Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 5

Interesting article about composition of Tea Party Movement
Saw this today. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010  01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Related: - A record number of African-American candidates are running for Congress this year -  and they're running as Republicans. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

'Views of the movement' section heading
When I created the "Views of the movement" section I meant it in the sense of "how the movement is viewed". It's now clear to me that it's more likely to be read as "what the movement's views are", and in fact none of the quotes tell us what the movement's views are. So I'm changing the heading to "Commentaries on the movement". I don't really like that as a heading so if anybody can think of a better heading I'll be grateful. But it couldn't stay as it was. Scolaire (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what's the difference. If you try to answer "how the movement is viewed", by Wikipedia policy you must answer by citing reliable sources. That's why everything is in constant flux. I think that you believe we have access to some authority that will say pontifically "how the movement is viewed". We don't. So "Views of the movement", "how the movement is viewed", "what the movement's views are" and "Commentaries on the movement" all pretty much say the same thing. "Commentaries on the movement" is probably better for new readers who may think that Wikipedia has access to some overriding authority. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no. How you view me has nothing at all to do with what my views are.  You may agree or disagree with me, or think I express my views well or poorly, or even completely misunderstand me.  Similarly, this section does not tell us what the movement "thinks", as the former heading would suggest, but rather some quite general remarks about the movement from some people within it, and some people outside.  Hence the percieved ambiguity.  It's not a question of "authoritative source".  Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When did the movement become a movement?
A year ago, I don't think anyone called the Tea Parties a "movement". Even in late summer I don't think it was called a movement. But at some time the phrase "Tea Party movement" became commonplace. When was that? Did something trigger the change? It might be useful for us to document it. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 211.26.205.160, 9 April 2010
"The movement emerged in early 2008 [2], partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[3][4]" er what are they, fortune tellers? re-word the sentence to make it make sense. e.g. "The movement emerged in early 2008, partially in response to the 2008 Bailouts, and later gained momentum as a result of the 2009 stimulus package."

211.26.205.160 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Twas done before I got here. diff  Chzz  ►  07:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

✅

I'm surprised the opening doesn't say "racist populist teabagger" movement
Not that I think it should, but there are numerous other factual errors (the tea party movement started in 200*8* not 2009) so why not include this factual error too? 205.175.225.22 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to ignore that possibly inflammatory and unnecessary new section heading, and say to our IP (205.....), firstly, you seem to want to make serious contributions here, so please register. It makes it much easier to have a meaningful conversation. Secondly, the question above was about when it became a movement (rather than just a bunch of meetings, I presume). The reference you added, while appearing to be a very useful one, doesn't mention the word movement. I think the question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Is there a correlation between that one protest and the movement or did they both pick a historically relevant and catchy name? That source provided is not acceptable for Wikipedia as far as I can tell (it looks like a blog) but googling some keywords from it might show if it is connected with a decent source.Cptnono (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've lost count of how many times someone has come along and tried to insert additional information about how Ron Paul started the "Tea Party movement". The cite mentioned here, however, says nothing of the sort. There is a mention in the article 1) of Paul and how he used the "Tea Party" imagery for his political campaign to become president and 2) their claim that they started it, but no independent RS that says "Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement in 2008". That's why it says 2009.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cptnono, what source are you talking about? Agree, Ron Paul didn't start the tea party movement.  Ron Paul was probably more tapping into the FEDUp protests.  People from the FEDUp movement are in the tea party movement now.  Some of them have said it was because this covered more than just the Fed's policies, etc.  But I don't see anything called tea party movement before 2009. Malke  2010  21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally joined the Tea Party in December 2008, because I was angry that Bush signed the Tarp Bailout bill. Therefore claims that it "began in 2009" are simply wrong.  It began sometime prior to 2009.  Thanks. :-)    Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been through this a million times. While Ron Paul and others held "Tea Party" protests prior to 2009, the current movement did not begin until 2009, when issues of the bailouts, stimulus, and health reform came to the fore.  Earlier stuff is mentioned in the history section.  Therefore, I'm reverting the changes to the lead.  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from CSJscience, 9 April 2010
Hi the part that says the Tea Party is "anti-health reform" is inaccurate. They are against Obama's version of federal insurance mandates, not against health care reform.

Also the referenced article related to that statement is not a "reliable resource".

CSJscience (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tea Party members agree that healthcare is a right. When you get sick, you have the "right" to visit the doctor, and he does his professional duty to heal you.  Where we disagree is how the Bill should be paid.  -  We don't think you have a "right" to suck money from your neighbors' wallets, in order to pay your private bills (whether it's your doctor bill, cable bill, rent, or other).   We consider that theft of the neighbors' labor.  -  However we do support safety nets (welfare, food stamps) for the homeless, hungry, et cetera.    Theaveng (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really a universal view of all Tea Party members? If so, it makes the Tea Party extreme or fringe by the standards of most other "advanced" nations, where sharing the costs of health care is almost universal. (I say this as a non-American, to clarify the situation, not to score any political point.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we shouldn't be discussing this. There's no point. Find reliable sources and make changes if necessary. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No more extreme than if I said I shouldn't have to pay the Bill for your new car, or your new boat, or your new storage shed. You have the right to buy these things, but Not the right to suck the money from your neighbors' wallets to pay the bill.    Theaveng (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ease up on the emotional language please. We're only talking health. I agree that buying a new car, boat or storage shed or having cable TV, is not a right in most places. I wouldn't expect it to be. But getting health care without the threat of bankruptcy is. And for those arguing that this is not a forum, with the intention of somehow stopping this discussion, I'm not expressing a POV here, I'm stating facts. Facts, which to me as a non-American, seem highly relevant. What happens in the USA should, at least sometimes, be seen in the context of what happens elsewhere in the world. I haven't yet chased up sources on this, but it wouldn't be too difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

not a forum
Given a few of the threads above, please keep in mind, this talk page is not a forum for unsourced opinions or posts about the Tea Party movement. Rather, it is meant as a means for talking about ways to make the article more helpful to readers. Hence, posts here should deal with what are taken on en.Wikipedia as reliable sources and how to echo them in the article text. Since all article text must at least be verifiable, please don't post unsourced opinions or thoughts on this talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 2010 Tea Party Candidates
Here's a list of current 2010 Tea Party candidates (as of March 20th, 2010). The wiki page should have a section on them, or a new page should be created.

Adam Kokesh - New Mexico (Congress) http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/ Bill Hunt - Orange County, California (Sheriff) http://billhuntforsheriff.com/ Bill Connor - South Carolina (Governor) http://www.voteconnor.com/ BJ Lawson - North Carolina (Congress) http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/ Carl Bruning - Colorado (Larimer County Sheriff) http://carlbruning.com/ Chelene Nightingale - California (Governor) http://nightingaleforgovernor.com/ Chris Simcox - Arizona (Senate) https://www.simcoxforsenate.com/ David Hedrick - Washington (Congress) http://www.davidwhedrick.com/ David Ratowitz - Illinois (Congress) http://www.ratowitzforcongress.com/ Debra Medina - Texas (Governor) http://www.medinafortexas.com/ Dennis Steele - Vermont (Governor) http://www.governorsteele.com/ Glen Bradley - North Carolina (State House) http://glenbradley.net/

Heidi Munson - Washington (State Representative)

http://www.munson2010.com/index.htm Jake Towne - Pennsylvania (Congress) http://towneforcongress.com/ Jaynee Germond - Oregon (Congress) http://www.germond2010.com/

Jim Deakin - Arizona (Senate) GET RID OF JOHN McCAIN!!!

http://jimdeakin.com/ Jim Forsythe - New Hampshire (State Senate) http://www.jimforsythe.com/

Joe Walsh - Illinois (Congress)

http://walshforcongress.com/

John Dennis - California (Congress) http://www.johndennis2010.com/ Justin Amash - Michigan (Congress) http://amashforcongress.com/ Mike Beitler - North Carolina (Senate) http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/ Mike Vasovski - South Carolina (Congress) http://vasovskiforcongress.com/

Patrick Henry Sellers - Pennsylvania (Congress)

http://www.patsellers.org/

Patrick Ziegler - New York (Congress)

http://www.ziegler2010.com/ Paul Lambert - Alabama (Congress) http://www.southtek.com/votelambert2/ Peter Schiff - Connecticut (Senate) http://schiffforsenate.com/ Rand Paul - Kentucky (Senate) http://www.randpaul2010.com/ Randy Brogdon - Oklahoma (Governor) http://www.randybrogdon.com/ Ray McBerry - Georgia (Governor) http://georgiafirst.org/governor/enter.shtml RJ Harris - Oklahoma (Congress) http://www.rjharris2010.com/ Robert Broadus - Maryland (Congress) http://www.darkenergypolitics.com/ Robert Lowry - Texas (Congress) http://lowryforcongress.com/ Ron Paul - Texas (Congress) http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/ Valerie Meyers - Georgia (Congress) http://www.valerieforcongress.com/ Van Irion - Tennessee (Congress) http://www.van4congress.org/

Source :

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/tea-party-candidates-2010?commentId=2490084%3AComment%3A192802&xg_source=activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.64.72 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, we need better coverage of the movement's political endorsements and influence. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These candidates "support limited government, limited spending, personal liberty, and lower taxes. These individuals represent conservative principals. No Liberal-leaning Neo-Cons or RINO's will be found on this list. And certainly no fake Tea-O-Cons like Sarah Palin!". This according to one man called "Jason" of Franklin Square, NY. He doesn't even give his last name!


 * I May Be Wrong but I strongly doubt if this lone individual is what we at Wikipedia would call a reliable source. Even backed by an outfit called Rebuild the Party -- "A network of grassroots activists shaping the future of the Republican party". Anybody ever heard of them before?


 * I agree we may be able to use this list as a starting point. But who's to judge "the movement's political endorsements" since the movement as a whole has no overarching organizers? (See Tea Party movement.) Even if the candidate's website claims to be endorsed or infulenced by Tea Partiers, what does that actually mean? Again, we need a reliable source who has done the analysis. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Supporting the idea, not the sourcing. Here are some better citations:
 * Opposing Harry Reid
 * Support for Rand Paul
 * Support for Sam Rohrer
 * Support for Debra Medina
 * Support for Carl Paladino
 * John McCain and J.D. Hayworth both courting Tea Party
 * More generally, pushing republicans right
 * MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations from Bloggers are not valid citations
I have twice removed a reference that came from a Blogger (a person like you or me), but it keeps getting put back. PER WIKI RULES citations from bloggers are not allowed. If you want to find an alternate citation, from an actual professional reporter, that would be okay. Theaveng (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS News is not a blog. And if you remove it again, you will be in violation of your 1RR restriction. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I support TheRealFennShysa.


 * Theaveng, CBS News' "blogs" are really articles by CBS News reporters. (See "Political Hotsheet: Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.") This source is not a personal blog and Spencer Magloff is not what's usually considered a blogger. (Theaveng, just out of curiousity, could you direct me to the policy or guideline that states that "citations from bloggers are not allowed"?)


 * TheRealFennShysa, you have cited the phrase "anti-bailout" for your reference. Magloff does not mention bailouts in his piece. Instead Reichert was at an anti-health care reform rally. And the article was really about Reichert apoligizing for his attack on a man with Parkinson's, not the protest itself. Because of this, you might consider removing your citation or finding a better one that deals with bailouts. Just a suggestion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
This is an excellent article. Kudos to the editors. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiscal Conservatives?
What is the definition of "fiscal conservative"?

According to Wikipedia: Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other classical liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

The tea party movement has shown by it's actions that it is anti-government, NOT fiscally conservative. A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it, not leave the status quo, which would cause taxpayers to shell out billions and would ultimately bankrupt the country. They would also want to reorganize other areas of government to save money. What do they propose and where are their numbers to back it up? This movement seeks to cripple the government, has no solutions to anything, and tries to intimidate duly elected members of congress and promote hate and fear with their "this time we came unarmed" bulls**t. Wiki should not allow them to adopt terms that do not apply, if you want to change it to "self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives" that would at least be more accurate. --Nanmwls (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When something is bad, is every reform an improvement or is it possible that some reforms will just make a bad situation worse? I know that some/many Tea Partiers favor reform - just a different reform that they think will make things better instead of this reform that they think will make things worse. That's just something for you to think about because all of this is idle speculation or WP:Original research. There are many WP:Reliable sources that label the TPers as fiscal conservative. Whether you or I agree is irrelevant - we go with what the sources say.


 * And here is a RS that is on topic: A new poll found that:
 * Tea Party activists may be ardent supporters of economic conservatism but are similar to the overall electorate when it comes to economic priorities
 * 17% of the people polled considered themselves “part of the Tea Party movement” and more than four in ten Tea Party members said they were either Independents or Democrats.
 * Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal
 * Tea Party activists espouse a strong economic conservatism.
 * Tea Party activists’ top concern – economy and jobs — mirrors the majority of voters in the country.
 * they value economically conservative policies because they view them as a means to reducing unemployment and improving the economy.
 * Sbowers3 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A protest movement is by definition (more-or-less) one that does not offer solutions but addresses the problems. Can't we agree that, as of right now, the Tea Party movement is primarily about protests and so, if the article addresses solutions, it should be made clear that those solutions are only held by a minority of TP participants? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it," Someone's been drinking the Koolaid. Tea Party is just as much for reform as everyone else, specifically Tout reform(the ability of judges to throw out frivolous law suits which currently add significantly to the price of healthcare) as well as interstate competition of health insurance companies. The Obama administration has stated that they have a moral agenda to provide more healthcare to more people which is at the core of their Bill, and that is what the Tea Party is against, giving healthcare to millions more people during poor economic times when we can't afford it. Their not against reform of the current system. Wise up. 169.231.22.185 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to debate without all the personal attacks? Just because Obama feels a moral obligation doesn't mean his policy isn't fiscally responsible. In addition tort reform is a small part of the problem which should also be addressed and any bill presented to congress will be considered, that's the way democracy works, not everybody will be happy.  The Bush administration practically desimated the US and you didn't hear members of congress encouraging violence from a balcony or a pulpet!  Healthcare passed in the House and the Senate. If there is fine-tuning that will make it better, cost less, etc., the tea partiers should go ahead and get their congressman to submit it.  Disrespecting our President, who was voted for OVERWHELMINGLY and whose policy included not only health insurance reform, but single-payer healthcare, especially with the violent overtones is UNAMERICAN and TREASONOUS!  Healthcare has been talked about for over 50 years and has been the cornerstone of both Republican and Democratic Presidents.  The tea party movement has overshadowed any real policy changes they have because of their mob mentality.  Those are the facts. --Nanmwls (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Runnin a record deficit is not fiscally responsible. Nothing in Obama's reform will save money in the long term. username: not_a_moron 0437 april 20 2010

This is not a forum for general discussion of fiscal conservatism, health care reform, or any other subject that Tea Partiers support or oppose. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a forum, and perhaps that discussion went a little too far, but I often think such discussions are quite valuable. While they obviously cannot be used as sources, the comments of those editors in fact highlight the difficulties of documenting such issues. In rapidly evolving movements like this, the real goals cannot be simply defined. They commence as opportunities for people with all sorts of beefs with the government to gather, feeling they are among people thinking the same as they do, Later, the movement will be forced to more clearly define itself. Right now, we have to be very careful saying "The Tea Party stands for X". Some of its members might, but chances are some of them don't. The discussion above is a warning to us to not try to suggest that the goals of the movement are 100% clear at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for getting off topic a little. HiLo48 thank you for explaining my original point, I couldn't have done it better.--Nanmwls (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Five things to know about the tea party movement
From the Associated Press: Sbowers3 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. THERE ISN'T ONE ACTUAL "TEA PARTY," AND THERE MIGHT NEVER BE
 * 2. DEMOCRATS THEY ARE NOT, AND TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS ARE HARDLY HAPPY WITH REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS
 * 3. THE TEA PARTY DOESN'T HAVE A LEADER — AND THAT'S JUST FINE
 * 4. TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS HAVE NO DEFINING ISSUE
 * 5. THE TEA PARTY IS AMPLIFYING VOTER ANGER BUT ISN'T A UNIVERSAL PRESENCE
 * Yep. Malke  2010  01:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that fourth point. I think that concern over the size and scope of the federal government - and its level of debt - is very much a defining issue. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion polls
It appears that this Gallup poll is next in line for the ballooning sub-section. As it stands, we have polls from
 * Rassmussen
 * WSJ/NBC
 * Fox News
 * CBS/NYT
 * CNN
 * Bloomberg
 * Quinnipiac


 * For the Gallup poll, are we going to mock the list format used to present the CNN and Quinnipiac polls?.. Wouldn't it be overkill?
 * In what order should they appear?.. Date?.. Prominence?.. Personal favorites?
 * Should we cut some of them down to size?.. Remove older ones as the movement has progressed and demographics changed?

So many questions. When do we concede that these polls are taking over the article and attempt to summarize them in a NPOV way? †TE†  Talk  21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Polls are fleeting and easy to warp. Hence their encyclopedic worth is at best dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. It should be interesting to see how this plays out. †TE†   Talk  21:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If possible (that is, if verifiable in RSs), our subsection on Polls should reflect not the polls themselves, but the effect of the polls on the movement. Of course, you'd have to find an analytical piece, in say some Sunday supplement, that might say, for example "Because polls have been saying for the past few months that 25 to 35% of voters believe strongly in the goals of the Tea Parties, politicians, especially in the red states, have pushed their anti-tax positions far more than they did at this time in the previous election." (This is just an example.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have a polls section. I'll go along with whatever the majority want on this, but I think it's not relevant.  There are too many variables in polls for them to be included in an encyclopedia.  A poll would be useful in a situation that has a conclusion, like an election.  Then after the election, you could look back and gauge how accurate the polls were, etc.  But the Tea Party Movement is an ongoing thing, there's no end point, as yet anyway, so what is the point of these polls?  Where's the goal the poll is measuring? Malke  2010  15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Polls can be useful if carefully used. Up above, we've made obvious the difficulty of stating exactly what the Tea Party movement stands for. People with all sorts of objections to what the government and/or major parties stand for are coming along to Tea Party events. But these people themselves have very diverse views. The movement has very few 100% clear goals at the moment, apart from being against the government. A good poll can tell us more about the current spread of views within the movement. Individuals generally can't. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the next poll to consider (Gallup poll still not included). It looks like we all agree that these polls need to be summarized, and maybe we can include some additional detail on how they effect the movement and the perception thereof. The real question is... who wants to take this on? †TE†  Talk  23:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark williams?
Some news outlets (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/tea.party/index.html?hpt=T1) seem to associate Mark Williams as being some kind of "Tea Party Leader". Is there any truth to this? I was surprised he wasn't mentioned at all in this article, since his name comes up pretty often in association with the tea party. I would at least expect a brief mention, if nothing else, just debunking the idea that there is a single party with a single leader. Poobslag (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he's with the Tea Party Express. Maybe he founded that group. Malke  2010  22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a mention of Mark Williams to Tea Party Express. Feel free to change.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging?
Nobody has noticed that? I mean... really?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.105.49 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Social networking
I removed the bit about using Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Yes it's true, but this is 2010 and every organization has a Twitter and a blog. It definitely isn't important enough for the lead. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Positions and goals now in lead
I've moved the two-sentence section "Positions and goals" up to the lead section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the second sentence (about the auto bailout) belongs in the lead. I would vote to remove it.
 * Do you think that anti-healthcare-reform (with proper citations) should be added to anti-stimulus, anti-deficit and anti-bailout list?
 * If anyone wants to expand this paragraph back into a full section, I would suggest that you insert it after History. Most Wikipedia articles begin after the lead with History (where appropriate) before anything else. That is anything else except an Etymology section. Do you want to move the material about the name "Tea Party" to its own section right after the TOC?

To pick up on the Racist label......
As an Australian, I find a close parallel between the major appearance of Sarah Palin on the USA's political stage, closely followed by the Tea Party movement, and a lady called Pauline Hanson and the One Nation political party here. While obviously not identical, they tap into similar political sentiments.

What happened here was that, while they were not overtly racist (Hanson was pretty naive, IMHO), Hanson and One Nation (Australia) did attract the more racist voters. That is not to imply that all supporters were racist. Most probably were quite the opposite. But such movements do tend to attract the racists out there who are looking for a body that will oppose what they see as major parties being too liberal in these areas.

This leaves such bodies open to the racist tag from outsiders.

To sum up, my view is that the Tea Party movement is not explicitly racist, but it will attract racist voters.

It's a real image problem for such movements.

HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that the purpose of this talk page is not to talk about the Tea Party movement itself, but to talk about the Wikipedia article on it. CopaceticThought (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Section: "Reports of Inappropriate Behavior" not NPOV
The last section is hopelessly biased in my opinion. The section is named "Reports of inappropriate behavior" - Inappropriate Behavior being an euphemism for racism. There are many media reports clearly showing that the Tea Partiers are racist.
 * Racist image of Obama in tea-party emails: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing.php


 * McCain's daughter thinks that the Tea Partiers are racists: www.infowars.com/mccains-daughter-tea-party-movement-is-racist/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used


 * There is a video showing a Tea Partier with a Nazi Swastika: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gv3u2gkjVdgQg7_Uzkqk_WGMXPcwD9F29PSO0


 * Black conservatives too feel that they are racists: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040703402.html


 * A University of Washington Study shows that the Tea Party movement is racist: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html


 * The same study reveals attitudes of the Tea Partiers in comparison to middle-of-the-road person about race-related issues: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/teaparty_table.pdf


 * A picture of a Tea Partier with a racist message with the N-word in it: http://www.groundreport.com/includes/modules/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=01271017100_ARTICLE_IMAGE_DaleRobertsonTeabaggerjpg.jpg&w=640&h=480


 * Black Senator Cleaver were spitted and subject to racial taunts (even by white eyewitnesses): http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/spitting-and-slurs-directed-at-lawmakers/?src=twr


 * And many other newspaper reports and editorials:


 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-tea-party-movement-is_b_538750.html


 * http://www.groundreport.com/Opinion/Tea-Party-Racism/2921697


 * http://trueslant.com/saralibby/2010/03/21/tea-partys-racist-antics-are-anything-but-isolated/


 * 70.179.153.235 (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those might not be sourced to reliable sources, but some are. It is not accurate to flatly state, "the Tea Partiers are racist", but there may be significant enough reliably sourced information to explore the frequently heard allegations of a racist component. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that the unreliable sources be added as references. But reliable sources to back up the earlier statements that I've made may exist. Agreed, one cannot say that the "tea partiers are racist" but that "evidence of racial motives have been alleged by several independent sources".
 * 70.179.153.235 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was originally "Alleged racism and homophobia". That is what the section is about. "inappropriate" is confusing, vague (which could lead to massive expansion), dumbs down the accusations too much, and is not neutral.Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party Protests page contains nearly the same text as this paragraph, with the same heading: "Reports of inappropriate behavior". Yet on the protest page, there is a preface saying that the neutrality of that section is disputed. Shouldn't the same notice be included on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.111 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Erichemmen, 16 April 2010
the article refrences CNN and CBS polls about the composition of the TEA parties. I am a TEA party activist, and I do not see the makeup that they describe. yes, I am a white male, but I am not married or wealthy. i am 15 years of age. there were black men and women, asian men and women, latina men and women, as well as children. there were married couples but also single people. there were wealthy but also not so wealthy. the article implies that the TEA party is racist old white wealthy men. I have seen no racism at these Events except by LaRouche followers, who are not associated with the movement, merely trying to mooch off the political fervor within them. it is an unfair and biased depiction of the composition of the tea parties and I suggest that it be remarked on the page that the polls depicted are from stations who are generally bised against the movement because they oppose liberalism. look at which stations they are. MSNBC. CNBC. CNN. CBS. are any of those stations in favor of the movement? are any of them even unbiased? no. it is darn near impossible to remove bais, so i also suggest that a poll from Fox news be added to show the differing numbers based on bias. Erichemmen (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Erichemmen (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In defense of CNN, they have published articles defending the tea party, describing the diverse makeup of the tea party attendees ([]) It's entirely possible they conducted the poll in an attempt to discredit the stereotype. Poobslag (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The polls Erichemmen mentions are of people who claim to support the Tea Party, not people who attend the rallies. TFD (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
Bill Clinton has really kicked it off. Obviously when a former president draws parallels to some of the terrorism experienced during his terms, it meets notability standards. Any thoughts? MookieG (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Carender content
This editor keeps reverting and/or deleting my edits on the Keli Carender tea party. This edit is well cited and accurate. Happysomeone has repeatedly come back and deleted this material and added original research with a citation that did not support his edit at all. I engaged him on the talk page, but instead of working toward a reasonable compromise, he just came along and reverted the entire edit.

I would appreciate it if there could be a discussion about this section with a call for consensus about how to handle this in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Malke 2010  16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you engage the discussion above, instead of engaging in this? All I see is our discussion and consensus and your unsupported interventions.
 * I'd appreciate it if you backed away from this accusation, as it isn't accurate nor productive in my view.
 * If you've got a valid WP:EW complaint, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If not, then knock it off. You've been warned repeatedly about this unproductive behaviour before, I'm sad to say, and this appears to be a continuation of that.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Happysomeone, you are a disruptive editor. Your recent past behavior proves that beyond any doubt.  I've attempted to engage you several times on this edit and then today you come along, with no discussion, and just revert everything.  It's time for other editors to weigh in on this so we can move on to other concerns on this article.  If you would learn to compromise instead of abusing noticeboards to try and force your way, then this page would be a much happier place to edit. Malke  2010  17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discuss edits (i.e. content), not editors. This is not the place to talk about an editor's behavior. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this being discussed a couple sections above, here? Has consensus been reached? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to discuss this section, but Happysomeone came along and reverted everything without engaging in discussion or seeking any sort of compromise. Malke 2010  17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See my reply above--Happysomeone (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue?
Is there just one issue or more? Can someone present the two proposals for the issue(s)? Sbowers3 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See this section and the proposed history version in the sandbox.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Happysomeone is edit warring on the history section. Earlier, he repeatedly deleted/reverted a well sourced edit and replaced it with OR that was definitely not supported by the citation he gave.  So I opened up a section above and tried to engage him but today he went and reverted all of my edits.  I've opened this section right above so we can reach a consensus on whether or not to give Keli Carender her own heading with her paragraphs below.  Happysomeone is not cooperating in that effort. Malke  2010  18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sbowers: My original discussion to address Happysomeone's edits and subsequent warring is under, "Keli Carender, 2nd Tea Party." Malke  2010  18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons.


 * Could one or both of you please just humor a tired old man and show me the two wordings here so I don't have to wade through lots of Talk discussions or histories? And I don't seen any mention on this page of where the sandbox is; perhaps that got archived away. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Below here are three different versions of one subsection from History, apparently all entered on the talk page by Happysomeone. Please note that the section levels on this talk page are reversed. In order to preserve the heading level of the material from the article, the originator of this has chosen to put the version headings at a lower level than the actual text from the article.

Thus, in the TOC you'll see this: .1 What is the issue?
 * .1.1 Version 1.0

.2 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
 * .2.1 Version 1.2

.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
 * .3.1 Version 2

.4 Precursor protests in Fort Myers .5 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

when it actually should be more like this: .1 What is the issue? .2 Version 1.0
 * .2.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.3 Version 1.2
 * 3.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle

.4 Version 2
 * .4.1 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
 * .4.2 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger

Sorry for the interruption. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.0
''I'll call this "Roy Goldsmith's proposal", since he largely crafted this with input from others over the course of a few days (please also note hidden text he used to preserve proposed changes reserved for discussion). The small change I made to this section is what I suspect Malke is referring to. I'll call that "Version 1.2" so as not to confuse the two. Here's an edit history diff, for your reference. Here's the "sandbox".'' -- this was by Happysomeone
 * (Sandbox = my user subpage.) --by RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.

Carender had contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin in order to gain her support and publicize her event. Malkin promoted the protest in several posts on her blog, saying that "There should be one of these in every town in America," and that she would be supplying the crowd with a meal of pulled pork. Malkin encouraged her readers to stage similar events in Denver on February 17 where President Obama planned to sign the stimulus bill into law. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." . By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

Version 1.2
This is the change I was seeking, changing the fourth paragraph.

Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated. Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. Carender then helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign put together by several politically conservative groups on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." . By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

--Happysomeone (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Version 2
''I'll call this the "current edit" because that's what's presently there, and I don't agree with this edit. It's WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR in my view, and it appears to be redundant, as well.''

Precursor protests in Fort Myers
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser, activist Mary Rakovich was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement."

Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic and NPR’s Martin Kaste, credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.

Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents' Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."

Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." . By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest.

--Happysomeone (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments about the two (and a half) versions
Thanks for posting them. Malke, do you agree that these are the two (plus a variation) versions? After reading them I have my own opinion as to which I like better, but would either of you like to add any comments as to why you think one or the other is better? And then after we've heard the pros and cons perhaps we should have a !vote. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sbowers: The Version 2 is actually the version that came next after RoyGoldsmith's edit. The one Happysomeone did is the 1.2.  His paragraph was the one we were discussing when he just came back and reverted everything.  Version 2 is well cited and simple.  Version 1.2 is not well cited in the Happysomeone paragraph and is OR.  He makes it seem like Carender is part of some national organization when in fact no such monolithic organization exists in the tea party. Malke  2010  01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I wanted to mention that the Version 2 paragraph 4 is cited from a direct interview with her by the New York Times. She did organize the second rally by using the emails and contact information she collected at the first rally, plus her blog, to promote it.  She didn't have any help from any so-called 'nationally organized' tea party.  The tea parties were held all over by individuals and groups putting together rallies, all to take place on February 27th.  Carender wanted to be part of that.  It came from the Rick Santelli thing. Malke  2010  01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been no edit war that I can see. TeaParty1 and mostly HSO made changes to the History section from 4 to 7 (UTC) yesterday. Malke reverted those changes at 16:40 and that’s where the article sits currently. That’s one, complete edit-cycle and the start of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which we’re having here.

To put my two-cents in (actually five cents at the rate of one penny per paragraph :), I think it important that Rakovich and Carender should be grouped together because, in my mind, there really is no difference between what they actually did. (Really what reliable sources report that they did.)

According to reliable sources, (a) they both led anti-tax and/or anti-big-government protests in February of 2009, (b) someone (or many someones) claimed that Rakovich or Carender was the first and (c) neither one used the term "Tea Party". Therefore I considered them both "precursors" to the first true Tea Party protests on Feb 27. Because Carender was much better sourced, I gave her four paragraphs rather than the one for Rakovich. If Rakovich hadn't happened before Carender, I wouldn't have given her any space at all.

Also, I believe that the most important statement in all of the History section is contained in the last paragraph. In my mind, the February 27th "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" was the first ever Tea Party protest because (a) it was a protest and (b) the organizers called it a Tea Party protest. If think those two prerequisites are the necessary and sufficient conditions for determining whether an event is or is not a TPp. As a matter of fact, it’s only one condition: that the organizers advertize it before the event as a Tea Party protest.

Santelli, while he did say tea party, in my mind, his rant was not a protest. Therefore I do not believe he deserves prominence in the subsection heading. My choice was Birth of the "Tea Party" movement.

Sbower3, I’m sorry but this leaves you three versions to merge. More than that: because I don’t like the current heading of the last subsection (either Birth of the "Tea Party" movement or Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"), the material we have to decide upon is greater than what’s contained in Versions 1.0, 1.2 and 2.0. Sorry. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with RoyGoldsmith. Further, it's an error to attribute Carender with organizing a second protest in a vacuum, when we have considerable RS that tells us otherwise. Also, see here.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying she organized in a vacuum. She collected emails from the people who came to her first rally.  She promoted it on her blog, but there was no national organization helping her.  The tea parties all across the country on Feb 27th were made by individuals and groups.  They were not one group.  You're saying Carender was being directed by outsiders.  She was not. Malke  2010  16:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "You're saying Carender was being directed by outsiders" No, I'm not.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what you're trying to say. The idea to hold tea parties all over the country apparently came out of Rick Santelli's so-called 'rant,' and Keli Carender had already organized an rally, so she wanted to do another one and join in.  But there was no group sponsoring her.  She did it herself. If you will make an edit that makes that plain, then change it. Malke  2010  16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, first off, please remember WP:AGF. When I directly tell you that is not my intention, you should heed my words. If you disagree, then say that. Please don't say "yes, (you are so)" If you can't abide that, then simply do not assume my intent. The edit that I advocate makes the organizational structure of the Feb. 27 protests plain enough and has the RS to back that up. Address the edit, not the editor.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that goes both ways. Malke 2010  17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be aided considerably if you struck through the various personal attacks leveled by you against me out here in Wikiland. Just a suggestion.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is saying she organized in a vacuum." This is what is currently stated (IMHO, "in a vacuum"): "Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."" By omission, the appearance is that Carender solely organized the Feb. 27 protest. Combined with the following sentence immediately following, "On Tax Day, six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest," is WP:OR.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't sound like she solely organized the nationwide February 27th protests. It just says she organized a rally on that day.  If you want to add that there were other protests being done that same day, nationwide, by individuals and groups because of Santelli's broadcast, that's fine.  But it can't be written in such a way that it makes it appear this was some national organization sponsoring it.  Which the edit you had makes it sound like.  The last sentence about the tax day protests could be deleted or it could be expanded with a source. Malke  2010  17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Copied from above) Ok, again in Carender's own words, titled 'Seattle Tea Party on 2/27': "Don't worry Seattle Action Network, we WILL be a part of this nation-wide tea party!!" Therefore, "part of a nationally organized campaign" is accurate, as described in her own words.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sponsored is in fact an fairly accurate description of the Feb. 27 protest organizers, in that they sponsored the organization, date and message of the protest. In many cases, they did this financially as well, although I don't see RS for that financial aspect one way or the other for the Seattle event. See the Wiktionary entry for "sponsor"--Happysomeone (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reading too much into this. You're not hearing what I'm saying. This edit needs to be worked out in a compromise. So what's your compromise edit? Malke 2010  17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what the other editors have to say first before making another proposal.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is they're probably hoping we'll work this out. Malke 2010  18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about something along these lines, "Carender organized a second rally to coincide with Rick Santelli's call for a Chicago Tea Party. Protests were organized nationwide by various groups. . .etc.  Carender said, "We more than doubled, etc..." Malke  2010  19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the subsection headings help direct the reader. Keli Carender and Rick Santelli are both in the news for this.  They are both part of the start of the Tea Party Movement.  It's not really undue weight, especially if you consider that the Media bias section has 10 paragraphs of mostly redundant or irrelevant material.  Carender and Santelli are important because they are the tipping point, the groundswell of what coalesced into the Tea Party Movement.  And I actually think there should also be inclusion of the FEDUp Movement because it seems that a lot of people from that movement have now joined the Tea Party Movement.  So to then turn around and devote all that space to the media and the astroturfing, but not to the actual players in the TPm seems like the article is taking off in the wrong direction. Malke  2010  03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a European trying to understand contemporary American politics, and I can tell you straight off that the subsection headings do not help direct the reader. On the contrary, I have the feeling of swimming through treacle before I even attempt the article text! Headings should have titles like "Background", "Early protests", "Chicago Tea Party" or whatever - titles that entice the reader - instead of "'Porkulus', tea bags and early mention of tea party" and such-like that put this reader right off!
 * This current discussion has my head spinning. It's clear to me that Keli Carender did something, Michelle Malkin did something and Rick Santelli did something, and also that there are reliable sources for what they did.  Why is it not possible to say "Carender decided to hold a protest, Malkin advertised it, Santelli went on a rant" or whatever it was?  One of the headings above is "What is the issue?", but nobody has clarified, at least for me, what the issue here actually is.  I can't help feeling it has more to do with ownership than anything else.  Can the two of you maybe spell out the issues in the interest of reaching some sort of consensus.  Scolaire (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing that was tried a while back was to move the history below the composition and views section. Then it got moved to the top.  Maybe it could be moved again. Malke  2010  22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scholaire. While the editors are focused on minute details, it seems to be missed that there is very little overall coherence from one section to the next and it is not very reader friendly. The whole point of a WP page is to provide a readable page that makes sense when considered as whole and gives an uniformed reader a clear understanding of what the Tea Parties are. I have some suggestions to help. First, instead of a "History" heading, perhaps the section should be retitled "Origins" with an introductory paragraph about how it's sort of a spontaneous grassroots movement that started gaining national force with the bank baiouts and grew from there as gov't. spending on the recession kept piling up. It would be more compatable with making individual listings (perhaps subheadings) for each noteworthy contributor to the national movement/protests. It is difficult for some to grasp that the movement does not revolve around a person(s) and has no real organiztion or orginiator, but instead is more of groundswell of dissatisfaction with government spending on things such as corporate bailouts, the incarnation of the stimulus bill which many view as wasteful and ineffective, and overall heavy-handedness in approach to governing that the participants have in common.


 * I would even venture a guess that calling them fiscal conservative isn't quite spot on, because it didn't start out as political movement, per se, but has many political interests now vying for prominence. While most may fall under that category, I think many would rather have used the $787B bailout to see to it that those impacted the hardest by the coming recession were taken care of or not spend it at all than have it go to bankers, guys who have had billions of dollars at their command, who painted themselves in a corner. Is it really right or should I say, socially just, to have single moms trying to make ends meet and average wage earners over multiple generations bailout the fat cats with their taxes on money they haven't yet earned? Anyway that's my synopsis of what I think they are from a bit of experience with them. I haven't changed anything, nor would I venture to as it looks like it needs some serious regoranizing and wordsmithing to ensure neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.141.216 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but which of my points does that answer? Scolaire (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting Back to the Subject
As Sbowers3 said above "this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons."

To get back to the subject at hand, do you Happysomeone, Malke, Scolaire (and anyone else who’s interested) agree that the three versions above list the essential similarities and differences among the material about Rakovich, Carender and Malkin? (Scolaire, Version 2 is the current content of the article, at least so far as headings are concerned.) This is a minimum basis of agreement before we can proceed to building consensus about the headings. Please limit yourself in the space below to answering this specific question. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I think we’re still waiting for Sbowers3.
 * I agree (that the three versions above fairly represent all significant views among the editors that I’m aware of). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you for moving things along.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, if that's what it takes. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what the "essential similarities and differences" are.  They all look the same to me.  Scolaire (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, versions 1.0 and 1.2 both use the heading "Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle" while version 1.2 splits the section into "Precursor protests in Fort Myers" and "Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger". There were other changes too. 1.2 added to the 4th paragraph; 2.0 greatly extended paragraph 3. And other things as well. All I meant was that we didn’t have to enumerate each and every difference. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Malke 2010  21:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. I thought you were looking for agreement only from the direct participants in those sections. But yes, I agree, that those three (two and a half) versions are the objects of discussion. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Headings
However, while we’re waiting, I think we could start off by talking about the subsection headings used in the History section. In thinking over what Scolaire said about using simple, easy to understand headings, I think I agree with him.

Right now, we have the following headings:
 * 2.1 Background
 * 2.2 "Porkulus", tea bags and early mention of tea party
 * 2.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
 * or


 * 2.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
 * 2.4 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger
 * and


 * 2.4 Birth of the "Tea Party" movement
 * or


 * 2.5 Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"

Following Scolaire's advice, I think the headings should be more like this:
 * 2.1 Background [everything before Rakovich]
 * 2.2 First protest events [Rakovich and Carender]
 * 2.3 First protests described events identified as "Tea Party" protests [Santelli and Feb 27th]

You can see this version as the new first section of my user subpage. Right now I’m not talking about the content of the subsections (we’ll get to that later); I’m only talking about the headings. And I don’t know if "described as" is the proper wording for the third heading. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "identified as" instead of "described as"? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm voting yes below, but I still have problems with the third heading. One, it's still rather ponderous; two, it's one too many "firsts"; and three, "events", although it's strictly correct, carries the connotation of "gatherings" or "demonstrations", while the paragraph actually deals more with radio and TV broadcasts, websites and organization.  I'd prefer something concise, like "Nationwide organization".  Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard from youse guys for 3 or 4 days. What do you think of my three, simple sub-headings for History? Check the first section here for details. Can I replace the subheadings in the article with these three? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, replace 'em with your three. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but see above. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think one full week is enough to allow for discussion. Since there are no dissenting votes, I am changing the section headings now. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting development
Saw this today surfing the news outlets. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F1PU2O0 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010  15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wow. Well I propose the following:
 * A subsection under Controversy titled "Allegations of racism and homophobia"
 * Start it with something like "Critics have accused members of being racist and homophobic."
 * Add lines regarding the supposed racist and antigay remarks towards legislatures.
 * Follow that up with a line saying that members there challenge the allegation (there is a source in an above section to pull from)
 * Finish it off with a line regarding the "infiltration" or whatever you want to call it.
 * Cptnono (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: So someone expanded the "fag" line but besides this there has been no activity in the section. Just wanted to see if there were any thoughts since it is contentious. If I recall correctly there was another accusation (someone said something at the convention or something?) so that might fit in too.Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/08/nation/la-na-tea-federation9-2010apr09 is not being presented correctly. Having it in the racism section with "conversely" reads as if it was established specifically to counter charges. The racism charge is a very small part of the piece. At most, it deserves a mention that it was acknowledged that PR needed improvement. This article would benefit form having the info on this federation presented in a more relevant section though.Cptnono (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word "conversely" in the edit you just reverted. The content you removed was in the section about the racial slurs, because the article directly cites slow response to those racial slur incidents as part of the impetus for forming the federation. You did not move the content to a more relevant section; you deleted it outright.
 * You replaced content ('fuck') that your edit summary acknowledges is not in the cited source, implying that you'll hunt down a source that might actually support the content you inserted. Seriously? You also introduced several other inaccuracies into the section about the protestor that claims Frank cursed at her, and wording that implies the anti-gay slurs are merely an "allegation". Explanations are warranted. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reasonable person would see fuck not fart, farm, flap, or whatever else. I was wrong based on WP:PROFANE ("when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quotation as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines.") I think that is stupid but added "[sic]" as recommended.
 * As I said, at most it deserves a line discussing the slow PR response. Undue weight in the incorrect section with wording that leads the reader.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing 2 of the 5 issues described above. I've remedied the remaining issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bad behavior" is vague and subjective. People have been asking for a racism section not a "bad behavior" section.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC) And I disagree with Freedom Fan's removal of that much content. It is not OR and I believe weight was fine before the change. Several people have asked for a racism section and relegating it to the other article seem inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This topic long ago has been moved to the Tea Party protests article where allegations of bigotry are discussed ad nauseum. Therefore to avoid redundancy, this section should be nothing more than a non-controversial stub referencing the other article.  Otherwise we will have another arduous edit war like was fought over at Tea Party protests in order to eventually achieve balance.  For every allegation, there has been a counter allegation but little in the way of hard evidence.


 * At any rate, any blatant description of Tea Party members as "racist" or "homophobic" is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Just report actions alleged to have happened by reliable sources, and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions about the intent of the participants, otherwise you are in violation of WP:Original Research.


 * Any large section, which dwells on redundant details about a highly controversial specific event on March 20, 2010, is not appropriate here. Even if it could be proven, that the acts alleged did occur on the part of a handful of individuals, it's an obvious violation of WP:Undue to suggest that millions of Americans are "racist" and "homophobic", since 24% of all voters in a recent poll now identify with the Tea Party movement.


 * Also since opponents have openly disclosed plans, to infiltrate the Tea Party movement to make them appear bigoted and stupid, any mention of bad behavior also needs to be balanced with this possibility. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A few corrections to Freedom Fan's assertions: 1) Little in the way of hard evidence? Most of the charges have been substantiated over the past year. Saying Barney Frank was "allegedly" called anti-gay slurs is nothing but POV weasel-wording - it's on tape in 2 different buildings that day, and has many reliable witnesses. 2) The racism content doesn't concern just March 20, 2010, but goes back to the earliest connections to white supremacy groups (see the earliest versions of this article), the signs and posters with "niggar" [sic] and pictures of Obama as a monkey, etc. 3) There is no BLP violation in the content; you apparently misunderstand the policy. Referring to the actions of unnamed members of a Tea Party doesn't violate anything. 4) An opponent has openly disclosed his plan to try to infiltrate tea partys to exaggerate their least appealing qualities, but that absolutely does not mean "any mention of bad behavior also needs to be balanced with this possibility." Silliness.  We balance articles with facts, not "possibilities". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a large section. "Bad behavior" is subjective (who are we to call racism bad?) and it was clear tin the seciton heading (Alleged racism and homophobia )and text that it was allegations. Bad behavior would aso encompass too many other possibilities. it is redundant because that article as a whole is redundant. It is necessary here and I don't care what happens there.Cptnono (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about the use of "bad"; I would go with "inappropriate". An editor's subjective conclusion that the entire movement should be tarnished as "racist" and "homophobic" lack NPOV and are candidates for speedy removal under WP:BLP.  Just report the events based upon reliable sources and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions regarding the veracity of the reports and intent of the majority of participants.


 * Again this is a lengthy generic article about the Tea Party movement involving millions of Americans, not a redundant re-hash of questionable events on March 20th. Please re-read WP:UNDUE:


 * Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.


 * Freedom Fan (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Undue weight is one thing, but that edit ("reported that...charged that...some members...alleged to be...") was just ridiculous. The paragraph as it stands is a fair representation of the Fox News report.  That edit showed a pronounced bias in a way that the report did not.  Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the Breitbart content was added to this article from the Tea Party protests article, without the accompanying balancing & mitigating content. I have removed that paragraph. I suppose we could include it with the rest of the relevant information, but it is likely to start a considerable ballooning of that section. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Breitbart content was again re-inserted, without the accompanying balancing and mitigating content. I have removed it again. The editor said to "see talk", but I see no discussion of it here. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As predicted, the content was inserted yet again, without the accompanying balancing content. While this isn't my preferred choice, rather than delete the content, I have added the additional related content. I think some editors want to turn this into a duplicate of the section in the Tea Party protests article. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And, right on queue, another editor removed all of the Breitbart content. Followed by re-insertion of just half of the content, which was then followed by the balancing content. Still no discussion? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As a total outsider to both the tea Party movement, and even the USA, I would just observe that movements such as this inevitably attract extremists. Such people see this kind of protest movement as another place to take their own extreme view, since it's a chance to protest against the government. While there will be many honest, principled participants in the movement, there will also be the bigots, of all kinds. They won't all come from outside, as plants to discredit the movement. It will cause angst among the more objective and sensible members, but to say "it's only a tiny minority" is to ignore a reality of this type of movement. The bigots will be loud, and will attract others. It is part of the natural cycle of these things. When it happens, it must be documented. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DubiousKing, 20 April 2010
The first sentence of the "Composition of the Movement" section can easily cause some confusion. It's current wording makes it sound like only 18% of Tea Party supporters are "white, male, married and older than 45." I suggest it be reworded to "According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters, who tend to be "white, male, married and older than 45."" DubiousKing (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well spotted! I've changed it.  Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting New York Times piece
Saw this today. The NYTimes seems to be paying more attention to the Tea Party Movement. . Malke 2010  13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA
We need a section invlving Anabel Park's Coffee Party

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.150.142 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom Works news
saw this today. . Malke 2010  21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

'Reports of inappropriate behavior'
Can somebody tell me again why "Reports of inappropriate behavior" is a better heading for that section than "Alleged racism and homophobia"? 'Inappropriate behaviour' might refer to drinking in a public place, singing loudly after midnight or peeing on somebody's lawn (or even, I suppose, 'teabagging'). The section is about a specific report of racial abuse and the use of the word "fag". Why should the section heading not say what the section is about? Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with those sentiments. Euphemisms don't help in an encyclopedia. Tell it like it is. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is "presently" about the reports of racial abuse, and the use of the word "homo", "fag" and the multiple use of "faggot". There is nothing 'alleged' about the homophobia, so I tried "Homophobia and alleged racism", but other editors changed it. If you look at the similar section in the Tea Party protests article, you'll see the "Inappropriate Behavior" description was chosen because the section also covered spitting, making fun of someone stricken with Parkinson's Disease, cutting of gas lines, anti-semitism, swastikas, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't in this article. And we don't want it to.  An objection that might be raised against "racism and homophobia" is that specific altercations on a specific date don't define an entire movement.  Perhaps we should use a combination of the two headings, then.  I suggest "Reports of incidents of racism and homophobia".  Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would drop "incidents of" for the sake of brevity.Cptnono (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do it, then. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think more discussion is required. The section heading is quite loaded.  I am returning the section title to a less contenticous heading.  Arzel (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an additional note. Unless there is a response to the allegations the whole section is in violation of WP:NPOV Several people dispute some of the actions of racism, and we must include a measured response or the whole section has to go. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reports of "bigotry" or "intolerance" may work but "inappropriate behavior" is POV and handles it with gloves.Cptnono (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop pussy-footing around people. Because the Tea Party is not a rigidly defined body with absolutely fixed and narrowly defined policies, it WILL attract the racists and the bigots. They WILL be there. They won't represent the views of the majority, but they will taint the image. Those denying the existence of the bigots don't help anybody. If you're part of the movement, discredit the bigots, don't pretend they don't exist.


 * Sorry for the forum like post, but I don't like to see Wikipedia damaged by people with genuine motives trying to conceal the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Intollerance and Bigotry are one in the same, but when you really get down to it the intollerance and bigotry towards the tea party has been far stronger than any reports the other way, per the definition of the terms. I still think Inappropriate Behavior is the best title, and am not sure why it would be viewed as POV.  Arzel (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, it's POV because it's hiding what the activity really is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of the heading being POV. The whole section may be POV, or it may not.  But what it says is that three congressmen were reportedly abused on grounds of race or sexual orientation.  "Inappropriate behaviour" is not adequate to describe that allegation.  "Intolerance" and "bigotry" are not the same thing, but neither is even remotely the same as abuse.  Now, I'm not seeing any consensus to change the original wording of "racism and homophobia", just one or two people saying "I think something bland would be better".  I am restoring that wording until a proper consensus is reached.  Scolaire (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider it POV sine racists do not find it inappropriate. And Call a spade a spade.Cptnono (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. I hadn't seen it from that perspective. Most of us here would regard calling someone a fag as inappropriate, but the person who does it obviously doesn't. That means that a heading using the word inappropriate is reflecting the opinion of those who feel it is, not the opinion of those who think it's OK. That is effectively the definition of POV. HiLo48 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart
The second Breitbart paragraph is too much. It doesn;t say anything but Breitbart says no and union dude says yes. So what? WP:RECENTISM and what these two guys say is not that important. This is exasperated by it not being conclusive so it just comes across like the article is debating with itself. The second paragraph discussing it needs to be removed. Also, people need to watch out for WP:AVOID more.Cptnono (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Breitbart's intial response to the claims in which he will donate $100,000 if anyone can provide proof that the claims are true is what is important. Xeno seems to want to include the response to Breitbart because he doesn't want the Breitbart section included.  Since Breitbart is closely involved in the Tea Party movement, his response is notable.  The other option is to remove the whole section as nothing more than an attempt to attack the Tea Party in general and a global BLP violation against the Millions of people that are part of the movement that are not racist.  This whole article is nothing more than a battleground to deride the Tea Party.  Arzel (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Breitbart's response is that important. Initially, we had a small, balanced content section with claims from people that were present. Of those present, some claimed racial slurs happened, while others (according to the Fox report) claimed they were there and heard no such thing. Later, uninvolved Breitbart gives us his conspiracy theory opinion: the whole incident was a Pelosi-plot, carefully planned and willingly executed by everyone involved, to incite a racial incident all for the purpose of marginalizing the Tea Party protesters. As proof, he offers video of the event that contains no audible slurs (now discredited as not actually of the reported event), and the fact that no Tea Party protester has yet stepped forth with recorded evidence incriminating themself (well ... duh, no shock there). If we want to introduce observations by non-involved opinion-pushers like Breitbart into the article, fine, but it will need to be balanced by the ample counter-points.


 * The "global BLP violation" comment is absurd - there is no such Wikipedia policy protecting unnamed masses. Arzel, if you ever feel the need to begin a sentence with "Xeno seems to want...", perhaps you should re-check your facts until you are sure, or just ask me -- then you would learn that I include the refutation to Breitbart because WP:NPOV requires it. Please note that I am not the person that first introduced the racism incidents or the Breitbart stuff, but I have been trying to balance it. You've already seen my opinion on how I would prefer to see this kind of content conservatively handled. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see why Arzel might be thinking Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with your edit summary "Arzel wants Breitbart in the article". There have been some poopey comments so maybe we need to chill out. I agree that Breitbart is not incredibly important but it seems good enough for inclusion. The extra details were certainly too much in my view though.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Arzel might be thinking that, but he would be wrong again. WP:AGF goes a long way to spare individuals the embarassment of that kind of incorrect assumption. This comment, and the 3 paragraphs that precede it, fully explain my edits on the Breitbart content. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just realized Xenophrenic reverted. Again. So is this article whatever he says it is or is consensus to trim out the back and forth silliness that doesn't add anything to the article?Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word is "reverted", indicating that the silliness must have been reinserted, prompting the revert. Again.  No, I do not think this article is whatever Arzel says it is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Infiltration=False Flag Operation or Black Propaganda?
Shouldn't Jason Levin's effort to infiltrate Tea Party groups be considered either a False flag operation and/or Black Propaganda? Levin clearly stated that he wanted his supporters to infiltrate the groups and pose as Tea Partiers and then perform negative actions such as holding signs with incorrect grammar and racial slurs and seeking to get on television and intentionally act inappropriately in an effort to distort the movement.

Here's the definition of a False Flag operation, more specifically in a political sense: "This can involve when supporters of one candidate [or in this case, a political movement] pose as supporters of another, or act as “straw men” for their preferred candidate to debate against. ... one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate."

Here's the definition of Black propaganda: Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy.

Though I admit that it may not completely fit the defination of either of these types of deception, but I do think that it would be very close to that.

To Paraphrase Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA), one of my two favorite Statesmen of the late twentieth century (with the other being President Ronald Reagan), I'm not a Conservative (at least not on social issues) or a Progressive (at least not on economic issues and definitely not the isolationist policies that many of them favor in regards to Foreign policy and Defense). I just don't want my country to be a pigeon economically. Fuelsaver (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If he ever takes action of the type he says he wanted to take, then we can describe it -- but that doesn't look likely now. He's been suspended from his job; he has taken down his website and replaced it with a T-shirt order form; he has ceased making claims about wanting to mess with the tea parties.  If he doesn't do something notable real soon, he may just wither away and drop out of Wikipedia altogether. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Claims of bias in media coverage, minor omission.
In the section Claims of bias in media coverage I checked the reference and saw that the citation did not include where Howard Kurtz had made his comment. It seems important, since CNN itself was referenced. I prepended "On CNN's Situation Room," as it exists within the citation. I am trying very hard to verify the citations here. There are far too many of them IME in wikipedia that either do not exist, or are not complete. Lemme know if this isn't an innocuous change in your opinion.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This section needs to be rewritten. Howard Kurtz's original comments were in the Washington Post. Malke  2010  16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

March 20 and recentism
I'm starting this as a new section because the discussion above has got bogged down with arguments about POV. When editors attempt to balance POV by adding or deleting content there are ultimately no winners, and the reader is the big loser because the result is not encyclopedic. It might be more useful to look at it in terms of Recentism and ask, is the article becoming "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens"? I propose to apply the ten-year test as a guide to what is worthy of inclusion: Taking all this into account, I propose the following as a concise, clear and NPOV account of March 20 and its aftermath:
 * Four members of the House of Representatives said that they heard or experienced racial or anti-gay epithets or abuse: definitely notable.
 * William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said: "Never did I hear any type of racial slur": probably notable, but it doesn't belong where it is. Claims of abuse should be documented, then the counter-claims.
 * Emanuel Cleaver thought a man was going to say sorry: definitely not notable.
 * Barney Frank "started it": in no way notable. Either he was called a fag or he wasn't.
 * The quotes from Andre Carson: excessive, and not correctly quoted. "The N-word, the N-word, 15 times" is all that's needed.
 * Andrew Breitbart says the slurs never happened: notable, but way too much detail. The first quote, "By crafting a highly symbolic walk...", is a good one; the second one, "It didn't happen..." is superfluous.
 * Breitbart offered 100 grand: probably notable, but only after the foregoing - it has no proper context otherwise. Again, too much detail.
 * Richard Trumka's response: notable, but again the qoute is excessive.
 * Youtube video: not notable. Who is going to be talking about that in ten years time?
 * Opponents say they plan to infiltrate...: not notable, and not relevant to this section. When it is reported that they have infiltrated the movement, it will become notable; if it is reported that opponents were responsible for the abuse on March 20, it will become relevant.
 * On March 20, 2010, as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was being voted on in Washington D.C., it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs. Several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted the "n-word" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he was spat upon, and Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "fag". Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times". William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said: "Never did I hear any type of racial slur."


 * Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart asserts that the racial slurs never happened. He says that, "by crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up." Breitbart has offered a charitable donation of $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if John Lewis could either provide video evidence of racial epithets or pass a lie-detector test. In response, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said he had seen the events in question. "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word," Trumka said. "That’s real evidence."

Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Breitbart's paragraph needs to be cut in half. It is just back and forth that doesn't say anything. I do think a blurb about the "infiltration" is needed though.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cptnono. This section is bloated and also POV pushing.  Keep the blurb about the infiltration. Malke  2010  15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Scolaire, an AFL-CIO president has an awful lot to gain from supporting a Democratic congressman. I wouldn't give so much credibility to Trumka's claims as we would be doing if we let his words be the last ones in the edit. Malke  2010  15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In fine with the first paragraph and think the second one is too fat. Also think that "infiltration" is notable and needs to be in a different section to avoid synthesis. MookieG (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The news reports did group it together and racism and homophobia were directly mentioned. I didn't even think about synth though. Any suggestions on where else it could go instead?Cptnono (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the infiltration to its own section would also require more citations, more notability. It's not that notable as it stands right now.  If there are other groups springing up all over the country as a counter-movement, then that would rate a new section, but one article about one guy, not really. Malke  2010  17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Two minor changes I would suggest are just for accuracy. 1) change the anti-gay slur "Fag" (cited only to the claim of one nobody protester) to "faggot" (multiple times, supported by reliable witnesses, and video tape ). 2) change the "chanted the n-word" wording to note that Carson said they were chanting "kill the bill" and following that with the n-word, and he heard it as many as 15 times. Your present wording makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times. You named this section "March 20 and recentism", but other editors are expressing concern for unrelated events and dates, like the "intended infiltration", and there are similar incidents in the article (depending on which version you view) about bigotry. How about we apply the 10-year test to the whole section, instead of just the March 20 incidents? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply to Xenophrenic: 1) "fag" to "faggot" is fine, if that's what the majority of the sources say; 2) the sources I'm looking at www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EILHFG1 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1] say 'Andre Carson [said that] some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times"' - to me, that makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times; 3) I did in fact apply the 10 year test to "infiltration" (my last point above) and decided it fails.  Without that, only March 20 is covered in this section.  Other incidents are dealt with in the other article, but this is not the other article.
 * General comment: my proposed text above is only that: a proposal. I hope that those of you who have replied will suggest your own text.  That way it should be possible to reach a consensus fairly quickly.  Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your justification for point (2): one of your two sources is not a valid reliable source. Your other source gives a shortened (and thereby misleading) quote excerpt, as you have acknowledged. There are ample quotes noting that Carson claims the crowd was shouting "kill the bill" then the n-word. Here is a more complete description of what he heard:
 * Soon after leaving Cannon, "I hear someone say it," said Carson, a former police officer. "You see one or two tea party people kind of look at him, and then you hear it again as we're walking. Then we walk across (Independence Avenue), and that's when it starts getting deeper." Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd. '"You heard it in spurts, in the midst of 'Kill the bill. Kill the bill.'"
 * The present sentence is more accurate: Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "Kill the bill, then the N-word." They chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times. It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis." Let's try not to mislead the readers by leaving them with the impression Carson claimed hearing, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!" 15 times.
 * Regarding your observation that, "Other incidents are dealt with in the other article...", is that true? I've seen efforts to remove related content from both articles. Is there a consensus as to which article should contain the content outside of the March 20 events? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I hope you don't have the impression that I'm pushing a POV here. I don't have a POV.  What I did in my proposed edit was to tighten up the prose based on the citations that are in that paragraph.  The sentence you quote here is referenced by the two sources that I cited in my "justification" (more or less - the second ref in the article is actually a dead link, so I found another source with the same article; I believe the original source is AP).  The NYT article doesn't, in my view, support the sentence as it is written.
 * You say the present sentence is more accurate. How do you know what is accurate, when nobody seems to know what was said?  You don't believe they chanted "nigger, nigger, nigger", but what do you think they did chant?  "Kill the bill, then the N-word" is nonsensical.  Why would a racist want to kill the N-word?  Or are you saying they chanted "kill the bill, then the nigger"?  Or was it "kill the bill, nigger"?  None of those are directly supported by any of the sources and, frankly, none of them sound likely as chants.
 * If you don't like the source, then you should re-write the sentence altogether based on the NYT or some other source. Just so long as it is intelligible.  For instance:
 * Representative Andre Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, he heard the word coming from several places in the crowd, amid chants of "Kill the bill". One man "just rattled it off several times."  Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."
 * Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't there, so I must rely on what the sources say - I have formed no "beliefs" about the incident. Please note in my first response to you above, I cited the Herald source which says: [Carson] who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.” While it may sound nonsensical to you, that is how it was phrased in the source. The Washington Post phrased it thusly: Carson told reporters that protesters yelled "kill the bill," then used a racial epithet to describe Carson and Lewis, who is a revered figure on both sides of the aisle. Hearing the 'Kill the bill' chant punctuated with the n-word makes a lot more sense to me than hearing just the n-word chanted 15 times - that would be nonsensical. Looking at one of the only public videos of the event, it sounds like the slur was allegedly used as a punctuation to the "kill the bill" chant. (Personal note: I don't find that particular clip conclusive at all, but then I have a lousy sound system.) You can hear Carson, in his own words, explaining what he heard here. The first part is cut off (maybe intentionally?), unfortunately, but you can hear enough to get the basic idea.
 * I do see that the sources also say, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard “nigger.” That appears to be a very unambiguous eyewitness statement, but isn't included in your proposed edit. You suggest I rewrite the sentence altogether, but to what purpose? Your proposal already states several lawmakers were called the n-word. What additional information were you trying to add to that? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This has got way more complicated than it should be. So I'm just going to say it straight out, at the risk of hurting some feelings: the section as it stands is rubbish.  It makes absolutely no sense to somebody like me who's not in the middle of it and is not reading those appallingly-written news articles/commentaries on a daily basis.  I don't want to add anything to it; I just want to see it written in plain English.  Yes, "Kill the bill, then the N-word" appears in a source, but it's stupid.  It doesn't need to go in this article and it shouldn't be in this article.  I don't want "The N-word 15 times" either; that's equally stupid.  I realise I should have said "I agree with you" earlier.  It was thoughtless but I do agree with you.  To paraphrase what you said there, "the 'kill the bill' chant was punctuated with the word 'nigger'."  Why can we not just say that - any or all of the sources support it - and cut out all the other crap?  Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Talkey talk talk. Are we debloating it or not? A couple of us have agreed on that much at least. I would prefer to not see revert after revert so would
 * “I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word,” Trumka said. “I witnessed it, I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That’s real evidence.”[178] Breitbart had posted two columns on his website alleging the claims were fabricated, and both led with a 48-second YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Breitbart says that the absence of any audible racial slurs in the excerpted 48-second video clip proved that no racial slurs were made by protesters. Later interviews have revealed that the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when they said the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol — at least one hour after the reported incident. When asked about using a video from the wrong time period, Breitbart stood by his assertion that the members of the United States Congress, their staffers present at the time, and Trumka were all lying. "I'm not saying the video was conclusive proof," he said.[179] Journalist and author Bernard Goldberg stated that in regard to the accusation's claiming that an individual had spat upon Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and the supposed chanting of the "n-word" that "The more I look into this, Bill, the more I’m convinced that it never happened."[180]
 * hurt anyone's feelings?Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't hurt mine. I've taken all of that out.  Maybe we can have a go at tidying the rest.  Scolaire (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is wikilinking Freedom Rides original research? He could have meant plenty of other things in America's racially tense past. It is a good assumption but it might still be considered original research.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we are meant to understand what he meant by "a different time". It was a time when he had "nigger" shouted at him for standing up for something he believed in. It was personal, not just "America's past".  If we're meant to understand it, it can't be OR to link it.  Scolaire (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My original comment reads "racially tense" past. I guess I am trying to say that there are multiple wikilinks available related to African-American history and the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968). And people shouted slurs at sit ins and other protests. The Little Rock Nine were subject to the slur. So he may not have been refering directly to the freedom rides.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those deal with racial abuse against John Lewis except the Freedom Rides 1961 section of the Civil Rights article. My response to you was that it was personal, not just American history generally.  Scolaire (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono has a point about Wikilinks within quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says about linking:
 * ''As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

While Scolaire's Wikilink to the Freedom Rides may be accurate (and obvious, and common sense, self-evident, etc.), we have no real way of knowing that with absolute certainty unless it is explained in a source. Adding the link would provide more information to the reader, but goes against Wikipedia convention. Perhaps, instead, try adding in the same identifying wording present in every source that mentioned Lewis & the March 20 incident: he is a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. I think the Fox source we're using now called him a "legend" in that movement. Or you can keep the link - every Wikipedia guideline leaves room for exceptions. Just my two cents... Xenophrenic (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries about being personal. I didn't take it like that. I read the quote and just assume the civil rights era based on the time before and during it. Something like that would link to "time" better anyways. But if he was really big in the freedom rides then it could make some sense. Still seems like an an assumption and Easter eggy to me. This really is not a HUGE deal and shouldn't disrupt the conversation for the other stuff too much.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am so sick of the "inappropriate behavior" argument. That is POV and vague. Racism is a charge that has been made multiple times. The section could clarify (and maybe even dispel) the rumors but instead people are treating it with mittens.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Claim
Quick note: "claim" is being used in a manner that is against WP:CLAIM. Try something else?Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break
'''This section lacks any hint of neutrality. The entire section and section heading are in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, No original research.''' Accordingly, I have flagged the section as lacking neutrality, pending consensus and resolution.

Please review the WP:BLP policy related to groups:


 * Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

In addition to large groups, these events deal with small groups and specifically named and photographed individuals. So since this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure. Therefore it is essential that every source and every statement be supported precisely, by reliable sources, without a hint of POV.

The article also violates WP:UNDUE by taking alleged actions of a tiny handful of individuals and attempts to use this to brand an entire political movement of millions of ordinary citizens of various races, who are concerned about fiscal responsibility, taxation and the size of government, not race.

Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section heading: "Reports of Inappropriate Behavior" or "Disputed Events During Protest of March 20, 2010"

Otherwise by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants. The current heading uses obviously loaded non-NPOV interpretative wording more suitable to a political campaign hit piece, rather than a respectable encyclopedia article.

Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section:


 * On March 20, 2010, it was reported in Washington D.C. that certain protesters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have acted inappropriately. Several black lawmakers said that a group of demonstrators shouted at them and called them the "n-word".

However in the current version, the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word". Therefore the editor's changing it from the text represents a blatant non-NPOV interpretation on the part of the editor. The same applies to the loaded descriptions of the behavior within the section as "racist" and "homophobic". The proper solution in an encyclopedia is just to describe the alleged behavior and leave the interpretation to the reader.

So please review the No original research policy:


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

More proposed neutral wording:


 * Congressman Emanuel Cleaver claims he was spat upon, later adding, "I said to this one person, 'You spat on me.' I thought he was going to say, 'Hey, I was yelling. Sorry.' But he continuing yelling and, for a few seconds, I pointed at him and said, 'You spat on me.'"

However the current version lacks NPOV because it omits the key phrase which clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior. Obviously there is an immense difference between the intentional act of spitting and accidental spittle during speaking or 'yelling', which happens routinely.

More proposed neutral wording:


 * Gay Representative Barney Frank claims he was called a "homo", a "fag" and a "faggot" several times. One protester alleged that Frank had been the one to start the exchange by saying "f--- you" to her.

However, the current version states these alleged events as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?

More proposed neutral wording:


 * Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "Kill the bill, then the N-word." They chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said, "Never did I hear any type of racial slur."

However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.

More proposed neutral wording:


 * Conservative activist and Tea Party speaker Andrew Breitbart asserted that the racial slurs never happened. He said that, "by crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up." Breitbart offered to donate $100,000 to charity if someone could either provide video evidence of racial epithets or Representative John Lewis could pass a lie-detector test.

Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance. Breitbart is a well known person who is an active speaker within the Tea Party movement. His challenge is well-sourced and relevant. It is notable that "100000 Breitbart" gets over 350,000 hits on Google. It allows the reader to weigh the credibility of the charges, beyond just the he-said-but-he-said allegations. That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism". You may disagree with this logic, but the facts should be presented to allow the user to decide. However, someone keeps trying to remove this response which is unacceptable.

In conclusion, this section presents serious, disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage (not that they would ever actually do that). Unless there is some attempt to provide fairness and balance, then you as an editor risk losing the presumption of good faith and start to look like a political campaign manager specializing in dirty tricks (which of course, you are not). These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications.

So until this section is brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies and consensus is reached, please leave the POV tag to alert the reader to this important ongoing discussion. Thanks.

Freedom Fan (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my post immediately above yours re "tiny handful of individuals". These are elected representatives of the people.  There is a presumption that elected representatives do not wantonly and maliciously lie in order to bring an organisation into disrepute.  To accuse them of maliciously lying, or even to infer that they did by the use of the word "claim" (see WP:CLAIM) is a BLP violation.  To cite reliable sources that say that unnamed people shouted "nigger" conforms to BLP.  WP:ATTACK does not apply - I wonder if you have even read it.  I and others have repeatedly stressed that the section is not there "primarily to disparage"  anybody, and no neutral reader would see it that way.  WP:NOR does not apply - every statement is meticulously sourced.  Your idea of POV is not the same as other people's; for instance, I don't see how the word "faggot" becomes not homophobic when the person it is directed at says "f--- you".  What led to the epithet is irrelevant if the epithet is used.  I won't deal with your other points in detail because they have already been dealt with at length.  Suffice it to say that some of your "proposed neutral wording" is decidedly non-neutral to me.
 * By the way, making legal threats ("These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications") is frowned on here, and an ironic disclaimer ("which of course, you are not") does not prevent what went before from being a personal attack. Anybody I have interracted with will tell you that I have been scrupulous at all times about maintaining NPOV and encyclopedic content.  Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous problems with the above. I'll outline and number some of them here:
 * ...this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure.
 * (1) No, it really doesn't. Please describe here the exact wording from the article that you feel is in violation of WP:BLP, and why.
 * ...by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants.
 * (2) Wrong. The cited sources convey that there were reports of racism and homophobia, so the article also conveys that there were reports of racism and homophobia (or alternatively, racial and anti-gay slurs), as it should.  The "intent of the participants" is left up to the reader.
 * ...the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word".
 * (3) I call b-word. Er, I mean bullshit. I distinctly see the word "nigger" used in several sources in that paragraph.  We all know what the word is - please don't play games.  The same applies to the "racial slur" and "anti-gay slur" descriptions, too.
 * ...clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior.
 * (4) Say what? If anyone spit on me, intentionally or accidentally, I would be in their face demanding an apology, and so would many other folks. There is nothing in Cleaver's words or actions that indicate he thought the spitting was accidental. At most, Cleaver was giving the spitter a chance to make amends by apologizing (and apparently he declined) - nothing more.  Nice bit of personal synthesis you performed there.
 * ''...the current version states these alleged events [against Frank] as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?
 * (5) First, there is nothing "alleged" about the anti-gay slurs having been hurled at Frank. It's a fact - get used to it. It is also conveyed as a fact in reliable sources and video, not as an "allegation" or a "report". As for BLP violations again, see number (1) above: you need to specify the exact wording you feel is in violation, and why. What "equally bad behavior" from Frank? Do you mean the claim by a protester that Frank said an unprovoked "fuck you" to her (does he have Tourette's now?) during just one of the several instances of anti-gay slurs?
 * If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.
 * (6) Dozens of videos failed to record it? Source, please? How about a source that says just one video (that was actually taken at the time and place reported) missed it? You are doing your own unfounded synthesis again.  If there were dozens of protesters with cameras near the congressmen when they left that building and heard the slurs, why has not one of them come forward and offered video proof that the slurs didn't happen? What are they hiding on those cameras?
 * Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance.
 * (7) Breitbart and his theories and his donation offer are already present in the article.
 * That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism".
 * (8) See number (6) above: there aren't any "dozens of videos" - there isn't even one video. And no, there is no "reward". We certainly saw cameras in the crowd, so why has not one of them come forward to prove that the slurs did not happen? Maybe they can't? You are asking why won't just one of those protestors step forward with self-incriminating proof of racism so that some black folks can get some of Breitbart's money? Gosh, that's a tough one to answer, too.
 * ...disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage...
 * (9) At least 5 powerful politicians lying about racial incidents to create political advantage... seriously? But they aren't powerful or smart enough to just pay some people to create some comotion while making sure plenty of media record it? I think I'll stick with logic, and reliable sources, instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, we have plent of coverage available for the following info: use of nigger in Washington, use of faggot in Washington, disputes over what happened in Washington, use of spic that drew condemnation from the movement, a related study on the make-up of the group, a group planning to infiltrate and another incident with the teacher in Oregon. Wikipedia is not news but we should be able to tie it all together in a coherent couple paragraph summary. What Freedomfan fails to realize is that not mentioning some of these things leaves the question open and he isn;t changing anyone's mind. Would you rather have nothing so that individuals keep on thinking they are racists or would you rather provide some details so they can make an informed decision. You are actually editing contrary to what would benefit your beliefs (assuming you are a suporter from your comments).Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is ridiculous is how biased this section is. In this case your source originally did not use the word; that is what made it a synthesis by an editor eager to use the word.  Now that you have changed the source, sure keep the word.  But the section is still ridiculously biased.  Freedom Fan (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What source are you referring to? The only error I made was using "nigger" when the source used "n-word" in what was obviously a reference to the racial slur. And that mistake was fixed with using [sic] within a day.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he's saying that when I changed the word to "nigger", the reference was to Fox News, which didn't use that word. In response to Freedom Fan's OR comment, I added the HeraldNet ref.  Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a much better example of synthesis:
 * However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.
 * What source is that taken from? Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Show me where "synthesis" applies to a talk page. I suggested using exactly what the man said and I stated the reason, but this content has been removed.  No synthesis there.  Freedom Fan (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that synthesis applies to a talk page if it is used to justify the inclusion of specific content. "The 'n-word' was used 15 times" is not encyclopedic of itself, as I said above (and it says 'one man "just rattled it off several times"' in the current version anyway), and William Owens is fine where he is - it wasn't even me that put him there, it was somebody who is in agreement with you.  To put the two of those together on the basis of your synthesis would itself be synthesis.  Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick layout note not related to content: I think that breaking up the section into subsections is premature since paragraph breaks already provide the distinction between information. It comes across to me as over doing it organization wise. Could just be my personal preference though so I am happy to defer to what looks the best to everyone else. I am a little concerned that it may give prominence to issues that are worthy of inclusion but do not deserve the weight of an independent section heading. Not sure though.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Israeli tea party
unde weight to mention it in the head section, it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals , I assume there are no more than 100 people that participate in anything if at all. 109.66.17.64 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals" Citation needed "I assume there are no more than 100 people" An assumption? Again, citation needed
 * Gone. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting
Malke 2010  18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section
Not sure why Tea Party Portests is being added back to this section. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Is there a reason for this? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the whole article is being added back to this article? Malke 2010  16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section," Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)