Talk:Tea Party Nation

Right to vote
I changed the statement to make it clear that he supports the idea of requiring property ownership to vote. Dylan  Flaherty  10:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote said he thought it made sense in the past. This wasn't a clear endorsement of enacting it today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.76.182 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense," Looks like present tense to me. Not "and that used to make some sense, but it's like totally idiotic for the United States to withdrawal whimpering to the past instead of standing up and winning the future" or something else that's clearly past tense. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I revised wording to:

Phillips has said the founders’ principle of restricting voting rights to property owners “makes a lot of sense.”

Clearly this is a neutral representation of the sources. We can not assume advocacy because one can believe an idea has merit (i.e. makes a lot of sense) while ultimately opposing it.

I strongly question whether this statement of his--not backed (according to sources) by any political action or advocacy for policy change--belongs in the summary area of the article. It looks relatively minor, among the plethora of clearly expressed advocacy coming out of Tea Party Nation. I would remove it all together, if up to me.

Anti-Protestantism?
Why is Anti-Protestantism a category on this page? Gtbob12 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More than a year later, there has been no explanation of this category, so I'm going to remove it. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Criticism" Section
I have removed the purported "criticism" section for mulitiple violations of Wikipedia policy:

(1) The section relies primarily on non-reliable sources, such as an apparent blog called "Homebrewedtheology." Also cited is Thinkprogess, a highly partisan left-wing site.

(2) The section violates the policy by giving undue emphasis to the alleged "critcism", which is essentially the author's POV.

(3) Although the section cites to some blogs which are maintained by ostensibly reliable sources (e.g., the Atlantic), the purpose is merely to give a one-sided account of left-of-center criticism. If this were a proper criteria, nearly every article on Wikipedia could have a similar "criticism" section, collecting the opinions (say) of right-wing blogs criticizing the subject of the article.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed the following
"A largely ineffective and self-indulgent platform for Phillips, he sends numerous pseudo-conservative emails to those unfortunate enough to have intentionally or accidentally joined the Tea Party Nation group. Refuting comments to Phillips' typically misinformed email tirades, or even comments that simply disagree with Phillips' political viewpoints, are usually censored, and those 'members' banned from the web site. The Tea Party Nation should not be confused with the original Tea Party started by Ron Paul."

This doesn't even need comment but here goes anyway... The above was A) not cited, B) personal opinion and C) libelous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.157.223 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
I removed the SPLC citation added recently and someone's twinkle bot started harrassing me for it. I will remove it again if there is no further discussion in the next week. The grounds for removing it is that the SPLC is not a neutral source and indicating that a group is a "hate group" in its introduction because of this one organisation with its own agenda violates at least the UNDUE and probably NPOV policies.

If there is no further discussion and some bot removes this and tries to get me banned, I consider myself covered. --193.90.240.119 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The SPLC designation is significant and must be mentioned. Do not remove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is an significant designation and should remain. Importantly, we aren't saying that Tea Party Nation is a hate group, but rather that SPLC has said so.  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is the opinion of a left-wing organization about a right-wing organization "significant"? Every political group mentioned on Wikipedia has critics, and should they all have sections listing the comments of their critics? I notice that the SPLC's entry has no section cataloguing objections to the group by its ideological opponents. This strikingly illustrates Wikipedia's well-known left-wing bias. Nicmart (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are free to compose a critical paragraph about the SPLC sourced to their "ideological opponents", and post it at the SPLC article. Whether you do so has nothing to do with this article. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ''Why is the opinion of a left-wing organization about a right-wing organization "significant"?
 * Do you have a WP:RS calling the SPLC left-wing?
 * ''Every political group mentioned on Wikipedia has critics, and should they all have sections listing the comments of their critics?
 * While "Criticism" sections are frowned upon, most articles do discuss the subject's position in the context of contemporary thought.
 * ''I notice that the SPLC's entry has no section cataloguing objections to the group by its ideological opponents.
 * If you have well-sourced criticism of the SPLC, then bring this up at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center.
 * This strikingly illustrates Wikipedia's well-known left-wing bias.
 * As you work on Wikipedia more, you might be surprised at the extent to which this is completely untrue. &mdash; goethean 16:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . It's been done.  A critical paragraph about SPLC has been posted, and it was removed because of the incorrect claim that it was by ideological opponents.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what the closing comment says. &mdash; goethean 17:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)