![]() | 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 5 |
I'm not sure how significant or widespread these protests really are, but they do seem to have been mentioned fairly widely, if briefly, in the mainstream press such as The Guardian and The Economist. Possibly related to Rick Santelli's odd performance on CNBC, and I'm picking up a lot of chatter about them on Twitter (see for instance #tcot and #teaparty on search.twitter.com). Conservative politics is a closed book to me, but this does look interesting. -- TS 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The protest are becoming more common as the government spends more of the taxpayers money, also there was one in Oklahoma City in late feb, early March, i didnt see it on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.245 ( talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to change it to Tea party (protest). Do I have to create a new article and then redirect this page there, ect, ect. Sorry for my ignorance :) Thanks, -- Tom 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
How about 2009 TEA Party protests (written like that) since TEA is the official name?
I'm not comfortable with the present title (2009 "tea party" protests), either. It reeks of POV from a user whose only contribution to this page was to move it. Specifically, the fact that the name "tea party" is in quotation marks fails Wikipedia:NC#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis. I'm going to move the page to 2009 Tea Party protests. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Some other free ones from Flickr that you could use, if desired:
I don't know if any of them are good, but they are free to use. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What kind of external links would be good for this article? Would a link to a local website organizing a tea party work? For instance: the Cincinnati tea party website. Or would more national (coordinating) websites work? For instance: the Tax Day tea party website. If we list the local ones, would we simply have too many links (linkfarm)? Are any of them "official" enough to qualify for inclusion? As it stands, there are no "external links", so I was curious. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone has made a google map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112875499027114938790.0004647d9f61bab744fd4&ll=38.272689,-96.679687&spn=27.495109,57.128906&z=4&source=embed htom ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was the External Links section removed? If it was merely a formatting problem ought it not have been fixed rather than axed? Would very much like to see it returned. -- King ravana ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a section called "Responses" because the only reference was to a separate initiative by Barack Obama dating from early February, before the protests.
I've removed a section called "Momentum" because it only referred to partisan sources. -- TS 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed an entry from events that read as follows:
The sources given were a video made by Glenn Reynolds and hosted on Pajamas TV, a website for the Oregon Tea Party, and a website called "Speak Now America". These are not reliable sources for the figures claimed. -- TS 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The tea parties began on December 16th, 2007 (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party) as a fund raising/protest initiative started by Libertarian leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. This was the second and larger of two major fund raising days for Ron Paul from 2007. The first one was on November 5, 2007. They were both huge sucesses the first raising 4.2 million dollars in one day and the second raising 6.6 million.
There is a strong liklihood that the 2009 tea party protests were influenced or inspired by Ron Paul 2007 tea party and the movement that grew out of the Ron Paul candidacy.
I don't think you can prove a direct connection but this should be at least mentioned in the primary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.250.65 ( talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
see this wiki article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.73.99 ( talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So why is this information now given as background for the 2009 Tea Party Protests? Sigh.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The origin of tea parties as a protest against the federal government overreaching its constitutional boundaries began with Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency. This fact needs to remain in the article. (A brief mention of the Boston Tea Party is also required.) JLMadrigal ( talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So how about that temporal gap, then, what say you JLMadrigal?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the origins of these protests, it seems to me that protests happened the day before the signing of the bill, but they were not called anything remotely named 'tea party'. They had another name, 'Porkilous'. But they are cited as the source and origin of what are called 'tea parties'. This is in conflict and something is not true about the situation. The name clearly came from a broadcast on Feb 17th, and not from what is cited in the article as a blogger in Seattle. This should be redone to reflect the source of the actual protests that have used the name 'tea party', since Feb 17th as the broadcast on CNBC. There is no indication of any other protests called 'Porkilous' since the day before the signing of the bill. The only 'Porkilous' protest documented should be cited as a footnote to indicate that protests of the bill started the day before the signing of the bill, but not as the origin of the protests documented, and named by the organizers, and the press, as 'tea parties'. Godfollower4ever ( talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the references to "derision" of the protests by liberal commentators becuase I couldn't find any reference in the Barack Obama article about him being derided by conservative commentators (which he, of course, has been). Just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofthepeopl ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. A couple of extremely brief mentions of his inexperience? I don't see how that adequately covers everything that has been said about him.
Whatever though, I can't be bothered, I'll let you have your way and leave you to your little masturbatory, hagiographic gay Obama fanfics. Have fun. Voiceofthepeopl ( talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice circular referencing here: [3] and here: [4].
I'm really not seeing any legitimate reason to include the mention of Maddow and the reference, especially in light of this. 67.135.49.198 ( talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to fully discuss but the bias is starting to stand out. Removing labels from Liberals while labeling conservatives. Linking to unrelated links to give the impression that this is a false event. Over hyping FNC and trying to make some supportive link where one does not exist. Arzel ( talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
:::::Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.
- “Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.
I won't weigh in about NPOV, but I did want to stop by and thank all the contributors for creating such a decent article so quickly about a fairly controversial subject. Sure, there is room to improve but their always is. The whole "conservative and liberal" thing is important to consider and my presence is to minimize both sides and just concentrate on the events themselves. But it doesn't seem glaringly biased one way or the other. On a first read nothing stands out as being a big problem. I had in mind to start an article on the subject today, with all the new coverage, and what do you know, not only does it exist but it is very informative, well written, and thoroughly sourced. So thanks. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that this was readded with the edit summary "rvv"? Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm using this section of the talk page to list reports of events (not planned events) that have taken place, from newspapers or other reliable sources. -- TS 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Responses" doesn't include any responses. The "responses" given were 1) someone saying that this isn't a real tea party because those who are pushing the taxation without representation are elected; and 2) & 3) two more comments about how taxes aren't necessarily bad. I think NPR got it right by saying it's fallacious to say this is a revolt about taxes--it's not, it's a revolt about deficit spending. Anyway, I deleted #2 & 3 because they are simply unrelated to the article.-- Mrcolj ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
111,899? thats a bit low considering there was "at least 2000" rallies... are you trying to tell me that the average is less than 100 at each rally? considering Atlanta had 15-20,000 people last night I think this number is very low... I was estimating 500,000+ thinking possibly upwards of a million. Obviously until we get a more accurate source this cannot be posted.
It makes sense to include Neil Cavuto's comments about the Sacramento attendence being ~5000 when he thought he was off the air, only to state that the attendence was 10-15,000 after the cameras 'started rolling'. This gives additional insight on the motives of Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.44.74 ( talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like about 700,000 people attended. Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How does this one look? The signs that were being displayed at these demonstrations weren't all tax-related, you know.
[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.98 ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Several liberal (e.g. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster) and centrist (e.g. Anderson Cooper) talk show hosts have made jokes about the sexual practice of teabagging. This has elicited responses from Fox News and national organizer FreedomWorks. I have tried to present both sides (the jokes and the responses) neutrally. If anyone has issues with the section, please bring them up here and I will try to resolve them. Thanks. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Whomever wrote up the teabagging section with the hyperlinks to the various plays on words. I must say it is quite funny. However, it does appear to require a great deal of OR to make all of those connections. In reading it I can see how they were made, but the question is was that the real intention behind Shuster and Olbermann? I won't delete them right now, but they probably need some third party reporting to make the causal links. Arzel ( talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media to make fun of the protests. The term "teabag the White House" came from one of the promoters, though. [7] (Yes, I know it's the Daily Show, but they have the video clip that spawned the whole teabag joke there.) The media just ran with the joke after that faux pas. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, do we really need as big a mention as we have now. I think readers get the point after one or two double entendres. By my count we mention 6 distinct examples. Is that necessary? JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including Nate Silver's estimate of the turnout as long as we note that he is a liberal [8] and include any reliable conservative sources (and note that they in turn are conservative). If any reliable source has criticized Nate Silver's estimate, please include that in the article too. Thanks. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Since one of the complaints before the party was about lack of coverage, is the lack of estimates in the usual RS news or fact? htom ( talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)... Here are the new and revised listings; followed by a complete list from top to bottom. The new listings bring the cumulative estimate of attendance to 311,460 between 346 cities. The same caveats apply as before: although I've included any estimates I've found that seem even reasonably nonpartisan and credible, there were many protests in which reliable crowd estimates were not readily available or where there wasn't even any press coverage at all. However, essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for. ...
There are several wikilinks in the teabagging section which are not only superfluous, but violate WP:SYNTHESIS; they link words like full-throated to fellatio. First of all, such links aren't constructive, and second, because the sources don't specifically say that full-throated means fellatio (and so forth), it's WP:SYNTHESIS to link the two. Unless the majority opposes it, I will remove the links. EJNOGARB —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
Oh for Pete's sake. What is the point?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)== History Errors ==
There appears to be an error in the "History" segment. For all concerned, please review Liberty Belle's blog here, where the protest is clearly referenced as a "Porculus" protest. The "Tea" meme did not begin with this event. I can see, however, how this is related to the Tea Protests that were held on April 15. But it is factually incorrect to label this a "Tea" protest. That event should be labelled correctly and in the near future I intend to make the appropriate chages to reflect that. Please see here, Liberty Belle's blog on this: http://redistributingknowledge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-15T15%3A36%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When reviewing this article I notice the fringe theory about protests not being grassroots. Thus far no credible evidence has come up showing this other than 1 or 2 politic activitists/politians stating their fringe theories about it and suggest in the removal of this section under the fringe theories section of Wikipedia.Jason 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe ( talk • contribs)
An editor is repeatedly inserting the Pajamas TV estimate of ~600,000 people attending into the article. I've reverted twice and explained why on his talkpage, so I'll bring it here - should such a partisan and involved (they promoted the event) party be quoted as such, not quoted at all, or quoted with caveats? Black Kite 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We have two options here. (1)Avoid openly partisan sources, which means both Pajamas TV and Silver are gone. (2)Include all sides.
I personally favor (2). (1) is justifiable and reasonable. But employing an ideological double standard either way is simply unacceptable. The Squicks ( talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What proof must be made in order to reach a "consensus" allowing the use of PJTV as a source for attendance data? Obviously not everyone will post their opinion in the Talk Page here, but I'd be willing to bet over 600,000 thousand people (the ones who attended the events nationwide) would say it's allowable. Tycoon24 ( talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I added another source and some more background. If you still think she's non-notable, feel free to remove her. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are two more [13] [14] right wing responses to Garofalo's comments (in case they are ever added back to the article). JCDenton2052 ( talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will interested parties please vote on/discuss what to do with political labels? JCDenton2052 ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Label everyone as liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc. If this option is chosen, we'll have to reach consensus on who is liberal/conservative, etc. For some (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc) it should be easy.
2) Label no one.
3) Something else. However, I think labeling only conservatives or only liberals might violate WP:NPOV.
I created a new section called incidents after finding this line: A protest by several hundred people outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over its fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people placed in the turnout section. It was rather awkward in the turnout section and is worthy of it's own section. I have a feeling that there are other incidents that happened during these protests that can also be included in that section. Brothejr ( talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record. Nate Silver did not perform any statistical analysis on the turnout estimations. He simply added up all of the reported estimates he was able to find and used that number for his total. Please do not try to convey in that section that what he did was statistical in nature. Satistics can be easily manipulated, and it is best to simply report was reported. Arzel ( talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am really fed up with how this user somehow has the authority to write anything he wants, while generally using unreliable sources. Anytime I try reverting any information that I feel is biased, He suggest that I'm vandalizing the article by blanking and I get warned for it. Then add the constant labeling of people who support the tea party as "conservative" or "libertarian" and those who oppose it as "liberal" is not only repetitive but unfitting for some. Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal. I wish something could be done about him. Showtime2009 ( talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal." is really rather pointless. We should label commentators based upon which political stripe they follow -- and in fact hiding it is equivalent to trying to hide pertinent information about bias in sources -- and those descriptions of liberal vs. conservative are obvious and uncontroversial. To even suggest, for example, that there's any doubt that O'Reilly is conservative, or that the teabaggers are predominantly right-wing, is just ludicrous. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Wiki has become 1984's RecDep were histroy is rewritten. Somehow this article has more information about the Boston Tea Party in the overview than the actual event itself and talks about a scant counter-protest as if anyone even noticed the two guys on the other block holding a Barack Rocks sign. GoreBullWarming ( talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fed up with this user as well. Not only does he write anything he wants, but if you write something he dislikes, he will pretend that he's an admin an post a warning message on your Talk Page.
Tycoon24 (
talk)
16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why people keep removing important parts (N) of the reported numbers, but perhaps a little example will help.
It was reported yesterday that 25 students at Central High cheated on their SAT tests.
Now ask yourself does the 25 mean anything? Is it 25 out of 25? or 25 out of 5,000? The second number (N) is needed to present the statistic in context. Can we please have an agreement that if turnout is to be reported then it include N so that the base number is presented in the proper context. The Nate Silver calculation should not be reported. That is my professional opinion of 12+ years in the statistical and related fields. If it is to be reported it has to be listed as a simple ennumeration and that it was based on a summation of only a partial representation. That said I am going to add the (N) numbers back (the 750 total is important as well, plus that is already cited earlier). Arzel ( talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "346 towns and cities" should be added back in, as it appears there may have been more protests than news reports (such as a gathering in Redmond, WA of 25 people).-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that we need to present the number in context. So should present the number as "Nate Silver reported cumulative crowd size for 346 cities from various newspapers to be around 311,460 out of a total population of xxx,xxx,xxx?" Are we talking the population of just the cities, or their metro areas too? That would probably amount to a population of well over 200,000,000 people, or roughly a 0.15% attendance rate at the events. Or we could report it as 1 out of every 1,000 people in America showed up. Or maybe we could compare the number to weekly NFL attendance, where on average 1,020,054 people pay money to show up to just 15 NFL games each Sunday in the fall. Maybe we could compare the attendance numbers to the 500,000 people who showed up at Grant Park to celebrate Obama's victory on election night or the 1.8 million people who showed up in DC to watch his inauguration, or the 38,000,000 people worldwide who showed up in 800 cities at the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest . Context is a tricky thing you see, or are you suggesting a context that paints it as your POV? TharsHammar Bits and Pieces 02:59, 19 April 2009 (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 5 |
I'm not sure how significant or widespread these protests really are, but they do seem to have been mentioned fairly widely, if briefly, in the mainstream press such as The Guardian and The Economist. Possibly related to Rick Santelli's odd performance on CNBC, and I'm picking up a lot of chatter about them on Twitter (see for instance #tcot and #teaparty on search.twitter.com). Conservative politics is a closed book to me, but this does look interesting. -- TS 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The protest are becoming more common as the government spends more of the taxpayers money, also there was one in Oklahoma City in late feb, early March, i didnt see it on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.245 ( talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to change it to Tea party (protest). Do I have to create a new article and then redirect this page there, ect, ect. Sorry for my ignorance :) Thanks, -- Tom 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
How about 2009 TEA Party protests (written like that) since TEA is the official name?
I'm not comfortable with the present title (2009 "tea party" protests), either. It reeks of POV from a user whose only contribution to this page was to move it. Specifically, the fact that the name "tea party" is in quotation marks fails Wikipedia:NC#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis. I'm going to move the page to 2009 Tea Party protests. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Some other free ones from Flickr that you could use, if desired:
I don't know if any of them are good, but they are free to use. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What kind of external links would be good for this article? Would a link to a local website organizing a tea party work? For instance: the Cincinnati tea party website. Or would more national (coordinating) websites work? For instance: the Tax Day tea party website. If we list the local ones, would we simply have too many links (linkfarm)? Are any of them "official" enough to qualify for inclusion? As it stands, there are no "external links", so I was curious. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone has made a google map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112875499027114938790.0004647d9f61bab744fd4&ll=38.272689,-96.679687&spn=27.495109,57.128906&z=4&source=embed htom ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why was the External Links section removed? If it was merely a formatting problem ought it not have been fixed rather than axed? Would very much like to see it returned. -- King ravana ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've removed a section called "Responses" because the only reference was to a separate initiative by Barack Obama dating from early February, before the protests.
I've removed a section called "Momentum" because it only referred to partisan sources. -- TS 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed an entry from events that read as follows:
The sources given were a video made by Glenn Reynolds and hosted on Pajamas TV, a website for the Oregon Tea Party, and a website called "Speak Now America". These are not reliable sources for the figures claimed. -- TS 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The tea parties began on December 16th, 2007 (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party) as a fund raising/protest initiative started by Libertarian leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. This was the second and larger of two major fund raising days for Ron Paul from 2007. The first one was on November 5, 2007. They were both huge sucesses the first raising 4.2 million dollars in one day and the second raising 6.6 million.
There is a strong liklihood that the 2009 tea party protests were influenced or inspired by Ron Paul 2007 tea party and the movement that grew out of the Ron Paul candidacy.
I don't think you can prove a direct connection but this should be at least mentioned in the primary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.250.65 ( talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
see this wiki article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneybomb
[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.73.99 ( talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
So why is this information now given as background for the 2009 Tea Party Protests? Sigh.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The origin of tea parties as a protest against the federal government overreaching its constitutional boundaries began with Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency. This fact needs to remain in the article. (A brief mention of the Boston Tea Party is also required.) JLMadrigal ( talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So how about that temporal gap, then, what say you JLMadrigal?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In relation to the origins of these protests, it seems to me that protests happened the day before the signing of the bill, but they were not called anything remotely named 'tea party'. They had another name, 'Porkilous'. But they are cited as the source and origin of what are called 'tea parties'. This is in conflict and something is not true about the situation. The name clearly came from a broadcast on Feb 17th, and not from what is cited in the article as a blogger in Seattle. This should be redone to reflect the source of the actual protests that have used the name 'tea party', since Feb 17th as the broadcast on CNBC. There is no indication of any other protests called 'Porkilous' since the day before the signing of the bill. The only 'Porkilous' protest documented should be cited as a footnote to indicate that protests of the bill started the day before the signing of the bill, but not as the origin of the protests documented, and named by the organizers, and the press, as 'tea parties'. Godfollower4ever ( talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed the references to "derision" of the protests by liberal commentators becuase I couldn't find any reference in the Barack Obama article about him being derided by conservative commentators (which he, of course, has been). Just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofthepeopl ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. A couple of extremely brief mentions of his inexperience? I don't see how that adequately covers everything that has been said about him.
Whatever though, I can't be bothered, I'll let you have your way and leave you to your little masturbatory, hagiographic gay Obama fanfics. Have fun. Voiceofthepeopl ( talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice circular referencing here: [3] and here: [4].
I'm really not seeing any legitimate reason to include the mention of Maddow and the reference, especially in light of this. 67.135.49.198 ( talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to fully discuss but the bias is starting to stand out. Removing labels from Liberals while labeling conservatives. Linking to unrelated links to give the impression that this is a false event. Over hyping FNC and trying to make some supportive link where one does not exist. Arzel ( talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
:::::Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.
- “Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.
I won't weigh in about NPOV, but I did want to stop by and thank all the contributors for creating such a decent article so quickly about a fairly controversial subject. Sure, there is room to improve but their always is. The whole "conservative and liberal" thing is important to consider and my presence is to minimize both sides and just concentrate on the events themselves. But it doesn't seem glaringly biased one way or the other. On a first read nothing stands out as being a big problem. I had in mind to start an article on the subject today, with all the new coverage, and what do you know, not only does it exist but it is very informative, well written, and thoroughly sourced. So thanks. Wikidemon ( talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that this was readded with the edit summary "rvv"? Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm using this section of the talk page to list reports of events (not planned events) that have taken place, from newspapers or other reliable sources. -- TS 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Responses" doesn't include any responses. The "responses" given were 1) someone saying that this isn't a real tea party because those who are pushing the taxation without representation are elected; and 2) & 3) two more comments about how taxes aren't necessarily bad. I think NPR got it right by saying it's fallacious to say this is a revolt about taxes--it's not, it's a revolt about deficit spending. Anyway, I deleted #2 & 3 because they are simply unrelated to the article.-- Mrcolj ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
111,899? thats a bit low considering there was "at least 2000" rallies... are you trying to tell me that the average is less than 100 at each rally? considering Atlanta had 15-20,000 people last night I think this number is very low... I was estimating 500,000+ thinking possibly upwards of a million. Obviously until we get a more accurate source this cannot be posted.
It makes sense to include Neil Cavuto's comments about the Sacramento attendence being ~5000 when he thought he was off the air, only to state that the attendence was 10-15,000 after the cameras 'started rolling'. This gives additional insight on the motives of Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.44.74 ( talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like about 700,000 people attended. Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How does this one look? The signs that were being displayed at these demonstrations weren't all tax-related, you know.
[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.98 ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Several liberal (e.g. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster) and centrist (e.g. Anderson Cooper) talk show hosts have made jokes about the sexual practice of teabagging. This has elicited responses from Fox News and national organizer FreedomWorks. I have tried to present both sides (the jokes and the responses) neutrally. If anyone has issues with the section, please bring them up here and I will try to resolve them. Thanks. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Whomever wrote up the teabagging section with the hyperlinks to the various plays on words. I must say it is quite funny. However, it does appear to require a great deal of OR to make all of those connections. In reading it I can see how they were made, but the question is was that the real intention behind Shuster and Olbermann? I won't delete them right now, but they probably need some third party reporting to make the causal links. Arzel ( talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media to make fun of the protests. The term "teabag the White House" came from one of the promoters, though. [7] (Yes, I know it's the Daily Show, but they have the video clip that spawned the whole teabag joke there.) The media just ran with the joke after that faux pas. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, do we really need as big a mention as we have now. I think readers get the point after one or two double entendres. By my count we mention 6 distinct examples. Is that necessary? JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including Nate Silver's estimate of the turnout as long as we note that he is a liberal [8] and include any reliable conservative sources (and note that they in turn are conservative). If any reliable source has criticized Nate Silver's estimate, please include that in the article too. Thanks. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Since one of the complaints before the party was about lack of coverage, is the lack of estimates in the usual RS news or fact? htom ( talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)... Here are the new and revised listings; followed by a complete list from top to bottom. The new listings bring the cumulative estimate of attendance to 311,460 between 346 cities. The same caveats apply as before: although I've included any estimates I've found that seem even reasonably nonpartisan and credible, there were many protests in which reliable crowd estimates were not readily available or where there wasn't even any press coverage at all. However, essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for. ...
There are several wikilinks in the teabagging section which are not only superfluous, but violate WP:SYNTHESIS; they link words like full-throated to fellatio. First of all, such links aren't constructive, and second, because the sources don't specifically say that full-throated means fellatio (and so forth), it's WP:SYNTHESIS to link the two. Unless the majority opposes it, I will remove the links. EJNOGARB —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
Oh for Pete's sake. What is the point?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 07:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)== History Errors ==
There appears to be an error in the "History" segment. For all concerned, please review Liberty Belle's blog here, where the protest is clearly referenced as a "Porculus" protest. The "Tea" meme did not begin with this event. I can see, however, how this is related to the Tea Protests that were held on April 15. But it is factually incorrect to label this a "Tea" protest. That event should be labelled correctly and in the near future I intend to make the appropriate chages to reflect that. Please see here, Liberty Belle's blog on this: http://redistributingknowledge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-15T15%3A36%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7-- Happysomeone ( talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When reviewing this article I notice the fringe theory about protests not being grassroots. Thus far no credible evidence has come up showing this other than 1 or 2 politic activitists/politians stating their fringe theories about it and suggest in the removal of this section under the fringe theories section of Wikipedia.Jason 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe ( talk • contribs)
An editor is repeatedly inserting the Pajamas TV estimate of ~600,000 people attending into the article. I've reverted twice and explained why on his talkpage, so I'll bring it here - should such a partisan and involved (they promoted the event) party be quoted as such, not quoted at all, or quoted with caveats? Black Kite 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We have two options here. (1)Avoid openly partisan sources, which means both Pajamas TV and Silver are gone. (2)Include all sides.
I personally favor (2). (1) is justifiable and reasonable. But employing an ideological double standard either way is simply unacceptable. The Squicks ( talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What proof must be made in order to reach a "consensus" allowing the use of PJTV as a source for attendance data? Obviously not everyone will post their opinion in the Talk Page here, but I'd be willing to bet over 600,000 thousand people (the ones who attended the events nationwide) would say it's allowable. Tycoon24 ( talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I added another source and some more background. If you still think she's non-notable, feel free to remove her. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are two more [13] [14] right wing responses to Garofalo's comments (in case they are ever added back to the article). JCDenton2052 ( talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Will interested parties please vote on/discuss what to do with political labels? JCDenton2052 ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Label everyone as liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc. If this option is chosen, we'll have to reach consensus on who is liberal/conservative, etc. For some (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc) it should be easy.
2) Label no one.
3) Something else. However, I think labeling only conservatives or only liberals might violate WP:NPOV.
I created a new section called incidents after finding this line: A protest by several hundred people outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over its fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people placed in the turnout section. It was rather awkward in the turnout section and is worthy of it's own section. I have a feeling that there are other incidents that happened during these protests that can also be included in that section. Brothejr ( talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record. Nate Silver did not perform any statistical analysis on the turnout estimations. He simply added up all of the reported estimates he was able to find and used that number for his total. Please do not try to convey in that section that what he did was statistical in nature. Satistics can be easily manipulated, and it is best to simply report was reported. Arzel ( talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am really fed up with how this user somehow has the authority to write anything he wants, while generally using unreliable sources. Anytime I try reverting any information that I feel is biased, He suggest that I'm vandalizing the article by blanking and I get warned for it. Then add the constant labeling of people who support the tea party as "conservative" or "libertarian" and those who oppose it as "liberal" is not only repetitive but unfitting for some. Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal. I wish something could be done about him. Showtime2009 ( talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement "Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal." is really rather pointless. We should label commentators based upon which political stripe they follow -- and in fact hiding it is equivalent to trying to hide pertinent information about bias in sources -- and those descriptions of liberal vs. conservative are obvious and uncontroversial. To even suggest, for example, that there's any doubt that O'Reilly is conservative, or that the teabaggers are predominantly right-wing, is just ludicrous. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Wiki has become 1984's RecDep were histroy is rewritten. Somehow this article has more information about the Boston Tea Party in the overview than the actual event itself and talks about a scant counter-protest as if anyone even noticed the two guys on the other block holding a Barack Rocks sign. GoreBullWarming ( talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fed up with this user as well. Not only does he write anything he wants, but if you write something he dislikes, he will pretend that he's an admin an post a warning message on your Talk Page.
Tycoon24 (
talk)
16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why people keep removing important parts (N) of the reported numbers, but perhaps a little example will help.
It was reported yesterday that 25 students at Central High cheated on their SAT tests.
Now ask yourself does the 25 mean anything? Is it 25 out of 25? or 25 out of 5,000? The second number (N) is needed to present the statistic in context. Can we please have an agreement that if turnout is to be reported then it include N so that the base number is presented in the proper context. The Nate Silver calculation should not be reported. That is my professional opinion of 12+ years in the statistical and related fields. If it is to be reported it has to be listed as a simple ennumeration and that it was based on a summation of only a partial representation. That said I am going to add the (N) numbers back (the 750 total is important as well, plus that is already cited earlier). Arzel ( talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "346 towns and cities" should be added back in, as it appears there may have been more protests than news reports (such as a gathering in Redmond, WA of 25 people).-- Happysomeone ( talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that we need to present the number in context. So should present the number as "Nate Silver reported cumulative crowd size for 346 cities from various newspapers to be around 311,460 out of a total population of xxx,xxx,xxx?" Are we talking the population of just the cities, or their metro areas too? That would probably amount to a population of well over 200,000,000 people, or roughly a 0.15% attendance rate at the events. Or we could report it as 1 out of every 1,000 people in America showed up. Or maybe we could compare the number to weekly NFL attendance, where on average 1,020,054 people pay money to show up to just 15 NFL games each Sunday in the fall. Maybe we could compare the attendance numbers to the 500,000 people who showed up at Grant Park to celebrate Obama's victory on election night or the 1.8 million people who showed up in DC to watch his inauguration, or the 38,000,000 people worldwide who showed up in 800 cities at the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest . Context is a tricky thing you see, or are you suggesting a context that paints it as your POV? TharsHammar Bits and Pieces 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)