Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 24

corporate
It's not disputed (although it's probably misleading) that some organizations in the movement have received corporate funding. It's not accurate to say that the movement has received corporate funding, nor that there has been "heavy support and interest" from multinational(s) corporations.. It's accurate to say that the movement has been reported to have received support from multinational corporations, but that doesn't seem notable enough for the lead. I'm not going to revert it now, per the WP:1RR which may still be in effect, but that addition is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it isn't... not by a longshot. It has received endorsements and support from corporate sources including Steve Forbes. I'll find the info later. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  20:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Steve Forbes" is not a multinational corporation. Non-financial endorsements should be in another section, and financial support needs specific sources.  Still disputed, but something like that would be appropriate if sourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole unsourced POV wording addition should be reversed. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alleged origin
This edit introduces material previously agreed to be irrelevant, misquoted, or misleading from Tobacco Control, among others. I as to justify (at least) those changes which have been previously disproven. I also suggest that he be warned not to make major changes to the article without some attempt at consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Tobacco Control information was already there. What is the problem with the contribution I actually made? Plumber (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One teensy problem is the fact that the usage of "Tea Party" for tax protests in the modern era antedates the origin claimed in that article, that the article does not provide any clear link that the other foundations founded the Tea Party, or that the foundations created any substantial segment of the Tea Party movement. Or that some of the sources (Kochs et al) were involved in any way with the Tobacco Industry. Other than that, the article proves the Tea Party movement was created by the tobacco industry. Not.  The earliest usages for the term are fully unconnected by any source with any corporate interests according to fairly strong sources, such as calendars. Collect (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

BRD
Please get a consensus before making major edits - the idea that since the moderation is in a stasis for now does not mean discussion is not needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note ... moderation is no longer in stasis. We have a new moderator. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which does not obviate my concerns. At such time as a new moderator actually takes firm rein, I might rejoin.  Right now it is a group of cooks each adding five or six spices to the soup and insisting their spices must be in it.  The results are clear when looking at actual readability and usability of the article.   No added spices should be used unless and until there is a clear and unquestioned consensus to add them.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request -- add a picture of Allen West to the "racism" section
For example this one. It makes a key point quite eloquently.William Jockusch (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)




 * The more I think about this, the more I like it. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, umm, I'm a little unclear on the edit request template. Am I supposed to put that in here somewhere?William Jockusch (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All of these gentlemen shown immediately below are mentioned in the racism section, and any or all of their images would improve the section and article.


 * --→gab  24 dot  grab← 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Legoktm (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The "racism" section has been removed from this article, and currently resides in a spin-off article called Perceptions of the Tea Party movement. If no one objects during the next couple of days, I'd like to add the three photos there, since the article currently is rather sparsely populated regarding photos. Understanding all statements here as statements of support, except for Legoktm who spoke as a neutral admin. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but I think at least one of them should go into this article, if the accusation is mentioned at all here, which it currently is.
 * It's been twelve days and there are no objections. I would prefer to add a picture of Herman Cain to the article mainspace, since he received some Tea Party support as a presidential candidate last year. But the original proposal was for a picture of Allen West so I'll go with that. The three photos for the Perceptions spin-off article will be posted on the Perceptions article Talk page for 24 hours in case anyone is lurking there, then those will be added to the Perceptions article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question has been asked on the Perceptions article's Talk page — just waiting to see if there are any replies. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * as an editor not previously involved here, I must say that I would regard the attention of the photographs as promotional overbalance.  DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

subarticles
Where a WP:Subarticle exists, this article should not contain the entire subarticle. It should be placed in WP:Summary style here - not in its entirety or, heaven forfend, be expanded here. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; I think it was on our To-Do List to trim that section (and do something with "Foreign Policy" too), but we haven't gotten to it yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

the origins, dates and information referring to koch bros are incorrect. The koch bros started a tea party website in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/

dates of origin are incorrect
the origins, dates and information referring to koch bros are incorrect. The koch bros started a tea party website in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Boston Tea Party has been used as symbol by various people throughout history. The current movement began in 2009.  TFD (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous nonsense. The clear relationship between the movement of the 21st century and the koch bros is blindingly obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling that organization part of the TPm is disingenuous nonsense. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Roll call
I have it on good authority there's a whole slew of editors just waiting in the wings to fix up this article soon as an arbitrarily constructed list of previous contributors to TPM and/or current participants in moderated discussion of TPM are topic-banned. Can we get a head count, please. Thanks in advance. †TE†  Talk  00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can get a head count on how many of them are the same editors while Checkuser evidence is still available to verify. (I am not naming names, but some of them seem to have previous incarnations, and ArbCom needs to be informed of future incarnations.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Add merge request to article
Please add

I don't think the merge is appropriate, but it's being discussed without the necessary pointer on this article in place. If this is not done, the merge discussion (above) should be closed as "inappropriate while the article is locked". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

some ?able terminology?
[nervous infrequent editor terrified of dipping toe into shark-infested waters---please don't eat me] The end of the first paragraph of the "Agenda" section includes the phrase "and opposed amnesty for illegals." Would there be objection to changing it to read "and opposed amnesty for illegal aliens"? I know some think the former offensive; I (personally) am more bothered by the imprecision of the term. Nitsua60 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In the next paragraph we see reference to "Obamacare." While I know both detractors and and proponents have used this term, I think an encyclopedia would be better be served by something like "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially: 'Obamacare')" or "the Affordable Care Act (hereafter 'Obamacare')".

With that I'll stop reading and wait to hear some opinions. (On the terminology, not political, if you please.) Thanks. Nitsua60 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you've got a good approach. I'm not sure about "Obamacare"; if the TPm uses "Obamacare", then it might be a good idea to keep it in the qrticle.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the party, Nitsua. Both are fairly common terms used in the United States, but may be unfamiliar to English-speaking people from other countries. I think we may need to be more sensitive to the needs of such readers. I think the term "unlawful immigrants" might work for the former, and "the new health insurance law" for the latter. (It doesn't have much of an impact on health care — it affects who's going to pay for the health care.) regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. I think the frequency of the use of "Obamacare" on all sides---as well as innumerable mentions of "[President] Obama's signature health care law" would argue for use of the term "Obamacare" for most of the article; I just think first mention should be formally correct. Could an editor with privileges then change the first instance of "Obamacare" to something more formal, and the instance of "illegals" to "illegal aliens" or "unlawful immigrants", whatever your preference? Nitsua60 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, let's get a proposal going. I propose that we change the word "illegals" at the end of the first paragraph of the Agenda section to read, "unlawful immigrants." And I propose that we change the word "Obamacare" in the second paragraph of that section to read, "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)" — remaining uses of the term "Obamacare" throughout the article should be left undisturbed — and if anybody was going to object, they've had five days to do it. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The main article on the subject is Illegal immigration, not "unlawful immigration". As for Obamacare, I am not sure how many Americans are actually familiar with the official name of the law. While reading online news, I came across some statistics where people reacted favorably to direct quotes from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but reacted negatively to the mere mention of Obamacare. As if there were two different concepts. Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I went for "illegal immigrants" per Dimadick's suggestion, and for "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called Obamacare)" per the first sentence of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If anyone thinks that these wordings are unsatisfactory, or that I have overstepped my remit here, just let me know and I will change it, or revert and reopen this request for further discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Agenda of the Tea Party movement
Should the Agenda of the Tea Party movement be merged back into the Tea Party movement article? Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey and discussion
This article's content is not sufficiently different from the Tea Party movement article except that it approaches the subject with a different political slant. It appears to be a POV content fork which is against policy as described at WP:POVFORK. The essence of the problem is that "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article," but this article splits its POV away from the main article on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that this talk page has quite a bit of discussion about what should go in the Agenda section of this article. It appears that User:Phoenix and Winslow, in creating the "Agenda" article, has bypassed the work toward consensus to implement his own vision of what should be said about the TPm agenda. He has also side-stepped page protection here in doing so. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Before making any rash merge, I suggest editors read the moderated discussion which led to the development of the subarticles. It is not a "POV fork" by any stretch of the imagination. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Binksternet is welcome to proceed with the formal merge proposal he has suggested. I look forward to discussing that proposal in the proper venue whenever he finds it. And Collect, you are welcome to participate. Binksternet would have to demonstrate consensus for the merge, including an argument for the merge based on Wikipedia policy (and an opportunity for me to reply with a policy-based argument of my own opposing the merge), and I suggest that proving it's a WP:POVFORK would be a genuine challenge. As Collect indicated, the creation of the Agenda spin-off article was discussed at the moderated discussion page. And it was discussed at significant length. Ubikwit announced that he was going on an extended Wikibreak, then he announced that he was abandoning the moderated discussion. I posted links to the sandbox page where the Agenda article was being created, as I was working on it. Nobody seemed interested except me, so I went ahead and created the article. I'd appreciate it if Binksternet would stop acting as though I did something wrong, and like I said, if he wants to proceed with a formal merge proposal, he is welcome to do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please show diffs or links to the discussion of starting an article about the Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Please show a diff of you telling others about your sandbox page. What you say about Ubikwit does not appear relevant. By the way, this discussion is the formal merge proposal. You are currently taking part in it. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please show diffs or links ... No.
 * Please show a diff of you ... No.
 * As I said in the DYK discussion, I participated fully in the moderated discussion (MD). I carefully created and frequently updated MD archives so that editors like you, who have consistently refused to participate in MD, could catch up on your own time, not mine, whenever you realized that a full understanding of what happened in MD is essential for any editor who wishes to participate in any substantive editing here. (By "substantive," I mean anything beyond copyediting and other gnomish tasks.) Find your own diffs and links. I am not your errand boy. You've already humiliated yourself once in the past 72 hours by demanding that my sandbox page on Xenophrenic be deleted, when it's an evidence page linked to an active ArbCom proceeding. On that occasion, I did post a link to demonstrate that I was right and, more importantly, that you were wrong. After you've found the diffs for yourself, feel free to acknowledge that yes, I did discuss starting a spin-off article on the agenda, and yes, I did announce creation of the sandbox page and post a link to it.
 * What you say about Ubikwit does not appear relevant. Oh, it's very relevant. I'll use a deer hunting analogy. Ubikwit built a very nice deer stand in a perfect spot near the pond, where entire herds of deer stop by for a drink, but then he abandoned it for weeks. So I moved in, modified the deer stand a little bit, bagged myself a massive buck with an awesome rack of antlers, and did all the work to field dress it and haul it out to the side of the road. Now he's back with a mob of his friends, announcing that the kill is rightfully his, and demanding that I hand it over.
 * By the way, this discussion is the formal merge proposal. You are currently taking part in it. The proper venue is WP:AFD or perhaps the MD page. A rather weak alternative would be Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. This is the wrong place. Both the proposed merge and the proposed title change to "The Tea Party movement and the Constitution" can be handled at AFD, since both merges and title changes are explicitly listed in the potential remedies there; and we'd get a lot of participation by previously uninvolved editors, which would be refreshing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the venue selected automatically by Twinkle. It is the right one. The merge will be determined right here.
 * Your attitude toward Ubikwit is startlingly selfish, and your story has nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Neither Ubikwit nor yourself built consensus to create a sub-article.
 * I went searching for your diffs and did not find anything showing you working on a sandbox, or of you announcing that you would be working on a sub-article. My search of your contributions for diffs and sandbox resulted in me finding the Xenophrenic evidence page, the one without any other page linked to it. In addition to your diffs, I searched the moderated discussion pages and did not find any evidence to support the idea that you had consensus for creating this page. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong places; perhaps I am wrong about my conclusion. Please prove your case. If you do not show me diffs of your sandbox work, or diffs of your announcement of the 'Agenda' sub-article, I will not respect your unsupported claim. To me, this looks like a POV fork, taking material from the protected article and working with it out of bounds, to give it your desired slant. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you do not show me diffs of your sandbox work, or diffs of your announcement of the 'Agenda' sub-article, I will not respect your unsupported claim. You've never respected me, or anything I've ever done or said. Why should you start now? And if I posted the diffs, would it change your "vote"? Of course not. So why bother? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, I looked through your contributions myself, and I found nothing to show that you built consensus for taking the "Agenda" portion of a locked article and bringing it outside of protection, which resulted in your giving it your personal slant. In the absence of diffs, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, I've got seven legs to stand on. The current "vote" is 7-2 opposed to your merge proposal. And the fact of the matter is that you and your good friend Ubikwit are the ones who have been pushing a POV: one that is rather negative, and eager to assign far too much WP:WEIGHT to one obscure history professor from Kentucky and one obscure law school student from Connecticut, because they trash the Tea Party. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of top-quality reliable sources are a lot less negative, so that's what I chose to go with. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By "obscure history professor" I imagine that you are talking about Ronald P. Formisano who taught at Kentucky and also in Florida and New York. He was the editor of Journal of American History, won awards, etc, etc. Formisano does not "trash" the Tea Party but he ascribes greater importance to the astroturfing element which you would like to see greatly reduced. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the guy. Compared with Theda Skocpol (political science professor at Harvard), Elizabeth Price Foley (law professor at Florida International, and a regular guest on CNN providing expert commentary on the law and politics), and Kate Zernike (a journalist with The New York Times, recognized as having devoted more of her career to covering the Tea Party than anyone else in journalism), I would say that yes, Ronald P. Formisano is obscure. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a POV fork, as there has never been a need for a subarticle on the Agenda. there is only a need for a subarticle on the Constitution as it relates to the TPm agenda, in light of the fact that there is a voluminous amount of reliably published academic sources specifically on that topic.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments in the future. The agenda revolves around the Constitution, and is derived almost entirely from the Tea Party's perception of which government actions are constitutional, and which ones are not. So the two topics, "agenda" and "Constitution," are inseparable. The sporadic but persistent attempts to separate them appear to be violations of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's amusing, I was the editor that started pushing for greater discussion of the Constitution vis-a-vis the agenda, which was met with persistent resistance in the form o revert wars and tendentious Talk page conduct of the sort to which your assertions would correspond.
 * The TPm agenda does not revolve around the Constitution, the way I see it (my POV). There are many cases in which the TPm has attempted to subvert the Constitution--such as eliminating the federal governments ability to collect income tax--as a means to achieve their agenda. Another example is the attempt to repeal or revise the Amendment on birthright citizenship as a means to curb immigration. The agenda is anti-immigration, but the position vis-a-vis that agenda represents only one means among other proposed in an attempt to achieve the agenda.
 * The way I see it, that represents anything but a "strict adherence to the Constitution". The Constitution is seen as a guarantor of rights and obligations conferred on the government and citizens of the USA that the TPm sees as obstructing its agenda. That is my interpretation of a substantial amount of the material in RS such as legal journals, and I state it here in accordance with WP:YESPOV.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not merge. Agenda of the Tea Party movement was a subject matter form (not POVFORK) from Tea Party movement under the auspices of the moderated talk page.  If you don't want to check through the history of the split, your opinions as to whether it's POV. should be disregarded.  Additionally, If it's POV, it was POV before it was split, and this article should be redirected to TPm without merge.  (P&W, this is the proper venue for a merge discussion if all the tags are in place.  I don't think they are, though.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not merge I think that a merge is wp:snow bad DOA idea.  Both immensely notable topics, "agenda" is clearly a sub article of the other, and sub means much narrower scope.  North8000 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not merge (in case that wasn't already clear). I created the spin-off article, and actions speak louder than words. However, we have an editor here who would probably interpret any participation in the discussion as support for his position, unless I explicitly spell out my opposition. This is me, spelling it out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article contains both supportive discussion and criticism from reliable sources. The greatest weight is given to the most reliable, most notable source: Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University, and frequent guest on CNN, providing expert opinions on the law and politics. Most of these experts are blockquoted, including Theda Skocpol, a professor of political science at Harvard University, who criticizes the Tea Party movement. All of this is fully compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like four opposed to the merge (Collect, North, Arthur and me), and two in favor (Binksternet and Ubikwit). I think the only chance for this merge to succeed would be to discuss it at AFD, where there are some previously uninvolved editors who haven't heard the same old song and dance 100 times. But Binksternet never listens to me ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I "listen" to you? No, I do not have text-to-speech engaged on my computer, so I do not listen to you. Do I read what you wrote in reply to me? Yes, I do. I often find you combative and controlling, but I do not ignore you. The poor 'lil ol' me attitude is not going to fool anyone familiar with your fractious style, which drove the moderator away from the moderated discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not merge The main goal of the moderated discussion was to trim this article. We were working on the agenda section when SilkTork quit the project. The purpose was to create a subarticle. P&W has simply carried out the last goal. Why has this even become an issue? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The main TPM article has gotten quite long, so splits are appropriate as a remedy. The Agenda article has mainly become problematic because of a title dispute. Maybe it could be merged back in as a last resort, but the main article is about 120k bytes as is ("Almost certainly should be divided"). --BDD (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read through as much of the related discussion that has taken place in the past--reams... There is more material in RS on the Constituion than anything else by far, too much to be covered in the main article, which is why I initially suggested the subarticle.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See also the active RM about renaming Agenda of the Tea Party movement to The Tea Party movement and the Constitution.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, there's still no Shadow Party article on Wikipedia, even though it's a hundred times more important story than the TP ever was or will be. (But I digress.) *ahem* Oppose but Rename. (Do any articles involving liberal or socialist movements have "Agendas of..." splinter articles? IMO, "Policy positions of..." would be much more neutral in tone.--Froglich (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There appear to be enough RSs for the subtopic, and it's one worth its own article. If the Tea Party was a conventional national party, we would be discussing a "Platform of ..." article; but as a movement of loosely bound parties, it's titled "Agenda ..." instead. While it does seem to meet the notability criteria and there are a few good sources in the article's references, it's poorly written (not to mention missing the entire foreign policy section). What it needs is an improvement drive. A few good editors over a few days could do it wonders. — Sowlos 11:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a merge of 'Agenda' content, which is minimal, from the subarticle to the Main article; and also support the creation and expansion of a Constitution-specific subarticle to cover in detail the current, expansive scholarly debate (suggested name, something like: Tea Party Constitutionalism). Reasons based on above discussion:
 * — Main article length (presently 41K Readable Prose), which indicates splitting is not justified. Previous 120K estimate is incorrect, and also fails to note that 'Agenda' is a smaller section than many others, so likely wouldn't be the first target of splitting anyway.
 * — The subarticle was created during heated debate and disagreement over what to include in the main article 'Agenda' section, and positive consensus agreement to its creation was not explicitly expressed, so its creation is justifiably suspect.
 * — Per North8000 above, "A movement is defined by it's agenda more than anything else" - and I agree; therefore it deserves to be comprehensively covered in the main article. Even when well covered in the main article, the 'Agenda' section still would not be large enough to warrant a spin-off article (this may or may not change in the future, time will tell). It only grows too long when content specifically about the movement's Constitutionalism is expanded, hence the suggested spin-off article for that subject matter. Also causing unnecessary section bloat is content not specificly about the movement's agenda, such as:
 * — The Foreign Policy material, which describes world views, beliefs and ideology but does not indicate specific 'Agenda' content. Likewise, the content on TPer's 'karma-like' concept of fairness, which is excellent information and meshes well with other scholar's observations about TPer's feelings about the "undeserving", is more about beliefs and ideology and not about actual agenda. This content would make a great 'Overview' section about the movement's ideology, motivations and beliefs, but the 'Agenda' section should remain about what the movement is doing, or intends to do, about issues.
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that interested editors, as well as the closer, compare Xenophrenic's comments to the actual discussion. You will find little similarity.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to give an example to substantiate your statement, Arthur? (I already know the response, but thought I'd ask anyway.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find one of your comments which correctly interprets other comments, including your own. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One example, Arthur. Just one. I suspected it was a waste of time to ask, and now you've proved my point. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and several days later, still no response. That has become the predictable routine. Personally attack a fellow editor, then when called to substantiate the attack, disappear. Deplorable.  Even more so, coming from an Admin. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Per Xenophrenic.　Many of the well-intentioned new comers would benefit from reviewing some of the previous discussions and editing. -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 17:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment With Xenophrenic the "vote" is now 8-3 opposed to the merge. Ubikwit's "support vote" was already counted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since we all know votes are meaningless in this discussion, let's take a look instead at reasons. "Reasons" given against the merge so far are:
 * (1) Because it's not a POV fork (2) Because it was created "under the auspices of the moderated talk page" (3) Because 'Agenda' is notable (4) Because I created the spin-off article (5) Because the purpose was to trim the main article and create a subarticle (6) Because the main TPM article has gotten too long (7) Because there is still no Shadow Party (8) Because there are enough RSs for the subtopic, and it's one worth its own article (9) Because the Constitution is the "centerpiece" of the Tea Party agenda
 * Did I miss any? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. Nice strawman. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Strawman"? Please learn the definition of terms before throwing them about; thanks. (Apologies for sounding like a broken record in responses to P&W.) Which one did I miss? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I've thought long and hard about this over many moons. Also remember much talk about the Constitution being the "centerpiece" of the Tea Party agenda so I'm certain it has found a proper home at Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Only makes sense, IMO. †TE†   Talk  23:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the "centerpiece" is the Constitution, and the Constitution-related content is likely to be the main, and most expansive, content -- wouldn't it make sense to name the subarticle to reflect that? The total information on the Tea Party's agenda (from all sources we've discussed thus far) nicely fits into a concise section in the main article. That section only grows beyond reasonable summary-style size when we try to also stuff in the varied scholarly works on the Tea Party's Constitutionalism - and it is quite expansive, because experts are not yet in 100% agreement. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion

 * Comment A movement is defined by it's agenda more than anything else. And this is a complex, huge, interesting, confusing and of-interest area,  and of course meets wp:notability hands-down. To me it seems like a no-brainer.  I really don't understand opposition to it, and I really don't see arguments against the merits of it above.   The arguments above seem process and controls related (rather than on the merits/non merits of it being a sub-article), some allegations about motive,  and just hanging negative labels ("POV fork") on it which obviously aren't applicable (A POV fork is of duplicative scope, not a much narrower subset scope)   And Ubiqwit seems to be arguing that an even narrower sub-article within this sub-article would be preferable (=OK) which to me seems to lend support that a broader sub-article is OK.  With this post, I'm not trying to bolster the "don't merge" case, I'm really trying to understand what any substantive reasons/concerns are for not having it as a sub-article.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My reasons for starting the merge discussion are twofold: I was concerned that this article was calved off of the TPm article without approval by the moderators of the moderated discussion, calved for the purpose of escaping the editing strictures of a locked page, and thus akin to block evasion. (My good faith requests for diffs pointing to consensus to start this article have met with stonewalling, with no direct answer.) I was also concerned that this article was being used to push a particular aspect of the TPm, one which reduces the viewpoint of respected historian and journal editor Ronald Formisano, for instance, because he does not see the TPm as a pure grassroots groundswell. Of course I can see that most of the editors here approve of the existence of the Agenda article, or at least approve of a similar sub-article. If the proposed decision is enacted, many of these folks will be unable to edit the TPm page and any sub-article including Perceptions and Agenda. I wonder whether the !votes here represent the desire by these editors to work on an unlocked portion of the TPm page before the topic ban starts. And I wonder why the moderator left the moderated discussion; was it too difficult to ride herd on the warring editors? Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was concerned that this article was calved off of the TPm article without approval by the moderators of the moderated discussion, calved for the purpose of escaping the editing strictures of a locked page, and thus akin to block evasion. That's fascinating. I created the sandbox version of the article, announced its creation, stated my intention to use it as an incubator for a spin-off article, and linked it at the MD page, several days before the article was locked — and several days before the current disposal motion at ArbCom was proposed or even mentioned. At that time there were no specific sanctions proposed against me and there still aren't. But now we have the Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own motion. When the sandbox page was created and announced, that motion hadn't been proposed yet.
 * Binksternet is claiming that I used my amazing powers of clairvoyance, looked several days into the future, anticipated not only that the article would be locked but also that this completely unprecedented motion would be proposed at ArbCom and gain a majority, and started laying the groundwork for avoiding a page ban that hadn't even been suggested yet. When I announced creation of the sandbox page and my intention to create a spin-off article, SilkTork was still active as our moderator, but he said nothing.
 * Strangely, I am being accused of something "akin to block evasion" for starting the creation process for Agenda of the Tea Party movement before the page was locked and before the motion was proposed, but Ubikwit is not being accused of something "akin to block evasion" for proposing there should instead be a spin-off article called The Tea Party movement and the Constitution, to be retitled (and, I presume, completely rewritten by Ubikwit) after the page was locked and after the motion had obtained enough votes that its passage was virtually assured. Binksternet's carefully selective accusation of something "akin to block evasion" is very revealing regarding his own partisanship, and how he plans to steer article content after the page ban takes effect.
 * And I wonder why the moderator left the moderated discussion; was it too difficult to ride herd on the warring editors? If you had invested the time to participate in moderated discussion, you'd know that ST was planning to travel for a week or more, and would have unreliable access to the Internet. Also, originally it was not his plan to recuse from the ArbCom proceeding, but he felt it would be improper to serve as moderator and engage in ArbCom deliberations at the same time. So he appropriately started looking for a replacement who could monitor the MD page every day and serve effectively as moderator. According to the statements he made, which were easily read by anyone who bothered to participate, any difficulties of "riding herd" were not a factor in his decision. But thanks for the parting shot. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it serves a purpose of yours to refrain from fulfilling my good faith request for diffs, the which would have nipped in the bud any questions about timing and motive. You still have not shown the diffs in this point-by-point response of yours which discusses chronology and would normally be linked to some discussions or editing actions. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it serves a purpose of yours ... Yes, it does. The whole process demonstrates in detail that WP:AGF is a completely alien concept to you. In fact, you do the opposite: you assume bad faith (ABF). Then, after your accusations have been proven false and you've humiliated yourself (as you did with your MFD attempt on the Xenophrenic evidence page), you ABF again ... and humiliate yourself like this again ... and again ... and again. I consider your false accusations to be the price of admission for the entertainment that follows. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the chronology shown below (assembled largely by Xenophrenic), I see no consensus for having a sub-article, just tentative discussion about it, including substantial opposition from TE, and technical opposition from Ubikwit who wished to have a different name and focus. You created the article in moderated discussion sandbox space (I was looking for it in your own user space) but this page was not created by SilkTork who was the moderator of that space, so it was created out of process. You chose to ignore TE's opposition when you brought the article to mainspace: "There have been no objections on the Moderated Discussion page..." Also, you brought the sub-article to mainspace during a time when the TPm article was fully locked. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your jaundiced analysis of the past, what's your understanding of the current consensus? I think the seven days are up for the name change discussion over at Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement, so if you don't mind, I'll go and get that one closed and the templates taken down. This one has about 21 days left, and it doesn't look good for you either — the current "vote" is 9-3 opposed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ... I see no consensus for having a sub-article, just tentative discussion about it ... Well, any doubts about the existence of consensus supporting the existence of the article have been cleared up at this point. The "vote" on your merge proposal is still 9-3 opposed with two weeks to go. Perhaps if you had listed this discussion at AFD as I suggested, you might have been able to convince enough uninvolved editors for your merge proposal to succeed.
 * ... including substantial opposition from TE ... You chose to ignore TE's opposition ... No, I didn't. At some point, TE withdrew his objection as demonstrated by his "vote" here on your merge proposal. I really can't recall when or how I became aware that he had withdrawn his objection.
 * ... technical opposition from Ubikwit who wished to have a different name and focus. Ubikwit announced that he was abandoning the moderated discussion. Then he vanished for several days with no indication that he would ever return. I understood that to mean that it didn't matter that much to him. I suppose that 20/20 hindsight wins again, but with such a large group of editors, one technical objector — or even two or three — doesn't prevent a finding of consensus by a closer. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The motion, if passed, will prohibit named parties from editing the "Tea Party movement article, the article talk page, and all subpages", but not sub-articles, as I read it. It's a page ban, not topic ban. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, that points out a real legitimate complication of this complicated mess.  But even that is based on a hypothetical.  And it still is not about the merits or policy-compliance of existence of such a sub article.   This is complicated, I don't know what to say except to say that it would be a shame to base the existence/non existence of articles on such things.  Since I'll be mostly off wiki for over a week, I guess I don't have to worry about what to say. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic - "If the 'centerpiece' [of the Tea Party agenda] is the Constitution, and the Constitution-related content is likely to be the main, and most expansive, content [within the agenda of the Tea Party] -- wouldn't it make sense to name the subarticle to reflect that?"
 * No. It most certainly would not. Not sure how to elaborate on such an obvious response. †TE†   Talk  12:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Obvious"? What is obvious about it is that it appears to be a dismissive, facile attempt to circumvent the issue of the title, on the one hand, and the need for an article duplicating the same scope of a substantial section in the main article, on the other hand. -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the article title and had little idea I was commenting on a request for title change. †TE†   Talk  15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TE, what do you see as the purpose of the "Agenda" subarticle? When the "Constitutionalism" subject matter is removed from it (with a concise summary left in its place), the remaining 'Agenda' content would neatly fit into the main article, making the subarticle rather useless and redundant. The TP Constitutionalism content (including how it influences some Agenda issues), however, would easily fill a subarticle. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then write the article. What's stopping you? What's stopping anybody? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's what's stopping him, and stopping Ubikwit. At this point, if anyone creates an article called The Tea Party and the Constitution, it should be merged into Agenda of the Tea Party movement. That's why Ubikwit, Xenophrenic and Binksternet are reacting this way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So suddenly you are the authority on why I have reacted to the appearance of the Agenda article? No, I don't think so. I have already stated clearly why I called for a merge with the main article. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bink, why aren't you doing something to improve the Agenda article? Why all this drama? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2013‎ (UTC) (Signature added by P&W as a courtesy)
 * @Malke - To answer your common sense and very obvious question, "Then write the [Constitution sub] article. What's stopping you?", speaking only for myself: lack of time. What little time my family and other obligations will allow me to volunteer here has been consumed by the moderated discussion (which kept steering focus away from such new content generation, and back toward the Main article content), as well as drama-fest activities like AN/Is, RfCs, ArbComs, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, there are three significant facts here that perhaps should be considered in combination.
 * (A) There are three editors here who are pushing very, very hard to get rid of the "Agenda" article and replace it with an article that focuses solely on the TPm's views of the Constitution.
 * (B) When viewed as a whole, the agenda of the TPm is primarily focused on reducing spending, preventing tax increases, and reducing the national debt. These goals, when spoken in such broad and non-specific terms as these, have really huge popular support and tended to focus on such big-spending, not-so-very-popular legislative initiatives as Obamacare. In this sense, the Tea Party really has its finger on America's pulse, and that's how it gained enormous voter support very quickly — in time to do amazingly well in the 2010 election cycle.
 * (C) If we focus strictly on TPm views of the Constitution, however, it becomes very easy to portray the Tea Party as inconsistent and even hypocritical. They seek "strict adherence to the Constitution" and the "original intent of the Founding Fathers," but they either want to repeal or eviscerate three amendments, and ratify two or three new ones. Option (B) is more neutral and objective, and explains how the young upstart Tea Party spanked the 170-year-old, immensely powerful Democratic Party like a red-headed stepchild in the 2010 election cycle, after being in existence for a mere 21 months. Option (C) starts out being much more negative, and can be made intensely negative by presenting Formisano as the world's leading expert on the Tea Party, with a blockquote in the first three or four paragraphs. Formisano is an outlier.
 * These three facts should perhaps be viewed in combination. The three editors in question have a laser-like focus on procedure. They claim that procedural issues are the real reason why they're fighting so hard, and that the more negative tone of the anticipated change to a "Constitution" article is just a coincidence. I have found that genuine coincidences are extremely rare when we're talking about politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your "The way I see it..." summary, P&W. I agree with a few things you said, but there is quite a bit that either doesn't make much sense to me, or with which I disagree completely. Take, for instance, your perception that editors are "pushing very, very hard to get rid of the "Agenda" article". Speaking only for myself as one of those editors, let me assure you my position requires no "trying", no effort whatsoever. I see the 'Agenda' of the movement as both important enough, and brief enough (presently), to be handled entirely within the main article. That makes your spin-off article unnecessary, and that is the only reason I support melding whatever accurate "agenda-specific" content exists in it with the main article.  If you'll recall, when the bunch of us were proposing agenda content for the main article, the proposals (versions 1 through 17d and beyond) kept getting longer and longer, almost exclusively because of addition of more Constitution-related content.  That's when a spin-off article was suggested specifically for TP Constitutionalism. Not because "it becomes very easy to portray the Tea Party as inconsistent and even hypocritical", as you claim, but simply because there is too much content specific to that subject matter. By the way, the only thing that can make it "easy to portray the TP a certain way" is the prominence of reliably sourced information describing it as such, regardless of what Wikipedia article in which it appears.
 * Your description of the agenda "viewed as a whole" is too broad to be an accurate or informative portrayal. Reduction of spending, taxes and national debt is the goal of nearly everyone, regardless of political stripe, and thus says nothing about the actual agenda of the movement. The best indicators of actual agenda are what stance they take on specific issues, and what specific issues they protest or support. Your opinion that the TP "has its finger on America's pulse", and that it "spanked the Democratic party" is popular among TPers, while those outside of the movement argue differently, acknowledging that while the movement had some impact on the general elections, the "spanking" they did was on the moderate Republicans in the primaries. The Republican party would have accumulated the same general election gains as every minority party gains during midterm elections, regardless of the existence of the Tea Party. (You might find "Tea Party Effects on 2010 U.S. Senate Elections, edited by William Miller and Jeremy Walling to be an interesting work covering all arguments on the Senate-side of the matter.)
 * "the more negative tone of the anticipated change to a "Constitution" article is just a coincidence. I have found that genuine coincidences are extremely rare..." Now you are just plain assuming bad faith. You need to come to grips with the reality that the movement, taken as a whole, is not as single-mindedly monolithic as you would like to portray. The rosey picture you consider "more neutral and objective" is not at all close to what reliable sources on the subject convey. There is conflict and disagreement between groups within the movement, and also between the movement's professed beliefs and it's actions.  Conveying these realities as they are conveyed by reliable sources is not some plot to disparage your Tea Party; it's simple NPOV article construction as required by Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P&W - You ought not be poking the partisans, fun as it may be.
 * Xenophrenic - While I understand your contention, claiming 2010 wasn't special is a joke. Citing opinions that repubs were just taking back their rightful districts also pisses in the face of democratic gains in 2006. Sure it was largely an anti-war vote, but it still meant something. That sentiment followed through 2008, even after Pelosi did nothing. Obama surely would end the wars we thought, until he claimed Bush's SOFA in Iraq as his own and escalated the violence in Afghanistan, enacting new ROE which tied our other hand behind our backs. But I digress, the 2010 shellacking wasn't due to the Tea Party. That we can agree on. It was the response to an absolute turd of a bill called Obamacare. Never popular, never acceptable, never more than a 1000-page mistake. Democrats were in trouble regardless of their vote. Much like repubs in 2006. †TE†   Talk  05:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I was poking them. But I suppose that when they have an emotional attachment to a political party that was so deeply humiliated in 2010 — when a former Cosmo centerfold took the Senate seat of their patriarch and heir of their most honored clan, and they lost more House seats in a single election than any incumbent president's party since the early 1930s — then an emotional defensive reaction of some sort is to be expected, when we discuss the manner of that party's humiliation. Let's face it. It was epic. I mean, I'm a Democrat, but I'm able to view events objectively and 2010 was an ass whupping. That's the sort of story that gets made into movie scripts. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm sure Binksternet will be very pleased to learn that the disposal motion at ArbCom has a final vote of 5-5. A majority is required, so the motion failed, and a six-month page ban for a long list of people (that includes me but doesn't include Binksternet) appears much less likely. What appears much more likely is an indefinite topic ban for a much smaller number of people. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to see your neutrality on full display in the above comments.  From watching many of these arbcom cases I don;t see any indefs likely, but I do think there will be a few holidays from editing and I think you are probably one of the strong candidates there. Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Snowded, I suppose that for you, the word "neutrality" depends on your perspective. I tend to value all top-quality sources, rather than the tiny handful of academic sources that have focused on and magnified aspects of the subject that aren't very pretty. As a result, the portrait I paint is accurate, and the subject's unpleasant features are in proportion with its more admirable qualities. For those editors who are incapable of seeing any redeeming qualities in the subject of an article, perhaps they might achieve greater satisfaction working on some other subject matter. Wikipedia is a very diverse place and I'm sure that for such editors, a comfortable place can be found.
 * Regarding your allegations about me, there is no proposed sanction against me on the proposed decision page, nor even any proposed sanction on the workshop page. Perhaps you're the one with the amazing clairvoyant powers who might be the next target of Binksternet's false accusations, Snowded. But somehow, like Ubikwit, I think you'll avoid his attention. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

page break
Here is a timeline of comments and events regarding subsections and subarticles for content related to "agenda" and "constitutionalism". In summary: There was at least 1 voiced objection to proposed creation of both subarticles (Agenda and Constitution). There was no consensus for creation of either subarticle (Agenda or Constitution). Disclaimer: This may not be an inclusive list. Quotes are excerpted.


 * (Silk Tork fully protects the page on April 12, 2013, the protection scheduled to expire August 20.)
 * (Silk Tork lowers the protection of the page on June 12 to allow autoconfirmed users only, this level of protection to be of indefinite length.)

[1] First, because there is probably more material in print in RS about the TPm's approach toward the Constitution, I feel strongly that it deserves a subsection. Meanwhile, the volume of material is perhaps too large to be adequate covered in the main article without completely dominating it, so there should probably be a subarticle on the subject, perhaps entitled The TPm and the Constitution. --Ubikwit 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[2] After at least sourcing each point of that paragraph, maybe the most efficient approach would be to proceed with trimming (of the Contract and Foreign policy sections, noting Silk Tork's comments), and then to composing the other sections of the Agenda section, starting with the Constitution, which would seem to be by far the topic related to the agenda that more reliable sources discuss than any other.--Ubikwit 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[3] Along with the sources quoted above by Xenophrenic and the sources I used in the revert-warred out version of the Constitution subsection, there should be ample material for drafting a solid section, without even resorting to news media sources, though such sources are not being excluded.--Ubikwit 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[4] There is a lot of salient material on the TPm and the Constitution, so this is fairly long. Maybe it needs to be condensed and a subarticle created. --Ubikwit 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[5] The Foley text is relatively short and I would imagine that your interested in her focus on Federalism and states rights, which is legitimate, but I have mentioned the Repeal amendment as well as limitations on the powers of Congress. The section is already rather long, and there is much material that I have left out. With respect to the Repeal amendment and the libertarian/federalist agenda, there is this Repeal_Amendment#Repeal_Amendment and this Repeal_Amendment#Bill_of_Federalism, both of which I have referred to previously in the course of this discussion. If you are willing to propose a way to integrate something in relation to that subject matter, I am waiting to hear the proposal or see some text. Also, note that I have further suggested that a subarticle may be in order due to the amount of material published on this topic, which is substantial and more than on any other specific aspect of the TPm, as far as I can see.--Ubikwit 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[6] Splendid idea, mate. Make the new "Agenda" section as I've described above into the nucleus for a new spin-off article, Agenda of the Tea Party. Put all of the material you've left out into that spin-off article. Please make certain that the summaries of the Tea Party Patriots agenda statement and the Tea Party Express agenda statement are at the front of the new "agenda" section, and at the front of the spin-off article. I look forward to seeing another draft of the "agenda" section and a first draft of the spin-off article. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[7] On the other hand, that would not obviate the need for a subsection in the Agenda section on the Consitution in any way shape or form. Accordingly, as far as subarticles are concerned, a subarticle on The Tea Party movement and the Constitution is probably what is in order. The task then becomes determining the scope of coverage in the main article. As I've indicated above, there is substantially more information in RS than what I've included in the working draft.--Ubikwit 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[8] I strongly disagree with a Tea Party and the Constitution article. Let's not get crazy. I also disagree with a Commentaries section that is outside of Perceptions. TE 11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[9] As the foregoing comments seem to primarily address the Constitution subsection, as opposed to the opening of the Agenda section, I've cut a few paragraphs from that section which could suitable be treated elsewhere. More specifically, the passages from Zietlow, which focus specifically on the Constitution and the interpretive approach thereto, could be included in a subarticle specifically on the TPm and the Consitution, as she and others have much more to say on the topic. --Ubikwit 04:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[10] In fact, there is so much information, especially on originalism and the newly coined term "popular originalism", that I think there should be a section on The Tea Party and the Constitution separate from the agenda section. The specifics of the Amendments, state-federal power, etc. could also be addressed there for readers that wanted more in depth inforamtion on those; furthermore, the sociodynamic of the movement in relation to its popular originailsm as well as the relationship of the movement to previous past popular constitutionalist movements in the USA could also be addressed. --Ubikwit 11:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[11] Despite the varied analysis on how to define the movement's Constitutionalism, there appears to be wide agreement that the movement has raised constitutional issue awareness in both academic circles and in the general public. I think having a more comprehensive section on constitutionalism outside of the "Agenda" section is a good idea. If there is popular support for a "Constitution" section, we could save a lot of the specifics for that section and that should help us keep the 'Agenda' section more concise. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[12] My concern is that a section on the constitution will grow into a large mass that will require an ArbCom admin to help remove it. My suggestion has been, at least I hope I've mentioned it, is to create a subarticle on the topic with a para in the main with a link to it. I'll support any paragraph that does not use block quotes, does not point exclusively to scholarly articles which are nothing but opinion with a graduate degree attached, and seems reasonably neutral. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[13] On the Constitution section -- Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I see no reason for an Agenda and the constitution section. TE Talk 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[14] Most importantly, I think this version is strikes a balance between being adequately informative and not excessively detailed, which I believe is possible to do in light of: first, tacit agreement regarding a separate section--outside of the Agenda section--or a subarticle dealing with the massive amount of published text focusing on the Constitution; --Ubikwit 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[15] This version is good enough for now. Your other concerns would best be addressed in the proposed spin-off article, where I certainly would not object to blockquotes from several academics. In fact, as I mentioned, I'm already working on a first draft of that spin-off article. Let's see. For now, it should probably look like this: /Agenda of the Tea Party movement. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[16] P&W's Agenda sub page created on June 30:

[17] Incidentally, the subarticle was to called "The Tea Party and the Constitution", not the title you mentioned above.--Ubikwit 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[18] On a different note, since a movement is defined by it's agenda, we should not be concerned that this all-important section it is longer and more detailed. It needs to be pretty well-covered here, not just in a sub article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[19] Putting this possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at the front end of the first section of the top-level article in a series gives it a huge amount of weight, and the whole thing is a bit too long, considering that it's currently being envisioned as a summary of a potential spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[20] Where has there been discussion of the Agenda section being a summary of a spin off article? A diff or two would suffice. There has been suggestion and discussion regarding a couple of implementations have been discussed for the Tea Party and the Constitution subarticle and corresponding summary.--Ubikwit 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[21] Finally, there had been discussion of a "Tea Party and the Constitution" section in the article or a subarticle, and the inclusion of more detail would seem merited. Ubikwit 03:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[22] SilkTork resigns as Moderator July 3

[23] In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today. Good for you. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. On the other hand, you could just work it into that /Agenda of the Tea Party movement spin-off article I was working on, because that would be brilliant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[24] On July 6, Phoenix and Winslow links his Agenda of the Tea Party sandbox to the Moderated Discussion page

[25] I suggest all this time and effort should be directed into /Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a new spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (Silk Tork fully protects the page on July 16, the protection to be of indefinite length.)

[26] On July 20, P&W creates the Agenda mainspace article; acknowledges that he is doing it solo, but mistates that there have been no objections (see North8000 and Ubikwit above) with this edit summary: (Creating article. There have been no objections on the Moderated Discussion page at Talk:Tea Party movement, and no one seems to be interested in this except me ....)

[27] That sub-article was not one I created, so it is possible there was no consensus for its creation. I suggest that folks have a discussion about it on the talkpage of the new article. That would also be the appropriate place to have a discussion about a new name. SilkTork 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

List of downloadable pdf sources on TPm and Constitution
The following list is only of sources from legal journals, not books, of which there are a number, including, for example, one written by Price-Foley, who is on the following list.
 * 1) THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, Richard Albert
 * 2) THE TEA PARTY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE REPEAL AMENDMENT, Randy Barnett
 * 3) The Tea Party and the Constitution	Christopher, W. Schmidt
 * 4) Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments, Elizabeth Price Foley
 * 5) Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory, Rebecca E. Zietlow
 * 6) THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND THE PERILS OF POPULAR ORIGINALISM, Jared A. Goldstein
 * 7) Profiling Originalism, Persily, Greene, Ansolabehere
 * 8) CAN POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM SURVIVE THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, Jared A. Goldstein
 * 9) THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM, Ilya Somin

-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove merge request from article
I closed as "keep" the merge discussion I started last month. See Talk:Tea_Party_movement. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection
This page got full protection pending the outcome of the Arbcom case, and because the case has concluded, I've reduced it to the previous level of semiprotection. Please remember that vandalism like this, if continued, will quickly cause the return of full protection. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Thanks for your watchfulness. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nyttend, the expiration date on the protection says "August 20, 2013). What should it say?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I set it to be indefinite; 20 August 2013 was SilkTork's protection related to the content dispute. Everything's as it should be, unless you're suggesting that the protection be for a different amount of time.  If you don't think that it should be indefinitely semiprotected, I'll be happy to set an end date, but nothing about the duration should be changed unless we decide against indefinite semiprotection.  The only problem I can see is the feedback; the protection log says that I set some sort of protection on the feedback, which was unintentional, so I'd appreciate it if another admin would remove it for me — don't know how I set it, so I don't know how to unset it.  Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hot Air Tour
The AFP's "Hot Air Tour" was organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a cap and trade program. I suggest we remove this passage as insignificant. the Americans for Prosperity article does not mention Hotair nor Tea Party. WP:undue Darkstar1st (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. A connection between the TPm and the tour is made in the source.  That the AFP article does not mention it is irrelevant to whether or not it is significant.  TFD (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * connection? line 25 of page 150 of the source you linked reads: attracts tea party activists, sounds like they mean two different groups. A attracts B, not A attracts A. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone makes the connection explicit in this piece about AFP leader Tim Phillips. It says that "Phillips launched a 'Hot Air Tour' of America last year [2010], staging faux-populist protests against climate legislation." The article connects AFP and Koch Industries money with the Hot Air Tour, and it connects AFP and Phillips with the Tea Party. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the tea party/Americans_for_Prosperity link has failed on the Americans_for_Prosperity article page, perhaps it should be debated there. AFP is accused of supporting the tea party, if such an allegation cannot survive there, it certainly doesn't belong on an unrelated article. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I surfed over to that article using your link but I don't see anything resembling a consensus there to avoid mentioning Koch money in relation to TPm or AFP. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you using the term "accused?" TFD (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "teabagger"
I can't recall having been involved in this article until right now, and would like to point out an error. The following sentence in the article is unsourced, it has two separate Wikipedia tags on it, and it is erroneous: "The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites."

According to the article by Alex Koppelman that's already in the footnotes:

"[W]hen used as a verb, the words “tea bag” and “teabagging” have nothing to do with a hot, soothing drink....I’ve traced the meme’s birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent’s David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: “Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!” (sic)."

Those first uses on websites were not by conservatives at all, so the unsourced sentence in the Wikipedia article is false. And the origin seems to have been a single protest sign, not a plurality of them. Surely we can make this article a fine upstanding place to visit, instead of, um, a fleabag. Any objection if I take a crack at it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not say the first uses were by conservatives but that the term "teabagger" was used "after conservatives used "tea bag" as a verb." Presumably the term "teabagger" was coined by non-supporters. TFD (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, i agreed it should be trimmed/merged or removed, having a sub-section devoted to a slur seems excessive per wp:due. is the average reader searching wikipedia for information about tea party interested in learning about a sex act? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Four Deuces, the first uses on websites were apparently not by conservatives, right? Those first website uses were based on a use by a conservative protester's sign.  Darkstar, I only have ambitions here to correct an error, not to restructure the article.  The latter may or may not be desirable, but it's not what I'm suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can remove "on websites." IIRC, Jon Stewart picked up on the sign.  It is worth noting because the term is in popular usage, although it does not deserve its own section.  TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How about: In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words "tea bag" as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing teabagger as a term for Tea Partiers. Cite: Koppelman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me -- though I'm not familiar with the sourcing of the assertion that the protestor was conservative. If that's not rock solid, it could say "person at a tea party rally" or the like.William Jockusch (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding sourcing for the assertion that the protester was conservative, I would add this source, which is the photographer asserting that the protester was from Free Republic, which is a well known conservative group (and the photographed sign also says "Free Republic").Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey
I propose to replace this:

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites.

with this:

In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words "tea bag" as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing teabagger as a term for Tea Partiers.


 * Support (as proposer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Rm. the word "websites" as TFD proposed if it pleases you. Commented about the same thread before at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion.TMCk (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Or propose a different less one-sided wording/solution than the one above.TMCk (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is titled "Use of the term teabagger". If the first such use was on a website, in February 2009, then why wipe the section clean of any information about websites?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe b/c those 2 blogs are less than notable?TMCk (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, Wonkette has its own Wikipedia article. See also these three books at Google Books:, , .  Plus Wonkette and its bloggers are mentioned in several of the sources already footnoted in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

proposed inclusion in the page
Hi, I'm not an autoconfirmed author. So I can't publish in here. But I think this would be very useful in this page: "A study by Skocpol and Williams proposes that Tea Party should be understood in the "grey vs brown" opposition. They don't critize plain "government spending". The division is between those citizens that have earned the government spending (themselves, the "hard-workers"), and those who haven't (the "freeloaders"). They are suburban mature people. To the other side are the young (especially those without a job) and the illegal immigrants. The young people may include their own family. Thus, the Tea Party support medicare, social security and veteran programs, but don't support. Stockpol and Williams separate the grassroots sector and the business sectors who appropiates their clames but that, for example, include social security in the restructuration. " Please, I'd like to ask it to be put in the original page. Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove separate subsection about "teabaggers"
Any objection if we just remove the separate subsection about teabaggers, and replace it with a sentence like "Members of the Tea Party have sometimes been referred to using the pejorative term 'teabaggers'." Details are at the link, and it seems excessive to dwell on the subject so much here in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Objection. The term has garnered media attention and Tea Party response. The full paragraph is needed to cover it. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of slurs at Wikipedia that are briefly mentioned in the subjects' article, with a wikilink to elaboration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ames and Levine on the launching of the Tea Party
I'm wondering if we might add this cite: http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-familiar-rightwing-pr-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/ to the comments on origin section, despite the near-obscenity in its title (the piece was originally published by Playboy). Ames and Levine report on the creation of websites used in the launching of the Tea Party prior to Santelli's on-air declamation, which is suggestive of a pre-planned media blitz on the Tea Party theme. Jonabbey (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the website does not appear to be a reliably published source, and playboy does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking with regards to its work in political analysis (despite the fact that everyone has their copy "for the articles"). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Crap
How do you edit this crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.139.169 (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's difficult. The best way is to propose a change here at the talk page.  If by some miracle your proposal is accepted by a consensus of editors, then it will be implemented. (This applies regardless of whether you sign up for a user name.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Crap' is a four-letter word, its use is to be discouraged. I read through the article and there are some good aspects.  The article seems too long.  I would not put Huffington Post as a reference.  There needs to be current activity from Tea Party House and Senate leaders: Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) come to mind.These are very important times in History and can be properly documented in WP.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliability or unreliability of Huffington Post
I think Huffington Post is not reliable. See here. So, let's use reliable sources instead. For example, I disagree with the recent edit to the lead sentence, saying that the Tea Party movement is an astroturf political movement founded by Koch Industries. Better sourcing would be needed before including this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source. However opinion pieces are never acceptable as sources for facts and the opinions expressed anywhere should never be presented as facts.  The same opinion piece btw could just have easily been published in any major news source.  TFD (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't reliable major news sources label their opinion pieces as such? I don't see a label on the Huffpo piece designating it as opinion.  On the contrary, it seems to be labelled as investigative.  Part of the reliability problem with Huffpo is that it does not clearly distinguish between news and opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Change to the lede
The lede currently reads "The Tea Party movement is an American astroturfing [1] political movement founded by Koch Industries ". This is in my view a biased introduction which needs to changed. I will also note that under the current restrictions, all major changes of the article are to have been discussed and gained consensus at the talk page before being introduced. I don't think this has happened here. Pinging User:Scottandrewhutchins. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iselilja. The change was reverted as tendentious, but then reinserted without any talk page discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The movement is referred to as founded by the Koch Brothers, yet no evidence the article supports this conclusion. All that is cited is a study, put out by a political organization, that connects the Tea Party movement with organizations including one that happens to have been started by the Koch Brothers. There is therefore no basis for this claim being made in the opening paragraph, nor is there evidence to label it astroturfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.239.10 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA?

This article reads to me like political propaganda.Landrumkelly (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Landrumkelly (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

First para of foreign policy section - Sarah Palin
The first para of Tea Party movement currently quotes Governor Palin from the 2008 presidential campaign (and also features her photo). Not sure this is relevant here - not only does it predate the founding of the TPM, it also quotes Palin in her role as John McCain's vice-presidential candidate, so it's likely the views of that campaign rather than the TPM. Propose removal of this para. (Note - when I originally came across this para, it dated the quote to 2010, when the ref actually places it in 2008). Kelly hi! 21:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently nobody has any objections so far to the removal, but I'll wait another couple days before doing so. Kelly  hi! 04:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tea Party supporter Sarah Palin may have stated that Wasilla is a wonderful place, and Ron Paul may have outlined foreign policy views that he wishes the Tea Party movement would adopt, but all of that kind of stuff seems beside the point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree - both should go. However, Mead's analysis of the "Paulite" and "Palinite" foreign policies is helpful and should be kept.  TFD (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Request Change
"The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5]"

Proposed

"The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] partly populist,[5] and partly anarchist."

citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/10/11/the-tea-party-is-giving-anarchism-a-bad-name/ 68.48.204.94 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not a reliable source for such credit as it is an anti-Tea Party Movement entity, as is demonstrated by the suggest label of "partly anarchist". That, at best, is a cliche which can be attributed to any group advocating social change.

Proposed change: When referring to the Tea Party Movement, one must/should always be sure to include the word "Movement", as their is no official political party nor incorporated body officially identified (named) as "the Tea Party". It is only a social/political movement that is correctly and solely identified as the Tea Party Movement. It is incorrect to refer to the Movement as "the Tea Party". By omitting the word "Movement", one is misled into believing the false premise that there actually is an officially-registered political party with registered members and elected representatives. This is not the case. Candidates associated with the Tea Party Movement are actually registered on ballots under other official political party names (ie. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, etc.). It is impossible for a Tea Party Movement candidate to run on any ballot under the party affiliation of "Tea Party" because there simply is no political party registered as the "Tea Party". The Tea Party Movement is only that; a movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.238.102 (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO THE REPORT ON PERCEPTION

The latest Rasmussen report (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2013/42_identify_with_obama_politically_42_with_the_tea_party) shows now an even division between supporters of Tea party ideas and Obama ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.149.197 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section?
I'm not sure if this was covered by Arbitration/Mediation but what happened to a rather lengthy criticism section? The noteworthiness and reliable sources were pretty undeniable for it. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It was removed back in June, though I have no idea about the rationale. I just searched the page history. The content was:

"Since its inception, the Tea Party movement has struggled with charges of racism. Opponents cite a number of events as proof that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance.  Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. Examples include:


 * TeaParty.org owner Dale Robertson protested in 2009 with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar".


 * Racially charged placards at protest rallies as early as 2009 have depicted President Obama as a witch doctor over the word "Obamacare", stated "Obama's Plan White Slavery", and depicted Obama in whiteface over the word "Joker".


 * During a protest rally in Washington, D.C., before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in March 2010, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them.  Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon, although it is unclear if this was deliberate, and said he heard the slurs. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".


 * While attending the March 2010, health care rally in Washington, D.C., Springboro, Ohio, Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted a racist comment on the Springboro Tea Party Twitter page he managed by tweeting "Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?"


 * Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as "the terrorists' monkey god", and posted other anti-Islamic remarks in May 2010. When questioned by The Washington Post about his comments about Islam, Williams stated the controversy has "been fantastic for the movement". Williams received further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams said that the letter was a satirical response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement".


 * Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.

After each incident, other prominent Tea Partiers were quick to denounce the actions. In each case, public announcements were made strongly stating that the controversial actions were neither condoned by, nor representative of, the Tea Party movement. Where Tea Party leaders were involved, they were forced to relinquish their position, or were ostracized from the movement. Some Tea Party organizers have started taking steps to prevent potentially controversial situations from arising, including hiring off-duty police officers and restricting attendance at their events, uninviting speakers espousing controversial views, and urging attendees to self-police events for troublemakers. Polls, surveys and studies have been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on racial issues. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it", while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States. A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that Tea Party movement supporters studied were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents. An analysis done by ABC News' Polling Unit found that views on the extent of racism in America "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because similar views are also found among the very conservative, and are more common among whites than non-whites.

A University of Washington poll of Washington State residents reported that 46% of Tea Party supporters agree with the observation that "If blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites", 73% disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".

The Washington Post reported that an analysis of the signs displayed at a September 2010 Tea Party rally found that "the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government's economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events". Roughly a quarter of the signs "reflected direct anger with Obama", 5 percent "mentioned the president's race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship". The researcher, Emily Elkins, did not conclude that "the racially charged messages" were "unimportant", but she did conclude that "media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does". A report published in the fall 2010 by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and backed by the NAACP has found what it says are efforts by white nationalist groups and militias to link themselves to the Tea Party movement. White nationalists have attempted to recruit new members at Tea Party events. Steve Smith, Pennsylvania Party Chairman of the white nationalist American Third Position Party, has called Tea Party events "fertile ground for our activists".

Black conservatives have expressed varied opinions about the Tea Party's inclusiveness and concerns about racism. Brandon Brice, a primary black speaker at a tax-day Tea Party rally, expressed worry about the movement, saying, "It's strayed away from the message of wasteful spending and Washington not listening to its constituents, and it's become more of this rally of hate." Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator, author and Tea Party speaker and supporter, said he has seen racism within the movement and has confronted it by approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, McAllister thinks leaders of the Tea Party movement must not ignore the issue. McAllister told The Washington Post, "The people are speaking up and becoming more educated on the issues, but you have fringe elements that are defining this good thing with their negative, hateful behavior." He said the movement is more diverse than news clips show, commenting that "There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case." During an interview on NPR with Michel Martin, McAllister and columnist Cynthia Tucker discussed racism and the Tea Parties; Tucker wrote about the interview, concluding that McAllister's take on racism was that "he'd seen enough racist signs at other Tea Party gatherings to know that racism is associated with the movement".

Black Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said that racist accusations about the Tea Party Movement are "ridiculous". "I have been speaking to Tea Parties, Americans for Prosperity, since 2009, before it was cool," Cain said, and then, referring to his victories in recent Tea Party Straw polls, "... If the Tea Party organization is racist, why does the black guy keep winning all these straw polls?" Cain went on to say that while he doesn't feel President Obama used race to get elected, "a lot of his supporters use race selectively to try to cover up some of his failures, to try to cover up some of his failed policies." Cain said Obama's surrogates "try to play the race card, because there's supposed to be something wrong with criticizing him", and concluded, "Some people have tried to use [race] to try to give the president a pass on failed policies, bad decisions and the fact that this economy is not doing what it's supposed to do." Conservative David Webb, who is a black Republican, stated that the NAACP was practising "selective racism" against Rick Santelli. Webb also stated that a picture of President Obama with a bone through his nose "is no more or less racist than Condoleezza Rice with a monkey baby".

Another prominent African-American conservative, Ward Connerly, decried accusations of Tea Party racism and defended the movement in a National Review column: "Race is the engine that drives the political Left. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it," Connerly said. "I am convinced beyond any doubt that all of this is part of the strategic plan being implemented by the Left in its current campaign to remake America."

Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists. Allen West, one of 32 African-Americans who ran for Congress in 2010 as Republicans, says the notion of racism in the Tea Party movement has been made up by the news media. " Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * this was addressed at the arbitration, see archives for an explanation of the rational. would you consider hatting/closing this thread unless there is new evidence/sources to support adding the material back? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to find it in the archives and couldn't, what was the rational behind it? My opinion is the information warrants inclusion but I don't know the rational or consensus behind it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism in Category:Tea Party movement
The User:Adn1900 seems to be practicing an edit war of how Category:Tea Party movement is itself categorized. The user removed Category:Far-right politics in the United States without explanation, and I restored it because its removal was unexplained. The user removed it again saying "it's not," to which I restored the category citing WP:FRINGE. The user removed it yet again saying "Don't revert it again!" And in the user's talk page, they seem to be involved in various other edit wars too &mdash; from the looks of it, inserting what appears to be apologist language for far-right political ideologies. This seems to fall under WP:PROFRINGE and violate WP:NPOV. What is the proper course of action? - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On FreeNode #wikipedia-en, I have been advised that WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has to be clear vandalism, though. The removal of a disputed category is not vandalism, it is a difference of opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the section for 2014 ?
Headline in the Wall Street Journal: Tea Party Faces Test of Its Clout in Primaries in November, 2014.
 * "After a series of defeats on Capitol Hill, the Republican Party's tea-party wing has shifted its attention to congressional primaries, setting up a major test of how much the movement's clout has been weakened."

FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agenda Section
It is massive, and being positioned right at the top of the article is a bit staggering. Can it be broken up into a few chunks? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the proposals in the ill-fated discussions last year moderated, sort of, by SilkTork. Much of the article was unreadable turgid prose created by the same committee that created a cross between a Camel and an Elephant.  Collect (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin story is horribly incorrect
This CNBC story correctly recalls the start of the movement: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101441165   --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the full original broadcast:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA    --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Santelli rant" is mentioned under Tea Party movement. But it is typical of protest movements that they do not have a single origin, but that various protesters emerge separately then join together. And of course it attracts veterans from earlier similar movements. TFD (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "correct" story - it appears the term has, over the years, been used by many quite disparate groups, and thus no single source seems to be "correct" here. And the current usage is not really the same by each group even today. Collect (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party does not necessarily refer to the historical event. Some say TEA is an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already." JT (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The earlier usages decidedly did refer to the historical event, the "acronym" usage is clearly later, and such "acronyms" are something found in a great many places for a great many issues. Collect (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The origin as stated on the page is nonsense. It attempts to link movements and organizations that had nothing to do with the creation of the tea party movement. The movement was a brainchild of Michelle Malkan and some home grown anti government activists in response to the election of Barak Obama, the Kochs and others piggybacked on that original movement. Cosand (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014 -- Tea Party, Dave Brat
Dave Brat neither identifies as tea party nor received tea party support. While Brat's victory earned him cheers, he is best described as anti-establishment.

216.182.174.2 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please detail the change you would like to make as though you were going to type it in yourself. While this mention is unsourced, there is a newspaper source for the same information on David Brat which describes him as a tea party challenger. Do you have a source which clearly shows that he does not identify with the tea party? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krugman and Pelosi
WLRoss, I just was wondering as to why you made the reversion of the edit I made on the Tea Party movement article, and I was curious if I could get an explanation. The comments made in that section were from Paul Krugman's editorial piece in the NYT, called "The Conscience of a Liberal", and he is very notably anti-Tea Party and generally anti-conservative in his writings. The other quote, made by Nancy Pelosi, who is in the leadership for the Tea Party's opposing faction in the House, seems to represent an opinion as well. I think presenting highly opinionated quotes from Krugman and Pelosi without any rebuttal from the other side of the aisle violates NPOV policy, and is far from encyclopedic. Could you provide evidence of the "consensus" you made reference to in the reversion as well? I have heard very little consensus regarding this myself, and I believe that we should at least present equally both views instead of one side's opinions. →Hubbardc →Talk to me!→  20:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc
 * agree, the passage would need an opposing comment to balance it. imagine a quote from a tea party movement leader about Pelosi on her article, or Krugmans, or the DNC article. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed the commentary. I think that there needs to be fair information presented from both sides of the spectrum to include those comments, so until then, I will be removing them for the sake of NPOV. Perhaps we can research some refutations to their claims and include both Pelosi/Krugman's comments as well as a conservative rebuttal at that point.


 * Additionally, as I see this page being stained with many biased edits, I think that the "teabagger" section is inappropriate to be its own section along with its irrelevance towards being informational, encyclopedic entries. Some opinions regarding this would be appreciated. →Hubbardc →Talk to me!→  14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

Political movement
As a political movement, shouldn't the article show the movements political stance as for other political parties - i.e. right wing, far right, conservative, etc.?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Influence of Koch Brothers/Section explaining the different factions of the Tea Party
Hello, I think that it is inappropriate for the Koch section to be entirely new. Instead, I think that it should be simply included into the fundraising section. Otherwise, the inappropriate placement of the Koch involvement could certainly be argued that it paints a slight bias against their fundraising contributions to a group.

Additionally, I think that it is important to make a new section discussing the different "factions" of the Tea Party movement, in the sense of the so-called "liberty movement" group of tea partiers like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc. who demographically appeal to younger voters while the religious right faction of the Tea Party appeals to older voters. There are stark policy differences, as noted by Massie/Paul's stances on industrial hemp, drug convictions, etc. There is some mention of the "Paulites" vs. the "Palinites" earlier in the article, but I do believe that it is deserving of an entire new section due to the distinct policy differences and which demographic groups support each respective faction.

Does anyone else agree? →Hubbardc →Talk to me!→  23:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

Not at all. This is an encyclopedia, and the founders of wikipedia would not accept bribes to promote "fundraising" for what many call the american taliban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryvenn (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be an improvement. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As the youth has become increasingly secular and tolerant to the many social issues, so too have the new Tea Party so-called "rising stars" like Paul, Massie, and Amash. I think that much of this article paints somewhat of a caricature of the Tea Party as being an extreme faction of the Religious Right, and there needs to be more attention/information about its more libertarian groups that are beginning to take over the movement's core philosophies. I shall move the Koch section as a subsection of the Fundraising section as well. Also, I may be mistaken, but the "Background" section reads as if the Tea Party was entirely a corporate puppet with nearly no mention of the populist aspects within the right wing voting groups in the United States. In the fundraising section, the commentaries made by Krugman and Pelosi seemt o represent a partisan opinion, and I think that it could use some cleaning up in order to maintain NPOV and present both perspectives. →Hubbardc  →Talk to me!→  23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014
The Tea Party's first demonstrations were organized in December 2007. Here is a link to the video of the event in Austin Youtube Video. A similar event was organized in Angleton, TX where Ron Paul personally threw tea crates into the water. Here is a link to a website created in 2007 which held fundraisers for the "Tea Party" events - http://thebostonteaparty2007.blogspot.com/

50.15.147.252 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌. Instead of somebody's website or video we need to have third-party confirmation, that is, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources saying this was the first Tea Party event. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party vs teaparty movement
History, written by the winners, fails to mention that Washington was a rebel leader, and the war tax of 2% on tea was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". This was the federation of 1st independent states, which continued to annex land from the indigenous population, as well as invading Canada on 3 separate occasions and [see "Canada" box set] as well as conducting a civil war. Studying the history of Mexico & Canada gives one an insight into how much "American History" is fabricated. This Talk page should note that, like the original tea party, the main page on this subject appears to be politically biased towards it. Tea party politicians use incendiary language to incite hate and have extreme Views on immigration, Barack Obama, gay marriage etc, none of which is addressed on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryvenn (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement
Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. The proposal is to change the category name to either Category:Tea Party movement advocates or Category:Tea Party movement activists. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 09 August 2014
Could we change cerca to circa, please. The former is not English. It is the third paragraph.

The origins of the current Tea Party movement can be traced back to cerca 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.237.207 (talk • contribs)


 * ✅ There were two other instances in the article as well, and they have been fixed too. --<font color="#111111">‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites  ‖ 19:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

koch brothers
> The koch brothers had little to do with making the movement grow. The tea party was a grassroots movement and still is. It was kick started by Dr. Ron Paul and morphed into something bigger as time went on. When sarah palin got involved it got even more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.243.62 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Government Study: The Tea Party was created by the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers

 * [Removed sock comment]
 * One academic study does not a fact make. This particular theory is highly controversial generally and particularly on this page. it would be important to get substantial buy-in and consensus to make this bold change to what was perhaps the most contentious area leading up to the ARBCOM investigation and decision. Please review the archives for the previous discussions. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you need to quote the report, not the abstract, since often they do not correctly summarize what the report says. Most of the articles I have read say that the Tea Party had both astroturf and grass roots elements.  See for example Robert Altemeyer's Comment on the Tea Party Movement. TFD (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Too often people read stuff into a report that is not in the report. The report states no connection between the Kochs and tobacco, and basically says that organisations set up by Big Tobacco were then a model for later organisations - it does not make any connection that Big Tobacco set out in any way to create the "Tea Party", nor that Big Tobacco ruled the Kochs. Also, there is no doubt that many Tea Party groups did, indeed, arise from grass-roots organisations, and the Kochs gave money to foundations which then gave money to organisations sympathetic to the grass-roots organisations. Frankly the "Kochs run everything" theory has been done to death, and (while it makes for nice sound bites in Congress) there is precious little evidence to make them the puppet-masters of the Universe. does not even use "Koch" in its diagram. And most of the "links" are single people and ad agencies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be something about this particular journal article that causes people to repeatedly make false statements about it. For some reason, editors have a hard time accurately discussing its content. For example, in this thread, we have:
 * User:Letstrythisagain2: A 2013 academic study by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health... FALSE. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. It was funded by a grant from the NCI.
 * User:Letstrythisagain2: front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers created the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene... MOSTLY FALSE. The article makes clear that the Tea Party is not solely a creation of the tobacco industry or the Koch brothers:
 * User:Collect: The report states no connection between the Kochs and tobacco... FALSE. According to the article,
 * User:Collect:  does not even use "Koch" in its diagram... TECHNICALLY TRUE, BUT HIGHLY MISLEADING. The figure shows extensive connections between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party, and Americans for Prosperity (which is the Koch brothers' primary political vehicle; David Koch is its Chairman). So the figure clearly connects the Koch brothers, the tobacco industry, and the Tea Party. It is irrelevant (and misleading) to pretend otherwise simply because the Koch influence is listed as Americans for Prosperity rather than by name.
 * I'm not sure whether or how this article should be cited, and I'm not sure I want to involve myself in this article, which has been marked over the years by very poor editorial conduct. But I don't see how a serious discussion is possible unless we're capable of accurately and honestly presenting the contents of sources. MastCell Talk 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Before saying "false" - the connection between the CSE, the Kochs and tobacco was what?  I read the entire article -- and the bit about "A is connected to B which is connected to C which is connected to D" - and then asserting "Therefore A is connected to D" is about all one can claim -- and that is a pretty weak claim at best. Sorry -- fails the rational connection requirement used in science.
 * The chart shows the "Tea Party" (part thereof) connected to AFP and FreedomWorks (your "Koch Connection"). FW is connected to Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe and Dineed Borelli.  Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe are then connected to Dana Catuso and Citizens for a Sound Economy, which is then connected to "Big Tobacco".   But -- "Big Tobacco was not the backer of CSE.  It was backed by literally dozens of corporations.
 * In fact, the abstract states " It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations."
 * The real problem in all that theorizing is that the Tea Party movement is not noted for opposing tobacco legislation!
 * The article specifically refers to "key players" in connected organizations - the chart shows the linkage requires three or more actual steps. (Four steps to reach the Kochs who are not noted as being pro-tobacco - in fact they give a lot of money (well over $300 million, in fact)to cancer research!)   So the Kochs are within "four degrees of separation" which means very little indeed.  And no sign they are "pro-tobacco" at all.
 * DailyKos Look, it's true that many of the same players involved with CART back then are involved with Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity groups now. But the truth is, the whole right wing PR front group racket is a big, incestuous crowd. Many go in the same circles, draw from the same talent pool, and work for all the same corporate interest groups. Finding a connection between Freedomworks, CSE, AFP, and any other organization or group, is like finding fish in a fish tank. But what matters here is not just six degrees of Fred Koch, but an operational connection. And this study fails to present any evidence that even suggests that one existed in 2009 between the Tea Party PR campaign and big tobacco. Have no doubt that tobacco is still a client, along with scores of other banks and big businesses. But this study provides zero evidence that big tobaccos was the client that pulled the trigger on the "Operation Tea Party" in the spring of 2009. Collect (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [Removed sock comment]
 * Facts presented in the source are certainly reliable, the issue was what weight to provide the opinion that big tobacco created the Tea Party long before 2009. If the paper does not say that then the issue is moot.  If it did say that, then we would have to determine how prevalent that view was. By definition, papers that present original opinions cannot be used to show that those opinions are prevalent.  Letstrythisagain2, my position is based on policy, and that is where you should take your concerns.  02:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)TFD (talk)


 * As per what MastCell said, I must agree. No matter how good a source is, by itself, there's little point in including it in an article if it's going to be inaccurately cited and deliberately false information is going to be asserted. An accurate description would be something like "In terms of the think tank organizations that helped co-ordinate and give resources to some tea party groups, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco found that they had multiple past links to corporate-funded organizations connected to individuals such as David Koch and others, with those individuals pushing against anti-tobacco legislation efforts." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
There seems to be contradiction some missing details according to | Boston_Tea_Party#Resisting_the_Tea_Act


 * The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protesters were instead concerned with a variety of other issues

The article says:


 * a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773

I think this sounds just a bit misleading without the details. Darknipples (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Why doesn't this article mention anything about the Tea Party's openly assumed islamophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.93.58 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because there is no reliable source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome again. Be bold, add a sentence or two with some reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This would surely serve as a starting point. I gave up editing a long time ago, and I was hoping for a Wikipedian with a good conscience to take this task upon themselves. Cheers. 41.142.117.85 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be a good starting point. See WP:SPS and WP:RS Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Sorry you gave up editing. Looks like this might be a thing. How about a secondary source writing about Tea Party tendencies toward islamophobia? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Consistent bias
There appears to be a consistent and concentrated effort to obscure the significance of Citizens for a Sound Economy (which later became Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks) that originated in the 1980s. Numerous times I have added sources on the background to CSE and its evolution into Americans for Prosperity for Freedomworks prior to 2009, and they have been removed. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's effort to provide a NPOV. Plumber (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AFP and FreedomWorks are sufficiently important to this story to more than justify inclusion here of some background and context of their shared heritage. Hugh (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The theory that two organizations whose efforts apparently did not garner significant (any?) support decades before the tea party sprung to life is not born out by the very refs used to support the theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "two organizations whose efforts apparently did not garner significant (any?) support" Your assessment of the insignificance of AFP and FreedomWorks to the origins of the tpm are contrary to RS. Kindly review the following reliable sources and suggest a summarization:
 * The first source is already in the article, seems to be stable, and identifies AFP and FreedomWorks as among the top 3 leaders of the movement.
 * The second source is among the several reliable sources you summarily deleted in your section blanking with no effort to fix, and identifies AFP and FreedomWorks as "probably the leaders."
 * Later in the article, again fairly stable by tpm standards, the article identifies AFP and FreedomWorks as among 4 leadership organizations. AFP and FreedomWorks are so dominant in rs on origins that we can well afford a few sentences of context on their common history. To not do so is non-neutral. Kindly self-revert most of your section blanking. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the re-insertion of the "tobacco companies created the tea party" meme which have already been discussed ad nauseum and rejected is not helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of WP:ROWN, kindly self-revert your section blanking minus "the tobacco meme" if that is your issue. Thank you in advance for your commitment to collaboration. Hugh (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the re-insertion of the "tobacco companies created the tea party" meme which have already been discussed ad nauseum and rejected is not helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of WP:ROWN, kindly self-revert your section blanking minus "the tobacco meme" if that is your issue. Thank you in advance for your commitment to collaboration. Hugh (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is implicit in the background section is that an organization developed by the Koch brothers evolved into the Tea Party. It is biased in the sense that we should not put together evidence to support a narrative, we should use sources to do that, which of course will enable us to determine how accepted that narrative is.  The fact is that right-wing movements in the U.S. always contain leadership that had been part of previous right-wing movements.  That does not mean that there is much continuity.  TFD (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Americans for Prosperity is already throughout the article, fairly stable by tpm standards, in the origins section, early protests, first national protests, membership, and demographics. FreedomWorks is already in the article in the agenda section, membership, and leadership. Of all the content and reliable source references our fellow editor deleted in his recent section blanking, I think we can afford the simple fact of background context that these two organizations were once one. They are not completely independent events. This is a relationship beyond sharing some staff. I know all will support going beyond "implicit" to state facts. The 1st of the 2 refs above refers to AFP and FW as "sister organizations" and among the top 3 leaders. If the Williams sisters both finished in the top 3 in a tourney you would expect mention that they are sisters. Hugh (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul is too heavy in the lede
The lede currently has three paragraphs, one of which is primarily about Ron Paul. The lede has 12 sentences, 4 of which refer to Ron Paul. The body of the article is not 1/3 about Ron Paul. The lede offers one origin myth, Paul did it, while the body offers a more nuanced and complex origin story. WP:LEDE Hugh (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; except the dominant story in the article does not (IMO) reflect the mainstream report that conservative organizations associated with Koch (although most conservative organizations are associated with Koch) helped finance, and probably coordinate, multiple grassroots organizations. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * tea party has been used for decades as a slogan for events, only recently, dec 16, 2007 has it become popular in mainstream culture, therefore the rs are correct, Ron Paul is the origin of the current movement, no Koch required. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The use of revolutionary symbols has been a recurring feature of populist movements throughout U.S. history. The fact that Paul used in 2007-2008 and the Tea Party movement 2009-date both used revolutionary symbols does not mean that one is a continuation of the other.  TFD (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul started the tea party, even he said so himself in 2007. The tea party grew apart and more divided in 2009.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Clean up of background
There is extraneous material in background unrelated to the Tea Party movement (ie internal organizational changes of organizations that 7-10 years later became important around TPm). I have removed it. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Balance?
It seems to me this article has been mainly edited by Tea Party supporters, and there is little or no objectivity. For instance, the "IRS Scandal" sun section fails to mention that liberal groups were equally scrutinized. Wouldn't it be helpful and appropriate, also, to mention that some of the candidates who identify as Tea Party - or who have been so identified by the media - have made statements, or hold beliefs, that can be interpreted as violent, inflammatory, or, well, stupid? I'm thinking of Joni Ernst saying she would use a gun on officials trying to enforce laws she didn't like, Sharon Engle's "2nd amendment solutions", Steve King's idea that immigrant children are drug mules, and Louie Gohmert (among others). I would be happy to undertake this if it's agreed there's a need. Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the articles I've read mentioned that liberal groups were equally scrutinized; if I recall correctly, the key words used were "Tea Party" and "Patriot". If you can find a source for that, it might be appropriate to remove the section.
 * I don't think that "one-off" comments by people associated with the Tea Party should be listed, unless notable and have significant coverage. Significant coverage should be required for any controversial quote, both for the fact, and for its importance.
 * My impression is that the article is principally edited by Koch-haters. But, if we both think it's biased, perhaps it might be WP:NPOV, after all.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But liberal groups were NOT equally scrutinized by the IRS, and liberal groups got tax-exempt status approved mostly with astonishing rapidity. The IRS scandal was an astounding example of partisan manipulation of a purportedly non-partisan agency.  Nixon faced impeachment for attempting to abuse the IRS, but this IRS actually admitted targeting Tea Party groups for special scrutiny.  And the IRS then said the relevant email was missing, then didn't even ask for the tape backups which the IG discovered quickly in West Va.  This article needs to be rewritten to take account of these points because the mainstream media still mostly consists of Obama sycophants who have never explored these important issues.  As written, the article isn't outright awful but it could stand a whole lot of supplementation and improvement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is one story from a major news source. It says: "The bottom line: Contrary to his assertions in countless appearances on Fox News, there's no evidence that the Obama White House directed -- or indeed was involved in any way -- in the supposed targeting of conservative nonprofit groups for special scrutiny by the IRS. There's no evidence that "tea party" groups were exclusively targeted, as opposed to tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations from across the political spectrum.....As it turned out, the agency also looked for liberal code words like 'progressive.'.....No tea party groups were denied approval. In fact, only one c-4 organization lost its tax exemption because of this scrutiny -- the progressive group Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office." I agree that "one off" comments are mere anecdotes. But if there is a pattern, or if the comments reflect policy directions, then I think they belong.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that high officials, either in the Administration, or in the IRS, were involved, except that the review occurred in many IRS centers.  There may have been other types of enhanced scrutiny of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) group applications, but there was specific investigation of groups with "Tea Party" and "patriot" (associated with conservative causes), as well as "progressive", "occupy" (associated with liberal causes) in their names.  (I don't know why liberals don't call themselves "patriots", but they don't.)  (Also, I don't think any group associated with the "occupy" movement should be tax-exempt; they are, at best, trespassers, and possibly vandals.  But the "occupy movement" is specifically unorganized, so any group which has sufficient organization to file for 501(c)(4) status probably isn't part of it, anyway.)  However, our article 2013 IRS controversy notes that organizations opposed to "ObamaCare" were targeted, and opposing a law (as opposed to supporting or opposing politicians) is a specifically allowed activity for a 501(c)(4).
 * In regard this specific investigation, no groups were (known to be) denied approval; approval was deferred, pending information that was almost certainly illegal for the IRS to request.
 * This was a real investigation of "Tea Party" organizations, possibly organized by an assistant director of charitable organization oversight at the IRS. As this article is on the "Tea Party" movement, it seems relevant, although possibly overweighted.  (We might mention here the Congressman quoting an anonymous IRS source saying it wasn't directed against conservative organizations, but I don't really consider that a reliable statement of what the IRS person said.  I'm not sure it's appropriate there, either.)
 * As for notable comments by Tea Party movement "members", I think we would need a more-or-less unbiased reliable source stating that they represent the policy of the movement, in order to include the quotes. I seem to be in the minority in requesting evidence that the person making the statement is a "leader" in the Tea Party, or that the statement is representative of the Tea Party, in order for it to be relevant here.  I haven't checked lately, but for quite a while, there were allegedly racist statements made by a local (I believe something on the order of a metropolitan area in the South) TP leader, but not confirmed except by "liberals" in the crowd.  No media persons heard the comment, nor were any recordings made.  The local TP organization which the person belonged to denied that the statement represented the view of the organization, and the person himself was apparently not heard from again.  That marginally notable person X says that he heard marginally notable Tea Party person Y say something inappropriate seems to me to fall under WP:GOSSIP.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Now I'm wondering what passes for accuracy around here. House committee (led by Issa, pretty much a Tea Party guy) - above. Senate sub-committee - here. FBI conclusions - here. I understand it is a facet of the Tea Party self-identity to believe it is singled out and persecuted, but that doesn't mean that a specific incidence of persecution has to be included if all the evidence is that that incident never happened.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That "tea party" is on the list of key terms, even in the FBI report, makes it (at least marginally) important to this article.  As for your specific comments:  Issa is pretty much mainstream Republican; not Tea Party material at all.  If the IRS were targeting conservative groups, the Democrat-run Senate sub-committee would have denied it.  And the Forbes "article" is a reprint of a blog post.  I like "taxgirl", but she's not a reporter.  I'm sure you can do better than that.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I get it: no matter how many sources report on the matter, if they do not agree with the Tea Party mythology, they are wrong or undependable. However, I think there is enough to change the article. Something like "In 2013, it became known that Tea Party and progressive groups were 'tagged' by the IRS. No Tea Party groups were ever penalized as a result." That would be accurate, wouldn't it?--Daveler16 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not provable that "no Tea Party groups were (ever) penalized as a result." Some applications for 501(c)(4) status were suspended.  If they would have been processed absent this IRS "witch-hunt" (applying to groups with liberal, conservative, and some non-partizan politcal views), the statement is incorrect.  It would be correct, but misleading, to say that no applications by Tea Party groups were denied.  Some existing groups were asked for their membership list; as that was an illegal request in many cases, it would be incorrect to say that those groups were not "penalized", even if the investigations were stopped.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed, penalized might not be the best term, maybe hindered, or obstructed? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems overly long and is not clear whether the groups were targeted for ideological reasons or if the IRS officials believed that organizations with Tea Party sounding names were being used to funnel money to political campaigns. TFD (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear what was going on. An anonymous IRS manager reported that he (or she) instituted the audit to protect the integrity of the process, although I cannot understand the reasoning.  In terms of weight, it may only deserve one or two sentences, but, to say it that briefly, these questions would not be adequately explained.  Personally, I think the section in this article should be drastically trimmed, but, as I'm considered a Tea Party supporter, I don't think I should do it, myself.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away on other things. I could do the trimming. What do people consider essential to retain?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I read that sub-section again, it seems to be it is far from a NPOV and is chock full of what looks like OR. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I assume that no response (in 24 days) to my offer to re-write the IRS sub section is tacit agreement that I cshould do so? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn't so assume. Why don't you put your proposed edits here for discussion so all can see and agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This topic was started by me to discuss this. However, I'll be glad to share work and ideas here before  editing the actual page. Not today, though. :-)--Daveler16 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done a draft of the IRS subsection in my Sandbox, [|here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Made the change. You will see that it begins and ends with Tea Party grievances and perceptions. I merely added some facts that indicate the TP was not singled out for persecution, - but still say it was among the groups that were flagged. I hope you feel this is a more balanced and objective sub section now. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of what you added are opinions, rather than "facts", and all of the sources are left-wing. Particularly egregious additions include the statement that no "conservative" groups were "penalized"; and the question of which groups were "correctly" investigated is based on an opinion as to what is correct; and that opinion is not by an expert.  Please move slower.  I believe some of what you took out is inappropriate on Wikipedia, but much of what you added is inappropriate, some amounting to WP:BLP violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I guess not "much" of the additions were absurd. I removed a few sentences which appear to be non-expert opinions (or not in the source at all), and tagged two sources for a reliability check.  One is a blog from a Forbes contributor, and the other is a "column" (not an "article") in the Los Angeles Times.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You apparently didn't believe my comment on "taxgirl" last month. She qualifies as a tax expert, but not necessarily an expert on investigative techniques.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "move slower" While we are requesting of our fellow editors to move slower, might you consider, next time you go to delete an NPR ref and content with an edit summary of "liberal source," could you please not bury it in a larger edit? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The NPR source was used only for material which requires an expert, and none was provided in the original sourced text. TIGTA would qualify, if actually in the NPR report.  However, TIGTA didn't actually say that.  It/he said 82% had some indication of political activity; it's the non-expert NPR commentator who seemed to say that that is the relevant concept.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been studying the IG's report, it is a tough slog and I can't figure out how NPR got the 82%. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I went through the report, and could not find any reported correlation between "conservative" and "warranting further review" (or the less relevant "having evidence of political activities", as reported in the article.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh come now - this whole section (perhaps the whole article) is opinion, written from the Tea Party perspective. The findings of the committees are are authoritative opinions' that the committees investigating the matter reached those opinions is fact, and that is what I inserted into the article. Also, if NPR is "left leaning" (that's an opinion, isn't it, rather than a fact?), wouldn't it be adviseable for for someone to edit out all "right leaning" sources? BTW, the LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune group, and the Trib is a long establish Republican paper; and I'm not surew how left leaning the FBI is these days. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The opinions of the House and Senate committees are incompatible, but both deserve mention. The FBI report deserves prominent mention, but they only said nothing illegal was provable, not that nothing improper (or even subjecting the government to civil liability) was done.  And whether the LA Times is left-wing or right-wing, the source was a column, not an article, so the question would be the bias and reliability of the author.  Similarly, the NPR article misquotes TIGTA, so should be used with extreme caution.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but remember you guys established these rules. First, NPR is already quoted numerous times on the page; since it is "biased", all those statements should be removed. Second, I have so far gone through just the first column of footnotes (through #137). Since no one wants a reference here that someone might perceive as "left leaning", it is reasonable to assume that no one wants a reference here that that may be perceived as "right leaning". This is because we all want a NPV, as opposed to, say, a Tea Party apologia. Right? So I propose that all statments in the article supported by the following references be removed (remember, this is less than half of all the references, and I'm including only the ones that are demonstrably right leaning - not daily newspapers thst might be so): Forbes, Reason, Cato Institute, all Examiner Newspapers between 2004-2011, Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, teapartypatriots.com, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Citizens for a Sound Economy, LewRockwell.com, American Spectator, Newsmax, Tax Day Tea Party (#116), TCU Nation, Redistributing Knowledge.com, Michelle Malkin.com. So: either NPR, the LA Times etc can be used as I used them; or, all of the above have to go. You can't have it both ways and still pretend this is a neutral article. Thanks for taking the time to read this. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for using "left-leaning" (or "right-leaning") as a reason for exclusion; only if the bias is so extreme that the accuracy is questioned, or for opinions without attribution, would there be a problem. The NPR article significantly differs from the TIGTA source they claim to be quoted, and the LA Times reference appears to be sourcing opinions from a column.  (The bias (and reliability) of the Times is hence irrelevant; the bias and reliability of the specific columnist is in question, and the material might be used with attribution to the columnist if he is notable.  That he is published in the Times might be an indication of notability.)  I have already objected to use of a blog post hosted at Forbes, without checking for bias.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Dave. Of course most people recognize NPR as a legit WP RS in general. Art even, tho he may not admit it to us. Of course we know you are not planning to delete refs and section blank, because we all know sources need not be neutral. But help me out here. Here's what I think is the content under discussion:

"According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, 82% of the conservative groups flagged for extra scrutiny by the IRS had some political activity."

If true this certainly seems noteworthy since it suggests the targeted returns might have been reviewed anyway. The NPR source appears to be citing a TIGTA report which also seems to be available online. I can't find the 82%. I thought, ok, the NPR reporter or the WP editor who originally added this content is summarizing across some lower level detail from a chart or figure, which we are allowed to do, summarizing is not OR, but still I can't figure out where the 82% comes from. Can you help? It may be the NPR reporter had interviews not cited in the NPR piece, but it sure reads like the source for the NPR piece is the TIGTA report. Maybe we should not be questioning the NPR reporter's sources, do you think we should we give NPR the benefit of the doubt and take it as written? I have no problem with the sources, I could support an alternative summary of the same sources, propose one if you like. Hugh (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two assertions in the NPR article; that 82% of the conservative organizations had signs of political activity, and that (therefore) they should have been investigated. Neither assertion nor the implication is/are in that TIGTA report, and (although synthesis on our part), the 82% figure is inconsistent with the actual percentage of all tagged organizations which TIGTA found had some evidence of political activity.  I think that casts enough doubt on the NPR report that we, at least, need to attribute it to NPR rather than TIGTA.  I think that it should be removed entirely, because "should" makes it an opinion, which would cause the NPR bias to be something that needs to be considered, but the attribution clearly needs to be NPR or the specific NPR reporter, rather than TIGTA.  Perhaps the section should be drastically pruned, leaving only the facts that (1) the initial reports were that conservative organizations were targeted, (2) further investigation found that some liberal organizations were targeted, (3) the IRS agrees that what they did was wrong.  As far as I can tell, all the other information requires enough text for clarification that it would make the section undue weight.  Even Ron Paul's statement requires the disputed context that Ron Paul "founded" the TPM to make it relevant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "although synthesis on our part), the 82% figure" We agree we are both concerned about the above particular content, the 82% figure, from these particular sources. The 82% figure is not synthesis on our part. The above content is a reasonable paraphrase of a source, NPR. The 82% may or may not be synthesis on the part of NPR, but if it is it's not on us. We are not allowed to synthesize but the authors of our sources are. I think the noteworthiness of the content is that the 82% figure seems to suggest the returns WOULD have gotten additional attention even had there been no targeting, not sure how you bring "should" into this. I think we should do what we have to to be clear before we commit to some number of sentences. We are asked to provide context. Hugh (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that the returns WOULD have gotten additional attention is the reporter's opinion, and would need to be attributed as such. It's possible that the 82% number did come from TIGTA, but it is clearlt incompatible with the official report, and so should be treated carefully.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The tea party has been used for decades as a slogan for events, but ron paul is who started the catalyst for the CURRENT movementCatsmeow8989 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul said he started it in 2007, which he did. The tea party became divided in 2009 and grew bigger.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Foreign policy
This part is a bit to subjective - The tea party prefers "total war" over "limited wars for limited goals"? Really? Just because one historian said so? I'm sorry, but that's like saying that the Israelis or the Palestinians are 100% right about all their arguments because one historian said so. It's simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.62.116 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tea Party movement
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tea Party movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Krugman":<ul> <li>From Rick Santelli: </li> <li>From Presidency of George W. Bush: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent major edits including deletions from the lede
Thank you for your recent contributions. I agree this article needs work, and then the lede. Deleting content from the lede of an article with edit summaries such as "already stated in the section" and "don't need to say this twice because it's already stated in full during the article" suggest a possible misunderstanding of WP:LEDE. The lede summarizes the body, so some repetitiveness is normal. Also, I notice that your deletions from the lede removed from the lede the summarization of the content from the body supporting the significant point of view on the spread of the wider Tea Party movement as in part a reaction to the election of Obama. Also, before deleting sources we are asked to consider alternative summarizations of the source or look for other relevant content from that source. Hugh (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hugh! Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't mean to delete the idea that supported the POV that the Tea Party was a reaction to Obama's election. I actually tried to add that the introduction I thought by writing a historical summary paragraph that says that the movement emerged in the first few weeks after he was sworn into office. If you think there's a better way to say that please feel free to re-work it. I agree that the article needs work but I think leaving the lede the way it was basically worse than doing nothing. I'm happy to work on doing more editing though throughout the article. It's a very interesting topic.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your interest. It is a challenging subject for a WP article because the subject does not have a strict definition, and does not have a consensus start date or origin story. It is a case study in our ability as a community to fairly representing all significant points of views in reliable sources. I see your point that the lede is so deficient it is almost impossible to make it worse. Hugh (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hiltzik
Two reasons why that source does not reliably support that text.


 * 1) It's a column, not a traditional article.  Columnists are allowed more leeway on opinions than authors of traditional "news" articles.
 * 2) Hiltzik specifically says "The evidence set forth in the report", not "the report". There is a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because a source comes from a columnist does not make it unreliable. It is a secondary source, which are widely preferred on Wikipedia. And it's also a column on the Los Angeles Times, which does, of course, have fact-checking editors. And he isn't giving an opinion, he's giving a factual analysis of the evidence. I've changed the text to "Evidence put forth in the House report", per the source. Given this, I don't see any other reasons why the source doesn't support the text. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion
The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Arbitration/Requests/Motions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
This (not mentioned in the body) tag is in regard to a statement in the lead..."The original Tea Party protesters demonstrated against taxation by the British without political representation for the American colonists, and references to the Boston Tea Party occurred in Tax Day protests held in the 1990s and before." Darknipples (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IRS
Added the news from this weekend that the DOJ will file no crimina charges, with a quote from the DOJ. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Heroin sales
We also need to mention the fact that the Tea Party is selling heroin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MessengerOfLove (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Got any real, reliable sources? DaltonCastle (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect facts in introduction?
ron paul is what started the catalyst for the CURRENT movement. He said he started it in 2007, which he did. The tea party became divided in 2009 and grew bigger.


 * Yes there does need to be some work done on this lead. The organization was not created to combat an Obama spending plan, it was formed due to dissatisfaction with alleged frivolous government spending and lack of oversight. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It still says, in the introduction, that the movement began in 2009 with rick santelii, this is incorrect Ron Paul started the movement in 2007, both liberal and conservatives agree.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Reliable sources agree that the Tea Party movement (the subject of this article) began in early 2009, with most sources citing a televised rant from the floor of the Stock Exchange as the catalyst.  Paul's "money bomb" fundraiser for his presidential run was called a "Boston Tea Party", and was held on the anniversary of the Tea Party, and a previous fund raiser was held on Guy Fawkes day, but these were not part of this Tea Party movement.  According to his supporters, their movement to get him elected as president was called the "Ron Paul Revolution". Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the Huntington post acknowledges ron paul started it and sarah palin created a divide within the movement. For instance it says on the huffington post: "There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message." Catsmeow8989 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read that more closely. First, that's not a Huffington Post news piece; it's an opinion editorial from a blogger, not a journalist. Second, that blogger claims the Paulies staged a "Tea Party" (which they did), not start the Tea Party movement. If you are going to cite blogger opinions now, here is another:
 * Ron Paul is Not the Founder of the Tea Party (by an original Tea Party movement activist) Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the introduction should say this:
 * "The Tea Party movement was started by Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in 2007.       The movement grew exponentially following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give bailouts "Catsmeow8989 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That proposed lead violates several Wikipedia policies, including the use of non-reliable sources. You would need to provide reliable sources that actually explain that Ron Paul founded the Tea Party movement.  This Tea Party movement isn't a presidential campaign, or a "Tea Party" fundraiser event.  Your proposed lead doesn't convey what actual reliable sources say:
 * Celebrated by Fox News and urged on by national free-market advocacy groups, Tea Partiers like the ones we have just glimpsed in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Arizona burst onto the national scene, starting in early 2009, just weeks into the Obama presidency. Skocpol, Theda; Williamson, Vanessa. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (Oxford University Press; 2012) Pg. 5
 * When the Tea Party burst onto the scene in 2009, I remember vividly thinking, "Wow. This could be a great opportunity." With Santelli's simple, frank comments, the Tea Party movement was officially born.  Fewer than two months after Santelli's statements, on tax day in 2009, hundreds of thousands of Americans attended the first official "tea parties" across the country ...  Foley, Elizabeth Price. The Tea Party: Three Principles (Cambridge University Press; 2012) Pg. ix, 15
 * There is a reason why the lead of the article conveys information from academic researchers published by Cambridge and Oxford instead of opinions by a blogger on HuffPo or "Hairy C-word"'s personal YouTube channel. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The December 16, 2007 rally in Boston, on the anniversary on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, was accompanied by an Internet fundraising effort, called a “money bomb,” that raised more than $6 million in a single day. The rally helped set the stage for the Tea Party movement that became a national phenomenon in 2009 and 2010."
 * Reference: KENNY, J. READING ABOUT RON. New American (08856540). 28, 3, 31, Feb. 6, 2012. ISSN: 08856540. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsmeow8989 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one disagrees that the Paulies held a "money bomb" fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Ron Paul back in 2007. But that wasn't the Tea Party movement, which is what this article is about. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the orgin of the tea party. Ron Paul's tea party events were national events. Everything has a beginning. Ron Paul's ideas went beyond just him. Evidence of that is what happened after he stopped campaigning in 2008: his followers continued to spread the message of liberty and limited government without supporting him. THAT IS A MOVEMENT. Most tea party people today agree with Ron Paul's ideas. That is a measure of Paul's success in spreading his tea party message.Catsmeow8989 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've provided multiple sources both liberal and conservative to support my argument and you continue to say everything i say is wrong without giving back anything. Well that's bullsh*t and it's people like you who are destroying wikipedia. At the very least Ron Paul played a role in creating the leadup to the movement today, but you won't acknowledge even that. So my conclusion is that you aren't being fair. You are being biased. Catsmeow8989 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we're talking about the origin of the Tea Party movement. Yes, the supporters for Paul's presidential bid held national fundraisers on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party called Tea Parties. They also held identical fundraisers a month earlier on Guy Fawkes day. (OMG - Ron Paul is also the father of the Guy Fawkes movement!!!!) "His" ideas aren't his, or unique to him.  Sure he agrees with some of the same thing the Tea Party movement does, but disagrees with some as well (like foreign policy).  Our article already has the information on Paul's fundraisers and policy positions. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you are resorting to name calling? Very nice. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)