![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Please remember to only use reliable sources for factual claims. Specifically, we never use Youtube clips as reliable sources. Further, just because a commentator (especially a particularly unreliable one like Michelle Malkin) makes a claim in an interview, doesn't mean it is sourced. Michelle Malkin repeating a dubious claim on a panel show on Fox News does not mean that Fox News "reported" that fact. Far from it. We need verifiability. Also, we never use editorials as sources for factual claims. Please, discuss here if there are any question about sources. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I visited this page for information on the 2009 tea party protests and found myself leaving dumber about the subject than before I came here. I'm not even going to make suggestions because most hot-headed wiki editors will gawk at the idea that their work is pathetic. But it's true... this page wreaks of immature, baseless claims and comments made for comedy hour and not as a encyclopedic source of information. This page should be deleted or completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.7.103 ( talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why an NBC-affiliate TV station is not a WP:RS. See here and here. I suggest that rather than delete a sourced statement, if you doubt the reliability of the source, the proper thing to do is add a {{ verify credibility}} tag. And I further suggest that there is no good reason for deleting a hidden comment and no reason to delete a reference that is used for the rest of the paragraph just because you don't like one statement. I am restoring the reference and hidden comment. I will omit for now the statement you don't like until we have discussed this further. Sbowers3 ( talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to merge Timeline of Tea Party protests into this article. The textual part of the other article (the lede and History sections) is very similar to this article. The tabular part uses the same references that are used in this article. It's a lot of work to add the same material into the table of the other article and into inline references in this article. I want to make it much easier to add references. There are hundreds and hundreds of RS that should be added to this article and the other but it's not easy to format each ref for the table or for an inline ref. So I'd like to add the refs in a simple list format:
These would be in an Appendix section or in the References section after the inline references. The format above makes it very easy to add a reference, which will encourage editors to add references. Sbowers3 ( talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdenting) These are indeed Tea Party protests because the protesters self-identify as and reliable sources identify them as Tea Partiers. The common thread between the February-April protests and today is opposition to big government and taxes, and favoring limited government and more liberty. (Read the references as to what the protesters themselves say and the signs they carry.) The reason for including small protests is to demonstrate that they are continuing to this day. We give the wrong impression if we imply that they ended in April. But I do plan to trim down the text even while adding refs. Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the merging of the Tea Party timeline into this article under discussion? If so, why is there a (poor) attempt to recreate it here? TeaParty1 ( talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There is evidence that the Tea Party Movement started in 2001 in Tennessee as the Tennesse Tax Revolt, taking the name Tea Party shortly after the protests and becoming a national organization in the following years. So, this needs to be checked out because it conflicts with the "against Obama" description of the movement. 70.108.81.2 ( talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The first line of the entry describes the Tea Party protests as "locally organized." Yet later in the article there are multiple references to allegations that they are actually organized by national-level political-action committtees. Recommend removing the "locally organized" phrase as a means of avoiding arguments regarding NPOV and, even though it's a stretch, weasel-wording. Alan ( talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? Come on. The Squicks ( talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone should really add something about the March on D.C. and other protests that took place on September 12th, with most of these being against the Health Care reform, but also against higher taxes in general. ( talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009
I thought the September 12 "March on DC" was mostly about how country bumpkins have a problem with a black president. Am I wrong? If so, how so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockerspanielsarethebest ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The article does not cite a source for the size of the crowd estimates. The Daily Mail reported the size as being "up to two million." However, since I am topic banned, I can't add it to the article, although I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk page. Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the text -- there are varying estimates so I cited 3 sources for the estimates and then provided a 4th source link to a photo showing the crowd from the air. SunSw0rd ( talk) 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. There appear to be a number of folks who want to keep deleting any references to higher numbers. There are many, many references to larger numbers and many photos showing a sea of people BUT -- any such references are deleted as unacceptable sources. In addition, any references that show a wide range of estimates keep getting deleted as well. SunSw0rd ( talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. | ” |
From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Even if the truth is more than a million, we have to use what is verifiable from reliable sources and we can't give undue weight to any one source. The number 75,000 is verifiable from multiple reliable sources so that's the number we should use even if turns out not to be accurate. Conversely, the Daily Mail is a reliable source so its number should be allowed but with language that indicates it is an outlier. Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Link drop and opinion: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21884 ; five times 70,ooo = 350,000; 2,ooo,ooo divided by five = 400,ooo; I'll guess 375,000. Supposedly, the Democrats were worried that there would be two million a couple of days before the event. htom ( talk) 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) another link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/ ; he calculates close order of 800,000 (400,000--1,600,000) htom ( talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
michellemalkin.com has a photograph, as well as some time lapse photography, of the protest. I know her website probably can't be used as a source in the article, but it should debunk the smaller estimates of the crowd size. There's no way this was only 75,000 people, despite that number being reported by sources that are usually "reliable." But yes, I agree that the article should cite the "reliable" sources, even though it is obvious that they are wrong. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
So if you want a photo, a real photo, here it is. Photo from high point on the Capitol itself. Reference article for photo here. This is a crowd in the greater than 250K size range. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation asserts "313,000 to 433,000 attendees".
The New American asserts "300,000".
The Cypress Times asserts "1.5 million people".
The CNSNEWS agency points out that "no government agency makes official estimates of crowd sizes for such events." SunSw0rd ( talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is so biased. It looks like half the article is talking about negative response to the protests. The article should actually talk about the tea parties, and not focus primarily on attacking the tea parties.
The second paragraph of the "Teabagging" section violates wp:npov by overly ridiculing supporters of tea party protests. The first paragraph explains all the relevant information about the subject. I propose deleting it. Thoughts? EJNOGARB 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
==Origins of ''Teabagging''==so that its accurate, reflects purpose of section, and is hard to misconstrue in the navigation header. FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On Friday, September 18th, an advertisement for Fox News Channel appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post with the headline, "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" Problem was, most, if not all of the rival networks mentioned, covered the story in one form or another.
DaDoc540 ( talk) 05:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand the name - are they condoning attacks on private property by mobs - which is what the Boston Tea Party was, a bunch of smugglers who were angry that cheaper tea was being made avalible from a different source and took direct action. It seems a strange role model for groups who I guess would want to uphold the rights of private property.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act, conducted by the Sons of Liberty for "Taxation without representation." The Sons of Liberty believed that if they where to be taxed by the British Government, that they should have some say in the matter. The Sons of Liberty where successful in preventing the off-loading of tea in three other colonial ports, but where unable to do so in Boston. As a result of the Governor's refusal to allow the East India Trading Company ships to return to England, the Sons of Liberty boarded the ships at night, thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the ship and dumped the tea over the side, rather then concede to what they saw as an illegitimate government authority. 64.151.2.174 ( talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a 9-12 Project article now, I want to link it to this one because they are very intertwined. I just don't know where to put it. -- Triadian ( talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
fox producer heidi noonan can be seen "whipping up" the crowd just before a fox "reporter" went live with a broadcast. shouldnt we include this when talking about the tea parties? [4] or [5] and heres rick sanchez talking about it... [6] isnt this relevant? -- Brendan19 ( talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the assertion that "Obama" was being protested since the citation supporting it made the assertion, but didn't offer any evidence. Particular plans that Obama supports may be protested, but the bulk of the protests seem to concern actions rather than ad hominem attacks. La Rouche supported ads may have drawn Obama as Hitler, but even many tea party supporters disown this type of attack. It seems dishonest, therefore, to present it as the main target. Perhaps if someone could find a citation from a tea party supporter making that claim, the assertion would have some support. But characterizations from non-sympathetic sources are probably not reliable sources for the goals of a particular movement. -- Ryan Wise ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that folks review the ground we've already covered on this and come to a better understanding of why a balance is needed here. Please go look in the archive, I'm sure you'll find this section has been revisted numerous times. Edits removing one side or the other will likely result in a wholesale edit to reach consensus.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Redthoreau has added this article from Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, to the external links section. How is this considered a neutral source for this topic? From The New York Times: "Named after Mary Harris Jones, a militant union organizer and socialist who died in 1930 at the age of 100, Mother Jones magazine never had any doubts about its identity. Since its start-up in 1976, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, Mother Jones has proudly called itself radical, muckraking and counterculture." APK because, he says, it's true 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindenting) I recommend that you both review Wikipedia:External links before proceeding. In my opinion the only EL that should be included is the collection of photos. The Politico, Salon, and Mother Jones links are not appropriate for ELs. Those three links might very well be appropriate as citations for new content in the article, but not as ELs. And as for NPOV it relates primarily to choice of content, not "to us as editors and the vernacular we choose to exhibit." See WP:UNDUE. Sbowers3 ( talk) 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It's marginally related to this article (as this article is about the protests themselves) but there's a survey which gauges the support of a hypothetical "Tea Party" as an electoral party. Noteworthy, however, it's been added (and re-added) with completely incorrect language. I think the editor who is adding this is misunderstanding the text of the article, but oddly enough, keeps removing the part that states the actual conclusion of the pollsters. Also, we really don't need the peacock language introducing this. I've corrected the text to just read what is stated in the summary at the beginning of the article and moved it down to the "Responses" section. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"Tim Phillips, head of Americans for Prosperity, has remarked that the Republican Party is "too disorganized and unsure of itself to pull this off."[9]"
The body of this section was claiming that it was wealthy personalities from the business sector and professional organizing sector organizing these events. It seems here to suggest that this may not be true because of an inability of the Republican party to execute such action [and thus suggests that the events are genuine "grassroots" movements]. This seems unrelated to the capabilites of the above mentioned entities to organize the Tea Party protests and I think it should be changed to reflect that.
Any suggestions on how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.31 ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need "perceived" when a more accurate way of expressing this is simply stating, "The protesters say they oppose x,y and z"?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article could use a list of exactly what the protests are against (or for). I can't really get any specifics from this article. Quantumelfmage ( talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"The events are in protest of perceived big government, President Barack Obama, the federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well. The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases, specifically taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes."
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as motives are concerned - in the grand scheme of things the protests are less about the right or left paradigm and more about how neither party serves the people, it touts more libertarian ideals often weighing more on the conservative side. Many factions inside these movements describe themselves as 'libertarian' or 'conservative', often stating that "...over half of participants in the Tea Party are former GOP members." and that "The tea party movement really is a libertarian and RP'er* (sic) idea not a GOP idea." (* Note: “RP'er”, which refers to the adherents of 2008 GOP presidential nominee Ron Paul and his largely libertarian ideology.) Based on current happenings inside various factions of the movement, is that although some tea party members like that they are in the news, and the movement has grown, many original members have grown to loathe what certain media personalities have done to change the movement (which was more libertarian in nature back to more conservative leanings), with conservative media personalities often flaunting that they themselves created the Tea Party movement. Strangesteve ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Those categories are for articles about actual elections, not subjects related to electoral politics (see the other items in the category for a better idea of what this is for). Also, per WP:CRYSTAL even if the categories were appropriate for this article, one can't predict that this article will have anything to do with the 2010 elections. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I had added a blurb about the Ron Paul Tea Parties in 2007 in the "History" section. The premise for the undoing of my edits for the individual who reverted my edits was that they're "not the same thing." I would like some clarification and a bit of public debate here on the discussion board. The Ron Paul Tea Parties are indeed an early example of tea parties (it almost seems ridiculous that I have to point out that a tea party is, in fact, a tea party). The ideology is the same (small government), even if the events themselves are not hosted by exactly the same individuals/groups. That's why I added the qualifier "An early example of...". -- 76.105.15.70 ( talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So, more specifically, I'm reducing and moving the Ron Paul mention to conform with it's relevance to this article, as I describe above. I believe this is an improvement. However, I'll hold off for now until we hear back from the contributor - in the interest of promoting an open discussion and observing Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Kind Regards.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, changed to bring the info more into line with known context. Also decided, as it is the history section, to follow the chronology rather than gravity, so kept the Paul mention up front. Think it transitions well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysomeone ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-I was going to say, the Ron Paul Tea Parties were going on in 2007 way before these Tea Parties came around in 2009. It sure didn't start with Rick Santelli; the vocabulary was already in use. There is a lot of overlap, but let's not miswrite history. - Steve N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.50.100 ( talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about the ron paul 2007 parties -- videos and numerous references are avail on goggle and youtube but saw no mention here - seems as one person said the tea party thing has evolved since 2007 to take on a different ideology from Ron Paul, but Im sad to hear that people have removed that part of the entry. Not disputing the "tea party" movement became more popular in 2009, but it started much earlier in say 2007 or so. references can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Influence http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/06/tea-party-purge-%E2%80%93-a-cause-without-a-rebel/ http://www.freedomrally12-16.org/ http://www.teaparty07.com http://freepoliticsdotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/will-ron-paul-supporters-shock-nation.html Strangesteve ( talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to have nothing about organizations that helped organize the protests. These include Tea Party Patriots (TPP) and the Tea Party Express. These organizations obviously were (and are) important; why no discussion whatsoever in the article about how or when they started, their size, their funding, their leadership, etc.?
Some sources other than those mentioned in the article
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
one of the most innovative political news organizations in the country. Media watchers consider TPM the site to watch as the news business transforms from the old world of print to the online digital future. In March 2009 TPM topped TIME Magazine's list of 25 Best Blogs of 2009. "Talking Points," wrote Time's editors, "has become the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future." And in September of 2009 The Atlantic listed founder Josh Marshall among the nation's 50 most influential commentators. Its combination of breaking news, investigative reporting and smart analysis have made it a must-read for DC insiders, the media who cover them and politically engaged people everywhere.
I suppose this is partly an attempt to reflect some of my WP:NOTE concerns with some of the information that has been in and out of this article over the last several months. So here we have Ron Paul, cited by several contributors here as a strong influence on the Tea Party Protests, weighing in on the Tea Party Protest movement. So, is this notable? Then, we have from the same story a Tea Party reference to an AP story about the resignation of Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer, which reads:
Greer said there was a vocal group within the party that would say or do anything to embarrass him. He said if he didn't resign, that group would try to "burn the house down and try and destroy the Republican Party." "These individuals who have turned their guns on fellow Republicans instead of focusing our efforts on defeating Democrats have done nothing to serve our party," Greer said.
Interesting that he didn't name who the group was, but it seems fairly clear this is the Tea Party. So, also notable? And if so, how should this be written? And if so, under which section should it go? Anyone want to take a stab at it? TeaParty1? Xenophrenic? Anyone else? -- Happysomeone ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently begins The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States in 2009.
Obviously the word "are" is wrong; 2009 is over with. Perhaps the word should be "were" - that at least would be technically correct. That raises the issue of scope - if there are protests in 2010, do they go in this article? In that case, the article would be about nationally coordinated protests that began in 2009, and would continue to grow for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and ... protests? Or should we just cap the thing, by changing the article title to "2009 Tea Party protests", with another article like "Tea Party movement" covering 2010 and out, plus some background information from the current article?
Finally, since this article focuses on protests, where should Wikipedia cover other Tea Party-related things like the forthcoming Tea Party Nation convention in February - in this article (2009 protests??), or in another article, or not at all? Similarly, where should ongoing Tea Party-related groups be covered - in this article or elsewhere? I'm thinking specifically of the Tea Party Nation, the Tea Party Patriots, and the Tea Party Express, and of details such as when they were founded, their leadership, their size, their funding, and their goals. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Two suggestions on this article:
1.) The view of Americans toward the Tea Party movement (that is, the political popularity of it) is among the most important facts in this article, and maybe the most important. It warrants early citation in the lede.
2.) The amount of space dedicated to the pejorative "Tea bagging" is unwarranted. I believe the entire section should be removed. Any such organization or movement could include such a section. And that there is more space dedicated to this than the polling results is completely ill-balanced. TeaParty1 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Re User:Brothejr's revert of my rather uncontroversial edit, let's discuss, per WP:BRD
What do other editors think? I would like to re-add the simple, verifiable sentence that I previously added and which User:Brothejr reverted. N2e ( talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
While the mockery might be 'significant' -it is not significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences. This is an article about -the Tea Parties-, so one can assume readers are coming to this page for information on the tea parties, not for a page on sexual innuendo and mudslinging. Media reaction, however, is intrinsic to the Tea Party topic, because since the Tea Parties happening media reaction to the Tea Parties became a topic, even contention, of the Tea Parties. Amonite: Feb 2nd 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't remove a quote. What quote should we be looking at here? As for broadly held views, they generally have numerous citable sources. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page Moved to Tea Party protests, 2009' Ronhjones (Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
}
Tea Party protests → Tea Party movement — More common usage. Publicus 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
“Tea Party” has become something of a catch-all term to describe an impassioned and empowered group of populist conservatives. They are largely antigovernment, a lot of them are self-described libertarians, and many say they are new to political activism. It is easy to think of them as a singular entity and a growing one. “There is a new sheriff in town in American politics, and that is the Tea Party people,” said Lloyd Marcus, a musician from Deltona, Fla., who performs his “American Tea Party Anthem” at the events.
But in fact, there are many Tea Party groups across the country that exist under a variety of umbrellas, with different agendas and aims (Tea Party Nation, TeaPartyExpress.org). Some are organized into formal political-action committees; others are little more than a ragtag of protesters. It is not clear whether these Tea Party amalgams will ever grow into a functional and cohesive political movement that can actually get candidates elected to office. Fred O’Neal, an Orlando lawyer, recently registered an official Tea Party with Florida’s Secretary of State. “We are not the placard-waving, funny-hat-wearing people,” said O’Neal, an election law specialist who says he was an “Ed Muskie Democrat” in his college days. “We are willing to do the political dirty work.”
What’s evident is that a lot of Tea Party participants feel no special allegiance to the Republican Party or its candidates. In a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a generic Tea Party candidate outpolled a generic Republican, 23 percent to 18 percent (the generic Democrat drew 36 percent, and another 22 percent were undecided). O’Neal says he plans to recruit candidates to run for office against both Democrats and Republicans. “Glenn Beck would be the ideal leader for our group,” O’Neal says, referring to the Fox host and — according to a sign at the tea party in Orlando — someone who should be president.
(outdenting) I suddenly reallized that I'm not certain exactly what is the consensus. So let me summarize two different proposals:
OR
I think I prefer the first option and I think that's what John Broughton proposed at the top of this section.
In the meantime I am starting a new List of Tea Party protests, 2010 article and plan to move the current List of Tea Party protests to List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Agreed? Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This move was never made or never made properly. I have re-introduced the subject of merging here. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't notice, there has been another proposed merge with the Tea Party movement article. Discuss.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the lead, it says they oppose the federal budget. Are you sure they oppose the existence of a federal budget. Shouldn't this say they oppose an extremely large federal budget or a federal budget that isn't paid for? Ltwin ( talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to break down the different entities that make up this movement. Here are two segments from the Rachel Maddow Show that cover the different organizations, although the segments are probably too POV to use as sources. Below that is a list of the key groups we might include. Thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34626539#34626539 (starting 2:45) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34815564#34815564 (starting 1:50) |
MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposed genealogy does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the portions dealing with the movement's history, political positions, and external reactions to Tea Party movement.
The remaining material in Tea Party protests, 2009 should be focused on specific events and their characteristics. (As a side note, I think cutting it off at 2010 is premature.)
Anyway, I'm sure the move thus far is imperfect; we will probably want to add a bit more protest info to the movement article and vice versa. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So many people playing games with history here, I dont where to write this. My opinion is that the TEA Party Protest should remain whole, as they are. My reason being that that that title more accurately reflects the history of 2009 up until polls showed them more popular than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The TEA Party Movement Article should be a broad overview of the principles, values, issues, and activities of the group since it became more popular that the Republicans or the Democrats.
Next the proposed geneology does not work for me either. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses.
The TEA Party Movement and protests are not one group. There are about 20 major TEA Party groups and 50 minor groups. You can find a list of many of them here http://donmashakteapartyindependentdissent.blogspot.com/2010/01/comprehensive-list-of-tea-party.html
The proposed geneology does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) CynicalPatriot ( talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this? Might this be something the article should discuss? - the demographics of the Tea Party Protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"Demographics of Photos"
"In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this?" Yes, the reason is because most Republicans are white and most of Obama's supporters are children. The left-wing media went to great lengths to make it appear as though racism was the key motivating factor behind the protests, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth: 99.9% of Republicans hold Obama in a higher regard than either Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, or Biden. As bad as Obama is, he's actually one of the better Democrats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.222.202 ( talk) 07:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think comments like those left by 68.54.222.202 have any place on wikipedia. Even in discussions. Is it okay to remove this? Is there any substance to those comments to warrant leaving it up? Cpyder 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder ( talk • contribs)
The first paragraph under the Independence Day and other post-April 15 Tea Parties subsection is almost entirely an embedded list of protest events. Wouldn't that paragraph be better titled by its own subsection name, for example: List of other protest events from April through June.
The next three events (June 29, July 4 and July 17) have only one sentence to describe each. Shouldn't these either be expanded significantly and placed in their own subsections or reduced to a few words and included in the "List of" subsection mentioned above?
The last event (Feb 4) occurred in 2010 and doesn't belong in an article about 2009. It should be removed.
By the way, the guideline for embedded lists says that "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed". Since we already have such a stand-alone list in List of Tea Party protests, 2009, wouldn't it be best to include any simple references in the aforementioned List article (if they don't exist there already) and remove the "List of other protest events..." subsection from this article altogether?
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph says:
The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing big government,[5] President Barack Obama,[6] the U.S. federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters argue are wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well.[7] The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases[3]. Protests have been held on April 15, 2009 to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day,[6][8] over the weekend of July 4, 2009 to coincide with Independence Day, and on September 12, 2009 to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
In my opinion, the second sentence beginning with "Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing..." is mostly about the Tea Party movement as opposed to the protests themselves. This is true for the third sentence ("They oppose...") and the fourth ("The protesters also...") as well.
Since we already have a Tea Party movement article and in accord with the idea that the Tea Party protests article should describe the actions of the participants and how the protests have evolved, I suggest that the first paragraph be reduced to:
The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a larger Tea Party movement. Protests have been held on:
- April 15, 2009, to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day[6][8],
- over the weekend of July 4, 2009, to coincide with Independence Day, and
- September 12, 2009, to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: How do you pick the protests included in this article from all the hundreds listed in the two "List of" articles ( List of Tea Party protests, 2009 and List of Tea Party protests, 2010) without engaging in original synthesis?
RoyGoldsmith's proposal: This one defeats me. Unless you had several, tightly-connected sources (probably news reports and/or analyses) that say this protest, that protest and this protest over here are important, by whatever criteria, you'd have to use your own judgement and that's against WP:SYN. And even if you did have such a series of reports, the article should really be named something like "Tea Party protests considered important by so-and-so". Unless you had several authors who reached the same conclusions.
Of course, you could Google-count all the Tea Party protests by date (one date at a time) and then choose the protests by proportion according to WP:PROMINENCE. But it seems to me that this might change weekly, as new stories are published for new protests and old stories become dead links. And I'm still not sure that this wouldn't violate WP:SYN.
In my opinion, the basic problem is that these protests are just too new to have acquired reliable, secondary sources. If we were writing an article about (say) Vietnam War protests then we could go to a long list of reliable, historical books and peer-reviewed papers to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. (I just did an Amazon search on Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement. All the books there were either too old [early 2009] or authored by someone who has a vested interest in one side or the other.) We really need a consensus of impartial books about the modern Tea Party, written by professional historians or well-known journalists. Without these, who's judgement do we trust about what protests to include?
This is only one proposal. Other proposals are welcomed. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
RoyGoldsmith's second proposal: Leave the top-level section heading alone as "Protests", not "Major protests" or anything that implies that these protests are any different than any other protests. Anyone can create a subsection on any individual protest, if reliable sources about that protest can be found. However, he may not relate or connect any individual protest subsection to any other protest subsection unless reliable sources about that relationship exist. Any references that are found within the "List" articles will be considered as work still in progress; that is, subsections we haven't created as yet. (Of course, someone may create five or fifty new subsections tomorrow. :) After all, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress.
I wish to emphasize that, under this proposal, we would not be able to connect one event to another event, assuming most news reports are about one protest. Every subsection would be built in isolation, unless one protest's source said something about another one, in which case the reference would be about both of them.
For example, we could say in each subsection for two protests (say on Feb 24th and Feb 26th) that "This protest was organized by (say) the Tea Party Patriots" but we could not say in either subsection that "This protest [say on Feb 26th] was organized by the Tea Party Patriots, as was the February 24th protest" unless either reference mentioned that the other protest was organized by the same TP Patriots. It is not sufficient that both references simply mention the TP Patriots as organizers. One source has to specifically connect one protest another.
It is perfectly OK for anyone to agree with my first two paragraphs and disagree with my example. But then it is up to you to specify what will and will not be allowed so far as relationships between the protest subsections.-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Resolution (I think): It appears I was wrong. I submitted my question to the talk page of
WP:NOR
here. This is what they came back with:
I interpret this to mean that we can select representative sources by consensus. In the next week or two, I will be attributing all the references in the two "List" articles to their respective publishers. If you have used a reference about an individual protest for a citation in either TPp or TPm and it is not listed in the "List" articles, please insert it there. Eventually we'll have at least a hint as to which are the more reliable and can proceed from there. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times has a good article on the anniversary of the mass tea party protests. It highlights one activist, a Keli Carender, who is credited as being one of the first organizers of TP protests. Main points:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Aside from not being sourced, and perhaps not being neutrally voiced, does anyone think theres any merit to keeping the 1982 tea bag campaign (assuming it can be verified)? If so, perhaps it is better suited in a "previous tea party campaigns" along with ron paul's 2007 shindig and so forth. Unless we have a source that credits the 1982 campaign to the beginnings of the 2009 movement (which I doubt we do), it doesn't seem appropriate for the background section. For now I'll just add citation tags, but think we should keep an eye to moving or removing the material. -- Izauze ( talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
98.231.39.212 ( talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)I just discovered the "vandalism" tag placed/threatened concerning the information I have attempted to post in this article. I am a bit confused. How does the posting of information qualify as vandalism? I am obviously not in the 'in crowd' of Wikipedia and - in addition - do not as yet know all the rules and regulations. Obviously I could be wrong, but frankly, at this point it appears that someone simply does not want the truth to come out for some reason. I have posted two newspaper articles that report this event and encouraged Bill Steensland to post a short piece on YouTube, to which I also posted a link. If I simply need more citations I will be more than happy to search for them. Thanks in advance for your indulgence and any advice you may offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.39.212 ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The link to "Militias" was removed because:
This is not the first time I've reverted this blanking [15] of the 'Tactics' section. I don't understand why this section is being targeted, but apparently it's bothering somebody. Malke 2010 01:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Malke
Can I remind you about the rules on "consensus building". Discussing edits and deletions with other editors, outside of the discussion section.
thanks
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why has this article got not criticism of the group? Seems a bit biased to me. As in the vast majority of "tea party" members are Republican party members and activists.
It's quite obviously an astroturf group, rather than grass roots. As in, events largely organised from within the Republican party, via it's members and activists.
The UK has a similar movement called "The tax payers alliance". Most centre right parties tend to set up these "grass roots" groups, to campaign for them.
As I said, plenty of sourced information and articles to suggest that most of these events were organised, and influenced from within the republican party
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Criticizing Tea Party members for being Republican activists is much like criticizing Obama supporters for being Democratic Party activists... It's obvious and it's a non-issue.
New protests in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, NV. Turnout ~30,000.
[16]
[17]
MakeBelieveMonster (
talk)
03:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
CBS: At least 9,000, AP: At least 7,000, AP: At least 9,000, NYT: May not have been quite 10,000, Las Vegas Review-Journal: Perhaps 10,000. There is an overhead picture at [18]. Somewhere I think I read that an early forecast was 5,000, then they upped it to 10,000. I thought CNN's story was an intentional joke but after listening to it, I'd say the announcer back at the studio doesn't have a clue. Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
NPR: "About 7,000" protesters. BTW, the first two cites are instructive per WP:VERIFY - cite#1 from the Christian Science Monitor attributes the "30,000" figure to organizers, while cite #2 from the Los Angeles Times attributes "9,000" to a police estimate and "organizers claimed more than twice as many".-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPp editors might be interested. Sbowers3 ( talk) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Joshzz50a ( talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears an important component of the Tea Party has not been mentioned.
The Tea Party was formed when Republican Strategists realizing that their candidates were about to be trumped by Democrats in the 2008 election, needed to devise a special strategy to win back the house in 2010.
They surmised that in order to gain the trust and more importantly the votes in the 2010 election, they would have to create a third "pseudo" party that opposed spending, the debt, etc. The leaders of this movement, "well healed" Republicans would pretend that they might even run their own candidates, but would ultimately give their support to the Republican Party, ironically the very same party that Americans blame for the deficit.
Economists blame the costly and unnecessary Iraq War along with the initial one trillion dollar bail-out given by then President Bush to executives of AIG, Citibank and other banking institutions. Later, it was discovered that much of the money went to pay executive bonuses, vacations, etc., but Bush gave the money to them without any stipulations.
The Tea Party is managed and funded by the Republican Party and therefore it is not surprising that the goals of the Tea Party are in agreement with the GOP. They main mission as has been acknowledged many times is gain control in order to lower taxes on the richest Americans. The richest 3% of Americans own 98% of wealth in this country. The Tea Party would like the middle class to be burdened with higher taxes while relieving the rich of paying any taxes whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshzz50a ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've heard more than several Tea Partiers express outrage over numerous (perhaps many?) incumbent GOP congressman that haven't supported the GOP's platform well enough in the last ten years, especially in the last two years. If the Tea Party is a creation of the GOP, couldn't the result be likened to one shooting oneself in the foot? But if you have reliable sources to cite for your allegations, please submit them. - JohnAlbertRigali ( talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/tea-party-republicans_b_170558.html
This "grass-roots" movement seems to be organized and founded by republicans. No wonder it doesn't address the war in iraq and is against taxes and federal regulation of companies who contributed to the crash. Oh and health care plans of course. Because americans spend the most for health care in the world and get the least of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.101.166 ( talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I've reverted your edits twice now because we didn't seem to be making any headway in the edit summary. 71.0.87.17, I don't understand how it's productive to remove content that is so clearly supported by the cite. What is you reasoning behind this?
Jt14905, I've got the same issue with your editing the words "counter-protests expressing support for the Obama administration" when that information is clearly supported by at least two cites and meets the burden of WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. How and what is the burden on the editor that adds this information, and where is this guideline found?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I am of the impression that this whole article is an attempt at Progressive bias Propaganda.
I have been involved in the TEA Party Movement from the Beginning.
I was in DC on 912. Unless any of you have same credentials, my eyes on credibility trumps your propaganda.
I spent 3 hours correcting errors. And I included cites, usually not my own. I added the two polls in the summary.
I discussed the numbers in DC on 912 and included links to photographs of that events and obamas ignauguration. I also included links to photos of the Million man March and Promise Keepers. I included photos by CNN. These included language on how others had estimated crowd size at other events and invited the veiwer to reach ther own conclusion.
I discussed how democrats disgustingly call us teabaggers, full well knowing it is slang for a disgusting homosexual act.
I discussed how Democrats astroturfed ACORN and SEIU with cites. I discussed how SEIU thugs beat up a tea partyer. with cites
I discuss Republican Trojan horses. I discussed how both the Republicans and Democrats first demonized and discredited the movement. I discussed how now both Democrats and Republicans are trying to usurp and/or hijack the movement. all with cites.
And with flick of the wrist you erase my three hours of work.
PUT IT BACK NOW OR TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT TRUE!
I was there. I am a tea partyer.
Is this really the future that the Progressives, Obama and Wikipedia envsion for America's future generation. One where professional propagandists warp the minds of innocent children?
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
75.168.57.215 ( talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH, ONLY SOURCES. SO IF PROGRESSIVE PROPAGANDISTS CONTROL THE MAJOR MEDIA, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A RECIPE FOR RATIONALIZING PROPAGANDA.... AND, i AM FREE TO QUOTE ALL OF YOU THAT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH ONLY ABOUT HOW MUCH PROPAGANDA YOU CAN QUOTE FROM BIASED MAJOR MEDIA.. And you all feel comfortable that what you have done is made it so major media, censored by the owners of that media shall be the keepers of the truth.... and you see know downside to that... Do I here you all correctly? Sort of like the corrupt courts basically manipulating the outcome of a trial by using the rules to keep out evidence that is not consistent with their desired outcome... And on that basis, I feel compelled to make it know to the citizens of the USA that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, but rather a instrument of propaganda without any credibility. All of my stuff was cited, and you arbritrailty and unilaterally declared that my sources were not credible. You allowed a large portion of the article referring to tea party movement folks as Teabaggers to remain posted for a long time which evidences the bias of the editors of Wikipedia. (Teabagging being a pejorative American homosexual slang term for one man place his testicles in the mouth of another man. And none of you editors had the "neutrality" to know that was wrong? And then you would have the audacity of suggesting you lock me out of edits because I am not neutral? Please where does you mutual admiration and fantasy society meet? I challenge you to read the article and tally the positive and negative alleged facts, the negative alleged facts overwhelm the positive by an impossible factor considering that the tea party movement is now perceived more favorably than either the democrats or the republicans.. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your premises and intent. I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN STATING THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS CREATED A POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF BEING TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE BUT IN REALITY IS JUST COLLECTION OF PROPAGANDA FROM ONE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. Thank you for the following statement of Wikipedia policy... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth I will enjoy retweeting this over and over. Since most of America knows that major media is censored propaganda with a progressive agenda, it should not be too difficult to expose WIKEPIDIA as propaganda mongers. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY GROUP THAT OPENLY ESPOUSES THAT THE TRUTH WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY OF ITS CONTENT? My perspective is that WIKIPEDIA's policy would make German Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels jealous or am I not allowed to say that because some of you find my comparison offensive and/or I am not able to find cites because Goebbels was dead before the modern tea party movement started? (aka as yet another rule to censor while appearing to be reasonable) I am saddened by the world future generations will endure because people like you folks are complicit in promoting propaganda against a group of people fighting for the liberty of individuals and against the selfish interests of tyrants. Do you folks even think about the world you will be leaving your children when you act as willing accomplices in such censorship and propaganda? You make me sad for the future of the world. Your policy makes the major media, owned and representing the interests of wealthy men, the final arbitrators of history and the truth. But some I doubt you folks even care since I believe this is your intended outcome CynicalPatriot 75.168.57.215 ( talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
'The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation.'
And you used Fox News as a source? Fox News is politically biased!
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but the Boston Tea Party was NOT a protest of taxation. The tea incoming from the British East Indies, on the British East India Company Ships, was actually TAX FREE. The British were DUMPING GOODS, like Japan dumped cars in the 1980's. The colonists were PROTECTING THEIR JOBS, not protesting taxes. If the colonists were protesting taxes then they would have done so 70 years earlier, not the first TAX FREE shipment in 70 years. This is so Orwellian, you are all so creepy. 98.165.15.98 ( talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
CH52584
Can I remind you about rules on "consensus building". As in discussing article deletions and edits with other editors, outside of this open discussion page.
thanks
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Specific issues need to be detailed to support the insertion of an NPOV tag. I'm still waiting to see those specific issues described here, but I'll start the ball rolling with one obvious (to me) issue in the mean time:
Later interviews have revealed the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol...
In the middle of the section discussing whether or not slurs were used (there is no proof that they did or did not, is the POINT), the author of this sentence demonstrates their left-wing, liberal, socialist bias by phrasing the statement as if it DID.
That's ALLEGED slurs. And blatant left-wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs)
Out of a crowd of thousands of emotionally worked-up protesters, a few people MAY HAVE said a few bad words.
The allegations of the utterance of bad words gets as much printed space as the purposes and the grievances of the Tea Party Movement.
In my humble opinion, it's a ridiculous claim that the media focuses on the slurs more than the tea party--FOX News, who made the protests really take off (9/12 with Glenn Beck), made no investigation and immediately declared it as false. And I was reading the article and it seems to say much about how the Tea Party protesters are against taxes and nothing about how the same people are actually getting tax cuts, as (according to FOX) many of them are low- to mid-income average joes and the tax cuts give to the poor and middle class at the expense of the super-rich, who don't really need all that more anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.231.193 ( talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick
There seems to be several reverts regarding the addition of the following statement: "No video evidence has surfaced to support of the claims of Cleaver or Lewis, despite the many cameras that recorded the events that day."
This statement is an accurate statement and the source provided does state this: "The ample videotape evidence shows that there was no such chorus."
I'm not sure why this is being labeled original research, as it is clearly stated in the source. If you continue to remove this statement and give this argument, please explain yourself further. Thanks. CH52584 ( talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The web cite says no chorus but this article says no support for claims, which is different. he didn't claim a chorus. Cite also further on says uncoroberated, which is closer to truth, but you can't claim something hasn't surfaced - only that you haven't seen something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot130 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone reverted my explanation about the arrest, detention, and identification, so I'll quote my source here for clarity (I think the quote is too long and distantly related to include directly):
This is why I think it's useful to explain the suspect being handcuffed is technically not an arrest but a detention, and the means by which Cleaver chose to avoid prosecuting the spitter. Wnt ( talk) 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You all do realize that they, either actaul representatives or their aides, were videoing the whole thing as they walked through the crowd, and they havn't been able to provide any evidence that these slurs took place. Also the "spitter" can be clearly shown yelling, not spitting at Cleaver. As it stands it is clearly a one-sided view of the incident and in violation of NPOV. Options are to include the opposite point or remove the whole section for NPOV violations. Arzel ( talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently this article is comprised of thousands of words consisting he-said-he-said allegations, which are impossible to prove or disprove.
This article is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP inasmuch as it contains unverifiable character assassinations of specific persons shown in videos of the protest, as well as an entire national movement. (Note that I have been disciplined by a Wikipedia administrator for being in violation of WP:BLP merely for talk page discussion of Congressional testimony unfavorable to the Weather Underground organization -- no individual was mentioned. I welcome an opposing opinion of someone with an official position of authority at Wikipedia so, for consistency, together we can re-examine how the Weather Underground testimony bears upon WP:BLP).
The Breitbart paragraph complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is supported by an article in a national newspaper, written by Wall Street Journal editor, John Fund. It is also supported in articles by Breitbart himself, who has appeared on national television and given public speeches asserting the challenge.
The Breitbart paragraph is consistent with Wikipedia:Notability as demonstrated by over 85,000 hits resulting from a Google search of "Breitbart 100000".
Since Breitbart is a central figure in the Tea Party movement, his offer of $100,000 for proof addresses the credibility of the ubiquitous, unsupported "racist" charges by individuals in positions of vast power who stand to gain politically by spreading this charge. It is important that readers have complete information to determine for themselves whether it makes sense that evidence has not come forward to claim the huge reward, despite cameras everywhere and allegations that the "n-word" was chanted "15 times".
For the moment, I am not calling for strictly enforcing the Wiki policy requiring speedy deletion of the entire piece which violates the WP:BLP.
However, I submit that removal, of this single paragraph allowing Tea Party spokesmen to defend themselves, egregiously diminishes the balance of the article in violation of NP:NPOV. Further, I submit that repeated destruction of the Breitbart paragraph violates Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.
Therefore, since this explanation should be obvious to any fair-minded person dedicated to editing in good faith, I am restoring the paragraph, consistent with Wikipedia:Be bold.
Freedom Fan ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This may be tangentally related. It will be interesting to see if this is covered. In any case it shows that there are people out there trying to intentially make it look like the Tea Party movement is racist. Arzel ( talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone here that NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Therfore, any and all well sourced points of view must be included. The fact that no one has claimed the $100,000 reward is an excellent counterpoint to the claim that the racial slur was used. All points of view must be included. Captain Lance Murdoch ( talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to claim I'm maliciously "purging" somebody from the article based on my "opinions about Carson." If you can find a way to add him without grossly misrepresenting the cited sources, go right ahead. Jesse Jackson Jr. was also there, along with others from the Congressional Black Caucus [see article]. You seem to be missing my points in the edit summaries. Try reading them, please. MookieG ( talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It is easy to say something is not supported by the sources, when you delete all of those sources. I have replaced all of the deleted content and all of the deleted sources, and since your edit summary indicates you are having trouble making sense of the 'content+citation to source' format of the information you are reading, I'll try to step you through the one example you have brought here for discussion. The segment you keep removing is:
and it is cited to the content in the following sources:
The sentence is obviously supported by the cited sources. If you'd like to tweak the wording or something, fine, but don't purge the sources from the article and then claim it isn't supoorted by sources so that you can delete the content. As for the several other edits and citations you simultaneously deleted along with the above sentence, you still haven't given an explanation. I would appreciate it if you'd discuss those edits here. Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please comment on the edits, not the editors. Base your argument on WP:RS, and if you can't agree, ask for mediation. You are going after each other, and that will not improve the article, which is the overall goal of Wikipedia in the first place. Rapier ( talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Please remember to only use reliable sources for factual claims. Specifically, we never use Youtube clips as reliable sources. Further, just because a commentator (especially a particularly unreliable one like Michelle Malkin) makes a claim in an interview, doesn't mean it is sourced. Michelle Malkin repeating a dubious claim on a panel show on Fox News does not mean that Fox News "reported" that fact. Far from it. We need verifiability. Also, we never use editorials as sources for factual claims. Please, discuss here if there are any question about sources. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I visited this page for information on the 2009 tea party protests and found myself leaving dumber about the subject than before I came here. I'm not even going to make suggestions because most hot-headed wiki editors will gawk at the idea that their work is pathetic. But it's true... this page wreaks of immature, baseless claims and comments made for comedy hour and not as a encyclopedic source of information. This page should be deleted or completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.7.103 ( talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why an NBC-affiliate TV station is not a WP:RS. See here and here. I suggest that rather than delete a sourced statement, if you doubt the reliability of the source, the proper thing to do is add a {{ verify credibility}} tag. And I further suggest that there is no good reason for deleting a hidden comment and no reason to delete a reference that is used for the rest of the paragraph just because you don't like one statement. I am restoring the reference and hidden comment. I will omit for now the statement you don't like until we have discussed this further. Sbowers3 ( talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to merge Timeline of Tea Party protests into this article. The textual part of the other article (the lede and History sections) is very similar to this article. The tabular part uses the same references that are used in this article. It's a lot of work to add the same material into the table of the other article and into inline references in this article. I want to make it much easier to add references. There are hundreds and hundreds of RS that should be added to this article and the other but it's not easy to format each ref for the table or for an inline ref. So I'd like to add the refs in a simple list format:
These would be in an Appendix section or in the References section after the inline references. The format above makes it very easy to add a reference, which will encourage editors to add references. Sbowers3 ( talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdenting) These are indeed Tea Party protests because the protesters self-identify as and reliable sources identify them as Tea Partiers. The common thread between the February-April protests and today is opposition to big government and taxes, and favoring limited government and more liberty. (Read the references as to what the protesters themselves say and the signs they carry.) The reason for including small protests is to demonstrate that they are continuing to this day. We give the wrong impression if we imply that they ended in April. But I do plan to trim down the text even while adding refs. Sbowers3 ( talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the merging of the Tea Party timeline into this article under discussion? If so, why is there a (poor) attempt to recreate it here? TeaParty1 ( talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There is evidence that the Tea Party Movement started in 2001 in Tennessee as the Tennesse Tax Revolt, taking the name Tea Party shortly after the protests and becoming a national organization in the following years. So, this needs to be checked out because it conflicts with the "against Obama" description of the movement. 70.108.81.2 ( talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The first line of the entry describes the Tea Party protests as "locally organized." Yet later in the article there are multiple references to allegations that they are actually organized by national-level political-action committtees. Recommend removing the "locally organized" phrase as a means of avoiding arguments regarding NPOV and, even though it's a stretch, weasel-wording. Alan ( talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? Come on. The Squicks ( talk) 06:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone should really add something about the March on D.C. and other protests that took place on September 12th, with most of these being against the Health Care reform, but also against higher taxes in general. ( talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009
I thought the September 12 "March on DC" was mostly about how country bumpkins have a problem with a black president. Am I wrong? If so, how so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockerspanielsarethebest ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The article does not cite a source for the size of the crowd estimates. The Daily Mail reported the size as being "up to two million." However, since I am topic banned, I can't add it to the article, although I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk page. Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the text -- there are varying estimates so I cited 3 sources for the estimates and then provided a 4th source link to a photo showing the crowd from the air. SunSw0rd ( talk) 17:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. There appear to be a number of folks who want to keep deleting any references to higher numbers. There are many, many references to larger numbers and many photos showing a sea of people BUT -- any such references are deleted as unacceptable sources. In addition, any references that show a wide range of estimates keep getting deleted as well. SunSw0rd ( talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | My take on the Mail is that it's semi-reliable. There are certain areas in which I would not trust it at all (medicine and history/archaeology have rightly been mentioned). However, its general news reporting, other than on UK politics - on which it's highly slanted - is of quite a good standard. The specific item quoted by the original poster is a piece by its foreign correspondents; I see no reason not to regard that as a reliable source. | ” |
From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Even if the truth is more than a million, we have to use what is verifiable from reliable sources and we can't give undue weight to any one source. The number 75,000 is verifiable from multiple reliable sources so that's the number we should use even if turns out not to be accurate. Conversely, the Daily Mail is a reliable source so its number should be allowed but with language that indicates it is an outlier. Sbowers3 ( talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Link drop and opinion: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=21884 ; five times 70,ooo = 350,000; 2,ooo,ooo divided by five = 400,ooo; I'll guess 375,000. Supposedly, the Democrats were worried that there would be two million a couple of days before the event. htom ( talk) 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) another link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-big-was-the-crowd/ ; he calculates close order of 800,000 (400,000--1,600,000) htom ( talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
michellemalkin.com has a photograph, as well as some time lapse photography, of the protest. I know her website probably can't be used as a source in the article, but it should debunk the smaller estimates of the crowd size. There's no way this was only 75,000 people, despite that number being reported by sources that are usually "reliable." But yes, I agree that the article should cite the "reliable" sources, even though it is obvious that they are wrong. Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
So if you want a photo, a real photo, here it is. Photo from high point on the Capitol itself. Reference article for photo here. This is a crowd in the greater than 250K size range. SunSw0rd ( talk) 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation asserts "313,000 to 433,000 attendees".
The New American asserts "300,000".
The Cypress Times asserts "1.5 million people".
The CNSNEWS agency points out that "no government agency makes official estimates of crowd sizes for such events." SunSw0rd ( talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is so biased. It looks like half the article is talking about negative response to the protests. The article should actually talk about the tea parties, and not focus primarily on attacking the tea parties.
The second paragraph of the "Teabagging" section violates wp:npov by overly ridiculing supporters of tea party protests. The first paragraph explains all the relevant information about the subject. I propose deleting it. Thoughts? EJNOGARB 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
==Origins of ''Teabagging''==so that its accurate, reflects purpose of section, and is hard to misconstrue in the navigation header. FELYZA TALK CONTRIBS 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On Friday, September 18th, an advertisement for Fox News Channel appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post with the headline, "How Did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN Miss This Story?" Problem was, most, if not all of the rival networks mentioned, covered the story in one form or another.
DaDoc540 ( talk) 05:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really understand the name - are they condoning attacks on private property by mobs - which is what the Boston Tea Party was, a bunch of smugglers who were angry that cheaper tea was being made avalible from a different source and took direct action. It seems a strange role model for groups who I guess would want to uphold the rights of private property.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act, conducted by the Sons of Liberty for "Taxation without representation." The Sons of Liberty believed that if they where to be taxed by the British Government, that they should have some say in the matter. The Sons of Liberty where successful in preventing the off-loading of tea in three other colonial ports, but where unable to do so in Boston. As a result of the Governor's refusal to allow the East India Trading Company ships to return to England, the Sons of Liberty boarded the ships at night, thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, boarded the ship and dumped the tea over the side, rather then concede to what they saw as an illegitimate government authority. 64.151.2.174 ( talk) 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a 9-12 Project article now, I want to link it to this one because they are very intertwined. I just don't know where to put it. -- Triadian ( talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
fox producer heidi noonan can be seen "whipping up" the crowd just before a fox "reporter" went live with a broadcast. shouldnt we include this when talking about the tea parties? [4] or [5] and heres rick sanchez talking about it... [6] isnt this relevant? -- Brendan19 ( talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the assertion that "Obama" was being protested since the citation supporting it made the assertion, but didn't offer any evidence. Particular plans that Obama supports may be protested, but the bulk of the protests seem to concern actions rather than ad hominem attacks. La Rouche supported ads may have drawn Obama as Hitler, but even many tea party supporters disown this type of attack. It seems dishonest, therefore, to present it as the main target. Perhaps if someone could find a citation from a tea party supporter making that claim, the assertion would have some support. But characterizations from non-sympathetic sources are probably not reliable sources for the goals of a particular movement. -- Ryan Wise ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that folks review the ground we've already covered on this and come to a better understanding of why a balance is needed here. Please go look in the archive, I'm sure you'll find this section has been revisted numerous times. Edits removing one side or the other will likely result in a wholesale edit to reach consensus.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Redthoreau has added this article from Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, to the external links section. How is this considered a neutral source for this topic? From The New York Times: "Named after Mary Harris Jones, a militant union organizer and socialist who died in 1930 at the age of 100, Mother Jones magazine never had any doubts about its identity. Since its start-up in 1976, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, Mother Jones has proudly called itself radical, muckraking and counterculture." APK because, he says, it's true 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindenting) I recommend that you both review Wikipedia:External links before proceeding. In my opinion the only EL that should be included is the collection of photos. The Politico, Salon, and Mother Jones links are not appropriate for ELs. Those three links might very well be appropriate as citations for new content in the article, but not as ELs. And as for NPOV it relates primarily to choice of content, not "to us as editors and the vernacular we choose to exhibit." See WP:UNDUE. Sbowers3 ( talk) 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It's marginally related to this article (as this article is about the protests themselves) but there's a survey which gauges the support of a hypothetical "Tea Party" as an electoral party. Noteworthy, however, it's been added (and re-added) with completely incorrect language. I think the editor who is adding this is misunderstanding the text of the article, but oddly enough, keeps removing the part that states the actual conclusion of the pollsters. Also, we really don't need the peacock language introducing this. I've corrected the text to just read what is stated in the summary at the beginning of the article and moved it down to the "Responses" section. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
"Tim Phillips, head of Americans for Prosperity, has remarked that the Republican Party is "too disorganized and unsure of itself to pull this off."[9]"
The body of this section was claiming that it was wealthy personalities from the business sector and professional organizing sector organizing these events. It seems here to suggest that this may not be true because of an inability of the Republican party to execute such action [and thus suggests that the events are genuine "grassroots" movements]. This seems unrelated to the capabilites of the above mentioned entities to organize the Tea Party protests and I think it should be changed to reflect that.
Any suggestions on how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.31 ( talk) 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need "perceived" when a more accurate way of expressing this is simply stating, "The protesters say they oppose x,y and z"?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this article could use a list of exactly what the protests are against (or for). I can't really get any specifics from this article. Quantumelfmage ( talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"The events are in protest of perceived big government, President Barack Obama, the federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well. The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases, specifically taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes."
-- Happysomeone ( talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as motives are concerned - in the grand scheme of things the protests are less about the right or left paradigm and more about how neither party serves the people, it touts more libertarian ideals often weighing more on the conservative side. Many factions inside these movements describe themselves as 'libertarian' or 'conservative', often stating that "...over half of participants in the Tea Party are former GOP members." and that "The tea party movement really is a libertarian and RP'er* (sic) idea not a GOP idea." (* Note: “RP'er”, which refers to the adherents of 2008 GOP presidential nominee Ron Paul and his largely libertarian ideology.) Based on current happenings inside various factions of the movement, is that although some tea party members like that they are in the news, and the movement has grown, many original members have grown to loathe what certain media personalities have done to change the movement (which was more libertarian in nature back to more conservative leanings), with conservative media personalities often flaunting that they themselves created the Tea Party movement. Strangesteve ( talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Those categories are for articles about actual elections, not subjects related to electoral politics (see the other items in the category for a better idea of what this is for). Also, per WP:CRYSTAL even if the categories were appropriate for this article, one can't predict that this article will have anything to do with the 2010 elections. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I had added a blurb about the Ron Paul Tea Parties in 2007 in the "History" section. The premise for the undoing of my edits for the individual who reverted my edits was that they're "not the same thing." I would like some clarification and a bit of public debate here on the discussion board. The Ron Paul Tea Parties are indeed an early example of tea parties (it almost seems ridiculous that I have to point out that a tea party is, in fact, a tea party). The ideology is the same (small government), even if the events themselves are not hosted by exactly the same individuals/groups. That's why I added the qualifier "An early example of...". -- 76.105.15.70 ( talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So, more specifically, I'm reducing and moving the Ron Paul mention to conform with it's relevance to this article, as I describe above. I believe this is an improvement. However, I'll hold off for now until we hear back from the contributor - in the interest of promoting an open discussion and observing Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Kind Regards.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, changed to bring the info more into line with known context. Also decided, as it is the history section, to follow the chronology rather than gravity, so kept the Paul mention up front. Think it transitions well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysomeone ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
-I was going to say, the Ron Paul Tea Parties were going on in 2007 way before these Tea Parties came around in 2009. It sure didn't start with Rick Santelli; the vocabulary was already in use. There is a lot of overlap, but let's not miswrite history. - Steve N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.50.100 ( talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about the ron paul 2007 parties -- videos and numerous references are avail on goggle and youtube but saw no mention here - seems as one person said the tea party thing has evolved since 2007 to take on a different ideology from Ron Paul, but Im sad to hear that people have removed that part of the entry. Not disputing the "tea party" movement became more popular in 2009, but it started much earlier in say 2007 or so. references can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Influence http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/06/tea-party-purge-%E2%80%93-a-cause-without-a-rebel/ http://www.freedomrally12-16.org/ http://www.teaparty07.com http://freepoliticsdotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/will-ron-paul-supporters-shock-nation.html Strangesteve ( talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to have nothing about organizations that helped organize the protests. These include Tea Party Patriots (TPP) and the Tea Party Express. These organizations obviously were (and are) important; why no discussion whatsoever in the article about how or when they started, their size, their funding, their leadership, etc.?
Some sources other than those mentioned in the article
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
one of the most innovative political news organizations in the country. Media watchers consider TPM the site to watch as the news business transforms from the old world of print to the online digital future. In March 2009 TPM topped TIME Magazine's list of 25 Best Blogs of 2009. "Talking Points," wrote Time's editors, "has become the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future." And in September of 2009 The Atlantic listed founder Josh Marshall among the nation's 50 most influential commentators. Its combination of breaking news, investigative reporting and smart analysis have made it a must-read for DC insiders, the media who cover them and politically engaged people everywhere.
I suppose this is partly an attempt to reflect some of my WP:NOTE concerns with some of the information that has been in and out of this article over the last several months. So here we have Ron Paul, cited by several contributors here as a strong influence on the Tea Party Protests, weighing in on the Tea Party Protest movement. So, is this notable? Then, we have from the same story a Tea Party reference to an AP story about the resignation of Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer, which reads:
Greer said there was a vocal group within the party that would say or do anything to embarrass him. He said if he didn't resign, that group would try to "burn the house down and try and destroy the Republican Party." "These individuals who have turned their guns on fellow Republicans instead of focusing our efforts on defeating Democrats have done nothing to serve our party," Greer said.
Interesting that he didn't name who the group was, but it seems fairly clear this is the Tea Party. So, also notable? And if so, how should this be written? And if so, under which section should it go? Anyone want to take a stab at it? TeaParty1? Xenophrenic? Anyone else? -- Happysomeone ( talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently begins The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States in 2009.
Obviously the word "are" is wrong; 2009 is over with. Perhaps the word should be "were" - that at least would be technically correct. That raises the issue of scope - if there are protests in 2010, do they go in this article? In that case, the article would be about nationally coordinated protests that began in 2009, and would continue to grow for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and ... protests? Or should we just cap the thing, by changing the article title to "2009 Tea Party protests", with another article like "Tea Party movement" covering 2010 and out, plus some background information from the current article?
Finally, since this article focuses on protests, where should Wikipedia cover other Tea Party-related things like the forthcoming Tea Party Nation convention in February - in this article (2009 protests??), or in another article, or not at all? Similarly, where should ongoing Tea Party-related groups be covered - in this article or elsewhere? I'm thinking specifically of the Tea Party Nation, the Tea Party Patriots, and the Tea Party Express, and of details such as when they were founded, their leadership, their size, their funding, and their goals. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Two suggestions on this article:
1.) The view of Americans toward the Tea Party movement (that is, the political popularity of it) is among the most important facts in this article, and maybe the most important. It warrants early citation in the lede.
2.) The amount of space dedicated to the pejorative "Tea bagging" is unwarranted. I believe the entire section should be removed. Any such organization or movement could include such a section. And that there is more space dedicated to this than the polling results is completely ill-balanced. TeaParty1 ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Re User:Brothejr's revert of my rather uncontroversial edit, let's discuss, per WP:BRD
What do other editors think? I would like to re-add the simple, verifiable sentence that I previously added and which User:Brothejr reverted. N2e ( talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
While the mockery might be 'significant' -it is not significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences. This is an article about -the Tea Parties-, so one can assume readers are coming to this page for information on the tea parties, not for a page on sexual innuendo and mudslinging. Media reaction, however, is intrinsic to the Tea Party topic, because since the Tea Parties happening media reaction to the Tea Parties became a topic, even contention, of the Tea Parties. Amonite: Feb 2nd 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 ( talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't remove a quote. What quote should we be looking at here? As for broadly held views, they generally have numerous citable sources. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page Moved to Tea Party protests, 2009' Ronhjones (Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
}
Tea Party protests → Tea Party movement — More common usage. Publicus 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
“Tea Party” has become something of a catch-all term to describe an impassioned and empowered group of populist conservatives. They are largely antigovernment, a lot of them are self-described libertarians, and many say they are new to political activism. It is easy to think of them as a singular entity and a growing one. “There is a new sheriff in town in American politics, and that is the Tea Party people,” said Lloyd Marcus, a musician from Deltona, Fla., who performs his “American Tea Party Anthem” at the events.
But in fact, there are many Tea Party groups across the country that exist under a variety of umbrellas, with different agendas and aims (Tea Party Nation, TeaPartyExpress.org). Some are organized into formal political-action committees; others are little more than a ragtag of protesters. It is not clear whether these Tea Party amalgams will ever grow into a functional and cohesive political movement that can actually get candidates elected to office. Fred O’Neal, an Orlando lawyer, recently registered an official Tea Party with Florida’s Secretary of State. “We are not the placard-waving, funny-hat-wearing people,” said O’Neal, an election law specialist who says he was an “Ed Muskie Democrat” in his college days. “We are willing to do the political dirty work.”
What’s evident is that a lot of Tea Party participants feel no special allegiance to the Republican Party or its candidates. In a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a generic Tea Party candidate outpolled a generic Republican, 23 percent to 18 percent (the generic Democrat drew 36 percent, and another 22 percent were undecided). O’Neal says he plans to recruit candidates to run for office against both Democrats and Republicans. “Glenn Beck would be the ideal leader for our group,” O’Neal says, referring to the Fox host and — according to a sign at the tea party in Orlando — someone who should be president.
(outdenting) I suddenly reallized that I'm not certain exactly what is the consensus. So let me summarize two different proposals:
OR
I think I prefer the first option and I think that's what John Broughton proposed at the top of this section.
In the meantime I am starting a new List of Tea Party protests, 2010 article and plan to move the current List of Tea Party protests to List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Agreed? Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This move was never made or never made properly. I have re-introduced the subject of merging here. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't notice, there has been another proposed merge with the Tea Party movement article. Discuss.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the lead, it says they oppose the federal budget. Are you sure they oppose the existence of a federal budget. Shouldn't this say they oppose an extremely large federal budget or a federal budget that isn't paid for? Ltwin ( talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to break down the different entities that make up this movement. Here are two segments from the Rachel Maddow Show that cover the different organizations, although the segments are probably too POV to use as sources. Below that is a list of the key groups we might include. Thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34626539#34626539 (starting 2:45) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34815564#34815564 (starting 1:50) |
MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposed genealogy does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the portions dealing with the movement's history, political positions, and external reactions to Tea Party movement.
The remaining material in Tea Party protests, 2009 should be focused on specific events and their characteristics. (As a side note, I think cutting it off at 2010 is premature.)
Anyway, I'm sure the move thus far is imperfect; we will probably want to add a bit more protest info to the movement article and vice versa. MakeBelieveMonster ( talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
So many people playing games with history here, I dont where to write this. My opinion is that the TEA Party Protest should remain whole, as they are. My reason being that that that title more accurately reflects the history of 2009 up until polls showed them more popular than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The TEA Party Movement Article should be a broad overview of the principles, values, issues, and activities of the group since it became more popular that the Republicans or the Democrats.
Next the proposed geneology does not work for me either. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses.
The TEA Party Movement and protests are not one group. There are about 20 major TEA Party groups and 50 minor groups. You can find a list of many of them here http://donmashakteapartyindependentdissent.blogspot.com/2010/01/comprehensive-list-of-tea-party.html
The proposed geneology does not work for me. I was of the tea party mentality before there was a tea party. The following was written before the 2008 election. http://www.s qui doo.com/USA_VOTERS_VOTE_NO_TO_GOVERNMENT_CORRUPTION_THIS_ELECTION (sorry, squ idoo is forbidden so take out the spaces to see) If you want to reach back to the anti tax libertarians, my article is as valid as the catalyst for the movement as some reference to libetarions. And I was never a anti tax libertarian nor have I read their writings forming my opinion. Too many people trying to write a version that conforms to political view of the world. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT IS ABOUT ADHERANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS AND REVOLT AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION BY BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS.
Let the TEA Party Protest article serve as the geneology for the genesis of the TEA PArty movement. And when you refer to FREEDOM WORKS, it is proper to refer to the as a Republican Trojan Horse. An attempt by the republicans to hijack the tea party protest and movement. True TEA Partyers no the Republican Trojan horse groups. In fact, the REpublicans have lost control of most of their Trogan horses. CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC) CynicalPatriot ( talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this? Might this be something the article should discuss? - the demographics of the Tea Party Protesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"Demographics of Photos"
"In the first photograph and most of the others, the audience consists overwhelmingly of white, older adults. Is there a known reason for this?" Yes, the reason is because most Republicans are white and most of Obama's supporters are children. The left-wing media went to great lengths to make it appear as though racism was the key motivating factor behind the protests, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth: 99.9% of Republicans hold Obama in a higher regard than either Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Edwards, or Biden. As bad as Obama is, he's actually one of the better Democrats! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.222.202 ( talk) 07:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think comments like those left by 68.54.222.202 have any place on wikipedia. Even in discussions. Is it okay to remove this? Is there any substance to those comments to warrant leaving it up? Cpyder 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpyder ( talk • contribs)
The first paragraph under the Independence Day and other post-April 15 Tea Parties subsection is almost entirely an embedded list of protest events. Wouldn't that paragraph be better titled by its own subsection name, for example: List of other protest events from April through June.
The next three events (June 29, July 4 and July 17) have only one sentence to describe each. Shouldn't these either be expanded significantly and placed in their own subsections or reduced to a few words and included in the "List of" subsection mentioned above?
The last event (Feb 4) occurred in 2010 and doesn't belong in an article about 2009. It should be removed.
By the way, the guideline for embedded lists says that "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed". Since we already have such a stand-alone list in List of Tea Party protests, 2009, wouldn't it be best to include any simple references in the aforementioned List article (if they don't exist there already) and remove the "List of other protest events..." subsection from this article altogether?
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph says:
The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing big government,[5] President Barack Obama,[6] the U.S. federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters argue are wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well.[7] The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases[3]. Protests have been held on April 15, 2009 to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day,[6][8] over the weekend of July 4, 2009 to coincide with Independence Day, and on September 12, 2009 to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
In my opinion, the second sentence beginning with "Participants say the events are part of a Tea Party movement opposing..." is mostly about the Tea Party movement as opposed to the protests themselves. This is true for the third sentence ("They oppose...") and the fourth ("The protesters also...") as well.
Since we already have a Tea Party movement article and in accord with the idea that the Tea Party protests article should describe the actions of the participants and how the protests have evolved, I suggest that the first paragraph be reduced to:
The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States since 2009.[1][2][3][4] Participants say the events are part of a larger Tea Party movement. Protests have been held on:
- April 15, 2009, to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day[6][8],
- over the weekend of July 4, 2009, to coincide with Independence Day, and
- September 12, 2009, to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: How do you pick the protests included in this article from all the hundreds listed in the two "List of" articles ( List of Tea Party protests, 2009 and List of Tea Party protests, 2010) without engaging in original synthesis?
RoyGoldsmith's proposal: This one defeats me. Unless you had several, tightly-connected sources (probably news reports and/or analyses) that say this protest, that protest and this protest over here are important, by whatever criteria, you'd have to use your own judgement and that's against WP:SYN. And even if you did have such a series of reports, the article should really be named something like "Tea Party protests considered important by so-and-so". Unless you had several authors who reached the same conclusions.
Of course, you could Google-count all the Tea Party protests by date (one date at a time) and then choose the protests by proportion according to WP:PROMINENCE. But it seems to me that this might change weekly, as new stories are published for new protests and old stories become dead links. And I'm still not sure that this wouldn't violate WP:SYN.
In my opinion, the basic problem is that these protests are just too new to have acquired reliable, secondary sources. If we were writing an article about (say) Vietnam War protests then we could go to a long list of reliable, historical books and peer-reviewed papers to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. (I just did an Amazon search on Tea Party protests and Tea Party movement. All the books there were either too old [early 2009] or authored by someone who has a vested interest in one side or the other.) We really need a consensus of impartial books about the modern Tea Party, written by professional historians or well-known journalists. Without these, who's judgement do we trust about what protests to include?
This is only one proposal. Other proposals are welcomed. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
RoyGoldsmith's second proposal: Leave the top-level section heading alone as "Protests", not "Major protests" or anything that implies that these protests are any different than any other protests. Anyone can create a subsection on any individual protest, if reliable sources about that protest can be found. However, he may not relate or connect any individual protest subsection to any other protest subsection unless reliable sources about that relationship exist. Any references that are found within the "List" articles will be considered as work still in progress; that is, subsections we haven't created as yet. (Of course, someone may create five or fifty new subsections tomorrow. :) After all, Wikipedia will always be a work in progress.
I wish to emphasize that, under this proposal, we would not be able to connect one event to another event, assuming most news reports are about one protest. Every subsection would be built in isolation, unless one protest's source said something about another one, in which case the reference would be about both of them.
For example, we could say in each subsection for two protests (say on Feb 24th and Feb 26th) that "This protest was organized by (say) the Tea Party Patriots" but we could not say in either subsection that "This protest [say on Feb 26th] was organized by the Tea Party Patriots, as was the February 24th protest" unless either reference mentioned that the other protest was organized by the same TP Patriots. It is not sufficient that both references simply mention the TP Patriots as organizers. One source has to specifically connect one protest another.
It is perfectly OK for anyone to agree with my first two paragraphs and disagree with my example. But then it is up to you to specify what will and will not be allowed so far as relationships between the protest subsections.-- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Resolution (I think): It appears I was wrong. I submitted my question to the talk page of
WP:NOR
here. This is what they came back with:
I interpret this to mean that we can select representative sources by consensus. In the next week or two, I will be attributing all the references in the two "List" articles to their respective publishers. If you have used a reference about an individual protest for a citation in either TPp or TPm and it is not listed in the "List" articles, please insert it there. Eventually we'll have at least a hint as to which are the more reliable and can proceed from there. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times has a good article on the anniversary of the mass tea party protests. It highlights one activist, a Keli Carender, who is credited as being one of the first organizers of TP protests. Main points:
Sbowers3 ( talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Aside from not being sourced, and perhaps not being neutrally voiced, does anyone think theres any merit to keeping the 1982 tea bag campaign (assuming it can be verified)? If so, perhaps it is better suited in a "previous tea party campaigns" along with ron paul's 2007 shindig and so forth. Unless we have a source that credits the 1982 campaign to the beginnings of the 2009 movement (which I doubt we do), it doesn't seem appropriate for the background section. For now I'll just add citation tags, but think we should keep an eye to moving or removing the material. -- Izauze ( talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
98.231.39.212 ( talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)I just discovered the "vandalism" tag placed/threatened concerning the information I have attempted to post in this article. I am a bit confused. How does the posting of information qualify as vandalism? I am obviously not in the 'in crowd' of Wikipedia and - in addition - do not as yet know all the rules and regulations. Obviously I could be wrong, but frankly, at this point it appears that someone simply does not want the truth to come out for some reason. I have posted two newspaper articles that report this event and encouraged Bill Steensland to post a short piece on YouTube, to which I also posted a link. If I simply need more citations I will be more than happy to search for them. Thanks in advance for your indulgence and any advice you may offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.39.212 ( talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The link to "Militias" was removed because:
This is not the first time I've reverted this blanking [15] of the 'Tactics' section. I don't understand why this section is being targeted, but apparently it's bothering somebody. Malke 2010 01:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Malke
Can I remind you about the rules on "consensus building". Discussing edits and deletions with other editors, outside of the discussion section.
thanks
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why has this article got not criticism of the group? Seems a bit biased to me. As in the vast majority of "tea party" members are Republican party members and activists.
It's quite obviously an astroturf group, rather than grass roots. As in, events largely organised from within the Republican party, via it's members and activists.
The UK has a similar movement called "The tax payers alliance". Most centre right parties tend to set up these "grass roots" groups, to campaign for them.
As I said, plenty of sourced information and articles to suggest that most of these events were organised, and influenced from within the republican party
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Criticizing Tea Party members for being Republican activists is much like criticizing Obama supporters for being Democratic Party activists... It's obvious and it's a non-issue.
New protests in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, NV. Turnout ~30,000.
[16]
[17]
MakeBelieveMonster (
talk)
03:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
CBS: At least 9,000, AP: At least 7,000, AP: At least 9,000, NYT: May not have been quite 10,000, Las Vegas Review-Journal: Perhaps 10,000. There is an overhead picture at [18]. Somewhere I think I read that an early forecast was 5,000, then they upped it to 10,000. I thought CNN's story was an intentional joke but after listening to it, I'd say the announcer back at the studio doesn't have a clue. Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
NPR: "About 7,000" protesters. BTW, the first two cites are instructive per WP:VERIFY - cite#1 from the Christian Science Monitor attributes the "30,000" figure to organizers, while cite #2 from the Los Angeles Times attributes "9,000" to a police estimate and "organizers claimed more than twice as many".-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
(Copied from my user talk page because I think other TPp editors might be interested. Sbowers3 ( talk) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
Joshzz50a ( talk) 07:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It appears an important component of the Tea Party has not been mentioned.
The Tea Party was formed when Republican Strategists realizing that their candidates were about to be trumped by Democrats in the 2008 election, needed to devise a special strategy to win back the house in 2010.
They surmised that in order to gain the trust and more importantly the votes in the 2010 election, they would have to create a third "pseudo" party that opposed spending, the debt, etc. The leaders of this movement, "well healed" Republicans would pretend that they might even run their own candidates, but would ultimately give their support to the Republican Party, ironically the very same party that Americans blame for the deficit.
Economists blame the costly and unnecessary Iraq War along with the initial one trillion dollar bail-out given by then President Bush to executives of AIG, Citibank and other banking institutions. Later, it was discovered that much of the money went to pay executive bonuses, vacations, etc., but Bush gave the money to them without any stipulations.
The Tea Party is managed and funded by the Republican Party and therefore it is not surprising that the goals of the Tea Party are in agreement with the GOP. They main mission as has been acknowledged many times is gain control in order to lower taxes on the richest Americans. The richest 3% of Americans own 98% of wealth in this country. The Tea Party would like the middle class to be burdened with higher taxes while relieving the rich of paying any taxes whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshzz50a ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've heard more than several Tea Partiers express outrage over numerous (perhaps many?) incumbent GOP congressman that haven't supported the GOP's platform well enough in the last ten years, especially in the last two years. If the Tea Party is a creation of the GOP, couldn't the result be likened to one shooting oneself in the foot? But if you have reliable sources to cite for your allegations, please submit them. - JohnAlbertRigali ( talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/tea-party-republicans_b_170558.html
This "grass-roots" movement seems to be organized and founded by republicans. No wonder it doesn't address the war in iraq and is against taxes and federal regulation of companies who contributed to the crash. Oh and health care plans of course. Because americans spend the most for health care in the world and get the least of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.101.166 ( talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Folks, I've reverted your edits twice now because we didn't seem to be making any headway in the edit summary. 71.0.87.17, I don't understand how it's productive to remove content that is so clearly supported by the cite. What is you reasoning behind this?
Jt14905, I've got the same issue with your editing the words "counter-protests expressing support for the Obama administration" when that information is clearly supported by at least two cites and meets the burden of WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. How and what is the burden on the editor that adds this information, and where is this guideline found?-- Happysomeone ( talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I am of the impression that this whole article is an attempt at Progressive bias Propaganda.
I have been involved in the TEA Party Movement from the Beginning.
I was in DC on 912. Unless any of you have same credentials, my eyes on credibility trumps your propaganda.
I spent 3 hours correcting errors. And I included cites, usually not my own. I added the two polls in the summary.
I discussed the numbers in DC on 912 and included links to photographs of that events and obamas ignauguration. I also included links to photos of the Million man March and Promise Keepers. I included photos by CNN. These included language on how others had estimated crowd size at other events and invited the veiwer to reach ther own conclusion.
I discussed how democrats disgustingly call us teabaggers, full well knowing it is slang for a disgusting homosexual act.
I discussed how Democrats astroturfed ACORN and SEIU with cites. I discussed how SEIU thugs beat up a tea partyer. with cites
I discuss Republican Trojan horses. I discussed how both the Republicans and Democrats first demonized and discredited the movement. I discussed how now both Democrats and Republicans are trying to usurp and/or hijack the movement. all with cites.
And with flick of the wrist you erase my three hours of work.
PUT IT BACK NOW OR TELL ME HOW IT IS NOT TRUE!
I was there. I am a tea partyer.
Is this really the future that the Progressives, Obama and Wikipedia envsion for America's future generation. One where professional propagandists warp the minds of innocent children?
CynicalPatriot ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
75.168.57.215 ( talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH, ONLY SOURCES. SO IF PROGRESSIVE PROPAGANDISTS CONTROL THE MAJOR MEDIA, WHAT YOU HAVE IS A RECIPE FOR RATIONALIZING PROPAGANDA.... AND, i AM FREE TO QUOTE ALL OF YOU THAT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH ONLY ABOUT HOW MUCH PROPAGANDA YOU CAN QUOTE FROM BIASED MAJOR MEDIA.. And you all feel comfortable that what you have done is made it so major media, censored by the owners of that media shall be the keepers of the truth.... and you see know downside to that... Do I here you all correctly? Sort of like the corrupt courts basically manipulating the outcome of a trial by using the rules to keep out evidence that is not consistent with their desired outcome... And on that basis, I feel compelled to make it know to the citizens of the USA that Wikipedia is not interested in the truth, but rather a instrument of propaganda without any credibility. All of my stuff was cited, and you arbritrailty and unilaterally declared that my sources were not credible. You allowed a large portion of the article referring to tea party movement folks as Teabaggers to remain posted for a long time which evidences the bias of the editors of Wikipedia. (Teabagging being a pejorative American homosexual slang term for one man place his testicles in the mouth of another man. And none of you editors had the "neutrality" to know that was wrong? And then you would have the audacity of suggesting you lock me out of edits because I am not neutral? Please where does you mutual admiration and fantasy society meet? I challenge you to read the article and tally the positive and negative alleged facts, the negative alleged facts overwhelm the positive by an impossible factor considering that the tea party movement is now perceived more favorably than either the democrats or the republicans.. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your premises and intent. I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN STATING THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS CREATED A POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF BEING TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE BUT IN REALITY IS JUST COLLECTION OF PROPAGANDA FROM ONE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. Thank you for the following statement of Wikipedia policy... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth I will enjoy retweeting this over and over. Since most of America knows that major media is censored propaganda with a progressive agenda, it should not be too difficult to expose WIKEPIDIA as propaganda mongers. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY GROUP THAT OPENLY ESPOUSES THAT THE TRUTH WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY OF ITS CONTENT? My perspective is that WIKIPEDIA's policy would make German Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels jealous or am I not allowed to say that because some of you find my comparison offensive and/or I am not able to find cites because Goebbels was dead before the modern tea party movement started? (aka as yet another rule to censor while appearing to be reasonable) I am saddened by the world future generations will endure because people like you folks are complicit in promoting propaganda against a group of people fighting for the liberty of individuals and against the selfish interests of tyrants. Do you folks even think about the world you will be leaving your children when you act as willing accomplices in such censorship and propaganda? You make me sad for the future of the world. Your policy makes the major media, owned and representing the interests of wealthy men, the final arbitrators of history and the truth. But some I doubt you folks even care since I believe this is your intended outcome CynicalPatriot 75.168.57.215 ( talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
'The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation.'
And you used Fox News as a source? Fox News is politically biased!
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but the Boston Tea Party was NOT a protest of taxation. The tea incoming from the British East Indies, on the British East India Company Ships, was actually TAX FREE. The British were DUMPING GOODS, like Japan dumped cars in the 1980's. The colonists were PROTECTING THEIR JOBS, not protesting taxes. If the colonists were protesting taxes then they would have done so 70 years earlier, not the first TAX FREE shipment in 70 years. This is so Orwellian, you are all so creepy. 98.165.15.98 ( talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
CH52584
Can I remind you about rules on "consensus building". As in discussing article deletions and edits with other editors, outside of this open discussion page.
thanks
Cjmooney9 ( talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Specific issues need to be detailed to support the insertion of an NPOV tag. I'm still waiting to see those specific issues described here, but I'll start the ball rolling with one obvious (to me) issue in the mean time:
Later interviews have revealed the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol...
In the middle of the section discussing whether or not slurs were used (there is no proof that they did or did not, is the POINT), the author of this sentence demonstrates their left-wing, liberal, socialist bias by phrasing the statement as if it DID.
That's ALLEGED slurs. And blatant left-wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs)
Out of a crowd of thousands of emotionally worked-up protesters, a few people MAY HAVE said a few bad words.
The allegations of the utterance of bad words gets as much printed space as the purposes and the grievances of the Tea Party Movement.
In my humble opinion, it's a ridiculous claim that the media focuses on the slurs more than the tea party--FOX News, who made the protests really take off (9/12 with Glenn Beck), made no investigation and immediately declared it as false. And I was reading the article and it seems to say much about how the Tea Party protesters are against taxes and nothing about how the same people are actually getting tax cuts, as (according to FOX) many of them are low- to mid-income average joes and the tax cuts give to the poor and middle class at the expense of the super-rich, who don't really need all that more anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.231.193 ( talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Jonny Quick ( talk) 05:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick
There seems to be several reverts regarding the addition of the following statement: "No video evidence has surfaced to support of the claims of Cleaver or Lewis, despite the many cameras that recorded the events that day."
This statement is an accurate statement and the source provided does state this: "The ample videotape evidence shows that there was no such chorus."
I'm not sure why this is being labeled original research, as it is clearly stated in the source. If you continue to remove this statement and give this argument, please explain yourself further. Thanks. CH52584 ( talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The web cite says no chorus but this article says no support for claims, which is different. he didn't claim a chorus. Cite also further on says uncoroberated, which is closer to truth, but you can't claim something hasn't surfaced - only that you haven't seen something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot130 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone reverted my explanation about the arrest, detention, and identification, so I'll quote my source here for clarity (I think the quote is too long and distantly related to include directly):
This is why I think it's useful to explain the suspect being handcuffed is technically not an arrest but a detention, and the means by which Cleaver chose to avoid prosecuting the spitter. Wnt ( talk) 01:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You all do realize that they, either actaul representatives or their aides, were videoing the whole thing as they walked through the crowd, and they havn't been able to provide any evidence that these slurs took place. Also the "spitter" can be clearly shown yelling, not spitting at Cleaver. As it stands it is clearly a one-sided view of the incident and in violation of NPOV. Options are to include the opposite point or remove the whole section for NPOV violations. Arzel ( talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently this article is comprised of thousands of words consisting he-said-he-said allegations, which are impossible to prove or disprove.
This article is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP inasmuch as it contains unverifiable character assassinations of specific persons shown in videos of the protest, as well as an entire national movement. (Note that I have been disciplined by a Wikipedia administrator for being in violation of WP:BLP merely for talk page discussion of Congressional testimony unfavorable to the Weather Underground organization -- no individual was mentioned. I welcome an opposing opinion of someone with an official position of authority at Wikipedia so, for consistency, together we can re-examine how the Weather Underground testimony bears upon WP:BLP).
The Breitbart paragraph complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is supported by an article in a national newspaper, written by Wall Street Journal editor, John Fund. It is also supported in articles by Breitbart himself, who has appeared on national television and given public speeches asserting the challenge.
The Breitbart paragraph is consistent with Wikipedia:Notability as demonstrated by over 85,000 hits resulting from a Google search of "Breitbart 100000".
Since Breitbart is a central figure in the Tea Party movement, his offer of $100,000 for proof addresses the credibility of the ubiquitous, unsupported "racist" charges by individuals in positions of vast power who stand to gain politically by spreading this charge. It is important that readers have complete information to determine for themselves whether it makes sense that evidence has not come forward to claim the huge reward, despite cameras everywhere and allegations that the "n-word" was chanted "15 times".
For the moment, I am not calling for strictly enforcing the Wiki policy requiring speedy deletion of the entire piece which violates the WP:BLP.
However, I submit that removal, of this single paragraph allowing Tea Party spokesmen to defend themselves, egregiously diminishes the balance of the article in violation of NP:NPOV. Further, I submit that repeated destruction of the Breitbart paragraph violates Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.
Therefore, since this explanation should be obvious to any fair-minded person dedicated to editing in good faith, I am restoring the paragraph, consistent with Wikipedia:Be bold.
Freedom Fan ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This may be tangentally related. It will be interesting to see if this is covered. In any case it shows that there are people out there trying to intentially make it look like the Tea Party movement is racist. Arzel ( talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone here that NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Therfore, any and all well sourced points of view must be included. The fact that no one has claimed the $100,000 reward is an excellent counterpoint to the claim that the racial slur was used. All points of view must be included. Captain Lance Murdoch ( talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to claim I'm maliciously "purging" somebody from the article based on my "opinions about Carson." If you can find a way to add him without grossly misrepresenting the cited sources, go right ahead. Jesse Jackson Jr. was also there, along with others from the Congressional Black Caucus [see article]. You seem to be missing my points in the edit summaries. Try reading them, please. MookieG ( talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It is easy to say something is not supported by the sources, when you delete all of those sources. I have replaced all of the deleted content and all of the deleted sources, and since your edit summary indicates you are having trouble making sense of the 'content+citation to source' format of the information you are reading, I'll try to step you through the one example you have brought here for discussion. The segment you keep removing is:
and it is cited to the content in the following sources:
The sentence is obviously supported by the cited sources. If you'd like to tweak the wording or something, fine, but don't purge the sources from the article and then claim it isn't supoorted by sources so that you can delete the content. As for the several other edits and citations you simultaneously deleted along with the above sentence, you still haven't given an explanation. I would appreciate it if you'd discuss those edits here. Xenophrenic ( talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please comment on the edits, not the editors. Base your argument on WP:RS, and if you can't agree, ask for mediation. You are going after each other, and that will not improve the article, which is the overall goal of Wikipedia in the first place. Rapier ( talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)