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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Saw this today. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
When I created the "Views of the movement" section [2] I meant it in the sense of "how the movement is viewed". It's now clear to me that it's more likely to be read as "what the movement's views are", and in fact none of the quotes tell us what the movement's views are. So I'm changing the heading to "Commentaries on the movement". I don't really like that as a heading so if anybody can think of a better heading I'll be grateful. But it couldn't stay as it was. Scolaire ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A year ago, I don't think anyone called the Tea Parties a "movement". Even in late summer I don't think it was called a movement. But at some time the phrase "Tea Party movement" became commonplace. When was that? Did something trigger the change? It might be useful for us to document it. Sbowers3 ( talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} "The movement emerged in early 2008 [2], partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[3][4]" er what are they, fortune tellers? re-word the sentence to make it make sense. e.g. "The movement emerged in early 2008, partially in response to the 2008 Bailouts, and later gained momentum as a result of the 2009 stimulus package."
211.26.205.160 ( talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
Not that I think it should, but there are numerous other factual errors (the tea party movement started in 200*8* not 2009) so why not include this factual error too? ---- 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Hi the part that says the Tea Party is "anti-health reform" is inaccurate. They are against Obama's version of federal insurance mandates, not against health care reform.
Also the referenced article related to that statement is not a "reliable resource".
CSJscience ( talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Given a few of the threads above, please keep in mind, this talk page is not a forum for unsourced opinions or posts about the Tea Party movement. Rather, it is meant as a means for talking about ways to make the article more helpful to readers. Hence, posts here should deal with what are taken on en.Wikipedia as reliable sources and how to echo them in the article text. Since all article text must at least be verifiable, please don't post unsourced opinions or thoughts on this talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of current 2010 Tea Party candidates (as of March 20th, 2010). The wiki page should have a section on them, or a new page should be created.
Adam Kokesh - New Mexico (Congress) http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/ Bill Hunt - Orange County, California (Sheriff) http://billhuntforsheriff.com/ Bill Connor - South Carolina (Governor) http://www.voteconnor.com/ BJ Lawson - North Carolina (Congress) http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/ Carl Bruning - Colorado (Larimer County Sheriff) http://carlbruning.com/ Chelene Nightingale - California (Governor) http://nightingaleforgovernor.com/ Chris Simcox - Arizona (Senate) https://www.simcoxforsenate.com/ David Hedrick - Washington (Congress) http://www.davidwhedrick.com/ David Ratowitz - Illinois (Congress) http://www.ratowitzforcongress.com/ Debra Medina - Texas (Governor) http://www.medinafortexas.com/ Dennis Steele - Vermont (Governor) http://www.governorsteele.com/ Glen Bradley - North Carolina (State House) http://glenbradley.net/
Heidi Munson - Washington (State Representative)
http://www.munson2010.com/index.htm Jake Towne - Pennsylvania (Congress) http://towneforcongress.com/ Jaynee Germond - Oregon (Congress) http://www.germond2010.com/
Jim Deakin - Arizona (Senate) GET RID OF JOHN McCAIN!!!
http://jimdeakin.com/ Jim Forsythe - New Hampshire (State Senate) http://www.jimforsythe.com/
Joe Walsh - Illinois (Congress)
John Dennis - California (Congress)
http://www.johndennis2010.com/
Justin Amash - Michigan (Congress)
http://amashforcongress.com/
Mike Beitler - North Carolina (Senate)
http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/
Mike Vasovski - South Carolina (Congress)
http://vasovskiforcongress.com/
Patrick Henry Sellers - Pennsylvania (Congress)
Patrick Ziegler - New York (Congress)
http://www.ziegler2010.com/ Paul Lambert - Alabama (Congress) http://www.southtek.com/votelambert2/ Peter Schiff - Connecticut (Senate) http://schiffforsenate.com/ Rand Paul - Kentucky (Senate) http://www.randpaul2010.com/ Randy Brogdon - Oklahoma (Governor) http://www.randybrogdon.com/ Ray McBerry - Georgia (Governor) http://georgiafirst.org/governor/enter.shtml RJ Harris - Oklahoma (Congress) http://www.rjharris2010.com/ Robert Broadus - Maryland (Congress) http://www.darkenergypolitics.com/ Robert Lowry - Texas (Congress) http://lowryforcongress.com/ Ron Paul - Texas (Congress) http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/ Valerie Meyers - Georgia (Congress) http://www.valerieforcongress.com/ Van Irion - Tennessee (Congress) http://www.van4congress.org/
Source :
http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/tea-party-candidates-2010?commentId=2490084%3AComment%3A192802&xg_source=activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.64.72 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have twice removed a reference that came from a Blogger (a person like you or me), but it keeps getting put back. PER WIKI RULES citations from bloggers are not allowed. If you want to find an alternate citation, from an actual professional reporter, that would be okay. ---- Theaveng ( talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Kudos to the editors. Freedom Fan ( talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the definition of "fiscal conservative"?
According to Wikipedia: Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other classical liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
The tea party movement has shown by it's actions that it is anti-government, NOT fiscally conservative. A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it, not leave the status quo, which would cause taxpayers to shell out billions and would ultimately bankrupt the country. They would also want to reorganize other areas of government to save money. What do they propose and where are their numbers to back it up? This movement seeks to cripple the government, has no solutions to anything, and tries to intimidate duly elected members of congress and promote hate and fear with their "this time we came unarmed" bulls**t. Wiki should not allow them to adopt terms that do not apply, if you want to change it to "self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives" that would at least be more accurate. -- Nanmwls ( talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it," Someone's been drinking the Koolaid. Tea Party is just as much for reform as everyone else, specifically Tout reform(the ability of judges to throw out frivolous law suits which currently add significantly to the price of healthcare) as well as interstate competition of health insurance companies. The Obama administration has stated that they have a moral agenda to provide more healthcare to more people which is at the core of their Bill, and that is what the Tea Party is against, giving healthcare to millions more people during poor economic times when we can't afford it. Their not against reform of the current system. Wise up. 169.231.22.185 ( talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Runnin a record deficit is not fiscally responsible. Nothing in Obama's reform will save money in the long term. username: not_a_moron 0437 april 20 2010
This is not a forum for general discussion of fiscal conservatism, health care reform, or any other subject that Tea Partiers support or oppose. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Sbowers3 ( talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
From the Associated Press:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that this Gallup poll is next in line for the ballooning sub-section. As it stands, we have polls from
So many questions. When do we concede that these polls are taking over the article and attempt to summarize them in a NPOV way? †TE† Talk 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some news outlets ( http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/tea.party/index.html?hpt=T1) seem to associate Mark Williams as being some kind of "Tea Party Leader". Is there any truth to this? I was surprised he wasn't mentioned at all in this article, since his name comes up pretty often in association with the tea party. I would at least expect a brief mention, if nothing else, just debunking the idea that there is a single party with a single leader. Poobslag ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has noticed that? I mean... really?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.105.49 ( talk) 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the bit about using Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Yes it's true, but this is 2010 and every organization has a Twitter and a blog. It definitely isn't important enough for the lead. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the two-sentence section "Positions and goals" up to the lead section.
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As an Australian, I find a close parallel between the major appearance of Sarah Palin on the USA's political stage, closely followed by the Tea Party movement, and a lady called Pauline Hanson and the One Nation political party here. While obviously not identical, they tap into similar political sentiments.
What happened here was that, while they were not overtly racist (Hanson was pretty naive, IMHO), Hanson and One Nation (Australia) did attract the more racist voters. That is not to imply that all supporters were racist. Most probably were quite the opposite. But such movements do tend to attract the racists out there who are looking for a body that will oppose what they see as major parties being too liberal in these areas.
This leaves such bodies open to the racist tag from outsiders.
To sum up, my view is that the Tea Party movement is not explicitly racist, but it will attract racist voters.
It's a real image problem for such movements.
HiLo48 ( talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The last section is hopelessly biased in my opinion. The section is named "Reports of inappropriate behavior" - Inappropriate Behavior being an euphemism for racism. There are many media reports clearly showing that the Tea Partiers are racist.
Some of those might not be sourced to reliable sources, but some are. It is not accurate to flatly state, "the Tea Partiers are racist", but there may be significant enough reliably sourced information to explore the frequently heard allegations of a racist component. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party Protests page contains nearly the same text as this paragraph, with the same heading: "Reports of inappropriate behavior". Yet on the protest page, there is a preface saying that the neutrality of that section is disputed. Shouldn't the same notice be included on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.111 ( talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
the article refrences CNN and CBS polls about the composition of the TEA parties. I am a TEA party activist, and I do not see the makeup that they describe. yes, I am a white male, but I am not married or wealthy. i am 15 years of age. there were black men and women, asian men and women, latina men and women, as well as children. there were married couples but also single people. there were wealthy but also not so wealthy. the article implies that the TEA party is racist old white wealthy men. I have seen no racism at these Events except by LaRouche followers, who are not associated with the movement, merely trying to mooch off the political fervor within them. it is an unfair and biased depiction of the composition of the tea parties and I suggest that it be remarked on the page that the polls depicted are from stations who are generally bised against the movement because they oppose liberalism. look at which stations they are. MSNBC. CNBC. CNN. CBS. are any of those stations in favor of the movement? are any of them even unbiased? no. it is darn near impossible to remove bais, so i also suggest that a poll from Fox news be added to show the differing numbers based on bias.
Erichemmen (
talk)
04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Erichemmen ( talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton has really kicked it off. Obviously when a former president draws parallels to some of the terrorism experienced during his terms, it meets notability standards. Any thoughts? MookieG ( talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This editor keeps reverting and/or deleting my edits on the Keli Carender tea party. This edit is well cited and accurate. Happysomeone has repeatedly come back and deleted this material and added original research with a citation that did not support his edit at all. I engaged him on the talk page, but instead of working toward a reasonable compromise, he just came along and reverted the entire edit.
I would appreciate it if there could be a discussion about this section with a call for consensus about how to handle this in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Malke 2010 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there just one issue or more? Can someone present the two proposals for the issue(s)? Sbowers3 ( talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Below here are three different versions of one subsection from History, apparently all entered on the talk page by Happysomeone. Please note that the section levels on this talk page are reversed. In order to preserve the heading level of the material from the article, the originator of this has chosen to put the version headings at a lower level than the actual text from the article.
Thus, in the TOC you'll see this:
.1 What is the issue?
.2 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
.4 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
.5 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger
when it actually should be more like this:
.1 What is the issue?
.2 Version 1.0
.3 Version 1.2
.4 Version 2
Sorry for the interruption. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll call this "Roy Goldsmith's proposal", since he largely crafted this with input from others over the course of a few days (please also note hidden text he used to preserve proposed changes reserved for discussion). The small change I made to this section is what I suspect Malke is referring to. I'll call that "Version 1.2" so as not to confuse the two. Here's an edit history diff, for your reference. Here's the "sandbox". -- this was by Happysomeone
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [1] [2], activist Mary Rakovich [3] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [4]
However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [6] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.
Carender had contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin in order to gain her support and publicize her event. Malkin promoted the protest in several posts on her blog, saying that "There should be one of these in every town in America," and that she would be supplying the crowd with a meal of pulled pork. Malkin encouraged her readers to stage similar events in Denver on February 17 where President Obama planned to sign the stimulus bill into law. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [9]
This is the change I was seeking, changing the fourth paragraph.
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [10] [11], activist Mary Rakovich [12] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [13]
However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [14] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. [15] Carender then helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign [16] put together by several politically conservative groups [17] on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [18]
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll call this the "current edit" because that's what's presently there, and I don't agree with this edit. It's WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR in my view, and it appears to be redundant, as well.
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [19] [20], activist Mary Rakovich [21] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [22]
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [23] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents' Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." [24] [25] 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 [8]. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." [26] [27]
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. [28] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [29]
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting them. Malke, do you agree that these are the two (plus a variation) versions? After reading them I have my own opinion as to which I like better, but would either of you like to add any comments as to why you think one or the other is better? And then after we've heard the pros and cons perhaps we should have a !vote. Sbowers3 ( talk) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been no edit war that I can see. TeaParty1 and mostly HSO made changes to the History section from 4 to 7 (UTC) yesterday. Malke reverted those changes at 16:40 and that’s where the article sits currently. That’s one, complete edit-cycle and the start of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which we’re having here.
To put my two-cents in (actually five cents at the rate of one penny per paragraph :), I think it important that Rakovich and Carender should be grouped together because, in my mind, there really is no difference between what they actually did. (Really what reliable sources report that they did.)
According to reliable sources, (a) they both led anti-tax and/or anti-big-government protests in February of 2009, (b) someone (or many someones) claimed that Rakovich or Carender was the first and (c) neither one used the term "Tea Party". Therefore I considered them both "precursors" to the first true Tea Party protests on Feb 27. Because Carender was much better sourced, I gave her four paragraphs rather than the one for Rakovich. If Rakovich hadn't happened before Carender, I wouldn't have given her any space at all.
Also, I believe that the most important statement in all of the History section is contained in the last paragraph. In my mind, the February 27th "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" was the first ever Tea Party protest because (a) it was a protest and (b) the organizers called it a Tea Party protest. If think those two prerequisites are the necessary and sufficient conditions for determining whether an event is or is not a TPp. As a matter of fact, it’s only one condition: that the organizers advertize it before the event as a Tea Party protest.
Santelli, while he did say tea party, in my mind, his rant was not a protest. Therefore I do not believe he deserves prominence in the subsection heading. My choice was Birth of the "Tea Party" movement.
Sbower3, I’m sorry but this leaves you three versions to merge. More than that: because I don’t like the current heading of the last subsection (either Birth of the "Tea Party" movement or Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"), the material we have to decide upon is greater than what’s contained in Versions 1.0, 1.2 and 2.0. Sorry. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with RoyGoldsmith. Further, it's an error to attribute Carender with organizing a second protest in a vacuum, when we have considerable RS that tells us otherwise. Also, see here.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're reading too much into this. You're not hearing what I'm saying. This edit needs to be worked out in a compromise. So what's your compromise edit? Malke 2010 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
As Sbowers3 said above "this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons."
To get back to the subject at hand, do you Happysomeone, Malke, Scolaire (and anyone else who’s interested) agree that the three versions above list the essential similarities and differences among the material about Rakovich, Carender and Malkin? (Scolaire, Version 2 is the current content of the article, at least so far as headings are concerned.) This is a minimum basis of agreement before we can proceed to building consensus about the headings. Please limit yourself in the space below to answering this specific question. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we’re still waiting for Sbowers3.
However, while we’re waiting, I think we could start off by talking about the subsection headings used in the History section. In thinking over what Scolaire said about using simple, easy to understand headings, I think I agree with him.
Right now, we have the following headings:
Following Scolaire's advice, I think the headings should be more like this:
You can see this version as the new first section of my user subpage. Right now I’m not talking about the content of the subsections (we’ll get to that later); I’m only talking about the headings. And I don’t know if "described as" is the proper wording for the third heading. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't heard from youse guys for 3 or 4 days. What do you think of my three, simple sub-headings for History? Check the first section here for details. Can I replace the subheadings in the article with these three? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think one full week is enough to allow for discussion. Since there are no dissenting votes, I am changing the section headings now. Scolaire ( talk) 07:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this today surfing the news outlets. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F1PU2O0 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"Bad behavior" is vague and subjective. People have been asking for a racism section not a "bad behavior" section. Cptnono ( talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC) And I disagree with Freedom Fan's removal of that much content. It is not OR and I believe weight was fine before the change. Several people have asked for a racism section and relegating it to the other article seem inappropriate. Cptnono ( talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As a total outsider to both the tea Party movement, and even the USA, I would just observe that movements such as this inevitably attract extremists. Such people see this kind of protest movement as another place to take their own extreme view, since it's a chance to protest against the government. While there will be many honest, principled participants in the movement, there will also be the bigots, of all kinds. They won't all come from outside, as plants to discredit the movement. It will cause angst among the more objective and sensible members, but to say "it's only a tiny minority" is to ignore a reality of this type of movement. The bigots will be loud, and will attract others. It is part of the natural cycle of these things. When it happens, it must be documented. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The first sentence of the "Composition of the Movement" section can easily cause some confusion. It's current wording makes it sound like only 18% of Tea Party supporters are "white, male, married and older than 45." I suggest it be reworded to "According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters, who tend to be "white, male, married and older than 45.""
DubiousKing (
talk)
12:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this today. The NYTimes seems to be paying more attention to the Tea Party Movement. [12]. Malke 2010 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We need a section invlving Anabel Park's Coffee Party
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.150.142 ( talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
saw this today. [13]. Malke 2010 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me again why " Reports of inappropriate behavior" is a better heading for that section than "Alleged racism and homophobia"? 'Inappropriate behaviour' might refer to drinking in a public place, singing loudly after midnight or peeing on somebody's lawn (or even, I suppose, 'teabagging'). The section is about a specific report of racial abuse and the use of the word "fag". Why should the section heading not say what the section is about? Scolaire ( talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As an additional note. Unless there is a response to the allegations the whole section is in violation of WP:NPOV Several people dispute some of the actions of racism, and we must include a measured response or the whole section has to go. Arzel ( talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The second Breitbart paragraph is too much. It doesn;t say anything but Breitbart says no and union dude says yes. So what? WP:RECENTISM and what these two guys say is not that important. This is exasperated by it not being conclusive so it just comes across like the article is debating with itself. The second paragraph discussing it needs to be removed. Also, people need to watch out for WP:AVOID more. Cptnono ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Jason Levin's effort to infiltrate Tea Party groups be considered either a False flag operation and/or Black Propaganda? Levin clearly stated that he wanted his supporters to infiltrate the groups and pose as Tea Partiers and then perform negative actions such as holding signs with incorrect grammar and racial slurs and seeking to get on television and intentionally act inappropriately in an effort to distort the movement.
Here's the definition of a False Flag operation, more specifically in a political sense: "This can involve when supporters of one candidate [or in this case, a political movement] pose as supporters of another, or act as “ straw men” for their preferred candidate to debate against. ... one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate."
Here's the definition of Black propaganda: Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. [30]
Though I admit that it may not completely fit the defination of either of these types of deception, but I do think that it would be very close to that.
To Paraphrase Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA), one of my two favorite Statesmen of the late twentieth century (with the other being President Ronald Reagan), I'm not a Conservative (at least not on social issues) or a Progressive (at least not on economic issues and definitely not the isolationist policies that many of them favor in regards to Foreign policy and Defense). I just don't want my country to be a pigeon economically. Fuelsaver ( talk) 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In the section Claims of bias in media coverage I checked the reference and saw that the citation did not include where Howard Kurtz had made his comment. It seems important, since CNN itself was referenced. I prepended "On CNN's Situation Room," as it exists within the citation. I am trying very hard to verify the citations here. There are far too many of them IME in wikipedia that either do not exist, or are not complete. Lemme know if this isn't an innocuous change in your opinion. Tgm1024 ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting this as a new section because the discussion above has got bogged down with arguments about POV. When editors attempt to balance POV by adding or deleting content there are ultimately no winners, and the reader is the big loser because the result is not encyclopedic. It might be more useful to look at it in terms of Wikipedia:Recentism and ask, is the article becoming "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens"? I propose to apply the ten-year test as a guide to what is worthy of inclusion:
Taking all this into account, I propose the following as a concise, clear and NPOV account of March 20 and its aftermath:
Scolaire ( talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Two minor changes I would suggest are just for accuracy. 1) change the anti-gay slur "Fag" (cited only to the claim of one nobody protester) to "faggot" (multiple times, supported by reliable witnesses, and video tape [14]). 2) change the "chanted the n-word" wording to note that Carson said they were chanting "kill the bill" and following that with the n-word, and he heard it as many as 15 times. [15] Your present wording makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times.
You named this section "March 20 and recentism", but other editors are expressing concern for unrelated events and dates, like the "intended infiltration", and there are similar incidents in the article (depending on which version you view) about bigotry. How about we apply the 10-year test to the whole section, instead of just the March 20 incidents? Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono has a point about Wikilinks within quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says about linking:
While Scolaire's Wikilink to the Freedom Rides may be accurate (and obvious, and common sense, self-evident, etc.), we have no real way of knowing that with absolute certainty unless it is explained in a source. Adding the link would provide more information to the reader, but goes against Wikipedia convention. Perhaps, instead, try adding in the same identifying wording present in every source that mentioned Lewis & the March 20 incident: he is a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. I think the Fox source we're using now called him a "legend" in that movement. Or you can keep the link - every Wikipedia guideline leaves room for exceptions. Just my two cents... Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick note: "claim" is being used in a manner that is against WP:CLAIM. Try something else? Cptnono ( talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This section lacks any hint of neutrality. The entire section and section heading are in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, Wikipedia:No original research. Accordingly, I have flagged the section as lacking neutrality, pending consensus and resolution.
Please review the WP:BLP policy related to groups:
In addition to large groups, these events deal with small groups and specifically named and photographed individuals. So since this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure. Therefore it is essential that every source and every statement be supported precisely, by reliable sources, without a hint of POV.
The article also violates WP:UNDUE by taking alleged actions of a tiny handful of individuals and attempts to use this to brand an entire political movement of millions of ordinary citizens of various races, who are concerned about fiscal responsibility, taxation and the size of government, not race.
Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section heading: "Reports of Inappropriate Behavior" or "Disputed Events During Protest of March 20, 2010"
Otherwise by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants. The current heading uses obviously loaded non-NPOV interpretative wording more suitable to a political campaign hit piece, rather than a respectable encyclopedia article.
Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section:
However in the current version, the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word". Therefore the editor's changing it from the text represents a blatant non-NPOV interpretation on the part of the editor. The same applies to the loaded descriptions of the behavior within the section as "racist" and "homophobic". The proper solution in an encyclopedia is just to describe the alleged behavior and leave the interpretation to the reader.
So please review the Wikipedia:No original research policy:
More proposed neutral wording:
However the current version lacks NPOV because it omits the key phrase which clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior. Obviously there is an immense difference between the intentional act of spitting and accidental spittle during speaking or 'yelling', which happens routinely.
More proposed neutral wording:
However, the current version states these alleged events as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?
More proposed neutral wording:
However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.
More proposed neutral wording:
Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance. Breitbart is a well known person who is an active speaker within the Tea Party movement. His challenge is well-sourced and relevant. It is notable that "100000 Breitbart" gets over 350,000 hits on Google. It allows the reader to weigh the credibility of the charges, beyond just the he-said-but-he-said allegations. That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism". You may disagree with this logic, but the facts should be presented to allow the user to decide. However, someone keeps trying to remove this response which is unacceptable.
In conclusion, this section presents serious, disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage (not that they would ever actually do that). Unless there is some attempt to provide fairness and balance, then you as an editor risk losing the presumption of good faith and start to look like a political campaign manager specializing in dirty tricks (which of course, you are not). These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications.
So until this section is brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies and consensus is reached, please leave the POV tag to alert the reader to this important ongoing discussion. Thanks.
Freedom Fan ( talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unde weight to mention it in the head section , it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals , I assume there are no more than 100 people that participate in anything if at all. 109.66.17.64 ( talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
[22] Malke 2010 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why Tea Party Portests is being added back to this section. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Is there a reason for this? TIA -- Tom (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first.
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
Keli Carender...organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests — before they were even called Tea Party protests.
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Saw this today. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
When I created the "Views of the movement" section [2] I meant it in the sense of "how the movement is viewed". It's now clear to me that it's more likely to be read as "what the movement's views are", and in fact none of the quotes tell us what the movement's views are. So I'm changing the heading to "Commentaries on the movement". I don't really like that as a heading so if anybody can think of a better heading I'll be grateful. But it couldn't stay as it was. Scolaire ( talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A year ago, I don't think anyone called the Tea Parties a "movement". Even in late summer I don't think it was called a movement. But at some time the phrase "Tea Party movement" became commonplace. When was that? Did something trigger the change? It might be useful for us to document it. Sbowers3 ( talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} "The movement emerged in early 2008 [2], partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package[3][4]" er what are they, fortune tellers? re-word the sentence to make it make sense. e.g. "The movement emerged in early 2008, partially in response to the 2008 Bailouts, and later gained momentum as a result of the 2009 stimulus package."
211.26.205.160 ( talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Done
Not that I think it should, but there are numerous other factual errors (the tea party movement started in 200*8* not 2009) so why not include this factual error too? ---- 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Hi the part that says the Tea Party is "anti-health reform" is inaccurate. They are against Obama's version of federal insurance mandates, not against health care reform.
Also the referenced article related to that statement is not a "reliable resource".
CSJscience ( talk) 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Given a few of the threads above, please keep in mind, this talk page is not a forum for unsourced opinions or posts about the Tea Party movement. Rather, it is meant as a means for talking about ways to make the article more helpful to readers. Hence, posts here should deal with what are taken on en.Wikipedia as reliable sources and how to echo them in the article text. Since all article text must at least be verifiable, please don't post unsourced opinions or thoughts on this talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a list of current 2010 Tea Party candidates (as of March 20th, 2010). The wiki page should have a section on them, or a new page should be created.
Adam Kokesh - New Mexico (Congress) http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/ Bill Hunt - Orange County, California (Sheriff) http://billhuntforsheriff.com/ Bill Connor - South Carolina (Governor) http://www.voteconnor.com/ BJ Lawson - North Carolina (Congress) http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/ Carl Bruning - Colorado (Larimer County Sheriff) http://carlbruning.com/ Chelene Nightingale - California (Governor) http://nightingaleforgovernor.com/ Chris Simcox - Arizona (Senate) https://www.simcoxforsenate.com/ David Hedrick - Washington (Congress) http://www.davidwhedrick.com/ David Ratowitz - Illinois (Congress) http://www.ratowitzforcongress.com/ Debra Medina - Texas (Governor) http://www.medinafortexas.com/ Dennis Steele - Vermont (Governor) http://www.governorsteele.com/ Glen Bradley - North Carolina (State House) http://glenbradley.net/
Heidi Munson - Washington (State Representative)
http://www.munson2010.com/index.htm Jake Towne - Pennsylvania (Congress) http://towneforcongress.com/ Jaynee Germond - Oregon (Congress) http://www.germond2010.com/
Jim Deakin - Arizona (Senate) GET RID OF JOHN McCAIN!!!
http://jimdeakin.com/ Jim Forsythe - New Hampshire (State Senate) http://www.jimforsythe.com/
Joe Walsh - Illinois (Congress)
John Dennis - California (Congress)
http://www.johndennis2010.com/
Justin Amash - Michigan (Congress)
http://amashforcongress.com/
Mike Beitler - North Carolina (Senate)
http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/
Mike Vasovski - South Carolina (Congress)
http://vasovskiforcongress.com/
Patrick Henry Sellers - Pennsylvania (Congress)
Patrick Ziegler - New York (Congress)
http://www.ziegler2010.com/ Paul Lambert - Alabama (Congress) http://www.southtek.com/votelambert2/ Peter Schiff - Connecticut (Senate) http://schiffforsenate.com/ Rand Paul - Kentucky (Senate) http://www.randpaul2010.com/ Randy Brogdon - Oklahoma (Governor) http://www.randybrogdon.com/ Ray McBerry - Georgia (Governor) http://georgiafirst.org/governor/enter.shtml RJ Harris - Oklahoma (Congress) http://www.rjharris2010.com/ Robert Broadus - Maryland (Congress) http://www.darkenergypolitics.com/ Robert Lowry - Texas (Congress) http://lowryforcongress.com/ Ron Paul - Texas (Congress) http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/ Valerie Meyers - Georgia (Congress) http://www.valerieforcongress.com/ Van Irion - Tennessee (Congress) http://www.van4congress.org/
Source :
http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/forum/topics/tea-party-candidates-2010?commentId=2490084%3AComment%3A192802&xg_source=activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.64.72 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have twice removed a reference that came from a Blogger (a person like you or me), but it keeps getting put back. PER WIKI RULES citations from bloggers are not allowed. If you want to find an alternate citation, from an actual professional reporter, that would be okay. ---- Theaveng ( talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Kudos to the editors. Freedom Fan ( talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the definition of "fiscal conservative"?
According to Wikipedia: Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other classical liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
The tea party movement has shown by it's actions that it is anti-government, NOT fiscally conservative. A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it, not leave the status quo, which would cause taxpayers to shell out billions and would ultimately bankrupt the country. They would also want to reorganize other areas of government to save money. What do they propose and where are their numbers to back it up? This movement seeks to cripple the government, has no solutions to anything, and tries to intimidate duly elected members of congress and promote hate and fear with their "this time we came unarmed" bulls**t. Wiki should not allow them to adopt terms that do not apply, if you want to change it to "self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives" that would at least be more accurate. -- Nanmwls ( talk) 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"A true fiscal conservative would see that health insurance reform is both necessary and inevitable and would work to fix it," Someone's been drinking the Koolaid. Tea Party is just as much for reform as everyone else, specifically Tout reform(the ability of judges to throw out frivolous law suits which currently add significantly to the price of healthcare) as well as interstate competition of health insurance companies. The Obama administration has stated that they have a moral agenda to provide more healthcare to more people which is at the core of their Bill, and that is what the Tea Party is against, giving healthcare to millions more people during poor economic times when we can't afford it. Their not against reform of the current system. Wise up. 169.231.22.185 ( talk) 20:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Runnin a record deficit is not fiscally responsible. Nothing in Obama's reform will save money in the long term. username: not_a_moron 0437 april 20 2010
This is not a forum for general discussion of fiscal conservatism, health care reform, or any other subject that Tea Partiers support or oppose. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Sbowers3 ( talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
From the Associated Press:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears that this Gallup poll is next in line for the ballooning sub-section. As it stands, we have polls from
So many questions. When do we concede that these polls are taking over the article and attempt to summarize them in a NPOV way? †TE† Talk 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some news outlets ( http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/tea.party/index.html?hpt=T1) seem to associate Mark Williams as being some kind of "Tea Party Leader". Is there any truth to this? I was surprised he wasn't mentioned at all in this article, since his name comes up pretty often in association with the tea party. I would at least expect a brief mention, if nothing else, just debunking the idea that there is a single party with a single leader. Poobslag ( talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has noticed that? I mean... really?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.105.49 ( talk) 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the bit about using Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Yes it's true, but this is 2010 and every organization has a Twitter and a blog. It definitely isn't important enough for the lead. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the two-sentence section "Positions and goals" up to the lead section.
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As an Australian, I find a close parallel between the major appearance of Sarah Palin on the USA's political stage, closely followed by the Tea Party movement, and a lady called Pauline Hanson and the One Nation political party here. While obviously not identical, they tap into similar political sentiments.
What happened here was that, while they were not overtly racist (Hanson was pretty naive, IMHO), Hanson and One Nation (Australia) did attract the more racist voters. That is not to imply that all supporters were racist. Most probably were quite the opposite. But such movements do tend to attract the racists out there who are looking for a body that will oppose what they see as major parties being too liberal in these areas.
This leaves such bodies open to the racist tag from outsiders.
To sum up, my view is that the Tea Party movement is not explicitly racist, but it will attract racist voters.
It's a real image problem for such movements.
HiLo48 ( talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The last section is hopelessly biased in my opinion. The section is named "Reports of inappropriate behavior" - Inappropriate Behavior being an euphemism for racism. There are many media reports clearly showing that the Tea Partiers are racist.
Some of those might not be sourced to reliable sources, but some are. It is not accurate to flatly state, "the Tea Partiers are racist", but there may be significant enough reliably sourced information to explore the frequently heard allegations of a racist component. Xenophrenic ( talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party Protests page contains nearly the same text as this paragraph, with the same heading: "Reports of inappropriate behavior". Yet on the protest page, there is a preface saying that the neutrality of that section is disputed. Shouldn't the same notice be included on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.134.111 ( talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
the article refrences CNN and CBS polls about the composition of the TEA parties. I am a TEA party activist, and I do not see the makeup that they describe. yes, I am a white male, but I am not married or wealthy. i am 15 years of age. there were black men and women, asian men and women, latina men and women, as well as children. there were married couples but also single people. there were wealthy but also not so wealthy. the article implies that the TEA party is racist old white wealthy men. I have seen no racism at these Events except by LaRouche followers, who are not associated with the movement, merely trying to mooch off the political fervor within them. it is an unfair and biased depiction of the composition of the tea parties and I suggest that it be remarked on the page that the polls depicted are from stations who are generally bised against the movement because they oppose liberalism. look at which stations they are. MSNBC. CNBC. CNN. CBS. are any of those stations in favor of the movement? are any of them even unbiased? no. it is darn near impossible to remove bais, so i also suggest that a poll from Fox news be added to show the differing numbers based on bias.
Erichemmen (
talk)
04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Erichemmen ( talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton has really kicked it off. Obviously when a former president draws parallels to some of the terrorism experienced during his terms, it meets notability standards. Any thoughts? MookieG ( talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This editor keeps reverting and/or deleting my edits on the Keli Carender tea party. This edit is well cited and accurate. Happysomeone has repeatedly come back and deleted this material and added original research with a citation that did not support his edit at all. I engaged him on the talk page, but instead of working toward a reasonable compromise, he just came along and reverted the entire edit.
I would appreciate it if there could be a discussion about this section with a call for consensus about how to handle this in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Malke 2010 16:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there just one issue or more? Can someone present the two proposals for the issue(s)? Sbowers3 ( talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Below here are three different versions of one subsection from History, apparently all entered on the talk page by Happysomeone. Please note that the section levels on this talk page are reversed. In order to preserve the heading level of the material from the article, the originator of this has chosen to put the version headings at a lower level than the actual text from the article.
Thus, in the TOC you'll see this:
.1 What is the issue?
.2 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
.3 Precursor protests in Fort Myers and Seattle
.4 Precursor protests in Fort Myers
.5 Keli Carender, Seattle Blogger
when it actually should be more like this:
.1 What is the issue?
.2 Version 1.0
.3 Version 1.2
.4 Version 2
Sorry for the interruption. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll call this "Roy Goldsmith's proposal", since he largely crafted this with input from others over the course of a few days (please also note hidden text he used to preserve proposed changes reserved for discussion). The small change I made to this section is what I suspect Malke is referring to. I'll call that "Version 1.2" so as not to confuse the two. Here's an edit history diff, for your reference. Here's the "sandbox". -- this was by Happysomeone
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [1] [2], activist Mary Rakovich [3] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [4]
However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [6] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.
Carender had contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin in order to gain her support and publicize her event. Malkin promoted the protest in several posts on her blog, saying that "There should be one of these in every town in America," and that she would be supplying the crowd with a meal of pulled pork. Malkin encouraged her readers to stage similar events in Denver on February 17 where President Obama planned to sign the stimulus bill into law. Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [9]
This is the change I was seeking, changing the fourth paragraph.
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [10] [11], activist Mary Rakovich [12] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [13]
However, although it was not the first protest of the Obama administration or of the stimulus, New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that some leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [14] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carendar first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." She said 120 people participated.
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. [15] Carender then helped organize a second protest as part of a nationally organized campaign [16] put together by several politically conservative groups [17] on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [18]
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll call this the "current edit" because that's what's presently there, and I don't agree with this edit. It's WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR in my view, and it appears to be redundant, as well.
According to FreedomWorks state and federal campaigns director Brendan Steinhauser [19] [20], activist Mary Rakovich [21] was the organizer of a February 10, 2009 protest in Fort Myers, Florida, calling it the "first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement." [22]
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February of 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used. [5] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic [23] and NPR’s Martin Kaste [7], credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and that she “organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests”.
Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents' Day, February 16, the day before President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law [8]. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." [24] [25] 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 [8]. Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." [26] [27]
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor, Michelle Malkin and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog. [28] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one." [5]. By Tax Day six weeks later, 1,200 people gathered for a Tea Party protest. [29]
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for posting them. Malke, do you agree that these are the two (plus a variation) versions? After reading them I have my own opinion as to which I like better, but would either of you like to add any comments as to why you think one or the other is better? And then after we've heard the pros and cons perhaps we should have a !vote. Sbowers3 ( talk) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been no edit war that I can see. TeaParty1 and mostly HSO made changes to the History section from 4 to 7 (UTC) yesterday. Malke reverted those changes at 16:40 and that’s where the article sits currently. That’s one, complete edit-cycle and the start of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which we’re having here.
To put my two-cents in (actually five cents at the rate of one penny per paragraph :), I think it important that Rakovich and Carender should be grouped together because, in my mind, there really is no difference between what they actually did. (Really what reliable sources report that they did.)
According to reliable sources, (a) they both led anti-tax and/or anti-big-government protests in February of 2009, (b) someone (or many someones) claimed that Rakovich or Carender was the first and (c) neither one used the term "Tea Party". Therefore I considered them both "precursors" to the first true Tea Party protests on Feb 27. Because Carender was much better sourced, I gave her four paragraphs rather than the one for Rakovich. If Rakovich hadn't happened before Carender, I wouldn't have given her any space at all.
Also, I believe that the most important statement in all of the History section is contained in the last paragraph. In my mind, the February 27th "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" was the first ever Tea Party protest because (a) it was a protest and (b) the organizers called it a Tea Party protest. If think those two prerequisites are the necessary and sufficient conditions for determining whether an event is or is not a TPp. As a matter of fact, it’s only one condition: that the organizers advertize it before the event as a Tea Party protest.
Santelli, while he did say tea party, in my mind, his rant was not a protest. Therefore I do not believe he deserves prominence in the subsection heading. My choice was Birth of the "Tea Party" movement.
Sbower3, I’m sorry but this leaves you three versions to merge. More than that: because I don’t like the current heading of the last subsection (either Birth of the "Tea Party" movement or Rick Santelli, the "Rant Heard Round the World"), the material we have to decide upon is greater than what’s contained in Versions 1.0, 1.2 and 2.0. Sorry. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with RoyGoldsmith. Further, it's an error to attribute Carender with organizing a second protest in a vacuum, when we have considerable RS that tells us otherwise. Also, see here.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're reading too much into this. You're not hearing what I'm saying. This edit needs to be worked out in a compromise. So what's your compromise edit? Malke 2010 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
As Sbowers3 said above "this Talk page should be about What, not about Who. It's usually best not to mention the name of another editor, just concentrate on the content, not the persons."
To get back to the subject at hand, do you Happysomeone, Malke, Scolaire (and anyone else who’s interested) agree that the three versions above list the essential similarities and differences among the material about Rakovich, Carender and Malkin? (Scolaire, Version 2 is the current content of the article, at least so far as headings are concerned.) This is a minimum basis of agreement before we can proceed to building consensus about the headings. Please limit yourself in the space below to answering this specific question. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we’re still waiting for Sbowers3.
However, while we’re waiting, I think we could start off by talking about the subsection headings used in the History section. In thinking over what Scolaire said about using simple, easy to understand headings, I think I agree with him.
Right now, we have the following headings:
Following Scolaire's advice, I think the headings should be more like this:
You can see this version as the new first section of my user subpage. Right now I’m not talking about the content of the subsections (we’ll get to that later); I’m only talking about the headings. And I don’t know if "described as" is the proper wording for the third heading. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't heard from youse guys for 3 or 4 days. What do you think of my three, simple sub-headings for History? Check the first section here for details. Can I replace the subheadings in the article with these three? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think one full week is enough to allow for discussion. Since there are no dissenting votes, I am changing the section headings now. Scolaire ( talk) 07:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this today surfing the news outlets. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9F1PU2O0 breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used&show_article=1]. Malke 2010 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"Bad behavior" is vague and subjective. People have been asking for a racism section not a "bad behavior" section. Cptnono ( talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC) And I disagree with Freedom Fan's removal of that much content. It is not OR and I believe weight was fine before the change. Several people have asked for a racism section and relegating it to the other article seem inappropriate. Cptnono ( talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As a total outsider to both the tea Party movement, and even the USA, I would just observe that movements such as this inevitably attract extremists. Such people see this kind of protest movement as another place to take their own extreme view, since it's a chance to protest against the government. While there will be many honest, principled participants in the movement, there will also be the bigots, of all kinds. They won't all come from outside, as plants to discredit the movement. It will cause angst among the more objective and sensible members, but to say "it's only a tiny minority" is to ignore a reality of this type of movement. The bigots will be loud, and will attract others. It is part of the natural cycle of these things. When it happens, it must be documented. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The first sentence of the "Composition of the Movement" section can easily cause some confusion. It's current wording makes it sound like only 18% of Tea Party supporters are "white, male, married and older than 45." I suggest it be reworded to "According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters, who tend to be "white, male, married and older than 45.""
DubiousKing (
talk)
12:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this today. The NYTimes seems to be paying more attention to the Tea Party Movement. [12]. Malke 2010 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We need a section invlving Anabel Park's Coffee Party
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.150.142 ( talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
saw this today. [13]. Malke 2010 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me again why " Reports of inappropriate behavior" is a better heading for that section than "Alleged racism and homophobia"? 'Inappropriate behaviour' might refer to drinking in a public place, singing loudly after midnight or peeing on somebody's lawn (or even, I suppose, 'teabagging'). The section is about a specific report of racial abuse and the use of the word "fag". Why should the section heading not say what the section is about? Scolaire ( talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As an additional note. Unless there is a response to the allegations the whole section is in violation of WP:NPOV Several people dispute some of the actions of racism, and we must include a measured response or the whole section has to go. Arzel ( talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The second Breitbart paragraph is too much. It doesn;t say anything but Breitbart says no and union dude says yes. So what? WP:RECENTISM and what these two guys say is not that important. This is exasperated by it not being conclusive so it just comes across like the article is debating with itself. The second paragraph discussing it needs to be removed. Also, people need to watch out for WP:AVOID more. Cptnono ( talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Jason Levin's effort to infiltrate Tea Party groups be considered either a False flag operation and/or Black Propaganda? Levin clearly stated that he wanted his supporters to infiltrate the groups and pose as Tea Partiers and then perform negative actions such as holding signs with incorrect grammar and racial slurs and seeking to get on television and intentionally act inappropriately in an effort to distort the movement.
Here's the definition of a False Flag operation, more specifically in a political sense: "This can involve when supporters of one candidate [or in this case, a political movement] pose as supporters of another, or act as “ straw men” for their preferred candidate to debate against. ... one candidate creating a false document and attributing it as coming from another candidate in order to discredit that candidate."
Here's the definition of Black propaganda: Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. [30]
Though I admit that it may not completely fit the defination of either of these types of deception, but I do think that it would be very close to that.
To Paraphrase Senator Henry M. Jackson (D-WA), one of my two favorite Statesmen of the late twentieth century (with the other being President Ronald Reagan), I'm not a Conservative (at least not on social issues) or a Progressive (at least not on economic issues and definitely not the isolationist policies that many of them favor in regards to Foreign policy and Defense). I just don't want my country to be a pigeon economically. Fuelsaver ( talk) 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In the section Claims of bias in media coverage I checked the reference and saw that the citation did not include where Howard Kurtz had made his comment. It seems important, since CNN itself was referenced. I prepended "On CNN's Situation Room," as it exists within the citation. I am trying very hard to verify the citations here. There are far too many of them IME in wikipedia that either do not exist, or are not complete. Lemme know if this isn't an innocuous change in your opinion. Tgm1024 ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting this as a new section because the discussion above has got bogged down with arguments about POV. When editors attempt to balance POV by adding or deleting content there are ultimately no winners, and the reader is the big loser because the result is not encyclopedic. It might be more useful to look at it in terms of Wikipedia:Recentism and ask, is the article becoming "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens"? I propose to apply the ten-year test as a guide to what is worthy of inclusion:
Taking all this into account, I propose the following as a concise, clear and NPOV account of March 20 and its aftermath:
Scolaire ( talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Two minor changes I would suggest are just for accuracy. 1) change the anti-gay slur "Fag" (cited only to the claim of one nobody protester) to "faggot" (multiple times, supported by reliable witnesses, and video tape [14]). 2) change the "chanted the n-word" wording to note that Carson said they were chanting "kill the bill" and following that with the n-word, and he heard it as many as 15 times. [15] Your present wording makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times.
You named this section "March 20 and recentism", but other editors are expressing concern for unrelated events and dates, like the "intended infiltration", and there are similar incidents in the article (depending on which version you view) about bigotry. How about we apply the 10-year test to the whole section, instead of just the March 20 incidents? Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono has a point about Wikilinks within quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says about linking:
While Scolaire's Wikilink to the Freedom Rides may be accurate (and obvious, and common sense, self-evident, etc.), we have no real way of knowing that with absolute certainty unless it is explained in a source. Adding the link would provide more information to the reader, but goes against Wikipedia convention. Perhaps, instead, try adding in the same identifying wording present in every source that mentioned Lewis & the March 20 incident: he is a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. I think the Fox source we're using now called him a "legend" in that movement. Or you can keep the link - every Wikipedia guideline leaves room for exceptions. Just my two cents... Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick note: "claim" is being used in a manner that is against WP:CLAIM. Try something else? Cptnono ( talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This section lacks any hint of neutrality. The entire section and section heading are in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, Wikipedia:No original research. Accordingly, I have flagged the section as lacking neutrality, pending consensus and resolution.
Please review the WP:BLP policy related to groups:
In addition to large groups, these events deal with small groups and specifically named and photographed individuals. So since this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure. Therefore it is essential that every source and every statement be supported precisely, by reliable sources, without a hint of POV.
The article also violates WP:UNDUE by taking alleged actions of a tiny handful of individuals and attempts to use this to brand an entire political movement of millions of ordinary citizens of various races, who are concerned about fiscal responsibility, taxation and the size of government, not race.
Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section heading: "Reports of Inappropriate Behavior" or "Disputed Events During Protest of March 20, 2010"
Otherwise by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants. The current heading uses obviously loaded non-NPOV interpretative wording more suitable to a political campaign hit piece, rather than a respectable encyclopedia article.
Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section:
However in the current version, the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word". Therefore the editor's changing it from the text represents a blatant non-NPOV interpretation on the part of the editor. The same applies to the loaded descriptions of the behavior within the section as "racist" and "homophobic". The proper solution in an encyclopedia is just to describe the alleged behavior and leave the interpretation to the reader.
So please review the Wikipedia:No original research policy:
More proposed neutral wording:
However the current version lacks NPOV because it omits the key phrase which clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior. Obviously there is an immense difference between the intentional act of spitting and accidental spittle during speaking or 'yelling', which happens routinely.
More proposed neutral wording:
However, the current version states these alleged events as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?
More proposed neutral wording:
However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.
More proposed neutral wording:
Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance. Breitbart is a well known person who is an active speaker within the Tea Party movement. His challenge is well-sourced and relevant. It is notable that "100000 Breitbart" gets over 350,000 hits on Google. It allows the reader to weigh the credibility of the charges, beyond just the he-said-but-he-said allegations. That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism". You may disagree with this logic, but the facts should be presented to allow the user to decide. However, someone keeps trying to remove this response which is unacceptable.
In conclusion, this section presents serious, disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage (not that they would ever actually do that). Unless there is some attempt to provide fairness and balance, then you as an editor risk losing the presumption of good faith and start to look like a political campaign manager specializing in dirty tricks (which of course, you are not). These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications.
So until this section is brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies and consensus is reached, please leave the POV tag to alert the reader to this important ongoing discussion. Thanks.
Freedom Fan ( talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unde weight to mention it in the head section , it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals , I assume there are no more than 100 people that participate in anything if at all. 109.66.17.64 ( talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
[22] Malke 2010 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why Tea Party Portests is being added back to this section. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Is there a reason for this? TIA -- Tom (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first.
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
Keli Carender...organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests — before they were even called Tea Party protests.
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
Keli Carender, 30, of Seattle, who is credited with hosting one of the first ever Tea Party protests in February of 2009
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)