Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 18

First paragraph changes
The recent change by Yonskii was a nice try but introduced an issue which I made an edit to try to resolve but which Goethean reverted. I probably should have just reverted to the previous version which came out of the mediation process. Unless we have a strong consensus for I change I think we'll need to stick with that version. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm cool with Yonskii's change. The problem with it is that the TPM agenda (which is an overlap / subset of the libertarian agenda) has another major prong (smaller government, not necessarily fiscally related) which is not listed.    And so the attempted summary, by purporting/appearing to be a summary is wrong.  But it is a tiny step forward towards clarity, i.e. exactly what the sentence is talking about.  So I plan to leave it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yonskii notes "Tea Partiers tend to support non-Libertarian stances on social issues". I would go further in saying they place priority on conservative stances on social issues over conservative or libertarian stances on fiscal issues (case in point: drug prohibition), and thus shouldn't be called "fiscally libertarian".  Fiscally libertarian where it does not conflict with their social conservatism might be more accurate.  Vanyo (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, not that I agree with you, but with all of these questions, and with the new addition now tagged as weasel words, perhaps it's best to return to the version that came out of the mediation process. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As discussed at length above, the TPM is basically a phenomena built around an agenda. Information on supporters views in areas that are not a part of the agenda is not descriptive of the TPM. So what 51% of the supporters think about gay marriage, preference in pizza types, drug prohibition or what their favorite color is or any other items not related to their agenda is not descriptive of the TPM, which is basically defined by a particular agenda on particular items North8000 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (partial ec with North8000) I disagree with Yonskii and Vanyo. The positions seem to be, more-or-less in order (1) Reduction in the size of government (2) Fiscal responsibility (3) decreased regulation and taxation of "business" (including business by individuals) (4) increased regulation of morality ("social issues" have been co-opted by the "left" to the point where I don't know what the term means; it might include discrimination, which falls under point (3)).
 * The order of (3) and (4) might be reversed, but the primary positions associated with the TPm are (1) and (2). Positions (1) and (3) are libertarian; (2) is not, exactly.  The "official" positions are (1), (2), and (3); (4) is a position taken by many TPmms (Tea Party movement members), but no one claims it's a Tea Party position.
 * I don't know what "fiscally libertarian" means, hence the tag. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd disagree on #4. I think one has to make a distinction between the agenda of the movement  vs. views of supporters.     I don't see #4 in any of the TPM agendas.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "fiscally libertarian", should just be "libertarian", should it not? Their beliefs are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. Or conservative libertarian. Or just "conservative". I don't think any of the above is controversial. Swarm  u /  t 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to interpret the meaning generally / vaguely as I think the sources and the mediation did. If you want to talk precisely about it's agenda, the agenda is really too narrow to define it as any full spectrum ideology such as conservative, liberal or libertarian. The most precise description is that the agenda matches about half of the libertarian agenda, the portion related to taxes, government spending, and size/scope of government.   But I think that what the sources and mediation had in mind was more along the lines of what types of political persuasions of people are prominent in the TPM.  And I think they concluded that there are lots of both conservative and libertarian who are leaders and supporters of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Libertarians are fiscally conservative, so "fiscally conservative and socially libertarian" is simply libertarian. The TPM may have had a libertarian beginning, but today, judging by those currently on the TPM bandwagon, and by core principles enumerated on more prominent TPM websites (there being no 'official' one), the TPM is currently more conservative, socially, than libertarian. Vanyo (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on your first sentence; I've seen nothing indicating the second one. Can you give any examples/links to places you were referring to? Thanks.  North8000 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian principles are commonly part of American conservatism, but "conservatives" are not necessarily "libertarians". I think what Vanyo's getting at is that TPM encompasses mainstream conservatism, which entails more than just libertarianism. Swarm u /  t 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Libertarian principles are commonly part of American conservatism" is clearly wrong. Some are, some aren't.    For example, libertarianism is in direct conflict with conservatism on social-conservative issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all conservatives are social conservatives. In any case, it's not for us to decide on our own - we should just be summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight according to prominence in secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    21:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on both, although that latter takes a framework. But think we're more discussing this as background/framework  for content rather than for content.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the intro section should just be a summary of the rest of the article. If folks are debating content it would be best to first make sure that the material people want to see in the lead is already in the body of the article. Once that is stable and sourced, then it'd be the right time to circle back and revise the intro. (Which is probably overdue anyway).    Will Beback    talk    23:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but that's a tall order considering what shape this article is in. But I was thinking that one of the threads out of the hole might be to develop way out of the hole might be to start building some quality sections.  Maybe one or two in this area might help kill two birds with one stone.  One might be something along the lines of "agenda". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted earlier, the newer attempted revisions are good efforts, but folks are raising issues with each. The approach taken by the mediation and the sources avoided this by just speaking about general recognition as.... And there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian in this respect. Our newer discussion and edits are trying to take on a much more difficult (and possibly impossible) task of actually characterizing it by or with respect to those two terms. For those reasons, at least until something with a consensus emerges, I'm reverting it to the version which was developed in the mediation process, which is the version from a few days back.  For the reasons described by Will, plus the fact that the first paragraph is really the ONLY wording in the entire article that WAS developed by a substantitive consensus process, perhaps we should work on other areas of the article at this point.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "...there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian..." Then why don't we just say "conservative and libertarian"? This is not rocket science, it's a very minor issue of wording. Swarm  u /  t 11:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "...there is a large amount of sourcing for both conservative and libertarian..." ... Is there? Other than in that first sentence, the word 'libertarian' appears 3 times in the side box linking to the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism (which has a single unsupported mention of a the Tea Party in "Libertarians are prominent in the Tea Party"), and 1 time in the title of a citation.  That's it.  As for Libertarians having any recognition as prominent in the Tea Party, this article would suggest otherwise: A year ago, Palin, Beck and Bush (hardly Libertarian) were viewed favorably by Tea Party supporters, while of Ron Paul "Only 28 percent of Tea Partiers said they have a favorable view of him, while 56 percent said they hadn't heard enough about him".  Other than the claim that Ron Paul, a noted Libertarian, was instrumental in the founding of the Tea Party, there seems to be no connection to Libertarianism, in general or evidenced in the article. I'll note again the repeal of federal marijuana prohibition as one significant example where the Tea Party clearly fails to qualify as Libertarian, in that it's followers and current prominent leaders do not support repeal. Vanyo (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to expand on "libertarian" and add conservative, because I don't think anyone here disagrees that the TPM's principles are not simply "libertarian". Swarm  u /  t 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I just figured out that the change that you just made truly changes it back to the version which came out of the mediation. Contrary to what I said, mine didn't quite do that. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to various comments above, this article is currently in a 90% junk state. Other than the first paragraph and the "contract" listing, nothing here has come out of a specific consensus. Some quality items have been put in with a tacit consensus, but most of it is just the shattered junk pile smoking ruins of POV wars. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a movement claims to be "populist," and brands itself as such, does not make it so, and to call it "an American populist political movement" can hardly be called "neutral."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines populism as "A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite." The Compact OED defines it as "a person who supports or seeks to appeal to the concerns of ordinary people." I would personally define it as meaning "the political viewpoint expressed by the assertion that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,' and would further assert that socialism is simply populism taken to extremes, much as anarchism is libertarianism taken to extremes, and totalitarianism is authoritarianism taken to extremes.

How, then, can a movement, no matter how vehemently it claims to be populist, be legitimately so called, when every action it has undertaken has been to protect and expand the wealth and power of the already-wealthy and already-powerful, while actively seeking the repeal of government programs that have proven their generally beneficial nature over a period of over half a century? Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

browser wrongly redirect to this article
When I type "T Party" in the URL bar in my Firefox 2 in order to search for info about a party named T Party in Hong Kong, I was redirected to here. Is there any necessary to add '' {"T Party" redirected to here. For T Party in Hong Kong, see zh:T Party. '' to the top of this article? C933103 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary. "T Party", in English, returns here.  Now, if entering "T Party" in zh.Wikipedia's search field came here, that would be different.  Do we list English phrases used in other countries for other than the English meaning elsewhere?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not mean entering "T Party" in english wikipedia search box then i redirected to here, but instead, I type that in a browser's URL+search bar (combined), then i being redirected to this article....C933103 (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't directly control which page your browser sends you to. However, if the "T Party" is notable then you could write an article about it. Maybe then the browser would have a better target. (Firefox 2? That's a five-year-old browser - it seems so ancient now! But a newer browser would probably act the same way.)     Will Beback    talk    10:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Text
Old text (from 2011-09-16T13:48:19)
 * The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times''/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. Opposition is particularly strong to Cap and Trade with Tea Party supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change by emissions trading, which would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide. An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor.

New text (as of 2011-09-26T19:27:56):
 * The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions that would be a part of emissions trading legislation that would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change. An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor. 

Discussion
I think Peter and I agree but have just been trying to get the wording right. Hesitant to tweak it further without discussion due to 1RR. Right now it has a "double negative" in it and says the opposite of what it intends. (essentially says the TP folks are opposed to limits on limits)  Also, it would be better to say "carbon dioxide" rather than "pollutants" because that is more specific, and also less POV way to refer to a gas which is naturally the 3rd most prevalent gas in the atmosphere. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Carbon dioxide is only one of many greenhouse gases. A more generic term, like "greenhouse gases" would be more accurate. Where is the text you're talking about?   Will Beback    talk    19:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the proposed legislation applied to just carbon dioxide. But "greenhouse gasses" would also be fine. For methane (which I think is next one down the list) the sources mostly aren't industrial and they'd have to measure cow farts to implement cap and trade.  :-)  :-)  I put in "carbon dioxide" but that change would be fine.  North8000 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the text you're talking about? Which section is it in?   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the 4th paragraph in the "Views of supporters" section. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this sentence: Was changed to: All derived from a New York Times article: "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith". Is that correct?  Will Beback   talk    21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Opposition is particularly strong to Cap and Trade with Tea Party supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change by emissions trading, which would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide.
 * The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions that would be a part of emissions trading legislation that would encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change.

Looks right. Result of a series of changes by Peter and me, starting with Peter removing "Cap and Trade". North8000 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any significant changes.   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it took some bigger swings during the intermediate stages. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now it says:
 * The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of emissions trading legislation to encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide, with supporters vilifying Democratic office holders who supported efforts to mitigate climate change.
 * Apparently there's a dispute over the source.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a brand new topic.  But I'm guessing the tagger felt that the wording jumped the tracks from the source rather than disputing the source. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I understand the tag to mean. One ref (John M. Broder "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith" The New York Times, October 20, 2010) was used for the entire sentence. I attempted to show by rearrangement (and ES) that only the last phrase is in question, not the entire sentence. In particular:
 * "vilifying" seems a bit strong, and doesn't seem to be supported by the source;
 * whatever verb describes what supporters are are doing, the objects are primarily but not exclusively Democrats, as evidenced by Mike Castle, who is mentioned in the source;
 * the [verb to be determined] is only discussed as applying to those supporting cap-and-trade, or at best additional government regulation,  not necessarily all "who supported efforts to mitigate climate change"; for example, no mention is made of a TPM position on tax credits for industries or individuals voluntarily taking pollution abatement or energy conservation steps.
 * BTW, going back earlier in this section, the source specifically mentions carbon dioxide, not greenhouse gases in general, though another source referring to the latter should be out there somewhere. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either word, but I think that carbon dioxide is more accurate. I don't think that cap and trade has been seriously proposed for any other greenhouse gases. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Emissions trading, there is already a cap-and-trade market in the US for acid rain-creating compounds. But rather than fight over it here I suggest we just use whatever term is most common in sources.   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a dispute here, just a discussion. A rarity for this article. :-)   We just need someone to fix the wording. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On Carbon dioxide v. Greenhouse gases there seems to be a discussion but no dispute. On my three bullets above – the main point of my post – I see a dispute but no discussion. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd call those three points a possible future dispute, but not a current one. I agree with your points and reasoning on those.  I'd recommend just editing it all and seeing what happens.   North8000 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia
time for rfc. this article reads like an attack piece and much of the trivia has nothing to do with the tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What trivia are you talking about?   Will Beback    talk    02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the section title was altered, the title now reflects the trivia. it evidently offended one editor so much he reverted this section, then self reverted when he realized all this is actually in the article after editing niggar out of the section title.  Darkstar1st (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:TALKNEW: headings should be neutral. What I was asking about were specific sections or passages of this article, not a string of offensive phrases. Please remember this is a serious, adult project, not an adolescent BS session.   Will Beback    talk    03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * tea party supporters had a negative effect
 * Republican candidates
 * contributor Michelle Malkin Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike Darkstar1st's list below, which has some prose explanation at the end, I don't see the point of the list added by Xenophrenic above. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you that mere snippets taken out of context don't clearly convey a "point"; all the items in the list (regardless of which editor supplied them) share the same "prose explanation". I hope that clarifies. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * '''seriously racist, racist people.
 * Colored People:naaCP.
 * Lord Hanuman, Monkey God.
 * rat bastard.
 * Niggar.
 * faggot.
 * White nationalists  i am amused by the adults who think these words are too offensive for the talk page, yet insist they remain in an article about lowering tax.  Darkstar1st (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not a neutral heading. I guess the question could be why a political movement that's ostensibly about tax policy is led by people who are so often found to be using offensive racial and other epithets. But stringing those terms into a heading and calling them trivia is probably not the best way to have a sober discussion of the issue.   Will Beback    talk    03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * so not neutral in talk, but ok for the article? what other articles have a racial issues section?  i am even more amused you do not see the racism in all politics.
 * ...typical white person..., Obama
 * You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent, Joe Biden
 * You fucking Jew bastard, Hillary Clinton
 * Hymietown, Jesse Jackson
 * Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights, 141 of Civil Rights Under Reagan, by Robert Detlefsen
 * since the above quote is being challenged by an unsourced fictitious version, here is Berry saying the same thing, note to Xeno who added the tag, it is on page 68 para 2, line 4 of the pdf (No, that is not the same thing, and is in fact, completely different -- note that the "statement by Ramirez & Berry" below, with context, is completely different from the alleged, unsourced, misquote supposedly from just Berry that you posted just above -- and even carries a different meaning. Your assertion that the quote and the misquote are "Berry saying the same thing" is not supported by your citation, hence it fails verification. --Xenophrenic) 
 * Civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights protection to all Americans, as the majority of this Commission seems to believe. Instead, they were passed out of a recognition that some Americans already had protection because they belonged to a favored group; and others, including blacks, Hispanics, and women of all races, did not because they belonged to disfavored groups." (Toward an Understanding of Stotts, January 1985  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, Former Klansman and Democrat Senator Robert Byrd 2001
 * too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write, Mike Wallace
 * Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, Harry Truman Darkstar1st (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, I indented your list above just to more clearly tie it to the prose introduction at the beginning. Hope you don't mind.
 * Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The point I was making was not that my grandmothe­r harbors any racial animosity - she doesn't - but that she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know there's a reaction that's been bred into our experience­s that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it, and what makes me optimistic­, you see each generation feeling a little less like that.", Obama
 * '''"I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." Joe Biden
 * "Some would say that Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, but civil rights apply to all people, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
 * North8000, what makes you think I don't put what I want to say in my talk posts? Sincerererely, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this particular case where you were modifying Darkstar's post to what you wanted to say instead of saying it as your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not done that. All I did was correct a quote, without regard to who posted it.  I see now that my correction has been reverted, so it appears the editor wishes to deceive. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you should just put what you want to say in as your own talk post instead or warring to modify what Darkstar said in their talk post. Sincereley, North8000 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go look at each one of those, but I do see that the "Hymietown" issue is addressed in Jesse Jackson article. If someone wanted to take it out on the basis of being "trivia" I'd object. I'm not sure that there's racism in all politics, but even if there is that's no reason to ignore it.   Will Beback    talk    06:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * you don't have to, our racial issues section is the only one in wp, including actual hate groups like the kkk and neo nazi. my point, which you inadvertently made, is these are people and their comments belong on their page, not the democrat page.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussions of racial issues concerning the Ku Klux Klan are spread throughout that article. They aren't omitted.   Will Beback    talk    07:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the above list of alleged bigoted comments, I fail to see what point you are trying to make. It appears that you have struggled to assemble a list (or copied one that I've seen on a few right-wing blogs) of incidents over the past 100+ years, from a demographic (Democrats?) that covers half the population of the United States over several past generations.  Is your point that bigots can be found anywhere?  I don't believe anyone was arguing against that obvious point.  Are you trying to draw a comparison between the incidents of bigotry associated with this 2-yr old movement of tens of thousands of folks and those of half our nation's populace over the past century?  No serious person is attempting that comparison, either.  If you could please provide the reliably sourced news coverage, polling data and academic study conclusions that show the correlation between your above list of remarks and the "Democratic Party", it would be greatly appreciated and might help me to understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It reads like an article based on news stories.  If you want to remove ALL the material that is based on news clippings, then feel free to do so, though the Wiki article would probably be no more than a stub after that.  BigK HeX (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the democrat article has none of the above racial issues, even though nigger from mud is far worse, or fucking jew bastard from the lips of our current secretary of state, somehow didnt make it into wp, balderdash, the tea party has the lone section titled racial issues in wp. unless someone can point to another political party with the same, i am going to delete the whole section.  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and that is obvious. I think this mess needs more eyes to get it fixed. This article is crap because 3/4 of it consists of specially selected trivia, specially selected to paint a particular picture. And some people want it that way.  The used meaning of "trivia" here is with respect to being informative about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The rosetta stone is that the big picture is realizing that the TP is an agenda and set of opinions on a particular few issues (lower taxes, lower government spending, and less government) and a name, not an entity. So all of the stuff which this junk article is loaded with that isn't about that or that doesn't recognize that is irrelevant. So the answer is to stick to stuff that is about the subject and informative about, not selected bits of what's happening in the personal lives, facebook pages etc. of people who are supporting that agenda. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While it can be argued that the "TP is an agenda and set of opinions on a particular few issues", this article is about the movement. Perhaps a separate article is needed that focuses specifically on the policy agenda of that movement — but good luck nailing that down. There appears to be plenty of competing notions among the various TP factions about the specifics of their agenda. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My main point is that it is not an entity, and can't be treated as such. A good analogy might be the pro-choice movement. We don't see efforts to define what "their" agenda is regarding the war in Iraq, or consider some dumb embarrassing comment made by a pro-choice leader on an unrelated topic (e.g. insulting polish people) to be informative regarding the pro-choice movement to be included in the article. No real difference, except for the huge but superficial one which throws everybody for a loop.  It has a name which doesn't state the agenda, and a name which makes it sound more like an entity. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Xenophrenic on this point. This article is about a movement, not just an agenda. We discuss its leaders, its membership, its history, its symbols, its impact on elections, and so on. If someone wants an article purely devoted to Tea Party ideals then that would be a different article.   Will Beback    talk    21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, many people consider Barack/Biden/Hillary a party leader, yet no mention or typical white person, slight Indian Accent or fucking jew bastard on the democrat page. all valid racial issues which may or may not belong on the respective persons article, but certainly do not represent democrats as a whole.  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should most definitely improve the "democrat page" with the information and reliable sources you have. I support you 100%. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * [E/C] A) The chair of the Democratic Party is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. B) We're not here to discuss the Democratic Party article. If that's your interest please go to talk:Democratic Party (United States). When the Tea Party becomes one of two major contemporary political parties in the U.S., and one of the oldest political parties in the world, then I'd expect this article to resemble that article in form and content. In the meantime, this is an article about a nebulous, recently formed movement. It's a very different entity from the Democratic Party. Let's just on this article and stop the invalid comparisons.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardign Will's and Xenophrenic's responses to my comments, I actually agree with you both, but I think you are missing my point.  I didn't mean to not try to cover those other aspects (at least at the larger scale level).  My point was more of an structural one.  Once one applies the reality that the movement is not an entity, that would help sort out many of the insertion issues.
 * Regarding Will's response to Darkstar, I must disagree.  Darkstar's point was that selected things that the individuals  do are not about, not informative about, are wp:undue, are not germane, and are not put in the top level articles about the organizations / movements etc. No reason that a double standard should be applied to this article. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see which other standard is being applied. If we want to pretend that this movement has no members, and if we remove all references to the membership, leadership, and constituent organizations, then I could see how these incidents would be out of place. But so long as we discuss the members and leadership then the activities of those people is relevant, whether it's getting elected or getting fired.   Will Beback    talk    03:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Defining present issues and areas of concern
OK, it looks like we're at an impasse regarding the underlying issue. I think that it's time to seriously/sincerely define the underlying issues (without yet arguing the points) in order to formulate an RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My agenda, summed up, is a quality and informative article which has no spin imparted by the wp editors. Period. My view point is that it is 90% crap, specifically 90% trivia inserted to give a particular impression about the TPM.....trivia from both sides, but the majority of the trivia is selective to make the TPM look bad. By "trivia" I mean that, in Wikipedia terms, it is too small of a scale wp:undue to be in the top level TPM article.   From a non-wikipedia standpoitn, it is material that is not informative about the movement because it is just about what one local person twittered, facebooked etc.  The simplest remedy would be to take all of this stuff out.   The more complex one would be to make the title more neutral and to encompass the aspect that are more about the tpm, E.G. the TPM reaction to the incidents and coverage of them, and how these fit into a review (with 0opinions form both sides) of the media coverage of these things.  Sincerely,   North8000 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With your first sentence, you suggest the article should have "no spin imparted by the WP editors", but then you go on to suggest how you would "spin" the article, to use your word. It basically sounds like you just suggested removing anything that "makes the TPm look bad".  You characterize as trivial anything that originates with single individuals, but that describes 90% of the article (should we remove Frank Newport's opinion, or Carender's actions, or Rassmussen's assesssment, or Santelli's rant, or Hecker's proposed agenda, or...) and suggest that it should be removed on that basis. I would propose a different path.  Why not begin with your suggestion to cover "the TPM reaction to the incidents and coverage of them" in a more encyclopedic, prose-format way.  Then, if that is done in a comprehensive manner, you could make the case that the list of specific incident examples is redundant, and no longer necessary and can be removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually, the things I characterized as trivia were ABOUT individuals, not BY individuals. And with other particulars that made them trivia.  While there are other particulars to look at, I think that a rough test is that a somewhat impartial RS discusses something as being about the overall TPM, or some significant portion of it. 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing content ABOUT individuals; the content with which you seem most concerned appears to be about actions and incidents that have had some kind of impact relevant to the TP (i.e., one faction demanding the expulsion of another faction; politicians disassociating themselves, national organizations issuing resolutions regarding the TP, etc.). Perhaps that content needs rewording to make that more clear? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with you on the first point, but the latter "impact" points are good points. The "impact" is the TPM related stuff and maybe that should be the title. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any input on my "comprehensive manner" suggestion? It's actually part your suggestion to begin with.  Xenophrenic (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good goal and plan, if I understand what you are saying. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That brings us back to where we left off the last (of 6 times): which sources should we use? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my first attempt, probably needs some work: I'd say that the minimum requirement is that they somewhat meet wp:re, they appear to be trying to be objective, and that the topic directly and clearly about the TPM at the national or regional level.  And one exception to the "objective" part is wheree it is clearly identified as examples of what pro and anti TP people are saying. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, but I was actually asking for specific sources, not a description of sources in general. Did you have any actual sources (that cover the content we focusing on) in mind? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, on the specific topic of the moment, no. For the article in general, I'm no fountain of them, but I think that there are many good ones that are used but barely used in the article right now. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RE: "It basically sounds like you just suggested removing anything that "makes the TPm look bad"."
 * I would have to agree with this assessment.
 * So far as I can tell, all of the "trivia" has a pretty rough parity of sourcing and "quality" as most of the remainder of the article. If any editors want to remove the so-called "trivia", then the rationale for deletion would apply to most of the remaining article.   BigK HeX (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking past the worse-than-baseless insult that you opened with, I agree with your last sentence. Deleting about 90% of this article would be a good step one out of junk status. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Practically every editor visting this page is engaging in what you consider to be worse-than-baseless insults, but what everyone else considers to be a simple observation of facts. But maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, two other people do it on a small fraction of their posts to me, and you do it 100% of the time.  Even the worst folks in that respect that I've ever met in Wikipedia have never gone over 10%. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on the content, not the contributors.   Will Beback    talk    23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to me, I never initiate insults, and just respond briefly when they are hurled at me, and then just to identify the behavior as such to try to get it stopped.  So far I have never reported anyone in my entire WP life, but don't intend to endure a continuous barrage of insults as Goethean has been doing and this is my attempt to stop it without that. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough already. None of this helps the article.   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Back to the article. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be off-wiki for 12 of the next 15 days, 9 of them I'll be where even cell phones don't work/reach. So I won't be of much help on this main discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tim Ravndal's comments
pov push much? we have enough man bites dog already. i think its time for rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've been trying to get massive wp:undue violations like this out, and here's a duo trying to force yet another one in. North8000 (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing relevant material from the article. I understand that you are displeased that the news media covered this event in connection with the Tea Party Movement. However, the sources are reliable and the event is relevant to the subject. Your edit warring, in violation of article sanctions, doesn't change anything. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite my having given you the main concern with that problematic insertion (pov via massive wp:undue) you are baselessly and falsely inventing insulting-to-me motivation which does not even make sense to the discussion here. There are thousands of things that TP supporters do that are covered which are not info about the TPM.  Far beyond failing to AGF, you are baselessly inventing bad faith. Second, just saying taking such a disputed, controversial potential insertion to talk is not "edit warring".   Your behavior here is terrible!  North8000 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please watch your tongue. It is not I who has been incessantly pushing to have all of the negative material removed from this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the same behavior, this time with new false material. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am. That how I know that it is not the issue here. Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion.  Got any more tangents to try? North8000 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the content in question. It was covered by multiple reliable sources, which seems to give it sufficient weight to make a mention of it in the article, so maybe I'm not seeing the issue here. While it is true that "there are thousands of things that TP supporters do that are covered which are not info about the TPM", when the person in question is the leader of a state's Tea Party, it makes it much more relevant. As president of Montana's Big Sky Tea Party Association, that makes him a spokeperson for the Tea Party in Montana, and makes this event very relevant to the article. Unless there is some issue that I'm not aware of, having this information in the article is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. - SudoGhost 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Sudo, thanks for the intelligent and polite conversation. There are thousands of things that persons at that level in the TPM do in their personal lives outside of the TPM that made the newspapers.  If the head of the Chicago chapter donates money to the save-the-children foundation, or writes or twitters something nice on his facebook page or twitter account, (nothing to do with the TPM) does that makes the newspapers, does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM?  I'm guess rather than this one being totally irrelevant (one could say that the chapter taking action against him, and the reason for it IS about the TPM), the article is is a state where people have been mining through those thousands of items looking for negative ones and putting in whole sections in the article on them.  Heck, we even have a 700+ word section on a personal twitter comment made by a low level TP'er. And a whole paragraph on how some people suspect that iti was a TP'er who damaged their BBQ grill at their house. See anything like that in the top level US Democratic Party article?   And we can't seem to get the article out of it's current junk state. And this one looks like just going deeper in that same hole. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the twitter comment you're referring to, but I'm not seeing the BBQ one. Could you point out which section that is in?  I do think that the twitter paragraph could be shortened, and I think the Racial issues section needs to be seriously looked over and trimmed, but I personally don't see an issue with this information being added to the article as a brief mention, and I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that it would violate. - SudoGhost 22:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I found what you mentioned. I was skimming through for "BBQ" or "barbeque", and completely missed the entire section until I went over it again.  As large as the racial issues section is, I think it might be appropriate to split it off into its own article, because it is taking up a third of the article, which gives it (in my opinion) way too much weight. - SudoGhost 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been asked, presumably to make a point about the relevance or importance of some information in this article: "If the head of the Chicago (Tea Party) chapter donates money to the save-the-children foundation ... does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM?"
 * The obvious answer to any question carefully posed in that fashion would be, "of course not". But, the selective phrasing of that question hides the actual issue we're discussing here. If you wish to pose such a hypothetical question as an accurate analogy to the real issue at hand here, it would be phrased thusly: "If a person, in his capacity as the head of the Chicago (Tea Party) chapter, donates money to the save-the-children foundation during a Tea Party event, and other Tea Party leaders and ranking members make similar philanthropic gestures toward save-the-children foundations, and even vocally support and espouse governmental policies seen as conducive to generosity toward save-the-children foundations, to the extent that these actions generate extensive national news coverage and even prompt national polls and academic studies inquiring into this specific phenomenon ... does THAT make it suitable to put in this article/ make it informative about the TPM?"  The obvious answer would be, "of course it does".
 * You see, we're not asking what the relevance of a popular piece of cooking equipment (barbeque) or a popular social network (Twitter) has to the Tea Party movement, nor are we asking what relevance any single individual (numerous though these "single individual incidents" appear to be) has to the movement — and asking such questions misdirect us away from the actual subject matter. There has been a significant amount of hoopla (read: news coverage, commentary, academic study and actual journalism, etc.) made over both the "elements of racism" and "reactionary, even violent" proclivities as they relate to the movement.  Whether we like it or not, those are relevant issues in an article about the movement, and our article should convey reliably sourced information about it. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, as to the edit that was removed, is there any reason it shouldn't be inserted back into the article? I certainly think it belongs there.  - SudoGhost 03:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason based on policy or editorial judgement to exclude it, but I haven't actively argued (or edited) to include it (or the numerous other similar examples that are not presently in the article). I don't have a specific objection to that particular content, but I do feel that the whole section of this article covering the obviously controversial and widely held perceptions of the TP as, in part, motivated by racism, bigotry, anger, etc., could be written more encyclopedically: i.e., less like a list of illustrative examples, and more prose-format coverage of the underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to something more neutral and relevant.  Will Beback   talk    22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If this were put to a vote, I'd be in favor of keeping the Big Sky incident, as well as keeping the BBQ and other incidents. These were nationally-covered news stories that directly impacted the Tea Party and how it is/was perceived and how they operate, which, to me, makes them relevant. Maybe in a few years other aspects and events may push these current ones to the footnotes, but for now they are relevant, IMO. Esprix (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording for rfc
it has been decided the rfc will proceed, please comment only on the rfc wording here and include the proposed wording you suggest.
 * The tea party article should only be about the ideology of the tea party. Any actions of members or leaders should be relegated to the biography of that person, or the specific tea party organisation.   Darkstar1st (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I think we should get the title of the article in there.
 * Second, if we're not writing about what people say or do, then how will we know what the ideology of the Tea Party is? The "Contract from America" refers to the actions of a website/organization.
 * Third, this proposal would leave only the "view of supporters" section, which is just 400 words about surveys. In other words, this proposal suggests deleting or "relegating" the other 7,800 words in the article. That being the case, we should say so plainly:
 * Shall we delete or remove all text from the Tea Party movement article except for the "views of supporters" section.
 * That would be the same proposal, stated more simply.   Will Beback    talk    07:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i welcome rs views of the tea party good or bad.
 * example: ''Beyond fiscal rectitude and less spending, Tea Party candidates are targeting the central institutions of American government...
 * More than half of Tea Party backers say they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports changing the 14th Amendment to prevent the children of noncitizens born in the U.S. from automatically becoming citizens...
 * Tea Partiers strongly support Arizona’s recent immigration law making failure to carrying immigration documents a crime'''
 * That is why the Tea Party's insistence on holding the debt ceiling hostage in order to force its policies on the country -- the first time the debt ceiling has been used this way -- was so deeply un-American, Fareed Zakaria.
 * Paul Krugman, The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking any kind of responsible policy can be defeated and marginalized.''
 * instead of Monkey God, rat bastard, Niggar, faggot, White nationalists, wouldn't the above sound more encyclopedic? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your continual repetition of these epithets is offensive. TFD (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let's take them out of the article. :-)  They are just trivia (specially selected items from millions of personal comments by TP supporters, specially selected to give a certain impression).  North8000 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; the repetition is more offensive than the bigoted sentiments. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One idea: a narrower one which would debate the issues issues that make this article junk and help set the course: To completely remove the twitter comment section. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a "twitter comment section". Could you be more specific? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the second paragraph in the "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" section.   North8000 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, under the "Racial Issues" section; subsection "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests"? The second paragraph is about racial slurs made by a Tea Party organizer and chapter founder/leader while acting in his capacity as a TP activist at that protest, as well as the backlash from politicians as a result.  You wish to "completely remove" that content for what reason, exactly?  Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like that was an official Tea Party Twitter account, being edited by a Tea Party founder, commenting on a political issue. While not every comment is relevant, this one seems to be. It received significant attention and responses from other politicians.   Will Beback    talk    20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, pretty heavy spin on all three items....a low level guy is a "Tea Party Founder" and twittering something is called "editing".  On the latter, possibly you were taken in by the deceptive wording in the article.  Twitters end up on the poster's twitter page/"site", that is not at the same level as the normal meaning of editing a web site. And a spontaneous near-unintelligible rant is "commenting on a political topic." North8000 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no "low level guys" or "high level guys" in the movement, remember? No formal hierarchy, either.  If you mean to imply that Thomas' significance in the movement is minimal just because the small TP group he founded and runs is from a small town — how very 'elitist' of you. ;-) You forget, according to the in-depth canvassing of TP groups by the Washington Post (linked just above in the 'Trivia' discussion), that describes most of the TP groups.  And just to clarify for you, all "texting" he did from the Springboro Tea Party Twitter account also simultaneously appeared on the live, scrolling embedded feed on the home page of the official Springboro Tea Party Web Site.  If this gentleman is so insignificant, then why did his actions cause a small herd of local and state politicians to cancel their scheduled attendance at a Tea Party event, and why was it a news topic on a national cable news network? There is a difference between insignificance, and merely wishing that something had not been significant.  As for the rant being "spontaneous near-unintelligible", perhaps you have misread it?  It appears to have been perfectly intelligible to everyone else who read and strongly reacted to it.  Do you feel it is necessary to expand that section to make his commenting on political topics more clear to you?  We could add a reliably sourced photo of Thomas in his "White Pride" T-shirt, and add additional posted commentary of Thomas', like "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." If you feel it is necessary to make his sentiments more intelligible. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By spontaneous and unintelligable, I meant with respect to Will standard that ti was commenting on a political issue.  By "low level" I didn't mean that there was a formal hierarchy, I meant that there is nothing about him that would make this anything but a wp:undue selection from tens of thousands of things that TP're said and did that made the newspapers. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume you exaggerate for effect when you say "tens of thousands of things that TP'ers said"; while the expression of such sentiments are disconcertingly and disproportionately higher in number than one would expect (according to both studies and polls), let's not try to paint the issue as epidemic among the movement. As for your characterization of the content as WP:UNDUE, did I hear correctly that you think there must be "something about him (Thomas)", the person, in order for the content we're now discussing to be valid for our article under that Wikipedia policy?  I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not exaggerate, I think it is a pretty good estimate. For example, every time a person associated with the TPM made a speech at a local "save the children" foundation meeting and it made the papers would count as one of those those tens of thousands of things said which the few used in this article were cherry picked from.  Another example: every utterance in recent years made by Ron Paul or Sara Palin that made the papers.  So this article cherry picked the most negative sounding ones in order to synthesize a certain impression about the TPM.
 * I disagree with that assessment. You claim negative sounding incidents were put in this article to leave a certain impression about the movement, while I (and most others) argue that the movement has left a certain impression on journalists and in polling data and on academic study results and on the general public, and because of the significance of that aspect of the movement, it has appeared in our TPm article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of in a hurry at the moment, but on your last question, something that is informative about an individual in the movement is not necessarily informative about the movement. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true; but the content we are discussing is not in our article to be informative about the person, but about the movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we have the same stated goal. But I submit that it is not to any significant extent informative about the movement,  just as all of those quotes by Democrats that Darkstar listed are not (to any significant extent) informative about the DNC enough to be in that article. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are half-right. The quotes from Darkstar are not informative about the DNC, as is obvious to anyone that actually looks at the actual quotes, and the context in which they were given.  Take the Truman quote from a 1911 private letter, long before he had anything to do with politics, much less the Democratic Party.  Or the Obama quote that actually makes the case against racism, if you review the whole statement.  By comparison, the incidents by TPers are informative about the movement because they have affected the movement as well as the public's perception of it.  When TP leaders even brag that expression of such caustic sentiments "has been great for the movement", it becomes quite relevant.  Besides, trying to cite a half-dozen remarks from over 100 years of history involving hundreds of millions of Americans as somehow "informative" about that demographic doesn't compare to the much more prevalent situation with the mere tens of thousands of TPers over just two short years.  I'll repeat what I said above (and I notice that it was tellingly overlooked): No serious person is attempting that comparison, either. If you could please provide the reliably sourced news coverage, polling data and academic study conclusions that show the correlation between your above list of remarks and the "Democratic Party", it would be greatly appreciated and might help me to understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * what context of you fucking jew bastard, uttered by our current democrat secretary of state did i leave out? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, gee, I dunno ... let's have a look. We'll start with you citing your reliable sources so that I can review that context, and it's documented relevance to the Democratic Party. And let's take it to either your talk page or my talk page since we are straying away from "TPm article improvement" now, but we can return here with our conclusions.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the standard you are proposing for the DNC in this discussion would dictate pulling the twitter section out plus all of the other "here's something bad sounding that a TP'er said" junk out that this article is full of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Quite the opposite, in fact.  And I don't see a "twitter section", so I can't comment on that, but as to the "something bad sounding" stuff — the reliable sources to which they are cited do indeed also convey the relevance to the TP movement.  I don't see any sources that merely convey that someone said or did "something bad sounding" without also discussing the TPm. By that standard, I was requesting the same for the "bad sounding" stuff Darkstar was presenting. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you defining relevance as: #1 "some connection to"  or  #2 "informative about"? #1 would mean put/keep that crap in both articles, #2 would mean pull/keep it out of both of them. But you are promoting a double standard, #1 for the TPM, #2 for the DNC. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously #2. And there is no double standard, as that same standard would be applied to both.  That's why I was asking for the sources for Darkstar's stuff.  Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But, by that standard (which is a good one) there is no sourcing that says those things are informative about the TPM. Unless the overall section were to be retitled (and the wording balanced) to be how the TPM reacts to such actions, or analysis of media coverage of the TPM and arguments from both sides of that fence. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "sourcing that says those things are informative". I said, "the reliable sources to which they are cited do indeed also convey the relevance to the TP movement", and I was asking for similar sourcing for Darkstars items. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we're going in circles.  I asked you a question to clarify what you mean by relevance.   You answered it in a way that I think was a good step forward.  Now you are reversing yourself.  North8000 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. I haven't reversed anything, and it is all still right there for you to re-examine.  Please take a moment to do so now, and you'll realize I have been 100% consistent.  Reiterating again, for your benefit, exactly what I said before (yup ... it is still there for you to check):  The reliable sources, from which is derived what you refer to as "bad sounding" content, also convey the relevance of that "bad sounding" content to the TP movement.  Usually they spell the relevance out for you, such as "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."  All I'm asking is that you and Darkstar now provide the reliable sources conveying similar relevance of Darkstar's sample "quotes" to the Democratic Party.  Or, alternatively, we can just drop that nonsensical comparison and move on, as we have during the last 7 times this very issue was raised in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We didn't move on, 2 folks roadblocked any correction of this POV / massive wp:undue violation mess, which is why we need an RFC. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and worse still, in addition to the obstruction, those 2 folks can't even manage to define an actual problem. Perhaps an RFC is a good idea — but the request will still need to be defined. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the proposed RfC wording above, an editor suggests that the article should cover social issues with regard to the Tea Party movement, such as Immigration. Am I understanding that correctly? Xenophrenic (talk) Actually, there appears to be some coverage of social issues already. Perhaps we can expand upon that, as I see that in addition to immigration, TPers have some fairly strong opinions regarding same-sex marriage and gays in the military as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated

 * “f***ing Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 18 July 2000]

“f—–g Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 17 July 2000]
 * “f****** Jew bastard” [The Times (London), 16 July 2000]
 * “f—– Jew b——” [UPI, 17 July 2000; euphemized fucking is one hyphen short]
 * “Jew bastard” [Reuters, 10, 16, 17 July 2000]
 * “Jew bastard” [The Washington Post, 18 July 2000]
 * “Jew bastard” [New York Daily News, 18 July 2000]
 * “Jew b——” [AP, 16 July 2000]
 * “an obscenity-laced, anti-Semitic slur” [AP, 19 July 2000]
 * “an anti-Semitic obscenity” [AP and St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 26 July 2000]
 * “uttered an anti-Jewish slur” [Reuters, 16 July 2000]
 * “made an anti-Jewish remark” [TIME, 24 July 2000, p. 64]
 * “used rough language” and an “anti-Semitic slur.” [CBS Radio News, 16 July 2000]
 * if she didnt say it, wouldn't a lawyer won a slander case by now?  way off topic now, since this isn't in the democrat article, niggar and faggot slurs have no place in the tea party.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should hold the RFC at Talk:Democratic Party (United States), since folks keep talking about that article instead of this one.   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the above has to do with Imigration, or other social issues. Oh, and all those sources say that she didn't utter those words.  Perhaps it should have been a clue to you that they are all dated "July, 2000" instead of 1974. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Darkstar is deliberately distorting the truth here, and knows it. The 'sources' he is giving are not linked because he knows the accusation is from a National Enquirer writer that wrote a book and and made this claim about Clinton. It's an accusation from 1974, with no reliable sources to back it up. He is using this kind of language on purpose and is disrupting Wikipedia in the process. Dave Dial (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "typical white person", obama Darkstar1st (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking," Biden said. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner, perhaps you should take a break. Or maybe an admin should give you one if you're unable to disengage. Dave Dial (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Darkstar1st's off-topic slurs can and should be removed from this talk page per WP:TALKNO. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Want to be more specific on the basis for that questionable assertion? North8000 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is specific for you, copied from the banner at the top of this talk page:
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tea Party movement at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.
 * Xenophrenic (talk)
 * Darkstar was using those to make a point towards improving this article, so that's really not applicable. But per guidelines, one does not get to tamper with another comments just because in their opinion they violated something like that.  Allowable re factoring is for some specialized more egregious situations than that. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I agree with the latter part, but the Darkstar comments are definite violations. The editor should stop refactoring other editors comments. That they are in themselves violations should be dealt with by either removing or collapsing them. I favor collapsing to preserve the record, for the most part. Unless they are too egregious for preserving. Let's forget this unfortunate section now, and move on to improving the article. Dave Dial (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea North8000 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the first part; he failed to make that point. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining what that point was? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the point is all politicians/people are racist, or say racist things, or have in the past, or wanted to one time, or thought it. littering wp with every vile remark does little to educate, rather seems more like an attack on a movement many editors may dislike.  other political party articles do not include individual racist comments.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "point" is false, demostrates incredibly sloppy thinking, violates WP:POINT, and has no relevance to the topic of this talk page (thus constituting a violation of WP:TALK). The article follows the mainstream media account of the Tea Party movement. Tea Party advocates predictably reject this account and would like Wikipedia to follow their original, highly revisionary and sanitized account of the Tea Party movement's agenda and history. To do so would violate Wikipdia's core policies. This latest episiode has been disruptive and should result in sanctions. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, you say "other political party" as if the TP movement is one -- it is not a political party (although a strong argument has been made that it is simply an agitated faction of the Republican Party motivated by Obama becoming president). Your attempted comparison of a 2-year old movement with a 2-CENTURY old political party is nonsensical, and is an invalid analogy. But worse still, as you've seen in the discussions that have followed, most of the scant few examples you struggled to dig up from the past 100 years in support of your "say racist things" argument have proven to be false examples, and in the case of your Obama and Berry examples, even refute the very point you were trying to assert.


 * As other editors have pointed out, the issue of racism and the issue of the TP movement have been closely intertwined since the first protests back in early 2009. Regardless if you think that association is exaggerated or unfair or not justified, you can't wish away the fact that the association exists, it is significant, and has received extensive coverage.  Likewise, you can't wish coverage of that association out of our article.  As an aside, it surprised me to hear you express the "the point is all politicians/people are racist" sentiment.  That was ... enlightening. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

draft 2
''The tea party article should only be about the ideology of the tea party. Any actions of members or leaders should be relegated to the biography of that person, or the specific tea party organisation. All racial, religious and homophobic slurs should be purged from the article as well as accusations of racism.''  Please only discuss suggested changes to the rfc in this section, any off-topic discussion will require a new section. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

comments on draft 2

 * That sounds like you are asking us to negotiate away NPOV. The policy specifically says that NPOV is not negotiable. ("This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.") If there is significant negative material about the TPM then we must include it, in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. See WP:NPOV.    Will Beback    talk    08:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Another idea
Use the underlying principle of relevance, and the little bit of too-vague-regarding-relevance-wp:undue that works here:


 * The article to include only material that is DIRECTLY about the TPM (not just "related" to, it must directly be the subject of) at some larger scale (national, or multi-state regional) level. The only material regarding individuals would be individuals of national reputation, and only about their actions specifically with respect to the TPM.    Note that this still covers all aspects (agenda, criticism of, history, events, etc. etc.) subject to the above.

North8000 (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * well said, agreed. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party Movement
This page inaccurately states that the Tea Party began protests and holding Rallies in 2009,which is untrue..The Tea Party Movement had already hosted multiple protests and rallies around the country by that time,one of the first ever Tea Party Rallies/Protest took place in 2007 right here in Boston,The very first Rally/Protest was held a at Ron Paul event in 2007...It is also a common misconception that The Tea Party movement didn't protest during the Bush admin which in fact that's when the outrage began... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.136.2 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ron Paul supporters started it... http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html ... and the right-wing and Fox news despised and disparaged it during the Bush years. Once Obama was in power, the Neocons, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers usurped and polluted it with extremist right-wing chicken-hawks, fundamentalist religious fanatics like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, along with Koch Brother funded "think tanks" and action groups, and paid protestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.125.98 (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While it may be that the Tea Party copied the Ron Paul movement, sources show that the movement called the Tea Party began in 2009 following the inauguration of U.S. president Barack Obama. TFD (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In the first paragraph describing the Tea Party Movement, the reference to the statement about how it has been characterized as an example of astroturfing does not seem to be correct.


 * The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.
 * Rasmussen, Scott W. and Schoen, Doug. Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System. Harper, isbn = 978-0-06-199523-1, pages = 132–136

A better reference would be the Koch brothers donation records over the past several years. Izmirlig (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. First, unless they are published in a secondary source we'd have to rely upon primary sources, which is discouraged. Second, many types of political or quasi-political contributions do not need to be reported. Third, we'd be in danger of drawing an unwarranted conclusion unless we gave a full overview of all contributions. There are probably more reasons as well. Instead. Let's just rely on the best available secondary and tertiary sources. Rasmussen & Schoen would be one, but there are better ones available too.   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

mutate into something that's unhealthy/Obama thinks the tea party should thank him

 * do not change the section title, it purposely worded thus.
 * So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you. That's what you'd think. ...you see folks waving tea bags around...have a serious conversation...do it in an intelligent way...let's not play games... tighten our belts..., Obama
 * I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy....he certainly understands the burden that people face., Axelrod
 * On April 15, 2010, Obama touted his administration's tax cuts, noting the passage of 25 different tax cuts over the past year, including tax cuts for 95% of working Americans.(what does this have to do with the tea party?)
 * most political movements are poorly received by their opponents, why does this merit an entire section? which other political movement page has a "reception" section?   Darkstar1st (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

seeking consensus to remove a tagged dead link
after azure undid my edit, without discussion in talk prior or post, i seek approval to remove a dead link tagged, i will rely on azure to remove the material unless there be objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already replaced the Fiscal Times deadlink with the original version of the article FT had reprinted from the Washington Post, as determined from Wayback. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't meant to remove the dead link fix - it got overlooked in the reversal of the content deletion (sorry about that Darkstar1st, and thanks for catching it Fat&Happy). On the lack of discussion, I did read the Talk Page first and didn't see any consensus for that content removal, so I restored it.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkstar made a bold change. It was reverted.  Seems like typical BRD to me.   BigK HeX (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Spitting
This is what the reference says.

"Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, a black Democrat from Missouri, said a protester spit on him." Both References make the same statement.  

I changed the the statement here to "Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he was spat upon,"

Xenophrenic quickly changed it back to "Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon" with the edit tag of "(Undid revision 459363767 by Arzel (talk); wording according to cited sources;"

This is clearly false, and clearly is a further example of Xenophrenic being completely unwilling to work towards any kind of compromise. I would change it back to the correct wording right away, but I know he would report me for violating 1RR. It is a no-win situation with him, and one of the reasons this article is crap, and all but beyond repair. Arzel (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference actually says that news organizations (and organizations like FOX) reported that Cleaver said a protester spit on him, and that the episode meritted more reporting, which concluded:
 * ''YouTube videos show the spitting incident took place as Cleaver and other black lawmakers passed through a gantlet of rowdy protesters on the steps outside the Cannon House Office Building. Amid booing and chants of "kill the bill," Cleaver is seen reacting as he passes screaming protesters. He turns, points an accusing finger and appears to chastise one, who is shouting nonstop. As he continues up the steps, Cleaver uses his hand to wipe a protester's saliva from his face. Cleaver was hit with spit, but whether it was deliberate is very much in question.
 * To which Arzel blustered, "there is none, and has never been any conclusive evidence that this is a verifiable fact" ...which is a further example of, well, User:Arzel. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So apparently you only use the wording in the source when it suits your purpose. Fact of the matter is that there is a big difference between being spat upon and having spit land on you.  However, you care only about presenting the worst possible light against the TPM so I should not expect any thing less.  Arzel (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it so it simply states that spit landed on him, since you can't be bothered with presenting a neutral tone. Arzel (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i found a video of the actual spitting caught on film:    Darkstar1st (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we add this link to the external section? would it be appropriate?Meatsgains (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy_Wall_Street resource
99.181.152.185 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

archive
Hi. The archive box above needs a search field. Thx. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See if we can come up with a plan without an RFC
This article has been in junk status for a long time. Time to fix it. Here my idea as a guide (a more specific implementation of policies and guidelines, especially wp:undue)

Use the underlying principle of relevance, and the little bit of too-vague-regarding-relevance-wp:undue that works here:


 * The article to include only material that is DIRECTLY about the TPM (not just "related" to, it must directly be the subject of) at some larger scale (national, or multi-state regional) level. The only material regarding individuals would be individuals of national reputation, and only about their actions specifically with respect to the TPM.    Note that this still covers all aspects (agenda, criticism of, history, events, etc. etc.) subject to the above.


 * Criticism should be material strictly from reasonable quality secondary sources that have at least some degree of objectivity, and should be from their writing/analysis, not just them publishing quotes of what highly biased people said.

What do y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that this article is "junk". It's stable, well-sourced, and reasonably neutral. Removing any mention of people who don't have national reputation would contradict the fact that this is purported to be a grassroots movement with many local organizations. Among other things, most of "Impact on the 2010 election cycle" would have to be deleted, since most of the candidates listed do not have national reputations.    Will Beback    talk    04:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think that it is mostly junk.....wp:undue-violating trivia selected based on POV. And the only "stability" is that people have blocked attempts to fix it and and a large amount of people have given it up for junk/hopeless and left.


 * I'd have to look, but maybe that change you describe would be good, although multi-state regional ones would stay.  Maybe also state level for undisputed stuff.  On the grassroots thing, I think that should come from quality secondary sources rather than us building it by listing local stuff. Of course, that same standard applies for the other trivia which 70% of this article consists of.  The above is just my first attempt.  It probably has flaws and could be improved.   North8000 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found that it is quite impossible for any individual or group to successfully "block attempts" at article improvement, when those attempts are genuinely constructive and Wikipedia-compliant. In fact, I can't think of a single example in almost a decade.  To the contrary, attempts to "fix it" that run into difficulty invariably experience that difficulty because those attempts run afoul of Wikipedia's core principles and intent.  I would say it is a good thing when such attempts are finally realized as hopeless, and the "fixers" give up and leave.
 * I disagree and say that this article is clearly an example of such. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel there is content in the article that is "selected based on POV", could you please explicitly define that point of view for us, so that we can evaluate if it (1) is significant enough to warrant inclusion, and if so, (2) is represented with appropriate due weight in the article? I ask that you first define the point of view that concerns you, just so that we can be sure that we are on the same page as we move forward. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The POV I'm talking about is "I'm against the TPM, and it's my objective to make the TPM look as bad as possible in this article" But real problem hurting the article isn't the POV selection basis, it's that it is via stuff that is trivia / undue.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * .....or, in other words, "trivia" that highlights Positive points about the Tea Party is good. Equivalently sourced and notable "trivia" that discusses Negative aspects of the Tea Party = JUNK!   BigK HeX (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The opposite of what I just said. So your "feedback" on this sincere proposal is to deliberately mis-state what I said and insult me. Nice. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * lets try the rfc then, what should be included in the wording? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that the effort is to try to delete some information, and that we're trying to find a quasi-objective way of doing so. That would be the wrong way of approaching a topic like this. A better approach, IMO, would be to seek to improving the sourcing. Since we started writing this article there have been more books, scholarly articles, and journalistic overviews of the movement. Perhaps instead of focusing on what to delete the emphasis should be on what to add.  Will Beback   talk    21:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Improving or rather balancing the "source" would be a step forward. Could any of the 1st ten sources be considered conservative or libertarian leaning?  could any lean the opposite direction, i suggest most if not all would be considered such.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not try to "balance" sources by adding a certain number of conservative ones. That certainly isn't how core policies, like NPOV and V, tell us how to proceed. We should find the best available sources, without trying to determine the political biases of the authors or publishers.   Will Beback    talk    03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. (but we also need a test of direct relevance) I think Darkstar was basically saying that such hadn't been done. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is and has been little more than a collection of information largely put together in order to denigrate the movement. It is ironic in light of the OWS article to see just how differently left and right movements are treated not only by the media, but by editors here.  For example, the whole "Monkey God" controversy.  This has nothing to do with the movement, other than that a TMP person said it, and was subsequently kicked out.  Unfortunately, this incident which should have never been included is being protected by Xeno.  The polling section is cherry picked to present a negative light against the TPM.  Look at the OWS articles.  You have anti-semitism, Nazi's, Rapes, general mayhem...pretty much glossed over because it is considered to be one-off issues, and doesn't reflect the movement in general.  Where as here you have some editors using minor incidents to try and define the whole movement.  And don't give me the whole "other stuff exists" line.  Unfortunately I don't see any of this changing, because I don't see any willingness for compromise from a few editors.  Arzel (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Arzel! I was wondering just how long it would be before you returned to personally attacking Wikipedia editors — you've been busy elsewhere, I guess?  I've never protected an incident (whatever that's supposed to mean).  I've never edited an 'OWS' article, but if you'd ever consider having an intelligent discussion about this one, just give an indication. (I'm curious, are you one of the afore-mentioned fixers?) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said that you edited the OWS article, just pointing out the rampent hypocrisy on WP. Arzel (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO Arzel's analysis of the current state of the article is spot-on.  My proposed approach is more along the lines of starting to apply a relevance and due/undo weight (plus direct relevance)  criteria rather than trying to apply a balancing criteria.   I think that that would still result in starting to lift the article out of it's current junk/collection-of-trivia  status. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, assuming that it can be tweaked a little, are folks for or against the above? If it's going nowhere, then my RFC idea would be per below.

rfc wording
please only submit suggestions here, criticism of the idea will be moved to a new section  Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than something complex enough to fix the whole article, my proposal would be to fix one emblematic example of the problems.   To completely remove the Sonny Hale Twitter section on the grounds of wp:undue and relevance. It's about what one low level person did, not about the TPM. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About 70 - 80% of the article is junk. Compare the sections and "defining attributes" listed here with other populist political movement from history, and the Wikipedia pages describing those movements.  There is a lot that should be simply removed - for instance I agree about nearly the entire "reception" section should be removed, and instead replaced with possibly how the movement influenced political leaders (and vice-versa). Squ1rr3l (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with you 100%.  I was just looking for a smaller, emblematic place to start.  North8000 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to remove that Sonny Hale tweet was a tweet
A couple of folks keep trying to take out that the Sonny Hale posting was a Twitter tweet. The 4 given sources used the following terms in this area: 2 said tweet, 1 said tweeted, two said posting on twitter page, one said twitter posting, and one said posted on twitter account. Also Twitter 101 is that someone spontaneously posts something from (typically) a mobile device and it goes to all subscribers plus their Twitter page. And the context/venue is important. So "tweet/tweeted" encompasses all 5 of the above, but same is not true for "posting on twitter page", i.e. the latter does not conflict with nor cover the former. The effort to remove the multiply-sourced "tweet/tweeted" and only talk about the Twitter page is incorrect and misleading. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your original edit replaced the information "posted a racial slur on the Springboro Tea Party Twitter webpage he managed" with "tweeted", hence the concerns. If you would like to see the word "tweeted" still added in to the existing wording, I will fix that for you right now. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I removed the first time was something that was not in any of the sources.  My last attempt (which Xenophrenic reverted) had both tweeted and twitter page in there. IMO the "post to twitter page" is not a good idea (due solely to it being misleading) but it is also sourced and so I had it in on my newest version.  I think that "tweeted" as the verb or "tweet" as the noun is the most accurate description of what he did and what the post was (respectively), the most prevalent in the sources, and should be the primary description. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just let us know what other reliable sources you would like to 'correct'. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mis-representing what I said in order to fabricate an insult, again. Nice manners. The core of my comment was that tweet/tweeting followed the sources. Further, I was commenting on putting only "post to a twitter page" in the article. Even the main source that used that term didn't do that, it also said tweet.  So your attempted insult was a double-misfire. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Student Wing
You list student wings for political parties, but there's no student section on the Tea Party Movement article. For example, if you look on the right-hand side of both these articles, you see student/youth wings listed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

There needs to be a students/youth section in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyoliversusername (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. North8000 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Organizers Who Started The National Movement
Here's the information that's known within the community and hasn't been reported by mainstream media (I think they're too busy trying to prop up the narrative that the Koch brothers were the original organizers):

The initial group of National Tea Party organizers The complete list of the original Tea Party Movement organizers. came from a group of "first principles" conservatives, many of whom were involved in the early #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) hashtag group from Twitter. The #TCOT group formed around the time of 2008 elections and had already organized several other national activist initiatives prior to the Tea Party. Michael Patrick Leahy organized and hosted the first Tea Party conference call which included people like Amy Kremer, Brooks Bayne, Eric Odom, Jenny Beth Martin, and J.P. Freire. Anatomy of a Social Media Protest  Ron Paul Is Not The Founder Of The Tea Party Movement During that first call, which occurred on Feb 20, 2009, the day after Rick Santelli's rant, it was decided that the first National Tea Party events would take place Feb. 27, 2009, and that social media would be the means that the group would use to promote the events.

This information isn't in dispute by anyone other than "editors" who obviously don't know anything about the movement, because they reverted it. Since these "editors" can't refute this factual information, it should be included in the National Movement section under "First national protests". If Leahy and Bayne aren't reliable enough information for the Tea Party Movement, then the movement never happened. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If Leahy and Bayne claim to have founded the Tea Party, we should be able to say that. (I've noticed that your user name resembles one of the principles.  Is there a reason for that?)  Just as we could say that Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * you can't say that ron paul started the movement. the day that the national tea party movement launched its events (feb 27 2009), ron paul was nowhere to be found at any tea party events. why? because he was on stage at cpac giving a speech. did he make ANY reference to the teaparty events occurring all over the united states that day? nope. ron paul had NOTHING to do with the national tea party movement. a money bomb fundraiser using the term tea party ≠ the tea party movement. the last reference above is a link to broadside books refuting the "ron paul started the tea party movement" claim, and it corroborates much of the other information. the qualification for sources has easily been met here. if you're a paul supporter, that would explain everything. no worries, the correct information will get added eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wolfsbayne, there is no monolithic "editors" here in this disaster area. The core of your material appears to be a few notches more relevant to the topic than the gamed-in trivia that most of this junk article consists of.  But the material / statements that you put in seem to overreach what's in your sources.   Suggest starting with material dialed back to what is in the sources you have. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An anonymous posting on one of the hundreds of sites that happen to use the words Tea Party in their titles;
 * A personal web page by someone who, according to Google, has no apparent notability or expertise on any subject;
 * A personal opinion expressed in a blog posting.
 * None of these come remotely close to Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to sully this totally junk article. :-) But agree that what you describe is not really sources, even if you added some criteria (notability /expertise)that don't exist.   North8000 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't thought of that possibility.  Sorry for my error!  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding that the tea party is embodied by
 * Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and Michele Bachmann

To be sure, in various ways, they have been embraced by the tea party, and have claimed its mantle, but seriously: Dick Armey? And in a more principled direction, Ron Paul's ticket hasn't risen with the TP at all. Sure, many are sincerely trying to ride the tiger--Bachmann and perhaps Cantor, but on the whole it seems like an inchoate free for all. 69.152.195.45 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not our concern. We just summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback    talk    22:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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:
 * 99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Pork barrel. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Pork barrel. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 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?   99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Corn Refiners Association the "corn lobby"? 99.181.134.238 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably not the best term for it.  The concentrated interest for ethanol production is core refiners.    Beyond that it gets broader/ less focused, i.e. all farmers / the farming industry. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...  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)  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   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:  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  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)


 * Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb

Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor 99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal?  108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:
 * from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...
 * Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From June 26, 2011; The San Diego Union-Tribune's SignOnSanDiego: Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies by John H. Reaves. 99.35.13.202 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented on most of your references, but this one does not say much of the Tea Party. It might be appropriate in other articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin on this one, too vague and all-inclusive to be in just the TP movement wp article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See related http://energytomorrow.org by the American Petroleum Institute. (Fossil fuels lobby).  99.181.136.35 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The greenwashing fossil fuels lobby TV ads? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could say that, but stay focused on this section. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is interesting: GOP Rep Seeks to Stop Kids from Learning about Energy Efficiency on TreeHugger by Brian Merchant, July 18, 2011.    99.190.80.55 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Energy Information Administration for eia.gov  99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See United States Department of Energy for "DOE". 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See George W. Bush or more accurately Presidency of George W. Bush for Executive Branch of the United States. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from Republicans Seek Big Cuts in Environmental Rules by Leslie Kaufman, published: July 27, 2011 in The New York Times ...
 * also see Environmental policy of the United States, Energy policy of the United States, Climate change policy of the United States, and Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration #Climate change. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tea Party Republicans should have a wp article. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for any different article, but the title might lend itself to decreasing the confusion of this article. But you can get to where you want to go from here.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see Tea Party Caucus. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would the fossil fuels lobby/Tea Party Republicans holding-up progress on lowering the Federal debt with 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis brinksmanship be part of this section? 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)
 * See United States public debt, but it needs improvement in its graphs, for example clarity of Presidency of Bill Clinton era verses Presidency of George W. Bush era. 99.35.14.231 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See National debt by U.S. presidential terms, focus on increase in debt/GDP % ... 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.231 (talk)
 * How about this, with a quote from Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation regarding post-carbon sustainability ... Crashing the bus: why we should watch the Tea Partyby Erik Lindberg, published Jul 30 2011 by transition milwaukee, archived Jul 30 2011. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the Post Carbon Institute associated with energybulletin.net? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What of this The EPA: the Tea Party's next target _ House Republicans aim to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, rolling back 40 years' progress on clean air and water by Diane Roberts on guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 August 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Energy Subsidy Battle Reignites as Debt Deal Preserves Tax Breaks by Elana Schor of Greenwire via The New York Times published: August 1, 2011 ... excerpt  99.181.151.50 (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an Easy $100 Billion Cut NYT Editorial published: August 7, 2011, excerpt  99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid any confusion, see Petroleum industry for "oil industry". 99.190.85.108 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 99, are you going anywhere (regarding TPM article content) will all of this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea Special:Contributions/North8000! Do you want to help?  (",)  99.181.138.215 (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no North8000 response, how about Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race August 17, 2011 NYT article by John M. Broder; excerpt  99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate change skepticism redirects to Global warming controversy, while Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is only reliable for when you check it, redirects can be changed. 99.181.141.119 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Would this be more relevant to the seperate wp articles for who the "Tea Party movement" supports such as the Republicans vying for the United States presidential election, 2012. An example of a seperate article would be Political positions of Mitt Romney, Michelle_Bachman, Rick_Perry or maybe even Sarah_Palin? I'd guess Jon Huntsman, Jr. is not supported by the TPers. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting kind of confusing. Long story short, if someone has objective sources and has something that is really about the TPM, put it in.  That would be better than the 80% crap in this crap article.   But I think we should start using a higher standard for new material. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to be helpful in adding this (edited) information, Special:Contributions/North8000? 99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a similar question by Special:Contributions/99.181.138.215 above this one. 50.42.182.54 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.82.45 (talk)
 * This is just going to be just mysterious chaos until somebody clearly says what they are suggesting /proposing. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perry's climate views shared by 'tea party' faithful, survey says by Mark Z. Barabak in LA Times September 9, 2011; excerpt ...

Among other findings:
 * A substantial majority of Democrats, 72%, worry about global warming, compared with 53% of independents, 38% percent of Republicans and 24% of tea party activists.
 * Tea party acolytes are more likely to be "born-again" or evangelicals (46%) than Republicans (31%), Democrats (21%) or independents (20%)
 * 99.119.130.203 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That TPM-oriented survey sounds like it'd be worth summarizing.   Will Beback    talk    06:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (added later)  If we could do it well with accurate & neutral wording, I think that would be good.  But such is unlikely in our environment here. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe add a wikilink to global warming and resulting climate change (Climate change in the United States), Politics of global warming (United States), Attribution of recent climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change in contrast with portrayed Media coverage of climate change and resulting Public opinion on climate change? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This Talk:Tea_Party_movement maybe related. 99.181.150.29 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is related, by John M. Biers in the October 5, 2011 ... WSJ OECD, IEA Urge Cuts to Fuel Subsidies; excerpt ...
 * 99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the Tea Party movement's stance on geoengineering as a Climate change policy of the United States per
 * What is the Tea Party movement's stance on geoengineering as a Climate change policy of the United States per

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=454191624&oldid=454187527 ...? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Climate Remediation report research recommendation, or in general? 99.19.40.148 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This appears related ...
 * Tea-Party Attacks Put GE on Defense by Kate Linebaugh October 10, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal
 * (video) Tea-Party Attacks Put GE on Defense 10/10/2011 2:59:16 PM ... GE is struggling to fend off attacks from conservatives over its relationship with the Obama administration and ventures in China. See List of wind turbine manufacturers for example.  99.190.85.209 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the intro ...
 * Oil and Gas Had Help. Why Not Renewables? by Robert B. Semple Jr., published: October 15, 2011 in NYT, for general Energy Policy. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a scholarly work, on Talk:Energy policy of the United States. 99.56.120.237 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about including Republican presidential candidates positions on Energy policy (that have tea party movement backing)? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? That's almost a specific proposal, but the reason for it missing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012 with related Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012 seem to be the most related currently. 99.109.126.248 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Here is something related from Occupy_Wall_Street ...  99.181.152.185 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a wp internal resource Talk:Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs. 99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this be related, since Efficient energy use, or lack-there-of ...
 * Michigan City Turns Down Millions of Dollars, Saying Federal Money Is Not Free by John Schwartz published December 22, 2011, example excerpt ...
 * 99.190.85.17 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember that coverage on the Wisconsin case cited this being influenced by affected by TPM influence/wave/objectives.   Is that in the source that you have? North8000 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2011 Wisconsin protests? 99.181.135.129 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Add parody?
Per DVD Audio Commentary by 30 Rock Producer Jerry Kupfer, Brooklyn Without Limits is a commentary on the Tea Party. Add? 99.181.148.11 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.avclub.com/articles/brooklyn-without-limits,47385/ "The lead story involves Jack backing a mildly veiled Tea Party congressional candidate ..." from the A.V. Club
 * 99.181.141.49 (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street resource

 * Tea party group slams Occupy Wall Street; arrests grow by James Oliphant October 11, 2011, 7:39 a.m.; excerpt ...   99.19.44.255 (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is more tea party movement related news on Talk:Occupy Wall Street such as What reasons are there to not include this material? ... "An October 11 poll showed that 54% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the protests, compared to 27% for the Tea Party movement, and up from 38% in a poll conducted October 6–10. An October 12–16 poll found that 67% of New York City voters agreed with the protesters and 87% agreed with their right to protest. "
 * 216.250.156.66 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is now Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_10. 99.109.126.248 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another one ... Occupy Wall Street v. The Tea Party; Core Differences Beneath Surface Parallels by Paul Street October 28, 2011. Occupy movement, thus including Occupy DC, would seem more a comparison than the NYC-located Occupy Wall Street.  99.19.40.255 (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not include the comparison? I'll tell you why. Because the Tea Party movement started 2 years ago. Most Tea Party groups have moved on to other things that directly affect elections (hence the huge upset the Republicans handed the Democrats in 2010) - the protests have been over for a long time. If you wanted to compare the two movements, then you should compare them relative to each movement's time starting. It's like comparing the popularity of the Beatles to Lady Gaga in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) This appears related ... How the tea party can 'agree' with Occupy movement's demands "Given the somewhat amorphous slogans of the Occupy Wall Street movement, members of the tea party may be wondering if they should join the fray. Depending on how the Occupy Wall Street agenda is actually applied, many of the protesters’ calls for change resonate pretty strongly with tea partiers. University of Denver law professor Robert Hardaway suggests how the tea party might “agree” with five of the Occupy movement's top demands – in its own way: ..."

from The Christian Science Monitor 99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not analyzed it thoroughly, but it looks like good material. More evidence that the single-axis right/left lens is missing a dimension for being able to see who's who and understand what's happening. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Early history is completely wrong
The Tea Party movement was started by the suggestion to mail tea bags to Congress in protest of the TARP bailouts in an online capital markets forum called The Market Ticker in Jan 2009. It was then picked up by Rick Santelli on CNBC, after which it got picked up by Drudge and went viral.

All this stuff relating to Michele Malkin and Keli Carender is post-hoc and/or merely coincidental and it is incorrect to suggest that they were the first figures in the movement. Picking up on something broadcast on national TV does not make one the first person to do it.

Those parts should be placed below the Santielli entry, and the initial history should be corrected, and the reference to Keli Carender being the first TP activist should be removed.

- a firsthand real-time witness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.148.90 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but we'll have to find published sources which confirm that timeline. We can't rely on unpublished eyewitness accounts.   Will Beback    talk    21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I searched the Proquest newspaper archive for ["tea bags" TARP banks] and didn't get anything about mailing them to Congress. ["Market Ticker" "tea bags"] didn't get any hits at all. Unfortunately, Internet forums are poorly covered by published sources so it may hard to document this.   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The tag located in the Obama reception section has no discussion section on this talk page (it may have been archived). Any chance that involved editors would be willing to re-state thier positions regarding the tag? If not, it ought to be removed. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a day to recheck whether my concerns have been met. I'm a little busy at the moment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - I just saw the tags and wanted to be sure that they weren't left there by inertia alone. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mayer's campaign (or perhaps, jihad?) associating everything conservative (that is, bad) to the Kochs, even if (at most) attributable to a split of a split of an organization originally founded by (one of) the Kochs, needs to be noted when quoting her. Perhaps she should be given her own section in the article, but it should have her name, rather than the Kochs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; any chance that you and other involved editors can either remove the contentious stuff or find some text to balance the assertions? Again, I have no horse in this race. I dropped by the article following a Palin link (I think) and noticed the tags and the archived discussions. TreacherousWays (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin, I'd very much like to remove that tag. Do you have any specific objections you'd like to address? The description of the Obama administration's opinion of the Tea Party Movement seems - to me and at first blush - to be reasonably accurate. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem in that section at the present time. Neutrality problems elsewhere in the article, in quoting Mayer for her opinions without noting that they are opinions, but not there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK; tag removed. Feels like moving forward. Hopefully we can navigate our way forward some more; it is a difficult thing, to describe neutrally that which inspires such strong feelings. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That section did an accurate job of covering the anti-TPM talking points of the anti-TPM Obama administration. The POV problem is its overall section which has something like that in there.    A similar section with the talking points by a pro-TPM person might be a way to balance it out.  North8000 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The objectives of the Tea Party Movement are outlined in the Agenda section. This section, with reasonable accuracy, describes the response of the Obama administration to the objectives of the Tea Party Movement. I consider that to be balanced. If there are other sections with neutrality issues, you ought to tag them, but I had thought that this section wasn't problematic. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Original Research tag
The commentaries section has an original research tag. Any associated discussion has been archived. Is there any on-going discussion on this, or has the issue been resolved? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see any OR left, unless it's sourcing to clearly unreliable sources. But I'd like a little time to check.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - I just saw the tags and wanted to be sure that they weren't left there by inertia alone. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any OR questions which shouldn't be RS (or BLP-RS) questions, instead. I haven't eliminated the possibiity of some latent SYNTH, but I don't see any in the sections I was looking at.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's because half of it is synthesis of selected opinions of non-notable pundits (with selection emphasis towards anti-TPM ones) rather than from coverage in RS's. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, North8000, can you provide a sentence or assertion to start with? Like I indicated above, I have no horse in this race. Just trying to remove tags I noticed while following wikilinks. TreacherousWays (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, barring a specific objection I would very much like to remove the OR tag. Again, this has nothing to do with any opinion I might have, I'm just hoping to remove the tag. If you outline a specific objection then we can address it and (hopefully) reach consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon a closer look, the worst problems are in the folowing 2 subsections, and I think that the OR tag on that particular subsection is not or no longer required. I'll take it off.  North8000 (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight tag
The Racial issues section has an undue weight tag. Has this issue been resolved, or is it still an open discussion? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a day to recheck whether my concerns have been met. I'm a little busy at the moment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - I just saw the tags and wanted to be sure that they weren't left there by inertia alone. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It still has the problem. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? The tag should be removed unless discussion is ongoing; I have re-raised the issue only because (I guess) the discussion was archived at some point. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It really needs 2 tags, that one plus POV. This issue is making up large sections on incidents that have any low level TP'er in them but which aren't about the TPM. Amplifying selected trivia to try to create a certain impression. A few folks have blocked attempts to fix it so that it will be a bigger job (RFC etc.) to get it fixed. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any complaint about undue weight really needs to have some assertion about what due weight would be, and why.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Elimination of that entire section would the best approximation of due weight. I'm not being facetious.....one is about a twitter comment by a low level guy, one is about a BBQ grill which someone implied a TP're might have damaged, and about comments which somebody said that some unknown tp'ers of the thousand s might have said.  The other way to fix would be to treat the coverage as a part of the story.  Which media covered it, and how they covered it. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE, due weight is determined by the coverage in reliable secondary sources. If there was zero coverage then zero weight would be appropriate. However the coverage is greater than zero, so the weight should also be greater than zero.   Will Beback    talk    20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we're back to the same ole place. There are billions of items covered in RS's that aren't about the TPM that shouldn't be in the article  North8000 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the argument is still over due weight, then the determination should be based on how much coverage they've received. If an incident which seems minor was widely reported then it should probably be included. It's hard to make an UNDUE argument which calls for excluding information that has been reported in multiple sources. Other arguments are possible, but WP:DUE comes down to relative coverage.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we're back to the same ole place and difference of opinion. It will take an RFC to resolve it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it just takes a discussion that actually brings in facts rather than arguments. You say there is a weight problem, so the burden is on you to demonstrate it. Let's look at one of your examples: the vandalized gas line. It is covered in four cited sources. A search in Proquest's newspaper archive shows dozens more, including major publications like Newsweek, WSJ, and CSM. On that basis, the matter seems to require some mention in the article. If we were to say that dozens of mentions in major publications do not justify adding it to the article, then the implication is that issues which have received less coverage should also be deleted. Does that make sense?   Will Beback    talk    22:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The RFC need is because folks are trying to say that there is not criteria that it be ABOUT the TPM to be in the article, as you are essentially doing now. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "weight" argument concerns how much space to devote to an issue based on its coverage in secondary sources. That's the argument you're making. If you're saying that the material in question is actually unrelated to the topic of the article, then that's probably a WP:NOR argument instead. Is that what you're arguing?   Will Beback    talk    22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting now I'm going to be spasmodic on Wikipedia for 4 days. (traveling) But the disagreement is folks saying that it should have less or little weight due to it not being ABOUT the subject of the article  vs. the folks that say that that is irrelevant. I think secondarily, would be actual reliability of the sources with respect to establish it worth of coverage.  An op ed source that is an opponent of the TPM  creating coverage to try to associate what low level or imagined  TP'ers  do with the TPM is better treated as a phenomema to be covered by RS's rather than as coverage by RS's.   North8000 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The available sources seem exemplary. I also looked and it does seem to be connected to the TPM by some of the sources. Anyway, we can put this discussion on hold until next week.   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the section is way too large for the issues it is discussing. THis article is supposed to be an overview of the Tea Party Movement. The Racial Issues sections is going into far too much unnecessary detail. If you really think the info is important, then that section should be split off and summarized in this article. Silver seren C 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That gets back to the issue of determining appropriate weight, which is determined by the extent of coverage in secondary sources. What makes you say that it is too large?   Will Beback    talk    07:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * agree Which other political article has a racial issues section?  The sources are poor and the topic is fringe concerning the tp as a whole.   Darkstar1st (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (to Will). No.  Appropriate weight is determined by the extent of coverage in secondary sources who consider it as a significant statement about the Tea Party, compared to the total coverage about the Tea Party.  Sources that consider it incidental to their coverage of the Tea Party (which includes almost all of the ones in the racial section) should not be considered as weighty.  This should radically trim down the "Racial issues" section, the "anti-Islam" section; and much of the Obama section should be moved to an article about the Obama administration and summarized here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And there's still the issue of Mayer attributing support of the movement by conservative organizations split from Koch organizations, to the organizations they split from, even if the split was over goals. I only tagged one as an inline "undue weight" tag, but there may be others.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Appropriate weight is determined by the extent of coverage in secondary sources who consider it as a significant statement about the Tea Party, compared to the total coverage about the Tea Party .
 * I don't see that additional proviso in WP:WEIGHT. I'm not even sure how we would find any sources who explicitly state that they are making a significant statement. Can you explain this concept any better?   Will Beback    talk    18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(pretending to be Judge Judy) OK, I've heard your arguments, and I'm ready to rule (or in this case express an opinion). If Sarah Palin or another of the nominal "leaders" of the Tea Party Movement (hereafter TPM) expressed any racist views, then those views might reasonably be attributed to the TPM. Incidents at rallies and in other venues, and points of view expressed by TPM members cannot be reasonably attributed to the TPM; analagous to a situation where a member of PETA attends a DNC rally or a neo-nazi attends an RNC rally, their presence and statements are facts and can be reported. Overall, I think the section is a little long. Given the way that "teabagger" is treated in the next section, I think that the racism section could be substantialy shortened without altering the balance of the article and, frankly, its length gives it less impact rather than more; a succinct statement of point and couterpoint might be more effective. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's putting it mildly. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is very difficult to edit
I clicked the "edit" button and was immediately confused. It is filled with so many random codes and brackets, that's it's impossible to understand what I'm looking at. It's worse than looking at C code. Isn't there some way we can clean-up the article so it looks like a readable document in the Wiki-editor, instead of confusing gibberish? Thanks. Theaveng (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not the first to complain about Wikipedia's mark-up language and templates. It's not unique to this article. Help is on the way, someday, in the form of a new WYSIWYG editor. But otherwise, I'm afraid the answer is "no". Taking a look at the raw file it does appear that the citation templates are intrusive, as is common. There are less intrusive citation methods, but they have other problems and converting to them would be a major effort. If you are having any specific problems with an edit I'm sure many editors here would be happy to help.   Will Beback    talk    18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This Is A Mess
This article is going on 3 years old now... and it's still a complete trainwreck. Still disorganized, full of inaccuracies, insignificant remarks, POV-pushing gibberish. I'm not sure if it' is subject in particular which has attracted bad and combative editing or if it is just part of a larger problem of wikipedia's difficulty in addressing controversial topics as a whole, but whatever it is - it's ugly. 66.167.106.219 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually when I hear that it's because the topic of the article has some pretty strong feelings associated with it. Maybe it is ugly, but unlike a lot of other publications, at least there's a semblance of consensus and compromise in wikipedia. I'm not being critical of your opinion - you're probably right. I just try to keep a positive attitude and remember that every article is a work in progress. Otherwise I'd probably go build a model. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fixing it, we really need to acknowledge that it's a mess. Basically 80% of it is an assemblage of trivia selected to give a certain impression.  The cause is a combination of two things, one is the inherent weakness of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in dealing with controversial topics combine with the inevitable presence of POV pushers who can capitalize on that.  As a result it will take a big effort (RCF etc.) to try to fix this junk article and nobody has taken that on.  Until then people trying to learn about the TPM here will instead get barraged with selected trivia....big sections on a twitter comment or a propane grill or that somebody might have said something bad at a rally etc.  North8000 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Isolationist or Non-interventionist?
Mead has made an error describing "Paulites" which I corrected. A neo-isolationist, does not trade with others a non-interventionist does. since ron paul is the latter, do we really need a source claiming "paulites" are as well? my edit was undone with the following, "no source provided to show Paul uses that description for his supporters in the Tea Party movement" Darkstar1st (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We discussed this before. Isolationists called themselves "non-interventionists", but neutrality requires us to use the terminology generally used in academic writing and newspaper reporting.  TFD (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the two are not mutually exclusive, isolationism means no trade, the other does not.  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/26/news/la-pn-ron-paul-diplomatic-relations-with-cuba-at-florida-debate-20120126   Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's time to set wiki-lawyering and other agendas aside and get that really stupid statement (that everybody here knows is wrong and nobody here has claimed to be correct) out of the article.  North8000 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, your source mentions neither term. In any case, your qualification of the descriptions used by Mead, which are presented in quotes, is POV-pushing.  TFD (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * i reject the premise one needs a source to clarify one's supporters believe the same. the link i provide was an example of Paul being the opposite of an isolationist, opening trade with long time enemy Cuba hardly fits that definition, would you agree?  Darkstar1st (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
 * Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is calling Ron Paul an isolationist, so your concern is misplaced. Also, please note that "Paulites" is a term created and defined by Mead in his essay, to describe a particular set of views held by some Tea Partiers. Finally, please note that Mead refers to Paulites as isolationists only with respect to military actions and alliances, not trade and economics, which is basically the same thing as calling Paulites non-interventionists. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st, can you try to have your edits conform to Wikipedia standards? Thanks! &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mead obviously made an error about Paul; nobody here is defending it, just wiki-lawyering to keep it in.  If the error stays in the least we can do is put in accurate material as well, doubly so since it is a living person that Mead mis-characterized.  Actually, extraordinary / contentious claims about living person need multiple sources.   The erroneous material should be taken out until multiple sources are found for it, and it's very unlikely that multiple sources will repeat what is an obvious error. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim made in the article is that is what Mead said.  Only if we stated as a fact that Paul was a neo-isolationist would the issue of contentiousness arise.  Although certain writers have tried to re-define "isolationism", that information properly belongs in another article.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So the erroneous statement about Paul belongs but the correct one is off-topic?  If this article is specializing in allowing only erroneous statements, we should re-title it.   :-)  North8000 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gothean, which specific policy did my edit violate? which policy did you cite to undo my edit?  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mead obviously made an error about Paul... --North8000
 * Mead refers to "trends" by large groups of people, not specifically to Paul's politics, although he does choose to name subgroups after Paul and Palin -- probably not a good practice in the long-run. Politicians are known, individually, for their shifting stances — especially on foreign policy — while large groups tend to be more stable in their defined demographic. Mead's essay studies large subsections of the tea party movement, not a particular politician. Does anyone know if Paul has responded directly to Mead's analysis yet? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this exact issue at length previously, so this discussion is a bit tendentious. I'll repeat that Mead is a highly regarded expert in his field. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to correct "errors" made by credentialed academics writing within their field of expertise in the most prestigious publication on the issue of foreign affairs. If there is a different view we can add that, but we should not second-guess the experts.    Will Beback    talk    21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "tendentious" I assume that you mean that your preferred version is still in there so you would prefer that there not be further discussion? :-) North8000 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to WP:TE.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ron Paul has repeatedly rejected the term isolationist. evidently large groups of the population do not understand the difference.  "The lead story in today's The New York Times refers to Ron Paul's "non-interventionist foreign policy views," in contrast with the paper's usual description of his position as "isolationist," which is both pejorative and inaccurate. Isolationism suggests not merely a bias against the use of military force but a desire to avoid any engagement with the rest of the world, including trade, diplomacy, immigration, and cultural exchange. Paul has never been an isolationist in that sense.", Jacob Sullum,Jan 2, 2012  Darkstar1st (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
 * This article is not about Paul. It's about the TPM. Mead is not writing about Paul, he's writing about the "Paulite wing" of the TPM. Also, if you're going to cite a webpage please add the URL. It's inconsiderate to make your fellow editors hunt down the text.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See: http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/02/ron-paul-does-not-call-himself-an-isolat Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a brief mention of the Tea Party, but none of Mead. If folks want to summarize what the NYT and Reason have to say about the TPM's foreign policy views that'd be fine. But that doesn't alter what Mead says about those views.   Will Beback    talk    00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will, the original link i found the article set off wp spam filter http://www.opposingview*.com/i/politics/2012-election/ron-paul-im-no-isolationist.  the larger issue is Mead is just wrong and i think most people realize such.  the two terms have vastly different meanings.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have said. Repeatedly. If most people who are considered to have expertise in the subject → the only "most people" that really counts here – realize that Mead, considered an expert on the subject, is wrong in an important point he made in a premier journal on the subject, it shouldn't be all that difficult to provide an article of equivalent reliability to refute his conclusions. Personal opinions of any of us on this page don't constitute effective refutation (or confirmation, for that matter). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mead is not writing about Paul, he's writing about the "Paulite wing", that would be like saying Christians do not believe in Christ. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If we have sources which say that Mead is wrong on this issue then let's include them.
 * Christians believe all kind of things (not all the same), including things which Christ never expressed opinions about.   Will Beback    talk    00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is clearly an implied (erroneous) statement about Ron Paul. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't believe that you can call bias with a biased statement like "even though they have a worse track record." Next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.136.98 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)