User:Arthur Rubin/Tea Party movement

Working evidence draft for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement By March 20, conduct evidence will be removed from here.

Starting
Will include content disputes, until I can determine how to separate content from methods. This is the "clean" content, IMHO, with the exception that he's not a NYT journalist:

New York Times journalist Al Hunt, in his weekly International Herald Tribune column, “Letter from Washington,” offered his opinion that the "The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics."

Until recently, no arguments have been presented for the reliability of the source except as to Hunt's opinion. Now, at WP:RSN, a plausible, but IMO incorrect, argument has finally been presented. As has been well established, guest columns are not subject to fact-checking.

I see, in the history, bald assertions were made that the source was reliable, because it was in the "News" section of the NYT, not noticing that _editorials_, and guest columns, are frequently found in the "News" sections of that paper. I don't see any history addressing how the fact that Hunt is not a NYT or IHT reporter should be noted. "Letters from Washington" is a guest column in the IHT, with no evidence that it's in the "news" section of the IHT.

This is still content, rather than conduct, but multiple editors ignoring the fact that the source is not "in" the NYT, nor subject to the NYT's well-established fact-checking, is conduct.

If there is any evidence presented that G or X made policy-based arguments, I'll have to look more closely.