![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
No one on here is talking about the racist claims that are made about the tea party members. There is much documentation with tancredo's statements at their convention. The texas tea party even replied by saying that "well MSNBC isn't diverse either". This isssue has been documented for a long time and it is not address in this article. Someone needs to really add more information rather than just being a press release from the tea party movement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Your information about the tea party movement is biased because you do not include the LARGEST criticism that the tea party movement has received. I understand you want to try and be balanced but you are ignoring a serious controversy. And if you want to be balanced you can reference the response the tea party has had about the racism comments. Here are a list of news stories to prove the point that the tea party has issues with racism and there is a link with one tea party response to the racism claim.
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395
http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php
http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic
Here is a comment where the tea party responds to the racism claim.
I think if that doesn't show there is serious concern over the tea party movement being racist then I don't know what does. And I didn't once reference MSNBC which I know is the liberal mecca, much like Fox news is for conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources for claims of racism made by IP
Editorial: http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial
Letter to the Editor: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt
Opinion piece about Tom Tancredo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html
Opinion piece: http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395
Opinion piece: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=the_tea_party_grievance
Opinion piece: http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php
Opinion piece: http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic
Letter to the Editor: http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-04/news/hc-digbrflets03042010.art0mar04_1_pitts-race-relations-keith-olbermann
(not written by Tea Party Movement as suggested)
You comment about it being opinion, but that is exactly what makes it a controversy! One side claims they are racist they claim they aren't. You are BLATANTLY leaving out the main criticism against this group. And ignoring the documents that suggest they are racist. Such Tancredo who spoke their convention and said racist things that were used against black people to prevent them to vote. I am not saying that everyone thinks they are racist, but there is certainly a controversy about whether are are or aren't.
Oh and here is a video directly from the Dallas Tea Party who responded to Keith Olberman's claim they did not have any black people in the crowd. This video is posted on their own website. http://dallasteaparty.org/ So even they can see there is some criticism about them being racist and they tried to answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded#
If you can't acknowledge that this is a controversy then you are missing the picture being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that above the controversy section says "This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole. (March 2010)". Clearly not everyone agrees that the tea party is racist or not, but certainly it is controversial and worth noting about the members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The largest criticism this group receives is that their actions are motivated by racism. In February 2010 the tea party group at their convention added more fuel to this claim.
One of the convention speakers was former Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo. Tancredo who was quoted at the convention as saying “people who could not even spell the word 'vote'” were the one’s that put Obama into office. Tancredo also said at the Tea Party Convention that “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” His comments have been viewed as being racist because they reference an old policy that prevented African American’s from having the right to vote.
Megan McCain, daughter of John McCain, even went on The View and discussed Tancredo’s comments. She called Tancredo’s comments at the Tea Party Convention “Innate racism”, she later went on to say that this racism is what has turned off younger voters to this movement.
After much of the controversy about Tancredo’s remarks Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who formed Tea Party Nation was quoted as saying "Tom Tancredo gave a fantastic speech last night. I think he is an amazing politician."
Another vocal critic of the tea party movements has been liberal spokesman Keith Olbermann. He said on his tv program “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on his program he discussed Tancredo’s remarks at the Tea Party Convention. Olbermann asked the tea party member’s “how many black faces do you see at these events? How many hispanic’s, asians, gays, where are these people?”
In response to Olbermann’s claim that there were no black faces in the crowd, the Dallas Tea Party responded with their own video questioning how many black faces did we see on MSNBC?
Source for Tea Party’s Leadership repsonse about Tancredo’s remarks http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch http://washingtonindependent.com/75937/tom-tancredos-literacy-test-the-controversy-that-wasnt-video
Source for Meghan McCain’s words from The View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHQxl0iO2E she discusses this about 4 minutes and 45 seconds into the video.
Source for video of Olbermann speaking. Quotes at minute 5:55. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTxdR46-08&feature=related
Source for Dallas tea party replying to Olbermann.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded
Everything is sourced. It gives views from a republican, Meghan McCain. It sources the Tea Parties response to Olbmermann. The sources are reliable, CNN is pretty trusted. The others are videos of their own words, not taken out of contact.
The source from CNN and washington independent BOTH quote the founder of the Tea Party Nation convention.
If you keep blocking this from being posted I will have to ensure that people know of wikipedia's bias.
You commented that you needed more reliable sources such as the New York Times or Washington Post. I have sourced from CNN which is reliable and blow is a source from the Washington Post. I have also posted a quote from CNN from the leader of the tea party nation about the tancredo remarks.
Here is an article about racism and the tea party from the Washington Post. The post also talks about Meghan McCain's comments. Just because the tea party does not like that this is being said about them, that does not mean it isn't valid criticism about the group. If they didn't support it, their leader should have come out against what Tancredo said. But he didn't! The leader of the Tea Party Nation came out on record in support of what Tancredo said and that was sourced in the CNN article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605644.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch
Here is another example of the Washington Post discussing the comments.
"Fairfax, Virginia: Meghan McCain said Tancredo's statements represented "innate racism." This was in reference to comments by former U. S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) about reestablishing literacy tests at the recent national Tea Party convention. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post referred to the comments as "naked Jim Crow racism" on the Keith Olbermann Countdown show last evening. The practice of literacy tests for voting, used to disenfranchise African Americans, was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When can we expect the Republican Party led by Michael Steele, or for that matter the Washington Post editorial board, to condemn these comments? Their silence is absolutely deafening.
Michael A. Fletcher: Those comments were odious. I can't speak for what the editorial page will do, but knowing the people who work there I have no doubt that they found some of what the former congressman said to be outrageous and insulting."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/02/09/DI2010020901324.html
Clearly I am not alone in this criticism. Yet it can't seem to be address on the wiki page.
It is verifiable that Tancredo said those comments at a tea party convention. It is verifiable that people found it racist. It is verifiable that the leader of the tea party nation said on record that he supported what Tancredo said. It is verifiable that Olebermann commented about no blacks being at their meeting. It is verifiable that the Dallas Tea Party group commented back to Olbermann about his comments. These are facts. I was asked for better sources, you got DIRECT sources from their own mouths. You got a source from CNN and the Washington Post. You also got direct video of what was said about them from Olbermann, Meghan McCain (a republican), and the video from the tea party.
By continuing to prevent this you are being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Tea party movement questioned over racist signs or signs that were satire. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html?iref=allsearch
Meghan McCain calls tea party statement innate racism. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6189472-503544.html
Baltimore Sun questions racism of tea party. Sun 186,000 in viewer ship. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-10/news/bal-ed.teaparty0210_1_klan-rallies-anti-immigrant-mr-perot
Discusses tancredo's comments and gives a back ground on the issue of literacy tests. http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-party-opening-speaker-suggests-blacks-voting/
Tea party cheers for Tancredo's comments about literacy tests and not being able to spell vote http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tea-party-speaker-tom-tancredo-rips-john-mccain-obama/story?id=9751718
Anderson Cooper discusses the claim of racism with leader of the tea party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitkQMVev8M
Fox news poll suggest people think tea party is racist (CS monitor is used on the tea party page as a source for other information) I do acknowledge that this link isn't a fact, but suggests that I'm not the only one who questions if the tea party is racist and clearly shows there is a controversy over if they are or aren't. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0212/Tea-Party-movement-full-of-racists-and-conspiracists-according-to-FOX-poll
Signs carried by Tea Party members, people do view the signs as racist. (this is from huffington post, which I understand is liberal, but still shows there is a controversy). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
I think if that doesn't show that there is a controversy about whether or not the group is racist then I do not know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 08:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is once again another example of the tea party and racist comments. This is from the Washington Post, which is a large news source. It is also NOT an opinion piece. Wikipedia is ignoring this on the tea party website. How many sources do you need?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/by-paul-kane-black-lawmakers.html
Huffington Post (which I know is liberal) "Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Faggot' Shouted At Members Of Congress" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html
How long will wiki ignore this? I will continue to point out reliable news sources linking to racist acts preformed by the tea party members.
Here is a fox news post
Roll Call (not sure if this is considered reliable. http://www.rollcall.com/news/44438-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html Updated Washington Post story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty glaring that the subject of racism accusations is not brought up. With the possible exception of anger, it really is the main thing this very controversial movement is criticized for. It feels like bias that neither racism or anger is even mentioned in the article (except for Gingrich bringing up anger positively), given the extent that they're associated with the tea party movement. It's like if John Rocker's article didn't mention racism allegations, and Lewis Black's didn't mention expressions of anger. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 04:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AvatarMN and have been saying this for about a week. The article is clearly biased for not listing the groups criticism. I was told "it was hardly their largest criticism". I was told to give more reliable sources, but I would like to point out that the same sources I have used, that were rejected, are the same sources that have been allowed to be linked as sources throughout the tea party page (go look at the tea party protests and look at the sources for the numbers of people who protested, the sources aren't that reliable or main stream), yet I was given crap.
I don't wish to write the comment about racism, because clearly I am biased, but someone should write about racism.
It is true that Tom Tancredo made statements that were viewed as racist at the Tea Party Nation event (source is above CNN), it is true that the organizer of the of the Tea Party Nation event said he supported Tancredo's remarks (source is also above CNN), it is true that Olbermann called out the tea party (his source and quote is above), it is true that the Dallas Tea Party resonded to Keith Olbermann (the source and video is above), it is true on March 20th tea party members protested at the capital and used words that were racisit (source is above).
I am biased, so I will defer to someone else to write real information about the tea party and racism. But by leaving it out clearly shows a bias and it makes wiki look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've protected this article from editing for two weeks, owing to edit warring. Please try to find a WP:Consensus for handling the sundry outlooks on this topic. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, the reason I ask for the WP:BLP passage about this is because the appropriateness of moving outside of consensus has come up before on the WP:BLP thing (the previous question was does the subject of the article fall under WP:BLP? It appears the answer is no).-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I can succinctly address each of the concerns and questions with the following short explanation: The 2 BLP issues mentioned above are clear-cut, and should be removed - not only without first achieving consensus, but without even discussing it. WP:BLP policy is quite clear on this - so clear, it is the only bold-text statement in the lede. Please note the BLP policy applies to every word on every page in Wikipedia that is written about a living person - even the Tea Party movement page. Roy, your comments about two styles of editing (brutal hack & slash versus discuss-wait-discuss more-wait more-then edit) are well taken, but this particular situation falls into a third category. What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)? The policy is clear when it says we must get it right, and in its admonition against the use of such poorly sourced contenteous material. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
"What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)?" Actually, Xenophrenic, the scenario you describe isn't just applied in WP:BLP cases. This is something that shouldn't happen at all, per WP:IDHT. Consensus isn't forever, but if we're going to go over old arguments, you've got to bring something new to the table. This has been a recurring problem here as well, IMHO.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I misunderstood you slightly when you commented on reinsertion of previously dismissed information and then cited your BLP concern. I think we both agree on where the bar is set on the distinction between opinion and fact. Further back in our conversation, I merely sought an excised quotation from WP:BLP guidelines that explained your intended action, for the sake of others not familiar and as a handy reference here on this page.
As for bringing stuff to the table, again, I was trying to make the point that we shouldn't be continuously revisiting issues that have been already handled. Unless you've got a new reason to re-consider it we just shouldn't go there.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
While it's true politically charged pages need to have some sort of referee. I think it's time to add some new information
and For God Sakes remove the Sex act from the "See Also" links. It is not something that should be on a page that is based on a political movement... unless you're displaying some bias here.
I agree with the previous poster. I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant. --EJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.182.152 ( talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
What does tea Bagging have to do with a populist political movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.79.95 ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
why is a sex act being discussed here? Randal6546 ( talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant." With all due respect to the IP, it's a stretch to argue that the "Humor" subsection somehow misled him/her to a non-relevant area of information. What is irrelevant is a conversation on whether or not Teabagging is a hetero or homosexual act. That's not the basis of the subsection's inclusion.
The subsection conforms to guidelines (as has been demonstrated on this Talk page ad nauseum, just take a look at the archive or even the current comments) and outlines concisely how this Double entendre became associated with the Tea Party movement. I don't care if it's funny or disgusting. The fact is it's there and it merits inclusion by dint of notability, as has also been repeatedly demonstrated. It should be accurately, verifiably and neutrally described, and I believe the current version of this subsection are all of those things.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
can a section of the talk page be locked? this discussion has gone too far and needs to stop. it's childish things like this that got the article locked. Randal6546 ( talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The double entendre is intrinsically part of the issue by way of the media coverage, and consequently entered the mainstream lexicon — in the opinion of the Oxford American Dictionary. Again, this isn't an issue of whether or not this is morally "appropriate" or "childish" in your opinion. And this isn't the first time a double entendre (a word or phrase that shares a second sexual meaning) has emerged, nor will it be the last. The most prominent, modern example I can think of in dealing with a question such as this is Wikipedia's entry on the Watergate Affair. During the Watergate, the media didn't dub informant and former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt "Informant No. 1". He was dubbed " Deep Throat". That phrase, Deep Throat, refers to a sex act (as it still does). But the term was popularized as the title of a notorious pornographic movie. But after the WaPo used the name to refer to Felt, the phrase consequently morphed another meaning ("Deep Throat has since been used as a generic term or pseudonym for a secret inside informer or whistleblower"). Go ahead, click on it. It's the same issue here.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
you're not reading what i'm saying. tea bagging has been explained, end of story. we don't need a whole discussion on it. if you want to talk about nicknames in the media that double as sex acts, then post on a forum or make an article about it. the talk page of a political movement is not the place to discuss sex acts. Randal6546 ( talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why completely disable editing of this article during the health care vote? because of tea-bagging? would the article on the republican party be shut down too over a dispute over carpetbaggers as well? Put a section in the article to let all the kids giggle over the meaning of getting tea-bagged, but please don't shut down the entire article, otherwise some people may view it as partisan politics. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? Even after what happened outside Capitol Hill yesterday, and the media firestorm about it, still nothing on racism allegations in this article? Are people trying to put it in, and they're being prevented? Do we need a request for comment on this, or something? -- AvatarMN ( talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes people are trying to put something up about racism but are being prevented. I understand if what is put up needs to be edited to make it less biased, but it SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. Links from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post/Independent have been used, as well as others. Yet it was all deleted, someone decided that the sources weren't reliable. Yet if you look at the sources used throughout the tea party page there are ones that were allowed but then later NOT allowed when it referenced racism.
Who do we need to appeal to, to prevent someone from continuing to delete references to racism. It is worth noting that the entire conservation that took place earlier with links has been deleted.
Wiki is not meant to be a marketing page for the tea party, it is supposed to contain real information about the group. Right now it is missing something. Even republicans are acknowledging these issues, they just minimize it and say it was an isolated incident (which it may have been). The only page that doesn't think it happened is wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 06:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Under "Claims of bias in media coverage," 4th paragraph, second to last sentence:
"Political commentator Keith Olbermann said, "Despite claiming neutrality on those policies and the teabag movement itself, FOX has whipped up excitement for the parties, recruiting viewers to come out, guaranteeing huge outdoor gatherings, spilling into the streets, choking off traffic with all their teabagging.""
Why is it that we have a link to the page on Teabagging? Teabagging refers to a sexual act. The page on Teabagging links back to this article (
Tea Party movement) for the Tea Party Movement. Anyone else see the needless link to a sexual act? xD
Zell Faze ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation 158 is used to support a claim that the reference to the sexual act is elitist. The source cited makes no such claim. The "elitism" language is POV and the authors alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 ( talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Scary stuff going on out there. Just thought I'd contribute this article for your consideration: [5] There are of course others...
I wonder if the events of this last week will be categorized as part of the history section, or as a Violence/Health Care Violence chapter under "Controversey"? Just thought I'd bring it up -- Izauze ( talk) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be added that these teabaggers are a now a terrorist organization. 75.236.100.244 ( talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've dropped the full protection down to only semi-protection for the last 4 days. Single undo edits are ok if the reason is straightforwardly noted but please, don't fall into back-and-forth editing. Rather, gather consensus if an edit is undone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we describe the group as far-right? Surely there must be sources for that, and we don't have any problems calling groups like the John Birch Society, which have similar goals, far-right. I've got a sneaking feeling it's to do with the level of public acceptance, but remember, Hitler was popularly elected... Sceptre ( talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone who was involved in the discussion, I can assure you that the first sentence definition of Tea Party movement was a product of long consensus-building. Please see Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 2#Consensus on Grassroots or Populist and the section above it for more details. If you want to change the definition, please write down the exact sentence you want to substitute and then settle down for a long process of consensus. On the other hand and within this restriction, we welcome new ideas. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I read this section, because I wanted to learn what the movement's positions and goals were. I learned:
Also opposed federal support? As well as what? This is the only approximation to a "position" in the entire section! And there are no "goals" anywhere in sight. Surely there is enough written in reliable sources to say "the movement believes a, b and c and its aims are x, y and z? For instance, is it by any chance opposed to President Obama's healthcare legislation? And can anybody explain what "a protest that has been in government" means, or how Eric Odom whinging about the Republican Party trying to get on the bandwagon belongs in this section at all, never mind at the top? Scolaire ( talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on populism (Wikilinked from this article) tells me "Academic and scholarly definitions of populism vary widely and the term is often employed in loose, inconsistent and undefined ways..."
Does such an inconclusively defined term really help in the first line of this article? I would scrap it and just stick to more precise descriptions of the movement and what it does.
HiLo48 ( talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this, MakeBelieveMonster. I still don't think a change is necessary, but I'm keeping an open mind.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Put a fact tag up. We need to source that. sparkie 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPm editors might be interested. Sbowers3 ( talk) 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Looks like a useful article about the movement: Tea party goes for big-tent strategy Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one: Face of the tea party is female.
Sbowers3 ( talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting overview of the TPm: Tea partiers embrace liberty not big government "Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government." "The opposition [to the expansion of government] has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls." "The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government -- and its threat to the independence of citizens." "Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government." Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Two more interesting articles: Obama takes care in sizing up 'tea party' movement, Tea party movement makes mark on Nebraska
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
An interesting article from CNN: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party
Democrats such as these make up only 4% of TPers, according to CNN's poll. I bring it up because it dispels the notion that the TPm is nothing but Republicans, and also dispels the notion that all the TPers are racists - these people voted for Obama and they still like him personally; it's just his policies they don't like. The movement is driven by political philosophy, not by race. Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a column by Juan Williams, a black guy and generally considered a liberal:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose we keep the first three paragraphs and delete everything after that. It's not relevant. Malke 2010 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This section could be reduced to one paragraph and added under "composition of the movement." This would make it more relevant. As the section stands now it is over the top and makes it seem like all the information that comes before it is doubtful since so much space is being given over to it. Malke 2010 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I put the "Views of the Movement" section after the first protests, etc. It just reads better that way. Malke 2010 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits had made nearly all of the article a part of "History", and reduced some subsections to level 4, which is a bit excessive. I have put them back to the way they were. I really do feel it makes the article much more readable. Scolaire ( talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
User:ThinkEnemies has violated WP:3RR in a span of 18 minutes ( 1, 2, and 3) and removed both a Quinnipiac University poll from Politico on views of Tea Partiers and a statement by Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban of The New York Review of Books on the composition of the Tea Party movement. Seeing as how User:ThinkEnemies has already 3RR'd (once rudely declaring "What the hell do you think you are doing?" and then instead of WP:AGF declared "I can also assume you're lost when it comes to Talk Pages") --- I figured I would give him the opportunity here to explain his rationale for exclusion of both additions. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(# 1) As Jonathan Raban pointed out in The New York Review of Books, [1] the tea party is an uneasy conclave of Ayn Rand secular libertarians and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals; it contains birthers, Birchers, racists, xenophobes, Ron Paulites, cold warriors, Zionists, constitutionalists, vanilla Republicans looking for a high and militia-style survivalists.
(# 2) A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,900 adult Americans conducted in March of 2010, found that of those who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement [3]:
- 88 % were white
- 77 % voted for 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain
- 74 % identified themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican
- 16 % said they are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents
- 60 % have a favorable impression of the Republican Party
- 82 % have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party
I have undone TE's reverts simply because I do not like the way they were done. Not only were they, as I said in my edit summary,
gaming the system and confrontational ("What the hell do you think you are doing?" is totally unacceptable in an edit summary) but there was a failure to
assume good faith or to follow
bold, revert, discuss - the discussion should have taken place before edit-warring. Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of points about the edits:
Scolaire ( talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This movement didn't start in early 2009. I was being invited to "tea parties" in the runup to the 2008 election. And someone on this page was pointing out a 2007 example. The second sentence of this article is claiming:
The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[2][3] as well as the 2008 bailouts[4].
Isn't it obvious how the wording of this article is in error? I'm not saying we should focus strongly on the time when they were Ron Paul supporter events, but I'm saying that we should carefully word it whenever talking about the origination of the movement and the blatantly wrong statements need to be fixed. Or does someone want to try to correct me? Did the first tea parties in 2009 somehow go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the libertarian tea parties that were just going on months before? It just doesn't make any sense. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Miszabot not functioning. |
Miszabot, the software robot that has been archiving old sections of this talk page for us, is not working correctly. For the past few days, it seems to have been archiving after just one day or it may be only leaving the four of five most recent sections unarchived. At any rate, many of the discussions we have been having have been abruptly cut short.
In looking at the template (User:MiszaBot in Talk:Tea Party movement's lead) that controls our archiving, I found that User:Redthoreau changed the days-old parameter from 15d to 30 at 04:27 on 3 April 2010. The instructions for Miszabot say that you must include either the d (for days) or an h (for hours). I have changed it to 30d but, since this is my first exposure to Miszabot, it may be something else that has to be fixed. I've left an urgent message for Redthoreau and emailed him as well.
What this means for us is that discussions we were having yesterday may be archived (probably in Archive 4) today. If you have not finished with any section that has been improperly archived, you should bring it back to the main talk page here by accessing Archive 4 (or whatever) and cut-and-pasting it into this page.
I hope this doesn't disturb your operations too much and I'll inform you of future developments with Redthoreau. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I restored this section down below. Then RedThoreau restored it here. This caused problems because of the two, identical headings. So I've changed this one. Please consider this talk section archived and add whatever comments you like on the active section below. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.
Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."
I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.
The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.
I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.
I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.
This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.
Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:
I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.
Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.
The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.
Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.
I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend not to like opinion polls and wouldn't mind if they all disappeared, but I think factual polls can be interesting. This is a demographic poll by Gallup of Tea Party supporters:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This might be worth mentioning. Some Tea Party activists have created a "crowd-sourced" Contract From America. Some 360,000 people have contributed to drafting a legislative agenda for this coming year. Here are some of many RS about the Contract:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
From Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism program, a "A brief history of the Tea Party movement"-- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The recent edit on the Keli Carender 2nd tea party she organized in Seattle, does not support the claim that her second party was part of a national organization. The citation does not mention Carender, nor does it name these so-called national parties. The edit should be removed since it's OR. Malke 2010 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, the original edit does have a reliable source that covers her actions. This section is about her and what she did. Malke 2010 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
First, she helped organize it. On her blog she herself is careful to give credit where credit is due, and goes out of her way to recognize the role the Feb. 27 Nationwide Tea Party is playing, and in another post directly links Tea Party talking points from Michael Patrick Leahy's advocacy blog TCOT Report. Second, a "nationally organized campaign" does not by definition require a "monolithic" organization. Asserting it's a "monolithic organization" seems like a strawman argument. As I explained before, according to Feb. 27 organizer Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group. It's generally accepted that these folks are national conservative voices. Some of them also happen to be the same organizations or voices behind the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Patriots, among others (such as Nationwide Tea Party Coalition). I disagree with saying "Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized". If that's true, then why did they all take place on the same day, with virtually the same message (e.g. Carender linking to the TCOP talking points, suggested sign slogans, ect.)??? -- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This section was improperly archived by Miszabot on April 4th and has been restored.
Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.
Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."
I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.
The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.
I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.
I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.
This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.
Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:
I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.
Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.
The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.
Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.
I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
“ | 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[40]. 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. | ” |
As long as we're debating a reduction of the history section, I will reiterate my proposal to move the history section to Tea Party protests and only retain a summary. Currently we have most of the same content duplicated in both articles. But if TPM is really the main article and TPP is really the sub-article focused on the protests themselves... the details of specific protests should go in TPP. TPM should be focused instead on political views & impacts, who the movement is, reactions, etc. I had a proposed summary in the archives somewhere. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
No one on here is talking about the racist claims that are made about the tea party members. There is much documentation with tancredo's statements at their convention. The texas tea party even replied by saying that "well MSNBC isn't diverse either". This isssue has been documented for a long time and it is not address in this article. Someone needs to really add more information rather than just being a press release from the tea party movement itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Your information about the tea party movement is biased because you do not include the LARGEST criticism that the tea party movement has received. I understand you want to try and be balanced but you are ignoring a serious controversy. And if you want to be balanced you can reference the response the tea party has had about the racism comments. Here are a list of news stories to prove the point that the tea party has issues with racism and there is a link with one tea party response to the racism claim.
http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395
http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php
http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic
Here is a comment where the tea party responds to the racism claim.
I think if that doesn't show there is serious concern over the tea party movement being racist then I don't know what does. And I didn't once reference MSNBC which I know is the liberal mecca, much like Fox news is for conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources for claims of racism made by IP
Editorial: http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/editorial/02-16-2010-Tea-Party--Editorial
Letter to the Editor: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/03/13/opinion/srv0000007790673.txt
Opinion piece about Tom Tancredo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/axel-woolfolk/latinos-launching-campaig_b_477584.html
Opinion piece: http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=2395
Opinion piece: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2010&base_name=the_tea_party_grievance
Opinion piece: http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/Tea-Party-racism-not-refuted-by-GOP-379148.php
Opinion piece: http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02192010-the-tea-party-panic
Letter to the Editor: http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-04/news/hc-digbrflets03042010.art0mar04_1_pitts-race-relations-keith-olbermann
(not written by Tea Party Movement as suggested)
You comment about it being opinion, but that is exactly what makes it a controversy! One side claims they are racist they claim they aren't. You are BLATANTLY leaving out the main criticism against this group. And ignoring the documents that suggest they are racist. Such Tancredo who spoke their convention and said racist things that were used against black people to prevent them to vote. I am not saying that everyone thinks they are racist, but there is certainly a controversy about whether are are or aren't.
Oh and here is a video directly from the Dallas Tea Party who responded to Keith Olberman's claim they did not have any black people in the crowd. This video is posted on their own website. http://dallasteaparty.org/ So even they can see there is some criticism about them being racist and they tried to answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded#
If you can't acknowledge that this is a controversy then you are missing the picture being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 00:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that above the controversy section says "This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole. (March 2010)". Clearly not everyone agrees that the tea party is racist or not, but certainly it is controversial and worth noting about the members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The largest criticism this group receives is that their actions are motivated by racism. In February 2010 the tea party group at their convention added more fuel to this claim.
One of the convention speakers was former Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo. Tancredo who was quoted at the convention as saying “people who could not even spell the word 'vote'” were the one’s that put Obama into office. Tancredo also said at the Tea Party Convention that “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” His comments have been viewed as being racist because they reference an old policy that prevented African American’s from having the right to vote.
Megan McCain, daughter of John McCain, even went on The View and discussed Tancredo’s comments. She called Tancredo’s comments at the Tea Party Convention “Innate racism”, she later went on to say that this racism is what has turned off younger voters to this movement.
After much of the controversy about Tancredo’s remarks Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who formed Tea Party Nation was quoted as saying "Tom Tancredo gave a fantastic speech last night. I think he is an amazing politician."
Another vocal critic of the tea party movements has been liberal spokesman Keith Olbermann. He said on his tv program “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on his program he discussed Tancredo’s remarks at the Tea Party Convention. Olbermann asked the tea party member’s “how many black faces do you see at these events? How many hispanic’s, asians, gays, where are these people?”
In response to Olbermann’s claim that there were no black faces in the crowd, the Dallas Tea Party responded with their own video questioning how many black faces did we see on MSNBC?
Source for Tea Party’s Leadership repsonse about Tancredo’s remarks http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch http://washingtonindependent.com/75937/tom-tancredos-literacy-test-the-controversy-that-wasnt-video
Source for Meghan McCain’s words from The View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHQxl0iO2E she discusses this about 4 minutes and 45 seconds into the video.
Source for video of Olbermann speaking. Quotes at minute 5:55. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTxdR46-08&feature=related
Source for Dallas tea party replying to Olbermann.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdPTpOyUk4&feature=player_embedded
Everything is sourced. It gives views from a republican, Meghan McCain. It sources the Tea Parties response to Olbmermann. The sources are reliable, CNN is pretty trusted. The others are videos of their own words, not taken out of contact.
The source from CNN and washington independent BOTH quote the founder of the Tea Party Nation convention.
If you keep blocking this from being posted I will have to ensure that people know of wikipedia's bias.
You commented that you needed more reliable sources such as the New York Times or Washington Post. I have sourced from CNN which is reliable and blow is a source from the Washington Post. I have also posted a quote from CNN from the leader of the tea party nation about the tancredo remarks.
Here is an article about racism and the tea party from the Washington Post. The post also talks about Meghan McCain's comments. Just because the tea party does not like that this is being said about them, that does not mean it isn't valid criticism about the group. If they didn't support it, their leader should have come out against what Tancredo said. But he didn't! The leader of the Tea Party Nation came out on record in support of what Tancredo said and that was sourced in the CNN article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605644.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html?iref=allsearch
Here is another example of the Washington Post discussing the comments.
"Fairfax, Virginia: Meghan McCain said Tancredo's statements represented "innate racism." This was in reference to comments by former U. S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) about reestablishing literacy tests at the recent national Tea Party convention. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post referred to the comments as "naked Jim Crow racism" on the Keith Olbermann Countdown show last evening. The practice of literacy tests for voting, used to disenfranchise African Americans, was outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When can we expect the Republican Party led by Michael Steele, or for that matter the Washington Post editorial board, to condemn these comments? Their silence is absolutely deafening.
Michael A. Fletcher: Those comments were odious. I can't speak for what the editorial page will do, but knowing the people who work there I have no doubt that they found some of what the former congressman said to be outrageous and insulting."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/02/09/DI2010020901324.html
Clearly I am not alone in this criticism. Yet it can't seem to be address on the wiki page.
It is verifiable that Tancredo said those comments at a tea party convention. It is verifiable that people found it racist. It is verifiable that the leader of the tea party nation said on record that he supported what Tancredo said. It is verifiable that Olebermann commented about no blacks being at their meeting. It is verifiable that the Dallas Tea Party group commented back to Olbermann about his comments. These are facts. I was asked for better sources, you got DIRECT sources from their own mouths. You got a source from CNN and the Washington Post. You also got direct video of what was said about them from Olbermann, Meghan McCain (a republican), and the video from the tea party.
By continuing to prevent this you are being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 04:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Tea party movement questioned over racist signs or signs that were satire. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html?iref=allsearch
Meghan McCain calls tea party statement innate racism. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6189472-503544.html
Baltimore Sun questions racism of tea party. Sun 186,000 in viewer ship. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-10/news/bal-ed.teaparty0210_1_klan-rallies-anti-immigrant-mr-perot
Discusses tancredo's comments and gives a back ground on the issue of literacy tests. http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-party-opening-speaker-suggests-blacks-voting/
Tea party cheers for Tancredo's comments about literacy tests and not being able to spell vote http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tea-party-speaker-tom-tancredo-rips-john-mccain-obama/story?id=9751718
Anderson Cooper discusses the claim of racism with leader of the tea party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitkQMVev8M
Fox news poll suggest people think tea party is racist (CS monitor is used on the tea party page as a source for other information) I do acknowledge that this link isn't a fact, but suggests that I'm not the only one who questions if the tea party is racist and clearly shows there is a controversy over if they are or aren't. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0212/Tea-Party-movement-full-of-racists-and-conspiracists-according-to-FOX-poll
Signs carried by Tea Party members, people do view the signs as racist. (this is from huffington post, which I understand is liberal, but still shows there is a controversy). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html
I think if that doesn't show that there is a controversy about whether or not the group is racist then I do not know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.114.30 ( talk) 08:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is once again another example of the tea party and racist comments. This is from the Washington Post, which is a large news source. It is also NOT an opinion piece. Wikipedia is ignoring this on the tea party website. How many sources do you need?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/by-paul-kane-black-lawmakers.html
Huffington Post (which I know is liberal) "Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Faggot' Shouted At Members Of Congress" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html
How long will wiki ignore this? I will continue to point out reliable news sources linking to racist acts preformed by the tea party members.
Here is a fox news post
Roll Call (not sure if this is considered reliable. http://www.rollcall.com/news/44438-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html Updated Washington Post story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty glaring that the subject of racism accusations is not brought up. With the possible exception of anger, it really is the main thing this very controversial movement is criticized for. It feels like bias that neither racism or anger is even mentioned in the article (except for Gingrich bringing up anger positively), given the extent that they're associated with the tea party movement. It's like if John Rocker's article didn't mention racism allegations, and Lewis Black's didn't mention expressions of anger. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 04:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AvatarMN and have been saying this for about a week. The article is clearly biased for not listing the groups criticism. I was told "it was hardly their largest criticism". I was told to give more reliable sources, but I would like to point out that the same sources I have used, that were rejected, are the same sources that have been allowed to be linked as sources throughout the tea party page (go look at the tea party protests and look at the sources for the numbers of people who protested, the sources aren't that reliable or main stream), yet I was given crap.
I don't wish to write the comment about racism, because clearly I am biased, but someone should write about racism.
It is true that Tom Tancredo made statements that were viewed as racist at the Tea Party Nation event (source is above CNN), it is true that the organizer of the of the Tea Party Nation event said he supported Tancredo's remarks (source is also above CNN), it is true that Olbermann called out the tea party (his source and quote is above), it is true that the Dallas Tea Party resonded to Keith Olbermann (the source and video is above), it is true on March 20th tea party members protested at the capital and used words that were racisit (source is above).
I am biased, so I will defer to someone else to write real information about the tea party and racism. But by leaving it out clearly shows a bias and it makes wiki look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've protected this article from editing for two weeks, owing to edit warring. Please try to find a WP:Consensus for handling the sundry outlooks on this topic. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, the reason I ask for the WP:BLP passage about this is because the appropriateness of moving outside of consensus has come up before on the WP:BLP thing (the previous question was does the subject of the article fall under WP:BLP? It appears the answer is no).-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I can succinctly address each of the concerns and questions with the following short explanation: The 2 BLP issues mentioned above are clear-cut, and should be removed - not only without first achieving consensus, but without even discussing it. WP:BLP policy is quite clear on this - so clear, it is the only bold-text statement in the lede. Please note the BLP policy applies to every word on every page in Wikipedia that is written about a living person - even the Tea Party movement page. Roy, your comments about two styles of editing (brutal hack & slash versus discuss-wait-discuss more-wait more-then edit) are well taken, but this particular situation falls into a third category. What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)? The policy is clear when it says we must get it right, and in its admonition against the use of such poorly sourced contenteous material. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
"What editing style would you apply to the re-insertion of content that was removed 3 months ago, and also 6 months ago, and also 9 months ago, and will probably need to be removed yet again 3 months from now (I'm speaking of the BLP-violating insinuation content that Roesgen's contract wasn't renewed specifically due to her Chicago Tea Party newscast)?" Actually, Xenophrenic, the scenario you describe isn't just applied in WP:BLP cases. This is something that shouldn't happen at all, per WP:IDHT. Consensus isn't forever, but if we're going to go over old arguments, you've got to bring something new to the table. This has been a recurring problem here as well, IMHO.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I misunderstood you slightly when you commented on reinsertion of previously dismissed information and then cited your BLP concern. I think we both agree on where the bar is set on the distinction between opinion and fact. Further back in our conversation, I merely sought an excised quotation from WP:BLP guidelines that explained your intended action, for the sake of others not familiar and as a handy reference here on this page.
As for bringing stuff to the table, again, I was trying to make the point that we shouldn't be continuously revisiting issues that have been already handled. Unless you've got a new reason to re-consider it we just shouldn't go there.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
While it's true politically charged pages need to have some sort of referee. I think it's time to add some new information
and For God Sakes remove the Sex act from the "See Also" links. It is not something that should be on a page that is based on a political movement... unless you're displaying some bias here.
I agree with the previous poster. I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant. --EJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.182.152 ( talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
What does tea Bagging have to do with a populist political movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.79.95 ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
why is a sex act being discussed here? Randal6546 ( talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"I wanted to read more on the Tea Party and figured that ´Tea Bagging´ was some type of tea party protest. I really don´t want to learn about a male to male sexual act and more importantly, it´s totally irrelevant." With all due respect to the IP, it's a stretch to argue that the "Humor" subsection somehow misled him/her to a non-relevant area of information. What is irrelevant is a conversation on whether or not Teabagging is a hetero or homosexual act. That's not the basis of the subsection's inclusion.
The subsection conforms to guidelines (as has been demonstrated on this Talk page ad nauseum, just take a look at the archive or even the current comments) and outlines concisely how this Double entendre became associated with the Tea Party movement. I don't care if it's funny or disgusting. The fact is it's there and it merits inclusion by dint of notability, as has also been repeatedly demonstrated. It should be accurately, verifiably and neutrally described, and I believe the current version of this subsection are all of those things.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
can a section of the talk page be locked? this discussion has gone too far and needs to stop. it's childish things like this that got the article locked. Randal6546 ( talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The double entendre is intrinsically part of the issue by way of the media coverage, and consequently entered the mainstream lexicon — in the opinion of the Oxford American Dictionary. Again, this isn't an issue of whether or not this is morally "appropriate" or "childish" in your opinion. And this isn't the first time a double entendre (a word or phrase that shares a second sexual meaning) has emerged, nor will it be the last. The most prominent, modern example I can think of in dealing with a question such as this is Wikipedia's entry on the Watergate Affair. During the Watergate, the media didn't dub informant and former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt "Informant No. 1". He was dubbed " Deep Throat". That phrase, Deep Throat, refers to a sex act (as it still does). But the term was popularized as the title of a notorious pornographic movie. But after the WaPo used the name to refer to Felt, the phrase consequently morphed another meaning ("Deep Throat has since been used as a generic term or pseudonym for a secret inside informer or whistleblower"). Go ahead, click on it. It's the same issue here.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
you're not reading what i'm saying. tea bagging has been explained, end of story. we don't need a whole discussion on it. if you want to talk about nicknames in the media that double as sex acts, then post on a forum or make an article about it. the talk page of a political movement is not the place to discuss sex acts. Randal6546 ( talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why completely disable editing of this article during the health care vote? because of tea-bagging? would the article on the republican party be shut down too over a dispute over carpetbaggers as well? Put a section in the article to let all the kids giggle over the meaning of getting tea-bagged, but please don't shut down the entire article, otherwise some people may view it as partisan politics. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? Even after what happened outside Capitol Hill yesterday, and the media firestorm about it, still nothing on racism allegations in this article? Are people trying to put it in, and they're being prevented? Do we need a request for comment on this, or something? -- AvatarMN ( talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes people are trying to put something up about racism but are being prevented. I understand if what is put up needs to be edited to make it less biased, but it SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED. Links from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post/Independent have been used, as well as others. Yet it was all deleted, someone decided that the sources weren't reliable. Yet if you look at the sources used throughout the tea party page there are ones that were allowed but then later NOT allowed when it referenced racism.
Who do we need to appeal to, to prevent someone from continuing to delete references to racism. It is worth noting that the entire conservation that took place earlier with links has been deleted.
Wiki is not meant to be a marketing page for the tea party, it is supposed to contain real information about the group. Right now it is missing something. Even republicans are acknowledging these issues, they just minimize it and say it was an isolated incident (which it may have been). The only page that doesn't think it happened is wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.51.142 ( talk) 06:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Under "Claims of bias in media coverage," 4th paragraph, second to last sentence:
"Political commentator Keith Olbermann said, "Despite claiming neutrality on those policies and the teabag movement itself, FOX has whipped up excitement for the parties, recruiting viewers to come out, guaranteeing huge outdoor gatherings, spilling into the streets, choking off traffic with all their teabagging.""
Why is it that we have a link to the page on Teabagging? Teabagging refers to a sexual act. The page on Teabagging links back to this article (
Tea Party movement) for the Tea Party Movement. Anyone else see the needless link to a sexual act? xD
Zell Faze ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Citation 158 is used to support a claim that the reference to the sexual act is elitist. The source cited makes no such claim. The "elitism" language is POV and the authors alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 ( talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Scary stuff going on out there. Just thought I'd contribute this article for your consideration: [5] There are of course others...
I wonder if the events of this last week will be categorized as part of the history section, or as a Violence/Health Care Violence chapter under "Controversey"? Just thought I'd bring it up -- Izauze ( talk) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be added that these teabaggers are a now a terrorist organization. 75.236.100.244 ( talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've dropped the full protection down to only semi-protection for the last 4 days. Single undo edits are ok if the reason is straightforwardly noted but please, don't fall into back-and-forth editing. Rather, gather consensus if an edit is undone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we describe the group as far-right? Surely there must be sources for that, and we don't have any problems calling groups like the John Birch Society, which have similar goals, far-right. I've got a sneaking feeling it's to do with the level of public acceptance, but remember, Hitler was popularly elected... Sceptre ( talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone who was involved in the discussion, I can assure you that the first sentence definition of Tea Party movement was a product of long consensus-building. Please see Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 2#Consensus on Grassroots or Populist and the section above it for more details. If you want to change the definition, please write down the exact sentence you want to substitute and then settle down for a long process of consensus. On the other hand and within this restriction, we welcome new ideas. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I read this section, because I wanted to learn what the movement's positions and goals were. I learned:
Also opposed federal support? As well as what? This is the only approximation to a "position" in the entire section! And there are no "goals" anywhere in sight. Surely there is enough written in reliable sources to say "the movement believes a, b and c and its aims are x, y and z? For instance, is it by any chance opposed to President Obama's healthcare legislation? And can anybody explain what "a protest that has been in government" means, or how Eric Odom whinging about the Republican Party trying to get on the bandwagon belongs in this section at all, never mind at the top? Scolaire ( talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on populism (Wikilinked from this article) tells me "Academic and scholarly definitions of populism vary widely and the term is often employed in loose, inconsistent and undefined ways..."
Does such an inconclusively defined term really help in the first line of this article? I would scrap it and just stick to more precise descriptions of the movement and what it does.
HiLo48 ( talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this, MakeBelieveMonster. I still don't think a change is necessary, but I'm keeping an open mind.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Put a fact tag up. We need to source that. sparkie 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPm editors might be interested. Sbowers3 ( talk) 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Looks like a useful article about the movement: Tea party goes for big-tent strategy Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one: Face of the tea party is female.
Sbowers3 ( talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting overview of the TPm: Tea partiers embrace liberty not big government "Over the past 14 months, our political debate has been transformed into an argument between the heirs of two fundamental schools of political thought, the Founders and the Progressives. The Founders stood for the expansion of liberty and the Progressives for the expansion of government." "The opposition [to the expansion of government] has been led by the non-elites who spontaneously flocked to tea parties and town halls." "The tea partiers are focusing on the expansion of government -- and its threat to the independence of citizens." "Tea partiers began to dress in 18th century costumes -- political re-enactors -- and brandished the "Don't tread on me" flag. They declared their independence by opposing Progressive policies that encourage dependence on government." Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Two more interesting articles: Obama takes care in sizing up 'tea party' movement, Tea party movement makes mark on Nebraska
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
An interesting article from CNN: Disgruntled Democrats join the Tea Party
Democrats such as these make up only 4% of TPers, according to CNN's poll. I bring it up because it dispels the notion that the TPm is nothing but Republicans, and also dispels the notion that all the TPers are racists - these people voted for Obama and they still like him personally; it's just his policies they don't like. The movement is driven by political philosophy, not by race. Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a column by Juan Williams, a black guy and generally considered a liberal:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose we keep the first three paragraphs and delete everything after that. It's not relevant. Malke 2010 14:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This section could be reduced to one paragraph and added under "composition of the movement." This would make it more relevant. As the section stands now it is over the top and makes it seem like all the information that comes before it is doubtful since so much space is being given over to it. Malke 2010 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I put the "Views of the Movement" section after the first protests, etc. It just reads better that way. Malke 2010 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits had made nearly all of the article a part of "History", and reduced some subsections to level 4, which is a bit excessive. I have put them back to the way they were. I really do feel it makes the article much more readable. Scolaire ( talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
User:ThinkEnemies has violated WP:3RR in a span of 18 minutes ( 1, 2, and 3) and removed both a Quinnipiac University poll from Politico on views of Tea Partiers and a statement by Richard Kim of The Nation attributed to the undercover reporting by Jonathan Raban of The New York Review of Books on the composition of the Tea Party movement. Seeing as how User:ThinkEnemies has already 3RR'd (once rudely declaring "What the hell do you think you are doing?" and then instead of WP:AGF declared "I can also assume you're lost when it comes to Talk Pages") --- I figured I would give him the opportunity here to explain his rationale for exclusion of both additions. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(# 1) As Jonathan Raban pointed out in The New York Review of Books, [1] the tea party is an uneasy conclave of Ayn Rand secular libertarians and fundamentalist Christian evangelicals; it contains birthers, Birchers, racists, xenophobes, Ron Paulites, cold warriors, Zionists, constitutionalists, vanilla Republicans looking for a high and militia-style survivalists.
(# 2) A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,900 adult Americans conducted in March of 2010, found that of those who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party movement [3]:
- 88 % were white
- 77 % voted for 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain
- 74 % identified themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican
- 16 % said they are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents
- 60 % have a favorable impression of the Republican Party
- 82 % have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party
I have undone TE's reverts simply because I do not like the way they were done. Not only were they, as I said in my edit summary,
gaming the system and confrontational ("What the hell do you think you are doing?" is totally unacceptable in an edit summary) but there was a failure to
assume good faith or to follow
bold, revert, discuss - the discussion should have taken place before edit-warring. Having said that, I'd like to make a couple of points about the edits:
Scolaire ( talk) 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This movement didn't start in early 2009. I was being invited to "tea parties" in the runup to the 2008 election. And someone on this page was pointing out a 2007 example. The second sentence of this article is claiming:
The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[2][3] as well as the 2008 bailouts[4].
Isn't it obvious how the wording of this article is in error? I'm not saying we should focus strongly on the time when they were Ron Paul supporter events, but I'm saying that we should carefully word it whenever talking about the origination of the movement and the blatantly wrong statements need to be fixed. Or does someone want to try to correct me? Did the first tea parties in 2009 somehow go out of their way to distinguish themselves from the libertarian tea parties that were just going on months before? It just doesn't make any sense. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Miszabot not functioning. |
Miszabot, the software robot that has been archiving old sections of this talk page for us, is not working correctly. For the past few days, it seems to have been archiving after just one day or it may be only leaving the four of five most recent sections unarchived. At any rate, many of the discussions we have been having have been abruptly cut short.
In looking at the template (User:MiszaBot in Talk:Tea Party movement's lead) that controls our archiving, I found that User:Redthoreau changed the days-old parameter from 15d to 30 at 04:27 on 3 April 2010. The instructions for Miszabot say that you must include either the d (for days) or an h (for hours). I have changed it to 30d but, since this is my first exposure to Miszabot, it may be something else that has to be fixed. I've left an urgent message for Redthoreau and emailed him as well.
What this means for us is that discussions we were having yesterday may be archived (probably in Archive 4) today. If you have not finished with any section that has been improperly archived, you should bring it back to the main talk page here by accessing Archive 4 (or whatever) and cut-and-pasting it into this page.
I hope this doesn't disturb your operations too much and I'll inform you of future developments with Redthoreau. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I restored this section down below. Then RedThoreau restored it here. This caused problems because of the two, identical headings. So I've changed this one. Please consider this talk section archived and add whatever comments you like on the active section below. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.
Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."
I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.
The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.
I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.
I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.
This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.
Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:
I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.
Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.
The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.
Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.
I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend not to like opinion polls and wouldn't mind if they all disappeared, but I think factual polls can be interesting. This is a demographic poll by Gallup of Tea Party supporters:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This might be worth mentioning. Some Tea Party activists have created a "crowd-sourced" Contract From America. Some 360,000 people have contributed to drafting a legislative agenda for this coming year. Here are some of many RS about the Contract:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
From Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism program, a "A brief history of the Tea Party movement"-- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The recent edit on the Keli Carender 2nd tea party she organized in Seattle, does not support the claim that her second party was part of a national organization. The citation does not mention Carender, nor does it name these so-called national parties. The edit should be removed since it's OR. Malke 2010 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, the original edit does have a reliable source that covers her actions. This section is about her and what she did. Malke 2010 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
First, she helped organize it. On her blog she herself is careful to give credit where credit is due, and goes out of her way to recognize the role the Feb. 27 Nationwide Tea Party is playing, and in another post directly links Tea Party talking points from Michael Patrick Leahy's advocacy blog TCOT Report. Second, a "nationally organized campaign" does not by definition require a "monolithic" organization. Asserting it's a "monolithic organization" seems like a strawman argument. As I explained before, according to Feb. 27 organizer Leahy, the organizers were Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #Dontgo movement (Eric Odom), Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist), the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. Several state chapters of Americans for Prosperity, in coordination with the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" group. It's generally accepted that these folks are national conservative voices. Some of them also happen to be the same organizations or voices behind the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Patriots, among others (such as Nationwide Tea Party Coalition). I disagree with saying "Nationwide' does not mean 'nationally organized". If that's true, then why did they all take place on the same day, with virtually the same message (e.g. Carender linking to the TCOP talking points, suggested sign slogans, ect.)??? -- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This section was improperly archived by Miszabot on April 4th and has been restored.
Izauze and I have found what may be the earliest mention of Tea Parties in the modern context of protests that occurred in 2009 or thereafter.
Jane Hamsher, in her Huffington Post article (posted April 15, 2009) gives “A Teabagger Timeline”, one of which’s entries is: February 1 -- FedUpUSA calls for people to send tea bags to members of Congress -- "a Commemorative Tea Party."
I found the original post on FedUpUSA.org. It occurs in a very large webpage, consuming maybe 50 screenfulls or more. The text “Commemorative Tea Party” is about a fourth of the way in; you can just find (ctrl-F) “Commemorative Tea Party”. I advise you not to open two copies of the page at once; when I did so on my computer (768MB RAM, 2.34GHz) everything got really really slow and I had to reboot.
The post consists of an old-style picture of the Boston tea party followed by the line "You're Invited to a Commemorative Tea Party", Place: Boston, Date: February 1, 2009. Its title is "NEW PROTEST ANNOUNCED: - January 19, 2009". (The post is within the section concerning January 2009). Below the title is the line "Please click the above link for more details". Unfortunately, the link is dead.
I don’t know whether of not the protest ever took place. (I think not. At any rate, the Boston Globe has nothing on it.) Also notice that the actual post says nothing about tea bags so Hamsher’s claim for people to send tea bags to members of Congress is wrong. However, January 19th, one day before Obama took office, is the earliest date we’ve been able to locate on the web that (IMO) clearly indicates it’s about protests in the modern, post-Obama era.
I would therefore like to say something in the article like: On January 19th, someone on FedUpUSA posted an invitation "to a Commemorative Tea Party" protest in Boston on February 1st.
This brings up the point of the relative weight of the subsections in History and this, in turn, brings up the essential point of what exactly should be the scope of the History section. I believe that we should limit ourselves (except for background) to sources that actually mention the word “tea”. We should not summarize any sources that only deal with anti-stimulus, anti-tax, anti-Obama protests, except to show that these formed the background of what would be known as the Tea Party movement.
Broadly speaking, right now we have the following historic material:
I have re-organized this material and put it in a user subpage here. More than half of the existing paragraphs in this update start off with the word DELETE (or other actions) in square brackets. This means I’m suggesting that the whole paragraph be removed.
Please look at this update and tell me your comments below on this talk page (not on the actual user subpage itself or its corresponding user talk subpage). I intend to be bold and replace the entire History section in the article with this update in the next day or two. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite requested for the Steinhauser quote is located here. It's linked at the present cite, which appears to be a teaser for the actual story. The Rakovich protest is clearly related directly to the Tea Party movement and on a par with Carender and Santelli, as the journalist indicates. I don't understand why this doesn't merit inclusion. I suggest you withhold editing that particular section until further discussion can take place. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be implementing the update sometime within the next 24 hours and probably before that. Then you can edit the History section within the article itself as normal, although I would like to request (and this is only a request) that, for the next day or two, you submit all substantial changes to History here for consensus. If we restore most of the material I removed for summarization reasons (or if someone just massively reverts all of my changes) then this exercise will come to naught. Think more of expanding the removed material in the detailed sub-article "History of the Tea Party movement". Thank you. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's done. I have replaced the entire History section with my update as described above. I have added the material that I replaced (the old History section) to my user subpage below the two lines of dashes. If you want anything from the old, pre-update section, you should be able to find it there, as well as through the history tab, permalink 353700564. Please check and, if necessary, fix all citations that may have been inadvertently fouled up during the substitution.
The length of the article is now 67 KB so we saved only 3 KB through the replacement. We've got a long way to go to reduce the article size to less than 30 KB.
Again I would like to ask everyone not make substantial additions (say, a sentence or more) for a couple of days. On the other hand, if something doesn't read quite right, you are free to fix it with a few words. Let's let the article settle down for a short while before we try to expand it. If you think something requires immediate addition, say by Monday or Tuesday, now would be a good this to mention what you want to add on this talk page and try for consensus.
I would like to thank all of you for participating in this exercise in consensus. Let's hope my changes aren't immediately reverted. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
“ | 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[40]. 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. | ” |
As long as we're debating a reduction of the history section, I will reiterate my proposal to move the history section to Tea Party protests and only retain a summary. Currently we have most of the same content duplicated in both articles. But if TPM is really the main article and TPP is really the sub-article focused on the protests themselves... the details of specific protests should go in TPP. TPM should be focused instead on political views & impacts, who the movement is, reactions, etc. I had a proposed summary in the archives somewhere. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)