Talk:List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement/Archive 2

Where document criterion?
The closing admin of the RfC above wrote "These criteria should be clearly set out at the start of the list article." The only other sensible place is at the top of the Edit page when the user edits the page. Either way is fine by me. The Talk page header is not prominent enough. I used to know how to do the Edit page header, but I forgot. --Noleander (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay ... I figured out how to do it, and put the criterion at the top of the talk page edit page, so editors will see it when they click "Edit". --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style for lists says "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." The criteria need to be specified in the article for the reader as well. If the criteria that the RfC landed on cannot be phrased in a way that readers will understand, then we need to revisit. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The criterion is now at the top of the Edit page, which seems like a decent place. I have no objection to having at also at the top of the List itself.    --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the issue of "if the criteria that the RfC landed on cannot be phrased in a way that readers will understand":  Is your point that the rule should not contain bullet points or editor-ese or WP-speak?  I think the rule needs to be clear to editors, not readers. There are hundreds, maybe thousands,  of lists that have inclusion rules which are hammered out in the talk page and the rule is not explicitly stated in the List itself.  Many lists include the rule in the Edit page (in the "page notice") and not in the List text.  Examples List of atheist activists and educators or List of LGBT rights activists. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that other lists dont follow the Manual of Style doesnt mean that we should actively encourage the practice. There are criteria that can be phrased in non Wikipedia speak and be objectively observed by both editors and readers. "This is a list of people who have self identified as members of the Tea Party movement". Straightforward and easy to determine "Is there a source where the person self identifies?" if yes, they get on the list, if no, they dont. There are also likely other criteria that do not require any subjective analysis or lengthy Wikispeak for a reader or new editor to try and follow. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and I would suggest that the examples you have shown are just as problematic as this article, in fact the LGBT Activist list has been tagged as such for several years! -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "This is a list of politicians that are members of or affiliated with the Tea Party movement"?  And leave the other details (such as "endorsement not sufficient") in the Page Notice. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "affiliated with" seems very very vague and not providing a reader with solid notice of what items to expect on the list and what items wouldnt be. "who are members of or who have been described by (multiple) sources as being affilitated with" might come closer to clearly outlining what a reader should expect and what an editor should provide. I added the "multiple" because just because one commentator says they think a politician is affiliated with would not necessarily be the general view of that politician. These types of subjective determinants get VERY difficult to deal with appropriately. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the list?
Based on the outcome of the RfC above, I think that the list should be reviewed, and politicians that do not meet the criterion from the RfC should be removed. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alabama
Any objections to deleting the following based on the above RfC? --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mo Brooks, Republican U.S. Representative from Alabama's 5th congressional district (2011–present). Brooks successfully challenged incumbent Parker Griffith in the 2010 Republican primary, receiving the support of the tea party.
 * Tim James, unsuccessful Republican candidate for Governor of Alabama in 2010. In July of that year, Ed Kilgore of The New Republic described James as "the closest thing to a confirmed member of the Tea Party in the primary".
 * Roy Moore, Republican Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (2001–03) and 2010 candidate for Governor of Alabama. Moore spoke at the Tea Party National Convention in February 2010.


 * I think, per WP:SILENCE, we can assume there are no objections. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alaska
The following politicians do not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion established by the RfC:
 * Joe Miller, Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Miller's campaign received the backing of tea party activists.
 * Sarah Palin, Republican Governor of Alaska (2006–09) and 2008 vice presidential nominee. In February 2010, Palin described the tea party as "the future of politics in America."


 * I am really surprised that I could not find anything that directly identified Palin as Tea Party. In fact what I mostly found were phrases like "endorsed by the Tea Party and Sarah Palin" which are on their face making distinctions between Palin the Tea Party (none of the dozen and dozens of sources had the grammatical construction "Sarah Palin and her Tea Party compatriots"). --  The Red Pen of Doom  15:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Arizona
The following politicians do not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion established by the RfC:
 * Joe Arpaio, Republican Sheriff of Maricopa County (1993–present). In February 2012 Arpaio received 100,000 petition signatures collected by the tea party organization Grassfire Nation, supporting his investigation of President Barack Obama and denouncing the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation of Arpaio.
 * Wil Cardon, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2012. Cardon's campaign has received support from tea party voters.
 * Jeff Flake, Republican U.S. Representative from Arizona's 6th congressional district. Flake is running for the U.S. Senate in 2012 with the endorsement of FreedomWorks.


 * Paul Gosar, Republican U.S. Representative from Arizona's 1st congressional district. Gosar successfully challenged Democratic incumbent Ann Kirkpatrick in 2010, receiving the support of the Arizona Tea Party.
 * Ron Gould, Republican state senator (2005–present). Gould is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Arizona's 9th congressional district in 2012 with the backing of the tea party and has received the endorsement of FreedomWorks.
 * J. D. Hayworth, Republican U.S. Representative from Arizona's 5th congressional district (2003–07). Hayworth ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010, claiming the support of a statewide coalition of tea party activists.
 * John McCain, Republican U.S. Senator (1987–present) and 2008 presidential nominee. McCain's 2010 re-election campaign claimed the endorsement of Arizona tea party chapters.
 * David Schweikert, Republican U.S. Representative from Arizona's 5th congressional district (2011–present). Schweikert's 2012 re-election campaign has received the endorsement of FreedomWorks.
 * From my knowledge of US politics, I would say that you are correct, and these Arizona politicians do not qualify as "Tea Party" politicians. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need to run every edit past the talk page before making it? Wouldn't following WP:BRD be more efficient? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not necessary, but it may be more efficient and promoting a collegial editing environment. if those who had wanted a larger list are OK and supportive of the more speedy BOLD clean up, then that may be better. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Arms&Hearts - yes, that is probably more efficient ... I was just trying to move slowly to avoid any hard feelings. Someone put a lot of work into assembling this list, and I feel bad removing some of the content.  But I'll proceed now without first giving notification on the talk page. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that person was me, and you'll be pleased to know that hard feelings have been successfully avoided. I'm more than happy for you to continue less timidly, though I imagine we'll find something to disagree over at some point. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party politicians
This list needs to be updated, a lot of these officials are no longer in office and it shows them as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.18.45 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with this article
This article is supposedly a list of "politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement", but many of the sources provided are comments by third parties saying that this or that politician is liked or thought to be advocating tea party principles (whatever these may be). So maybe the list need to be changed to List of politicians that are considered by various sources to be affiliated with the Tea Party. And no, I am not kidding. Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perspective, Timeliness
I understand that this is a hot topic at the moment;I am concerned that the timeliness aspect is clouding the long term credibility that comes with perspective. Of course it can be edited later, but the organization probably wouldn't have to compete with PBS in fundraising if everyone took a deep breath and a day outside and cut the copy needing edits in half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJRCollins (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed commentary
I have removed commentary from all entries that had one, per WP:NPOV. This is a list, so we list these politicians and wiki-link to their articles, were readers can hopefully read an NPOV article about them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"affiliated"
Per the talk about the category of people "affiliated" with the TPm must mean more than "someone says they were backed by a Tea Party group" - else we could have a list of "politicians affiliated with the CPUSA" including a number of folks who are decidedly not Communists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First Sentence Ridiculous
"The following American politicians are affiliated with the Tea Party movement, which is generally considered to be conservative, libertarian,[1] protofascist and populist."

Protofascism and libertarianism are so far distinct as to make this sentence silly. Is there any reference for protofascist, as it seems rather over-emotive and without the weasel words would be libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.181.164 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it and warned the user responsible. Thanks for pointing this out, but in future feel free to be bold and fix stuff like this yourself. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better now than it was in 2012, but it still doesn't match the description in Tea Party movement. The descriptions of the movement should match.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Gary Miller
Gary Miller of California's 42nd congressional district retired in 2015. This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolothegeneral (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)