Jones kicked a dog, and that Larry Jones is a member of the Mayberry Chess Club and the Mayberry Bowling league, that statement is not ABOUT the chess club or the bowling league. It would be bogus to put a section on the Larry's dog kicking incident into the Wikipedia Mayberry Chess Club article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than making up hypothetical examples, can we please work with our actual content items? What content "ABOUT the TPM" exists in those other examples that does not exist in your chosen 3 (now 5?) examples? I'm not seeing it. They all seem to follow the same play-book:

TPer publicly says/does some "junk" that the rest of society finds offensive, and makes headlines because of it ==> TPer tries denial, then excuses, then passing blame, then finally apologizes ==> Fellow TPers quickly issue the routine form response whenever these "junk" incidents slip into the public limelight, "Every group has its fringe elements, but they don't represent the rest of the movement, yada yada..." They all fit this mold, so I'm having difficulty understanding how your selections differ from the rest. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No rush, by the way, as I'm sure the article will still be here when schedules are less hectic. By "buried", I hope its the good kind of busy-ness, rather than unfortunate matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. "Buried" is due to trying to catch up enough to go off the grid, nothing unfortunate. Only have a few minutes today. Again, thanks for asking. I was taking a (hopefully higher plane) tact of a direct relevance/informativeness-regarding-the-TPM criteria rather than a policy based act. Possibly The "About" thing is too abstract.....I've been trying to do my best to explain. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This Off-the-grid, just curious? 99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I go there and beyond too (where FM radio stations and cell phones don't reach) but this time it's tame. I'll have most utilities except internet. :-) BTW, in my mind the meaning of that term came from a different movie and is different and means: "Unrecorded, untraceable through normal means." North8000 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic ... What movies? 99.119.131.248 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot the name, but the phrase and concept stuck with me. 5-10 years ago, one of the lead US male black actors played the lead role. Was with the US government and by a mistake became a target of the US government. Went into hiding while he tried to fix it. Went for help from a guy who lived in an abandoned factory. A technical and electronics wizard, who used that expertise to be completely off the radar screen and completely invisible to all information and identity related systems, and completely disconnected from any links that could jeopardize that. And he referred to it as "off the grid". Not exactly what I'm doing starting tomorrow, but it seemed like a cool way to describe it. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the film was "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith? I'm a non-editor just popping in to look at the talk page, I find Wikipedia's editing process fascinating and I think society in general could learn a lot from how everyone here interacts and attempts to find an amalgamation of viewpoints and interpretations of Wikipedia policies. I'm surprised there isn't a more concrete Wikipedia policy on whether any controversial statements or views of an individual member of a group or movement can be alluded to on that group's article... when can an individual's statement be viewed as severable, or are groups always liable for a member's or leader's faux pas? I apologize if I've just displayed an incomplete knowledge of your policies or if this is an inappropriate venue for my comment (if that is the case, please revert the above). 96.240.213.177 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Wes

Revision to the header.

I would propose changing the word 'populist' in the lead sentence with something that is both more neutral and more accurate. If we call it 'producerist' i think we avoid the negative connotations of the word 'populist' but still keep it's meaning which i think ought be retained. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We depend on what sources say. IIRC, many sources call the movement "populist", but I don't recall ever seeing it called "producerist". Are you aware of any such sources?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few around the block. The thing is that a publication that calls it 'populist' instead of 'producerist' is either anti-tea party, caters to an audience that wouldn't understand the word, or doesn't know of the word itself. In practice, in modern politics, the terms are virtually synonymous, which means that you wouldn't need to provide sources that label it as such. The primary benefit i'm advocating is neutrality (using the word 'populist' pulls that rug out almost instantly) although the word producerist does have the added benefit of being more 'specifically' accurate. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that says this is how the TPM is normally described. TFD (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No that is incorrect. Wikipedia should describe things in the most specifically accurate terms, even if that is not how they are popularly known. Besides in context, the article says "the Tea Party IS..." rather than "the Tea Party IS CONSIDERED TO BE." Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. (Note: I have no idea whether you and I support the same edits to the article.) We cannot report something we know to be true, unless it appears in reliable sources. It's disputed whether we may delete something we know to be false, even if it is reported in reliable sources. I think should such things generally should be deleted, but the guidelines suggest otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that it should use popular descriptions but that it should use the descriptions found in informed sources. Producerism is mostly used to describe views from the 19th century - Jacksonian Democracy and Populism, and refers to farmers and blacksmiths who produce, as opposed to middlemen, like lawyers and bankers, who do not. While some of this thinking no doubt is part of TPM views, we would need a source that they are producerists. TFD (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Always with the fucking sources. When will wikipedia realise that you can can call an apple an apple without having to fucking well get a source that explicitly says so... Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You should probably check out WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is a key principle of Wikipedia. We have to go with what reliable sources say even if you think those reliable sources are wrong. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Revise Mark Williams Islam comments

I propose that remove that part of the article because I fail to see how one person relates to the movement as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okidan (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Williams is the leader of one of the more important TPM groups.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, true, so shouldn't the comment go on that groups article if at all? many people may or may not see the attempt to keep this material as pov pushing. several editors for several years have questioned this material, i suggest we remove the passage until consensus. i also support asking for outside help. the errors with this article could be solved by an uninvolved editor using basic wp:policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

His comments are noted on the article about that group already. Many people may or may not see the attempt to remove or hide the material as POV pushing. Many editors for several years have questioned the attempts to purge it, and since it is still there, consensus is evident. What errors are you referring to, and whom outside of Wikipedia would we ask for help? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

good point, since it has been such a point of contention between good faith editors for years, it should be removed until consensus is reached. *outside meaning an editor from the article on Pálinka Darkstar1st (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

i suggest a simple smell test, could excluding it be seen as pov pushing? could the reverse? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. Saying simply that some "editors have questioned this material" or "see keeping the material as POV" is rather vague, and doesn't give us much to discuss or resolve. Otherwise we're left with making expressions of "I don't like it" without explaining why and charting a constructive path forward. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, i was using a wp editor as my source, Many editors for several years have questioned the attempts to purge it, thus many have questioned it's inclusion Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. Saying simply that some "editors have questioned this material" or "see keeping the material as POV" is rather vague, and doesn't give us much to discuss or resolve. Otherwise we're left with making expressions of "I don't like it" without explaining why and charting a constructive path forward. Specific concern is ...? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ah, i see what you mean, what i meant to say was i think we should remove it until consensus. the editors questioning the material are both in this section, other have in the past, i think you would agree, right? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same consensus here? If so, you should reiterate what your specific concerns are about the content we're discussing. I'm very patient. I'll wait here for you to explain what your specific concerns are with the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

my concern, is the same as the editor who started this section, is this is a comment by a tea party group leader, not the tea party leader, therefore it belongs on the specific tea party group page, not on the main tea party page as if all tea party members share the thought of this group leader. lets take our convo about consensus to my talk page, i may not have answered your question sufficiently, as i meant to point out many* do not agree, therefore no consensus. (*see archives) Darkstar1st (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems representative and relevant and therefore should stay. On the other hand, the article should rely more on informed third party analysis, rather than specific examples. If you can find a reliable source that discusses TPM attitudes towards race etc. then it could reply this. TFD (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We include comments by or references to a number of individuals: "Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty", " Republican Congressman Ron Paul ", "Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender ", "CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli ", "political analyst Dick Morris ", "Sarah Palin". Many of those have no formal connection to the TPM at all. OTOH, there have also been objections to scholars who refer to the movement collectively, and to polls which survey individual members. Virtually every class or type of source has been criticized. Maybe we should seek some consistent standard as basis for this article so that we're not constantly arguing over who is or is not competent to speak for or about the subject.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The original poster's concern is: "...I fail to see how one person relates to the movement as a whole." Will Beback then explained that relationship. There is nothing in our article that says or even implies "all tea party members share the thought of this group leader". To the contrary, our article conveys that some TPers strongly disagreed with that leader. With that cleared up, are there any concerns about that content that we need to address? TFD's comment above is spot on; a sentiment that I have repeatedly expressed: rather than a compilation of examples, we should be relying more on informed, third party sources about the broader issue. BigK HeX noted that such sources are scarce because the movement is still so new, but they certainly aren't nonexistent. Can anyone suggest some that we might use? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

good point Will, i suggest we limit comments/signs to only those speaking about the universally accepted tp platform, lower taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Better still, limit comments/signs to only those that convey information about the movement, and not just the platform. Speaking of platforms, is there a source citation to what that "universally accepted platform" is? Or are we still stuck with the various interpretations from the dispersed groups, organizations, self-proclaimed spokespeople, etc.? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The contract from America is very informative regarding agendas widely held amongst TP'ers. At least 10,000 times more indicative than a TP-disowned twitter tweet by a low level guy, or any TP-disowned item by any individual, the kind of crap that this article is full of. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome almost-back :-) I unfamiliar with the twitter message about the TP agenda to which you refer, so I can't comment on how it compares to other messages about the TP agenda. I've scanned the whole "Agenda" section of our article; has it already been removed from the "Agenda" section of our article and replaced with better agenda-centric messages? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that this article has a lot of wp:-nopv/wp:undue-violating crap that people put in to imply agendas which do not exist. It DOES need more material on the TPM agendas. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Those would be serious, actionable violations of policy and should be reported at ANI immediately. If you could gather up the diffs of those violations, I'll open up a section for admin review, as that is no longer a content dispute.

Regarding your proposal to expand the "Agenda" section, what other sources besides the Contract from America would you suggest? Darkstar1st appears to believe that "lowering taxes" is the one common denominator across the movement (although I note that it barely made the Top-10 cut on your CfA, far behind more popular issues like repealing recent Health Care legislation and killing Cap & Trade, etc.). Have you seen this other 10-point Platform, and do you have any idea who is behind it? (Note: there are about a half-dozen similar pages with some interesting stuff, just follow the links on that page.) Then there's this Tea Party Nation 10-point Platform; at least tax reduction is in the top 5 on this list. If you don't have access, you can see the list here as well. What would you suggest as sources for the "Agenda" section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that serious, and the "action" should be to take the crap out rather than getting someone in trouble.

On your second question, we could use tweets and any comment ever made by anyone who had any connection with the TPM as the source, as long as someone reported on it. :-) Just kidding. But seriously, any list that has been put out by a TP organization would probably be suitable. I think that it is no-brainer obvious that the two themes that are universal to all TP agendas, platforms, lists, are lower taxes and lower government spending, and that statement would be very sourcable. I think that that one your found is excellent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the TPN list on the blog is a "proposed Tea Party Platform".   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, North8000, editing by people "to imply agendas which do not exist" is serious, which is why I suggested taking it to ANI. That's a violation of one of the three non-negotiable core policies. I don't understand your hesitance to take such a matter to ANI. Surely after a herd of Admins have reviewed your concern, they would take swift action, would they not? As for your suggestion to "take the crap out", this article is watch-listed by more than 200 editors; surely that step would have already been taken.

re: expanding the "Agenda" section, I agree with you that tweets, etc., can be used, especially with URL shortening negating the length limitations. The key is to make sure the sources are reliable and significantly covered, as you noted. That's where the 2 examples I noted above fall short. I have no idea who produced the first example, and the second example is (as noted by Will Beback) apparently a first draft of a proposed platform. When you say, "any list that has been put out by a TP organization", what qualifies as an organization? What about the 5-person membership Frogwart, Oklahoma Patriots or the 11-person strong Peddleton, Ohio Tea Party? Or are you speaking only of national groups (some of whom seem to be at each others throats when it comes to who represents the "real" Tea Party). Your Contract from America comes from Ryan Hecker, a (what's the description you like to use?) "low level guy", an individual, a nobody -- not "an organization", although you could argue that Dick Armey & FreedomWorks helped. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Each time people even start taking the crap out, you put it back in. And my point was that even a statement by a 5 person sect would be 3 ways more representative than the carp that is currently in the article. *5 persons vs, one, an official statement, and a not-disowned-by-the-TPM statement. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, you are kidding again! I've never put crap or carp back in, and you know it. I have sometimes reverted inappropriate attempts to delete content. Your "a lot of wp:-nopv/wp:undue-violating crap that people put in to imply agendas" mantra is nothing new (ahem ... they are both the same policy ... duh), and when I called your bluff and suggested that you post that concern on ANI, you back-peddled like a circus clown -- and we both know why. The simple fact is, when Rep. Weiner says/does "crap", he ends up with crap in his Wikipedia article; when TPers say/do "crap", they end up with crap in their article, etc. While you and I may agree that content about TPer crap could be presented better, "taking the crap out" (or burying, deleting, purging, whitewashing, hiding, censoring ... choose your favorite) isn't going to find support among reasonable editors. The TPer "crap" content is just too widely sourced, covered, studied and debated to be removed (in whole, or bit by bit as some have tried) from an article about the Tea Party movement.

Also getting old is the dizzying flip-flop between:

• "The movement is decentralized with no leadership, and no individual or group speaks for the Tea Party", and this
• "The Tea Party believes, endorses, supports, "disowns", rejects ______(fill in the blank)_______."

...as if they now suddenly speak with one voice. The convenient flipping and flopping is usually determined by whether the topic is getting good or bad press coverage. Bad press: Fringe, they don't represent the movement! Good press: The Tea Party unanimously stands for this! You do realize most people now see through that ploy, right? What leader of a national TP organization said, "Mind you, there is no Tea Party leadership; every Tea Partier is a Tea Party leader. But something happens when the stronger egos and personalities in a movement begin to feel a sense of ownership. And it is a crying shame." Did you know that TP leader was "disowned" by a TP leader of a second national organization? Then a TP leader of yet a third national organization said the second organization are, "a bunch of self-important folks who decided they need to speak for the tea party. We wanted nothing to do with them." I chuckle every time I see editors here say something like, "but the Tea Party disowned that!" No they didn't. Another TPer did, or a group of TPers did, but not the Tea Party.

North, just let me know if/when you'd like to get serious about actual article improvement. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think for the last few days we both have been just tossing things out and sparring a little instead of seriously discussing moving forwards. I sincerely want to make this a quality, objective, informative article; I check everything else at the door. I honestly don't know whether you want the same or if you just want it to make the TPM look as bad as possible and are engaged in a long term pov effort here to that effect. To me, 30% of the time it looks like the former and 70% of the time it looks like the latter. It's probably a mix of the two. Other than sometimes writing a bit sacastically or tongue-in-cheek, everything I've said is exactly what I think and want, there is no manipulating or hidden agenda on my part. This article is has been in a junk state too long. Maybee let's try one more time to jointly move forward, and if that doesn't work go out for an RFC or get more eyes on this somehow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Had you simply signed that last comment after the second sentence, and left it at that, the door would have been left open for some forward progress. But no, apparently you couldn't resist falling back into your old mantra: "...om...om...you want to make the TP look bad...om...engaged in a POV effort...om...om...editors inserting crap to imply agenda that doesn't exist...om...intentional POV editing...om..." Now it is getting close to being absurdly comical. Take your concerns to WP:ANI already, so we can put an end to it. All of that incessant droning is making it impossible to take seriously your sentiments about improving the quality of the article and checking everything else at the door.

Do you recall my "crap in the Rep. Anthony Weiner article" analogy a few paragraphs above, where I compare it to our TPm article? I think you missed my point. Do you honestly think POV-pushing editors are inserting crap into his article just to make him look bad, or is it just possible that stuff is now in his article because he actually did some crap that makes him look bad? Now go to that article and try to delete that "crap", as you did here, by claiming "It was just a lowly twitter tweet!" When you fail at that, try deleting that "crap" by claiming "It has nothing to do with his political agenda/platform/views!" When you fail at that, try deleting that "crap" by claiming "But that was just one incident, or just a few incidents, and it is fringe and isn't what he stands for or is about, and the lamestream media is only reporting on it to make him look bad!" Good luck with that. You would have more success simply handling the "crap" in an encyclopedic manner.

Please keep your "you just want to make the TPM look as bad as possible and are engaged in a long term pov effort here to that effect" insulting and unhelpful bullshit to yourself. I'm the one that suggested replacing the current laundry list of unflattering incidents with an encyclopedic treatment of the issue, remember? If I had even the slightest intent to make the TPM "look bad", this article would be bloated with similar incidents by the TP darlings; the Obama = chimp photos emailed in Orange County, TP-favorite Rand Paul's charming comments on the civil rights act and Ron Paul's revealing statements made during his discussions about "race wars", Tancredo's highly-applauded racist statements at TP rallies about whom should be allowed to vote and "english-speakers", Paladino's racist comments, the disruptive tactics encouraged and used at the townhall meetings prior to the health care legislation votes, the white supremacists and militia extremists walking in lockstep at the TP rallies and cross recruiting, the bricks through the windows of democrats, the actions of specific TPers at anti-immigration rallies, TPer Bruce Majors warning Beck Rally attendees to avoid the black parts of town - oh, and I would be sure to stuff the article full of colorful Tea Party rally photos showing "Barack the Magic Negro" and Obama-with-bone-through-nose signs, White Pride t-shirts and gun-violence threat banners. Just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. No, North8000, it isn't POV-pushing Wikipedia editors making the fledgeling movement "look bad", or making Anthony Weiner "look bad". Once you get over that hurdle of understanding, and cease attacking the intent of editors, we can move forward. I've nothing else to say on this matter, or in this thread. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?

There's a template that refers to a "Criticism" section, but no such section. Is that what's intended? Jo3sampl (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. There was a criticism section at one time, but that criticism has since been integrated throughout the different sections of the article. I've removed that template for now.

I've also removed the single uncited sentence described here; feel free to return the content if a source is obtained. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, but not ready to fully take the plunge back in here. On that last removal, removing "Paris is the capital of France" type material just because nobody cited it is not right. Something is needed to counterbalance that obviously false statement which says that a guy who adamantly promotes lifting the trade embargo with Cuba is an isolationist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I can find numerous sources to cite that convey that Paris is the capital of France. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a more appropriate example: Can you find a source that says that Obama is not a right wing extremist, or where he said that he is not a right wing extremist? North8000 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point is that one cannot prove a negative. However we do not need to if we can find descriptions that are mutually exclusive, e.g., that Obama is a liberal, which is a separate category from the extreme Right. Similarly we do not need a source that a poodle is not a horse, if we provide a source that it is a dog. If sources say someone is a Buddhist, we do not need a source saying that they are not Christian. TFD (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, as I haven't tried. But if someone inserts that content without proper sourcing, and a source is then requested (or if another source appears to contradict it), then it, too, will be removed until a proper source is cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, my point is that if statement is no-brainer false, that people/sources do not make contravailing statements disclaiming that falsehood. North8000 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss politics (just articles on politics), but let me break that rule for a moment with an aside. There are often multiple terms that describe the same, or nearly the same, concepts. Sometimes these distinctions have careful reasoning. I suppose there's a big difference between Leninists and Trotskyists if you are one, but many of us who aren't would simply call them both "communists". In this case, it appears that the term "isolationist" may be seen as having a negative connotation. If I understand correctly, Libertarians view the difference between an isolationist and a "non-interventionist" is that the latter supports free trade while the former prefers protectionist trade policy. To outsiders that could seem like a small difference. I sympathize with the desire to get these minor detail correct, but whatever we write needs to be sourced rather than basing it on our own understandings and rationales.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

or you could say, one is constitutional, and the other is not. btw, did you post this in the correct section, this convo is also relevant to the mead section . Darkstar1st (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But plank #8 on a TP Platform by a national group says:

Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other free trade agreements. For America to remain a viable economic superpower, the country must have a manufacturing base. Not only do we need a manufacturing base to employ Americans, we also have crucial infrastructure components, such as power generators that are no longer made in America. If these components were destroyed in a terrorist attack, America could be crippled until we could get replacements, assuming that we could.

Should it be noted that Ron Paul is anti-Tea Party? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron paul supports repealing all free trade agreements. TFD (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He's in favor of free trade but not free trade agreements? That makes sense from a libertarian perspective, since those agreements require all sorts of laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. But it also makes it clear why a political scientist would characterize that position as "isolationist".   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, plz read the nafta agreement, then read the def of free trade. NAFTA weighs in at over 2,000 pages, 900 of which are tariff rates. (Under true free trade, there is one tariff rate—0 percent.) Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the U.S. government was mostly financed by tariffs and custom dues in its first century. The Founding Fathers did not appear to support free trade. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

no problem, i will bring you back to your earlier point, favor of free trade but not free trade agreements, yes rp is in favor of free trade, the founders were not part of your question. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we please get back to the topic, as it is not clear how this discussion relates to the article. As I understand it,Walter Russell Mead refers to "Paulites"' "neo-isolationism". Paul himself refers to "non-interventionism". However, this is a direct quote from Mead, and the two terms appear to be synonyms, meaning to "stay out of entangling alliances"[6] - isolationists could support or oppose free trade. What are the recommendations for changing the text? TFD (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

i have proved mead is wrong. he does not understand the difference between the two, his comments should be stricken, perhaps entirely. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/06/09/noninterventionist-conservatives-go-mainstream/ "It’s been a banner week for non-interventionist Republicans." Darkstar1st (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mead has not been proven wrong. He makes no assertion about Ron Paul's views on intervention. Instead, he discusses what he calls the "Paulite" wing of the TPM. We have no sources which contradict Mead on that. Mead is a highly qualified scholar writing within his field of expertise. We've previously agreed on compromise language to address the concerns of some editors that Paul himself believes in the form of isolationism known as "non-interventionism". It's bizarre that editors would propose deleting such a good source at the same time as they're complaining about the lack of good sources.   Will Beback  talk  15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

also bizarre is the inability of so many to understand the two are fundamentally different, not at all synonyms. isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies. Jefferson/Washington, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to define "isolationism" or "non-interventionism", we're just here to report what reliable sources say about the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

actually, that is precisely why we are here. a rs has been proven wrong by the paul in paulite, now we should remove the un-rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Darkstar, and where wp:ver / wp:nor are widely misapplied. That's what we do as editors. Meeting wp:ver / wp:nor is a condition for inclusion, not a mandate for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the meaning of the terms "isolationist", "neo-isolationist", or "non-interventionist" then there are other articles for that. Our task here is just to summarize what people write about the TPM. We can do that even if have no idea what the terms mean. If a respected scholar writing in a respected journal wrote that the TPM favors "widgetism", we'd report that.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1-2 days ago Xeno deleted the compromise wording that you are referring to, so now we're back to square one, minus several hours of our lives which we will never get back. Sincerely,15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Xeno deleted it because no one ever added a source for it, despite repeated requests. See the end of #removing mead's incorrect analysis of the tp policy, above. Darkstar1st found a source that we can use for slightly different wording.   Will Beback  talk  16:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

More than 3 weeks ago, a sentence was tagged as "citation needed", and an editor requested here on this talk page that a citation be added. He was ignored. 2 weeks ago, an editor reiterated the request for a citation, and was again ignored. 1 week ago, another request was made that a citation be provided, and that was ignored. Apparently, no one has enough hours in their lives to do a little required leg-work. The tagged sentence was removed. Now the question appears to be not whether RP holds a non-interventionist viewpoint (evidence says he does), but whether that conflicts with or negates Mead's assessment regarding neo-isolationist attitudes -- which apparently was the intent of placing the following parenthetical statement right in the middle of Mead's: (Paul, however has described himself as a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist.){{Citation needed|date=May 2011}} There are plenty of sources now on Darkstar1st's talk page to support Paul's non-interventionist views, but do they support the phrase "however ... rather than an isolationist" that someone inserted? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that reliable sources use the term "isolationist" as used by Darkstar1st. In fact the link I provided said, just as Mead did, that Jefferson was an isolationist. In any case, since we are reporting Mead's words as opinion, it does not matter what we think of his use of terminology. TFD (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

this is the problem tfd, mead does not understand the difference, therefore is incorrectly using the term. do you not agree the terms are fundamentally different? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The party line is that they are two separate things, but notice that this book from the Cato Institute acknowledges that it is incorrectly labelled "isolationism", or as reliable sources, including this book state, proponents prefer to call it "non-interventionism". We do not change direct quotes because we do not like the writer's terminology, which in this case happens to be generally accepted. TFD (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

tdf, was that a yes or no? while you and the above authors may not know the difference, it has been described quite simply above: isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies. unless you disagree with this statement, the opinions of these authors is flawed. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If the opinion of an expert is flawed, and if another good source reports on that flaw, then we can include that view too. We don't get to say that, based on our personal interpretations, a source is wrong and therefore must not be included.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)