Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Remaining Fox fixes (if any) and no squabbling

So... Happysomeone, if you could list the changes you want made for Fox below, I'll try to work on them tomorrow. I have not read the Fox News controversy in several days so you better assume I'm a novice.

Izauze and Malke. I can't tell you to stay out of this section until you've calmed down but please, some of us want to get back to improving Wikipedia. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, I've stopped answering him above. Let's edit.Malke2010 05:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)::Regarding Fox news, this section should just be part of the Media. Isolating it like this suggests POV pushing, even if unintended. And mentioning the myriad liberal orgs like Think Progress and Media Matters in such volume and without any counterbalancing views by conservative counterpart orgs seems undue. WP:UNDUE.Malke2010 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You might think of starting a new section for that. I would oppose the move becuse it is not pertaining to a response by the media, it is about alegations of fox's promotion of and particpation in the movement --Izauze (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you oppose right off the bat, I don't see how you'll be satisfied with any outcome that results from this discussion. The talk page is used with the idea to build WP:consensus. There doesn't need to be two sections. Fox covered the rallies and made a big thing out of doing it to contrast the others not doing anything but complain about Fox covering it. They were the pot calling the kettle black.Malke2010 05:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - my suggestion of starting a new section to attract other editors that might be interested in the subject was only meant to be helpful for you. I agree that part of fox's coverage was somewhat motivated by "sticking it to their competitors" so to speak. Nevertheless, the controversey exists, and I think should be reflected as such. If anyone else has anything to contribute on the idea, I'd be happy to hear it. --Izauze (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I already am working on improving this article. You asked that I discuss these issues here. I always prefered to keep talking about the edits, not the editors, and specifically only sought an affirmation of both working for the benefit of wikipedia and this article. So please don't suggest that only others want to improve wikipedia, and then also expect me not to respond. Sound fair? --Izauze (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is there a citation for this?[1].Malke2010 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it is the reference immediately following that sentence. You will see in it a large picture of the innaguration festivities and his mention of it to kick off the write-up. Thanks for asking first. -Izauze (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Long litst of media people

Was looking at this media section, and am still kinda thrown off by this long list the starts it off of a bunch of people who've derided the protests, and a bunch of people who said good things about the protests... seems like it's just been built up over time as people add more supporters or detractors to give weight to their side...

I'm always careful of deleting whole cloth any sourced information like this, but I'm struggling to find what particular value this list has, and it just seems to me that no "cleaned up" article would have a long messy list like this in it. Perhaps the idea of the paragraph can be preserved/reconstructed in some way that does not need the list, per se...

Any thoughts? Objections? Counterproposals? --Izauze (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

new tom tancredo section?

How do we feel about this?

Personally, I feel it is kinda POV pushing. Not that the information isn't essentially true, but giving it its own section seems UNDUE. Perhaps if it was a sentence or so inside of a broader paragraph, I'd feel different... --Izauze (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

This is a little about my personal philosophy but I think it's germane to the apparent problems Izause and Malke are having up above and, in general, some problems we all have with this article.

One of Wikipedia's core policies "requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed."

But what does "challenged" mean? I believe that, in its simplest form, challenged means that any editor may insert a ^{[citation needed]} tag and, if an inline citation is not provided in a reasonable time, any editor may then remove the challenged material.

OK. Then what does "reasonable time" mean? Template:Citation needed puts forward a month as a good starting place, although WP:NOCITE is much less specific.

Now comes the big one. What is "any material"? In my opinion, this means any sentence, any phrase or (at its most extreme) any word in the article may be challenged. In my opinion, you can even challenge the sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth". Of course, if you do slap a cn-tag on that sentence, in a very short time you'll find dozens of high-school textbooks and hundreds of peer-reviewed papers attesting to the fact that the moon does indeed orbit the earth.

However, this means that, for any contentious or controversial article (like Tea Party movement), virtually every sentence should have a citation (or multiple citations, especially for complex and/or compound sentences). And, in most cases, I believe that those citations should have direct quotations embedded in the reference (see Template:Cite web#Optional parameters) of the specific text that the sentence in the article summarized or paraphrased. (If the quoted text is too long, you can always insert an ellipsis...)

This makes cite-checking tremendously easier; the checker, in most cases, doesn't have to retrieve the reference itself and find the paragraph that the article was talking about, he only has to verify that that text in the article accurately summarized or paraphrased the quotation (and, if there's any doubt, that the quotation does exist in the reference).

Now, let's be fair. The overwhelming majority of sentences in Wikipedia do not have citations. My guess is that this is over 95% and it may be 99+++%. But the overwhelming majority of articles in Wikipedia are not controversial. Tea Party movement (and Tea Party protests) are, as are most political current events.

I would therefore like to recommend that, from now on, any sentence or clause that you are about to insert in the article have a full inline citation (see Template:Cite web for instructions) and that the reference you cite have a full quotation. I would further suggest that you do this as part of your insertion. Don't wait until someone slaps you with a cn-tag. Be proactive and supply citations with quotes for every sentence or significant clause you insert.

If anyone wishes to quarrel about such a citation (with an embedded quotation), they would insert a ^[dubious] tag after the citation and then and only then discuss it on the talk page. In this way (I hope), we won't have to argue about most additions to the article.

I know this will take more time, possibly time you feel is better spent on Real Wikipedia Work, rather than clerical details. But these "clerical details" are, in my opinion, The Real Wikipedia Work. Anyone can write stories and, if you force them to, provide references. But this (or something like it) is, in my opinion, necessary in an article about a controversial subject to avoid disagreements that spill out to the talk page. This will also begin to fix the "bare URL" situation in our references and build a better article.

Thank you for your consideration. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy have you been reviewing the changes made by Izauze? I'm curious, because the claims he made about Obama without citatons, etc. if an IP had done that I would have reverted that as vandalism. Also he now has claims about the Christian Right that seems false, and again, no citations. As this is about a movement of living people, WP:BLP applies. If you allow this editing to go on unopposed, it will get worse. Adding this kind of content is not something that can be accounted for with these tags.Malke2010 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points Roy. I have not made these more complex tags before, but I definitely see their usefulness, especially in regards to controversial/contentious material.

In regards to Malke - the only claim I made in regards to the christian right is that the paragraph needs cites at least. I would also lean towards supporting proposals to remove it altogether, but I don't want to bite the aparrent newcomer who added it... In the future, please don't accuse me of things you haven't checked to see if I've added. And I'll try and do the same for you. --Izauze (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See my remarks in Too much for me above. I wish you all a happy and productive weekend. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Izauze have you edited under another name before?Malke2010 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding me can best be directed towards my talk page where I will happily answer all appropriate inquiries. I'd like this space to be reserved for discussion of the Tea Party movement. --Izauze (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA Dispute Resolution Notification and Request for Comment

Hello, fellow editors. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding recent edits and comments. The discussion is about the topic User:Malke2010. A neutral perspective should help us reach some sort of resolution here, but please feel free to offer your comments and suggestions. Thank you.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't understand what has happened. Teabagging is about balls in mouths. For whatever reason that article has become a coatrack for info not here. I propose adding an "Etymology" section that will incorporate about 2/3rds of the political info on the other page and maybe the info currently in the Controversy#"Teabagging". The controversy section is inappropriate. Background might be better. I don't care what happens to the information as long as it is in the correct article. Someone has also proposed making a whole article for the political term. This isn't Wiktionary and we don't need yet another article on the topic at this time.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the link you erased would be appropriate. The controversey is about the double-entendre of "balls in mouths" as you say. One may find it to be unfortunate or distateful, but it is a real controversey that has received usage and coverage in plenty reliable sources - isn't it valid to link to Teabagging in case someone want to get a clearer idea of what that entails? --Izauze (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We can already wikilink to teabagging as a sexual term in this article. The in-depth description of how it applies to this topic should be discussed here.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh. I knew this would happen. Cptnono (talk) is doing a fine job watching over that article, but his comments suggest he's ignoring the current double meaning. I tried to move some of the content over there following WP:SS, but he's alleging WP:COAT. In my view, the term had little recognition beyond the BDSM crowd and Gen X & Y folks who saw the film Pecker. Then some of the protesters started using the term as a verb and then... Well, the point is, the term had very little recognition until last year in modern society until last year. There's a reason for that, and that was recognized by the OAD.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have been teabagging or talking about teabagging for years. Just because you were not familiar with it doesn't mean it isn't so. Enough people have mentioned bloat over there that it needs to be trimmed substantially. It is well sourced info so I would rather it be here than straight deleted. By the way, I am not saying it shouldn't be mentioned. I am saying summary style over there and the "Background" subsection worked into here.Cptnono (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: It would also fit well in the current Media section.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

February 1st 2009 Tea Bag Campaign

The section on the so-called 'Tea Bag Campaign' is misleading.

Here is what the section says:

On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a portfolio manager for an investment firm[28] posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate".[29] The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout." [30]

However, The New York Times citation http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html?_r=1&hp doesn’t support the paragraph at all. And the cite to the guy’s forum cite is not mentioned in any news sources. Nobody credits this guy with anything except himself and here on Wikipedia. There’s no notablility, WP:NOTE for inclusion here.

Yet, Rick Santilli’s so-called rant [2] has made headlines everywhere and has over 1 million views on Youtube, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/main4946264.shtml and is not mentioned, even though later on Keri Carender mentions him in her quote. Santilli is credited with being the 'father' of the tea party movement.

It seems this tea bag campaign does not have any relevance here and unless it can be shown that is was reported widely in reliable sources WP:NOTE, then it is just WP:SYN. Because this guy didn't start anything. And who is to say he's the first? There's no source making these claims except here on Wikipedia. There is no collective 'tea bag campaign' and it should be deleted unless WP:RS can be shown in WP:NOTE.Malke2010 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I think not only that section, but all those history sections are soon going to be removed from here because they are generally better suited to TPp. What I think we can do here is help develop whatever the sumary is going to be. I agree with you that the feb 1st campaign did not recieve much mainstream attention and doesn't deserve much more than a passing mention. See the section above for more. I generally think most people are gonna come here to TPm to get a very general idea of how it began, and then if they're interested, they'll look for more details in TPp. --Izauze (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant history of how the movement began, the tipping points such as Keli Carender and Santelli and the mortgage meltdown should remain. And the protests of spring 2008 when banks began failing and people began losing their homes. Here in Los Angeles, the police came to a spontaneous protest against the news that morning that a savings and loan had failed and everybody who had a mortgage from them had just lost their homes. It was widely reported here. Those types of demonstrations were starting all over, and MSNBC and FOX, et al, all covered this. This all began on Bush's watch and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration need to be mentioned. And the stimulus package was put together on Bush's watch and that should be memtioned because when that became law a few months later and all the disclosures about it's contents and the bail outs for the bankers became known, that seems to be when people really got angry. And that's how the movement started. So the TPM article will have to include all of that.Malke2010 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree - when I was doing my history research i actually looked a LOT at stuff pre-2009 because i didn't understand why one group of protests which didn't mention "tea" were considered tea party protests, but another group were NOT. I agree that the seeds for what eventually came to a boil in 2009 with the intro of obama and a new round of economic policies were sewn in 2008. the guys who staged that feb 1st tea bag campaign were actually involved in protest actions and organization as early as march 2008 - when the whole bear sterns thing happened. (i also think this is also somewhat related to the ron paul "revolution", thought i dont know if you agree there) I agree that Bush should be a factor here, but I struggle to find sources that link protests to this movement. I think one day that will happen - when an academic or serious journalist writes a book about the movement - but as of now I can't find sufficient support. And you live in LA? I should buy you lunch - hah! --Izauze (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of articles in the L.A. Times and the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the New York Times. You have to look under mortgages, etc. I will find the coverage of the S&L failure here in L.A. and in beautiful downtown Santa Monica.Malke2010 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

US News and World Report deleted

There was a US News and world report sentence deleted as unsourced. I don't understand since the source was part of what was deleted: [3] But in the interest of caution, I'd like to ask about it here in case I'm missing something. --Izauze (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The US News & World Report is still there, but the uncited material and original research has been removed. WP:SYN WP:RS.Malke2010 23:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see - you deleted the entire paragraph BESIDES us news and world report. In that case, I find this deletion a little aggressive. Would you mind restoring that section (the one about fox news' alleged promotion of the protests) and we can colaborate together here to find a consensus on this material? As you said in TPp, just because something has a cite tag, doesn't mean we have to be in a rush to delete it... --Izauze (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I removed for WP:SYN and WP:RS:

Fox News gave widespread coverage to the tea party protests. Critics have suggested that Fox somehow played a supporting role in the Movement. But Fox News claims it simply gave coverage while the other news outlets including the networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, and the cable news show MSNBC, ignored the protests.

There are 10 citations needed and this much of a claim without citations is original research and I removed it according to WP:SYN and a total lack of WP:RS. But the paragraph about Fox news taking out ads to claim they were the only ones covering the events is cited and it also allows for counterclaims that are also cited such as Rick Sanchez on CNN. Therefore it's balanced and rendered neutral pov.Malke2010 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is that there are too many cite tags for 2 sentences - I think you would agree that "fox news gave widespread coverage" is pretty solid and not original research.. After all, I think you wrote that sentence... But it's true that this whole section seems like it's a problem, and I know you want to include more material about other news organizations besides Fox. And it's definitely too long. I'll take a crack at fixing both of our issues and get back to you. --Izauze (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit covers all the areas in question. Fox News claimed it was the only cable news outlet to cover the emerging protests and took out full-page ads in The Washington Post, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal with a prominent headline reading, "How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?" Rick Sanchez disputed Fox's claim pointing to various coverage of the event.[131][132][133] CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CBS Radio News provided various forms of live coverage of the rally in Washington throughout the day on Saturday, including the lead story on CBS Evening News.[131][133][134][135]

And it has the advantage of 1) being true 2) well sourced 3) and notable. Malke2010 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The editing here has put this section out of chronological order. I'll fix that.--Happysomeone (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps dumping teabagging into the beginning of the media section. Another editor came along and removed the teabagging section altogether. I tried moving it to the end of the media section but someone has put it back again. The media involvement doesn't make any sense with the teabagging being dumped there. Also, all that teabagging stuff was edited out of the article a while back.Malke2010 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit dumped all the teabagging into the article (into the Media section for some unknown reason) en masse. Multiple sections were involved.[4]. I tried to put things back in order. There was no page blanking by me, as my Edit Summary clearly states. [5] The edits were an attempt to sort out the mess made by that edit.Malke2010 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Hit the button on a recent edit before I had the edit summary right. Should have read "Media Coverage: Reorganized and altered name of heading, moved into chronological order and moved cite to History section"--Happysomeone (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Chronological order shows no tipping point

There seems to be a desire to adhere to a stated 'chronological order' as if the events being stated are leading up to a tipping point. These 'events' do no such thing. For example, the claims that February 1st, 2009 is some significant date in the history of the movement is false. It's all original research about an unknown blogger and it all comes from a primary source. There are no independent WP:RS to support this edit at all. This time line seems also to be applied to the media section which in itself could be summarized. There was a groundswell all over the country. Pinpointing where things tipped is most important here and the consensus seems to be that things started with Keri Carender and Rick Santelli, and this is where things should begin.Malke2010 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could show what you think the article should say and not just what you think it should not say. And please identify the section(s). I assume that you are talking about the History/February 1st... section. Do you suggest that that entire section should be eliminated or that it should be summarized or what? Have you read all of the refs (I have not)? Are all of them not reliable? Is lack of RS the problem, or is UNDUE weight the problem? Please help identify how to improve the article, rather than just complain about it being wrong. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See thread above, "February 1st Tea Bag Campaign," for specifics of looking into sources, etc. And the last sentence of my post above in this thread offers a suggestion where the whole chronology could start. Thanks.Malke2010 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice filed at NOR noticeboard

Rather than repeatedly go in circles on the claim Fox News Channel reported on the Tea Parties but everyone else ignored it, I've sent this over to the NOR noticeboard for comment. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Tea_Party_Movement_.22ignored.22_by_MSNBC.2C_ABC.2C_CBS_and_NBC

Per the discussion at the NOR noticeboard and Malke2010's talk page, this original research was removed.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm being mentioned, this is what I said on my talk page: it's time to drop the stick because the horse has been dead a good long while now and nobody wants to hear about it ever again. The edit was written by Izauze, deleted by me and restored by someone else who edits here.Malke2010 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Media Section WP:UNDUE

As it currently reads, the media section and the claims of bias are undue in terms of the overall content of the article. I propose that we sort it out and make just two short paragraphs. If anyone believes all this content is necessary, then perhaps the section should be broken off into a separate article, with a single paragraph and a link to the new article remaining, that explains briefly the rivalry that members of the media right and the media left engaged in. Suggestions for what to include would be welcome. Otherwise, I'll edit by these guidelines:

1) Fox News coverage and the ads placed by them in newspapers.

2) Comments about Fox News ads. The Rick Sanchez quote seems to cover it.

3) Derision of protesters by MSNBC & CNN political commentators and their guests.

4) Comments about the MSNBC & CNN commentators remarks by the president of a media organization at the time of the commentators remarks.

In the alternative, one paragraph can be written stating that there was a media controversy that arose, break the section off into it's own article, and leave a link to it.Malke2010 16:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the overall content of the article, I agree, this section needs some slimming down. Generally speaking, I think it's best if some general principals of how we go about this are agreed to first, before any changes are made. Some suggestions are virtually the same as above, some slightly different. By its very nature, and you appear to agree, the media coverage was in itself unusual and controversial. I'm not sure what exactly you can try to "break off" without running afoul of rules against creating content forks.

1) Determine and agree what the critical elements of the media coverage were.

2) The overall amount of text should be winnowed down, but not by removing verified citations. We should attempt to preserve most if not all the citations. RoyGoldsmith should be able to help us figure out what's WP:VERIFY with his current effort, below.

3) The critical elements of "Media Coverage" should be identified under it's own main section of the article , with that title (Media Coverage).

4) Each critical elements should have it's own paragraph.

5) The paragraphs follow a logical sequence in chronological order.

--Happysomeone (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1) What critical elements are: This is essentially a tit for tat between Fox and MSNBC and CNN. The Network news anchors didn't do this. A summary using neutral sources like U.S. News and World Report. No tit for tat commentaries from O'Reilly and Maddow.

2) Two short paragraphs total that combine all elements.

3) No need for a timeline or "chronological order" with a summary. Timelines become original research in this article. There was a groundswell that got this thing started. Who knows what the first moment was? Only God knows that. Tipping points that the TPM participants agree is the starting point. It's their article, afterall.

4) Could still write up a new article on the TPM controveries, including the astroturfing, and split it all off, leaving one paragraph to summarize.Malke2010 22:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

2009??????

How come this article states that the movement started in 2009? The first tea party protest was conducted by Ron Paul supporters in 2007, by dumping actual tea in the water, by Ron Paul supporters protesting the war and spending of Bush. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 00:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I FOUND A SOURCE - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html

The first tea party, happened in November 2007, by Ron Paul supporters. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There should also be mention of the rallies that were taking place in the Spring of 2008. The economy went into the drink on Bush's watch.Malke2010 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is already addressed in the History Background section. Thanks for the source, though, I'll add it in.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger_proposal

For discussions about merge from Teabagging  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the tea party movement. It's not about teabagging. If this topic can't have it's own article, placing it here isn't the solution. At best, this really only deserves a one sentence mention here. The TPM protesters are not advocating 'teabagging. The movement doesn't have teabagging as a platform. The protesters aren't blogging about this subject. It's irrelevant to this article.Malke2010 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with this edit being added here especially if it replaces all other teabagging edits, most of which are not relevant, too long, and gross, especially Anderson Cooper's quote. This edit from the teabagging article is well written, well sourced and gives the reader the information in a concise way:

In 2009, Tea Party protests were formed to protest against United States government tax and spending policies.[7][8] The mainstream media used the term "teabaggers" to describe the conservative anti-tax movement. Owing to its sexual connotation, the term "Tea Bagger" has been used by several pundits and journalists to ridicule the protesters. Anderson Cooper apologized for using the term. [9][10][11][12][13] The term's growth in the political arena earned attention by the Oxford American Dictionary, and the word "teabagger" achieved finalist status for the OAD Word of the Year.[14]

But I would not be fine with merging the entire teabagging article into this article. There does not appear to be a reasonable rationale for merging the two.Malke2010 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did it a day or so ago since conversation seemed to be going nowhere. The background section at Teabagging was merged into the media section and a new etymology section section at Tea Party movement. It should be all good now.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That explains that huge dump of content. Well, the above paragraph is all that is needed. It's not an article about teabagging.Malke2010 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Cptnono has already merged the teabagging, I removed the Etymology section. It is not the Teabagging Movement, therefore the section is not relevant. Also, "merging" teabagging here seemed to be WP:COAT. I moved the photo and the teabagging to the humor section. I also shortened the section as it was WP:UNDUE for the subject of this article. There seems more of a need right now for content about the Tea Party Movement and less additions that contribute ridicule of the Movement and the people in it. WP:BLP rules apply here.Malke2010 12:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point that all of that content was WP:UNDUE, but it shouldn't simply be discarded as the term has notability. It should go somewhere. In addition, the Teabagging see also link should be restored, as they are obviously related. I don't care who ridiculed who. What I do care about is presenting information about the Tea Party movement in a verified an balanced way. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a wikilink already.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Who made the decision to make this wikilink?Malke2010 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a Summary Style wikilink here too, per WP:LAYOUT. Have a look at this subsection for some other possible templates. Once the merger discussion are complete and if you're looking for a bit more distinction over "see also", then how about "Related terms"?--Happysomeone (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Related terms is for disambiguation. Further and Main would be completely unacceptable. The use of Also is also questionable since it is wikilinked in the section. If it is similar to the see also section then it is not appropriate. Better than further or main but not perfect. I also noticed that most of the merged info has been removed. That wasn't my intent with the move but as long as i it is not cluttering up that other article than I am fine.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

what other article was it cluttering up?Malke2010 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging. Cptnono (talk) frequently edits the page and drives many of the discussions on the talk page there.--74.93.30.1 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I think it would be of some benefit to editors here to review the help desk's guidelines on how to properly complete an Edit Summary. I'm guilty of this myself from time to time, but it's important that you accurately depict what you are doing in each edit. For example, saying you "moved" information from one place to another when in fact you deleted the reference first and then re-added it several edits later is extremely unhelpful. This is not "moving" anything. The diff will show that the information was simply added, and therefore the edit summary is inaccurate and wastes everyone's time.

"Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other changes."

In particular, please review the Use of edit summaries in disputes subsection and the Fixing subsections. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's how you move things. You remove it from the first thing, then you add it to the other thing.Malke2010 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. This is how you do it - check the diff. Not like this. See the difference? Also...

In particular, please review the Use of edit summaries in disputes subsection and the Fixing subsections.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting diff.Malke2010 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree edit summaries should not be misleading. [6].Malke2010 02:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

TEA an acronym?

I heard on a radio program Tea also has an acronym, forgot what they said. Tax E...? America? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's Taxed Enough Already.Malke2010 22:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

T-E-A is already in the lead of Tea Party protests. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't "Taxed Enough Already" be included in the article text? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, teabaggers have acronyms for "tea" these days. Surprising. I do believe they also have acronyms and other phrases for government entities such as the IRS, President Obama, etc. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I fold

I'm glad that at least on the surface, things appear to be back to normal, but now that I see "normal" again, it just really reconfirms how very dissapointing this experience has been. I went from being the biggest idealist of what was possible through collaboration within this sort of systematic construct that I thought brought out the best in people, to being really disillusioned... and seeing pretty much the same childish garbage you see everywhere else on the internet... Perhaps it's just that wikipedia is not as well equipped to handle these sorts of current events that consistently attract people who are just far too myopic... too invested in their little image of the world and can't see through it...

But regardless, it just seems like every time I come and visit this article it keeps getting worse, and if the system that's in place can't stop that from happening, I'm not going to continue banging my head into a wall trying to save various trees as the forest keeps slipping away. There's much better things to contribute that energy to. But I did want to say thanks to those of you who really provided great models for the type of editor a newcomer like me should strive to be. (hopefully you know who you are... and who you are not) cheers. --Izauze (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a sad development, if true. It seems WP:MASTODONS dominate from time to time, and this seems like a case in point.--Happysomeone (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to read this - you've done some valuable work here. It's always tough to improve an article that's so volatile, but I think we're making some progress. Best of luck. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn. I don't like to see people leave like this. I was about to congratulate you for actually taking time to do some research trying to understand the topic (as you mentioned above). Doing the research to develop a full picture rather than relying on preconceptions is the mark of a good, neutral editor.

I have to admit, though, that I share some of your feelings. I seldom edit here because I don't have the patience to engage in endless discussion over sometimes minor details. And I don't like to see arguments about editors when we should be having rational discussions about content.

Question: Your complaint about the article getting worse - is it a case of "can't see the forest through the trees"? Is it the overall (dis)organization that is the problem or are the details the problem? Too much, too little weight? Quality of prose? You could help the article even if you don't want to be active in day-to-day (minute-to-minute?) editing. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. (@sbowers: disorganization and details. I think agendas have twisted the overall shape and content. The prose and weight issues work themselves out once you have an established semi-stable frame, which heretofore has remained impossible) To be clear, I'm not leaving wikipedia, I just think there are better areas of wikipedia to contribute my energy (especially as my work picks up these next couple months). I think I've just maybe learned a lesson about what I need out of wikipedia - and that is other mature willing collaborators with a general desire for a neutral compilation of information. I've realized that there is a grey area one can exist in, where an editor maybe can continuously do damage to an article without going quite far enough to be considered officially disruptive by the administration. People with agendas who are dedicated enough CAN successfully game the system. I think it's great that some people are able to continue their efforts and I applaud that, but I know I don't have the time and energy to devote to plant seeds here and make sure they grow, when every time I come back to water them they've been eaten by vermin. I think I just have to accept that if I run into such obstacles again, I will just have to move onto something else where my contributions ARE appreciated and able to take root and grow. Sorry for the bad metaphor ;) cheers. --Izauze (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party

I think the newly minted Coffee Party deserves a mention since the Coffee Party was formed in part as a reaction to the Tea Party. Randal6546 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and there's already a link to an article about it here. Also, check out this interesting article

in today's L.A. Times:[[7]] This should probably be mentioned here.Malke2010 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No "Tea Bag Campaign" ever happened

The section on the so-called 'Tea Bag Campaign' is misleading. No such campaign happened and no reliable source is crediting Mr. Makohoniuk with starting a campaign. There are no reliable sources to support this edit, and even RoyGoldsmith admits this edit is original research.

Various protesters and some bloggers including Ron Paul's blog/website urged people to mail tea bags to the White House at various times. But as I've said several times here on the talk page, there is no evidence of a coordinated tea bag campaign that arose from any of these so-called 'calls,' to mail tea bags. And the New York Times article being cited to identify Mr. Makohoniuk, who is in the Virgin Islands and not even in the U.S., is the only citation that is valid and it makes no reference whatsoever to a tea bag campaign started by him. The only source is a primary source where he blogs to other finance types that they should send a tea bag. And even Mr. Makohoniuk himself is not claiming his blog post represents is a tea bag campaign, nor is he claiming credit for such a thing.

Additionally, there is no evidence in any reliable source that tea bags were even mailed to the White House and/or to Congress and what the response was. I would imagine this would have been covered if such an event as a "tea bag campaign" had taken place. It would certainly have been newsworthy.

As I've posted here several times, I have searched extensively, (and now this is the third time) on separate occasions and I can't find any reliable sources to support this edit. I don't see any reason for it being re-added. And I don't see any attempt by anyone to find reliable sources. Editors just seem to be adding it but not bothering to validate it. And per RoyGoldsmith's suggestion above to be WP:BOLD I am removing it. Before adding it back, please discuss on the talk page first and provide reliable sources for other editors to examine. Adding back original research to a live article can be seen as disruptive editing. And there is already a propensity by some here to use noticeboards instead of working to gain consensus. It is better all around when editors don't use edits to make a point or create a battlefield. There is no need for that so long as editors are willing to work within the process.Malke2010 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you can't find it is not the point. You must allow discussion for consensus before action is taken. This isn't the way consensus-building works. I only see one editor who has consistently removed disputed content without discussing it at the talk page. Despite advice from several other editors here and elsewhere on noticeboards advising the said editor to refrain from this type of editing, the same editor continues to actively engage in performing an end-run around any consensus measures.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop the WP:NPA and the WP:HARASS and WP:CANVASS. You have no credibility here, or on any of your favorite noticeboards.Malke2010 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a valid complaint, then bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise, work to build consensus. Also, Try looking in the mirror once in a while. You might want to take a moment to think about what you're saying before you're saying it.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

History section

I have copied this article's (much improved) history section into the Protests article. Per WP:SUMMARY I think that is the appropriate article to address the specific details such as the first tea party protest. Please direct any history section editing to that article, as I intend to replace the movement section here with a summary.

Below is my draft summary for the history. It's meant to be short and to the point. Please edit the section here if you think it's needed, and I will plop this into the article when it looks ready. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

History (please edit!) A Tea Party protester holds a sign saying "Remember: Dissent is Patriotic" at a Nashville Tea Party on February 27, 2009. Main article: Tea Party protests § History The theme of the Boston Tea Party has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. In September 2008, President Bush and the House and Senate were considering policies such as bailouts and stimulus bills to reverse the damage of the late-2000s recession caused by the housing crisis and the continuing costs of the war in Iraq. In response to the revelations of what the proposed bill contained, and the potential increase in national debt, organized protests began to emerge. As early as 2008 conservative activists were advocating various forms of protest. Town Hall meetings were held in the summer of 2009 by members of Congress who drew sharp criticism from their constituents about the stimulus package as well as the proposed health care reform bill. By February 2009, the first Tea Party rallies were held. They received considerable media coverage, and nationwide protests were held on Tax Day April 15th of that year. Tea Party protests continued throughout 2009, and as of 2010 the movement has drawn considerable attention from both political parties.

I agree that the history that is here is a bit TOO long, but I think the above minimizes it too much for a movement that is only a year old. Those protests are a BIG part of the movement and deserve a decent amount of space, even if every detail of who and exactly what is not necessary. As the parent article, it would seem we have to make the best article we can for its own sake and allow details we don't need to be sifted into any appropriate daughter articles...

For me these are the important "narrative points" to maintain (feel free to suggest others)

1. There were early, but perhaps lesser known tea party themed campaigns
2. ...which included mailing of tea bags
3. In reaction to stimulus, obama, etc. a series of non-tea themed protests occurred that (with support from the likes of michelle malkin, freedomworks) DID seem able to get some traction
4. ...which some now credit as the first tea partys... in spirit, if not in name
5. (maybe a mention of how some were already casting these 3 or 4 protests as the start of a movement, even then?)
6. the importance of santelli's rant, how it spread, and how that created a single Tea Party identity under which they could come together
7. first nationally coordinated protests

(and then we'd move into a little bit about the april tea bag campaign & tax day protests, along with maybe touching on Glenn Beck/9-12 and such, but we hadn't really gotten that far yet here.) --Izauze (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have bumped this to the end of the page because I'm planning to substitute the shortened text soon. Edit the box on the talk page before it goes into the article! MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Movement is the result of a groundswell from the foreclosures, job loses, the revelations of what the stimulus package would provide. These protests began in 2008, so please do not claim that the Tea Party Movement began on Barack Obama's inauguration day. Well established anti-tax groups started staging protests and Ron Paul started telling people to rally. So claiming the Obama connection is original research. I removed the Obama reference. Also, I didn't find any real protests on Obama's big day. The news channels were loaded with this historic moment. I watched CNN the whole day and I don't remember seeing anything about protests and they would certainly have mentioned them. But I do recall several spontaneous protests here in L.A. at bank closings, etc. where the LAPD showed up and that did make it to CNN, and those occurred in 2008. Definitely on Bush's watch. I will look for the others and give proper citations.

I added the town hall meetings. I'll find the citations for that. And I added the reasons for the recession which were the overheated housing market and the costs of the Iraq War.Malke2010 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no connection to 2008 protests currently in the long version of the history. Could you please provide citations for 2008 Tea Party protests? MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They weren't called Tea Party protests until 2009 with Keli Carender's second rally. The Tea Party Movement credits her with the first tea party. But there were protests long before 2008. Is this section exclusively devoted to tea parties? If so, then it is more appropriate to the Tea Party Protests of 2009 and doesn't fit here. The Movement is more than just tea parties.Malke2010 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see. The 2008 protests would be linked to the Tea Party in spirit if not in name. But we still need a source making this connection or it's OR. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Don't want OR. I'll round up the reliable sources from L.A. Times, etc. Here's a video. [8]. There's more on Youtube. And ACORN was very good at getting people organized and this might actually have been how people learned to organize.Malke2010 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The video is meant as tongue in cheek, btw, in case it isn't obvious.Malke2010 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These links will give you an idea of the mood and the various protests that actually began in 2007 as the economy started to collapse with the sudden wave of mortgage foreclosures. People protested the banks, the Federal Reserve, the Bush economic policy failures, etc.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/01/20/2009-01-20_fed_up__fighting_foreclosure_angry_group.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/14/business/fi-fannie14

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/business/fi-indymac12

New York Times re: foreclosures: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/nyregion/long-island/15forecloseli.html

New York Times: Foreclosures http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/foreclosures/index.html

video of fed reserve protest http://vimeo.com/2336395

End the Fed 39 cities November 18, 2008 http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2008/11/end_the_fed_protest_set_for_saturday_st_louis_federal_reserve_bank.php

Acorn http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08180/893285-53.stm

bankers http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-21/business/17137378_1_mortgage-investments-yerba-buena-gardens-mortgage-lending-field

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/22mortgage.html

http://www.proletarians.com:8080/2008/us/detroit_0501/

Columbia Law School http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ukNvfSKI6kkJ:www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/ag/predatorylend+protesters+2008+mortgage+foreclosures+washington+post&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCkFksigdEU New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12indymac.html Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/Fighting-Against-Foreclosures.html Bush’s policies

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/steven_rea/20080822_A_United_States_of_indebtedness.html People’s Summit June 2008, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB7fshPvt9M 2008 protests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc_64WW9FMQ&feature=related

ACORN Washington Mutual Foreclosure crisis http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/16205975/detail.html

all the Youtube videos have local news coverage for secondary, reliable sources. Malke2010 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's some good searching, but none of those sources actually draw the connection between the 2008 protests and the Tea Party movement - the link that you're asserting. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They're the same protests. People are protesting the same things, the tea party movement got it's name from Rick Santelli's famous 'rant' but Santelli was talking about the bail-out and the failed mortgages.[9] Scroll down and listen to the video. Malke2010 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Tea Party" protests got their name long before Santelli repeated the name: 2007 video Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

This edit could be viewed as disruptive, because the cite directly following the excised statement directly supports the claim. If there is a concern about OR, why not use an OR tag? If there was a genuine effort re:WP:AGF, one would expect a conscious editor to instead check the citations before deleting content. As has been advocated by others here, it is better to discuss OR concerns first in an attempt to preserve the efforts made there, rather than summarily dismiss them and hit the delete button.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, this edit is very helpful and really adds value to the article. It accurately depicts the kind of people that are involved in this movement. My only concern is that the comments need to be substantiated by valid citations. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How is mediabistro RS? It is a blog. Some of its contributors are or have been journalists but as a blog it has no editorial oversight or vetting process. It is true that we can use "blogs" when used as new media by reputable news outlets but mediabistro does not appear to meet the requirements. We should actually consider removing all information where it is used as the sole source.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No comment about Mediabistro, but TVNewser is a reliable source, and has been discussed before in relation to this very topic. (See this discussion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree TV Newser is a RS, so I added that to the Roesgen contract not being renewed. And I'm putting this comment out of order since you have said you prefer that.Malke2010 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, TV Newser is a reliable source. No, TV Newser never said Roesegn wasn't renewed because of the Tea Party interview -- that is just your incorrect opinion. No, I never said I prefer comments out of order -- that is also your incorrect opinion. Mischaracterizing what sources say and what editors say will not serve you well as a Wikipedia editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I could not find a reliable source for the quote of a CNN spokesman claiming Susan Roesgen was just doing her job. No such quote was ever made, her interview was edited out of subsequent videos of the protest and her contract was not renewed a few months later. She got bounced for being inappropriate and unprofessional.Malke2010 06:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she didn't get bounced for being inappropriate and unprofessional, but thanks for your opinion. And the CNN spokesperson quote is reliably sourced. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit included quotes about the guy with the Hitler sign, etc. And it more accurately depicted what Susan Roesgen was doing. The edit that Happysomeone inappropriately reverted to without using the talk page, as is his habit, does not make the point that Roesgen was confrontational and belligerant. My edit is not deceptive as the edit that Happysomeone is insisting on. And Happysomeone actually went so far as to put a warning on my talk page about being disruptive. Over a valid, clarifying edit that had reliable sources. I think we're dealing with a disruptive pachyderm type. here.Malke2010 05:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some are of the opinion that Roesgen was confrontational (that is in the article), while others are of the opinion she didn't challenge the protestors enough. Is this an article about interview techniques? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So is any of it even needed? Both pieces. Mediabistro appears to not be RS so why do we need a counter to it at all. Yank out the whole paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Mediabistro is not WP:RS. Happysomeone is just stirring the pot. Notice how he's stating up there what to do if one is concerned about OR. Yet, he went to the OR/Noticeboard saying I'd made an OR edit and it wasn't even my edit. He's just racking up nonsense. Administrators can see that he is using these tactics instead of making any attempt at consensus. He's still enraged about the Keli Carender edit I made two weeks ago. There's nothing he can do about it. He's enraged that Carender makes reference to Seattle as the "bluest of blue cities," which supports the fact that the Tea Party Movement is made up of all kinds of people, including Democrats, etc. I've been put through a frivolous 3RR, a false OR/Noticeboard and a false Wikialert all within less than a week. The good news is, it's obvious what he's doing.Malke2010 08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

TVNewser (hosted by MediaBistro) is a reliable ssource for factual matters regarding the news industry, and those in it. (See this discussion). As for the comments about other editors, those are inappropriate for an article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Malke2010, it would be best for all of us if you didn't assume the facts or my intent and actually understood what actions were actually taken by whom. This was my sole contribution to the Roesgen section. You will also note that my initial comment was directed at the contribution, not the editor. I placed a "delete" warning (distinct from the "vandalism" template) on your page intended as a courtesy. Yes, it was a template, supplemented by additional comments that specified my concern. If you felt upset by the fact that a template shouldn't be used on a "regular", then I apologize. --Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot, he put a vandalism template on my talk page.Malke2010 08:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I had the whole don't template the regulars thing ready but someone already did it. I just deleted the whole paragraph than realized it stretched into the next one so reverted. Is any of the stuff regarding this one interview necessary or is it just using sources to point then counter point? Nothing wrong with her article maybe since it looks to be a defining point (from a quick glance) but it is one of god knows how many interviews and stories aired about the movement. Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, none of these paragraphs are appropriate, but a long time ago, I cleaned up this section with just two paragraphs and Happysomeone dumped it all back into the article. I just added RS to the CNN not renewing Roesgen's contract. The only thing that should be in the Media section is one or two paragraphs about the Fox News/MSNBC tit for tat. It's all much ado, and out of proportion to the rest of the article. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Malke2010 08:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You added that CNN will not be renewing Roesgen's contract, but failed to add that she won Emmy awards - both have the same relevance to the Tea Party movement. Why is that? (12 CNN employees all received simultaneous notice that their contracts would not be renewed, btw - but speculate all you want, it's WP:OR.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well tit-for-tat then. If we are going to present one side might as well the other. And those sources are madley interesting. If removing most of that is acceptable to others I might be on board. We are toeing the line between thoroughness and bloat for now.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all bloat. All this is needed is a paragraph or two from RS that mention that Fox News covered it and claimed the others didn't and the MSNBC comments characterizing the protesters. It can be just the U.S. News & World Report. There's no need for anything beyond that. Same thing with the astroturfing. It's just bloat.Malke2010 09:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen from the diff of the specific edit I was focused on, I objected to removing the description of the interview based on an erroneous edit summary that described the removed content as "OR". My observation had nothing to do with a mediabistro cite or any other material that is questioned as WP:RS.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malke2010 that the section is bloated, and could use some trimming. Is there agreement on the specific points we want the "Claims of bias in media ceverage" section to convey? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be removing only my edits that clarify what Roesgen's interview was like and that she made herself part of the story by attacking the protesters. My edit is accurate and well sourced and should not have been deleted. Please don't edit war over this.Malke2010 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who made the improper edits I removed - the editing screen doesn't give me that information, nor do I need to know - if they are improper, then I remove them. As for the opinion that Roesgen's interview was confrontational, I didn't remove that. It is still in the article Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roesgen didn't win an Emmy award for her belligerent interview. What she won was a failure to renew her contract. That is relevant to the media bias and it belongs in the article. Please don't remove it again. And when you put comments out of order, other editors can easily miss them.Malke2010 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerent interview?" I see that word being repeatedly inserted as a statement of fact, without the backing of reliable sourcing. Could you please provide the source here? We also need a reliable source stating Roesgen's contract waasn't renewed because of that interview. Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course the best solution would be to reduce the entire section to just a paragraph or two that uses reliable sources to describe the bias and does not get into all the bloat.Malke2010 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you both stop reverting each other and come here to discuss it with the rest of us, before making an edit? Aren't there rules about this? There's always the Sandbox, as well. Geez.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been page protected for now. I say again, the media section and the astro turf sections are WP:UNDUE. And since Happysomeone now seems willing to work toward consensus, we should be able to edit these down to two paragraphs without any problems.Malke2010 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Start a new section, please, to scope out the measure of your edit and the proposed form you'd like it to take. Clearly, there are others here that disagree with a small edit concerning the CNN reporter, so a larger edit concerning those two entire sections will likely be contested. Also, I'm warning you to please stop mischaracterizing and assuming my position here. Just leave it out.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit is a valid one. The entire interview was conducted in a belligerent way by Roesgen, yet the edit was crafted to make it appear otherwise. It is not a small edit by any means. It brings the facts of the situation to light. Afterall, the section is about the media injecting itself into the tea party movement. Susan Roesgen has done that in a big way. And her interviews were edited out of subsequent shows.Malke2010 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We could really cut out everything about this chick. I don't care that one discussions on her article created a flawed consensus. We should probably take Mediabistro to the RS noticeboard. A single line saying a single reported presented informaiton and it was later revealed to be questionable with a link to a paragraph on her article (no job because of it it looks like) might be better. Cut the bulk of it.Cptnono (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See below.Malke2010 04:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents: I don't care if Roesgen won an Emmy or got fired, unless it's connected to the incident in question. She's a reporter, that's good enough. Secondly, the word "belligerent" reeks of POV even if it's true. Maybe "critical" would be less contentious? We can also use the National Review quote. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

She never got fired (and she has covered several high-profile stories after this live report). Some editors would like to try to sneak in content implying her contract wasn't renewed because of this event, without a reliable source saying so, and that is a WP:BLP violation. That is why the violation has been removed each of the previous times it was inserted into this article. The POV word "belligerent" is from an opinion piece, but has been added to the article as a statement of fact, also against policy. Sure, we can use the NR opinion quote, and any of the several dozen other opinions criticizing and praising her live report that day - how about 5 of each? Or 10 of each? Why not make a whole subsection of the article about her Chicago report? Or we can trim it down to just a couple representative opinions reflecting each side and avoid the inevitable bloat. Oh wait, we did that already. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Roesgen Edit

Here is the current stable and reliably sourced content, as it has remained for more than six months:

On Tax Day, April 15, 2009, CNN reporter Susan Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago, including one protester calling Barack Obama a fascist and carrying sign depicting him as Adolf Hitler, and another protester that praised Abraham Lincoln. Sources close to the situation told TV Newser that Roesgen heard shouts as she was reporting, including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch," from the crowd. Roesgen concluded her live shot with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra" Mona Charen of the National Review said that the interview style was confrontational. George Washington University professor of media Frank Sesno defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged. A CNN spokesperson said, "She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it."

You'll note that it has one representative opinion each from a positive and negative critic, and a comment by her employer. This section used to be stuffed with about 15 comments from both partisan extremes, but was trimmed down to its present form by consensus. Now it has been proposed that we re-inflate this section - and use non-reliable sources and original research to do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you will not do it, I will help you. Here was the proposed edit:

On Tax Day, April 15, 2009, CNN reporter Susan Roesgen using a belligerent tone, interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago, including one protester calling Barack Obama a fascist and carrying sign depicting him as Adolf Hitler, and another protester that praised Abraham Lincoln. Sources close to the situation told TV Newser that Roesgen heard shouts as she was reporting, including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch," from the crowd. Mark Hemingway of the National Review criticized Roesgen’s confrontational behavior saying that “She attends the Chicago tea party, picks some wacko out of the crowd and tries to argue with him about whether Obama's a fascist (and even then the guy with the ridiculous Obama-as-Hitler sign comes off more willing to engage in discussion than her), then she talks to a guy who seems perfectly reasonable and rudely cuts him off multiple times.”Roesgen concluded her live shot with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra" Mona Charen of the National Review said that the interview style was confrontational. George Washington University professor of media Frank Sesno defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged. A CNN spokesperson said, "She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it." Julia Seymour of the Business and Media Institute noted that a partial clip of Roesgen being belligerent with a protester was shown during CNN’s “Situation Room,” with Howard Kurtz, but that two hours later the clip had been edited out of Kurtz’s comments and replaced with video of a calmer reporter. Roesgen’s contract was not renewed by CNN in July 2009

(The bold sections indicate the new porposed content additions. -Xenophrenic)

OK. Discuss.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is "too much detail". It isn't clear why the incident deserves this level of weight. It should get a sentence or two. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be eliminated all together. See below.Malke2010 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloat.Cptnono (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is going to be used at all, then we'll stick with the reliably sourced much shorter version - but I wouldn't argue against it leaving the article altogether. As for the proposed inflation of the segment with more talking-head opinions cited to unreliable sources above (Media Research Center and NewsBusters, for example); insertion of blatant original research (like trying to tie Roesgen's contract renewal with this event); and unsourced POV insertions like "using a belligerent tone" (sorry, that's from an opinion piece, not a factual source) -- that isn't likely to happen while Wikipedia still has policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the current description of this incident at the Susan Roesgen page? --Happysomeone (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't explain what she did. It makes the reader wonder why there was commentary about her. And eventually the video is seen and that makes her behavior clear.Malke2010 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean this video of the nice, pleasant folks at the Chicago Tea Party? As for her article, which is a biography about her, and not a 2-minute newscast she did, the consensus was to reduce it to its present state and let readers come here for more info. 3 edits ago, it said exactly what this article does (pre-BLP-vios, I mean). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So it appears you'd favor some mention then? If so, what is notable about this interview? You suggest the video is key. From your past edits it appears you emphasize her "belligerent" tone. My response to that is: 1) There have been some serious WP:BLP and WP:RS concerns raised about that particular edit, and 2) The video also presents other equally notable issues. That's my view.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't favor any mention of her at all. It seems it was one interview. CNN apparently only showed it once. Then they edited it out of subsequent clips of the Tea Party. It might be the edit is there at all because someone wants to keep the Hitler reference in order to make the Tea Party protesters out to be Hitler-esque fascists. That would have serious BLP issues as well. The article should be balanced. And cherry picking protesters to portray one view is not accurate. The article is about the Movement in general. And in general, they're just regular people being hit hard by the economic crisis. Looking at the video, Mark Hemingway of National Review is right. The Hitler guy comes across as more reasonable than her. I've never seen a CNN reporter behave like that.Malke2010 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, her interview was aired several times, and then portions of it were replayed and discussed several more times during other segments the rest of the week (Like King's discussion about it, for instance). I wouldn't be against removing it altogether. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean this video of the nice, pleasant folks at the Chicago Tea Party? As for her article, which is a biography about her, and not a 2-minute newscast she did, the consensus was to reduce it to its present state and let readers come here for more info. 3 edits ago, it said exactly what this article does (pre-BLP-vios, I mean). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about Roesgen's interview.Malke2010 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That's the one I linked. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is the man with his baby trying to answer her question which she repeatedly interrupts him and then they start shouting "Let him speak," and I note also nobody yelled 'shut up bitch.' And also note: you can't see HER behavior in this clip. And I love the poster, "Republicans Suck Too." I will find the clip of the her behavior.Malke2010 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I also couldn't hear the "shut up bitch", "cunt", the F-bombs launched by the gentleman holding the child, and other obscenities over the loud chanting of "CNN sucks" and "go home CNN". I do see her interrupt the man as he rambles through his talking point speech, but it's the other protestor (with the yellow flag) that does the most interrupting. I can see her behavior in this clip, and I think she remained quite composed under that onslaught. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This video shows the interview with the man and his baby, but then it includes off camera discussion with a protester. This protester answers questions about why she's there, etc. [10]. Malke2010 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that video, too. Roesgen still seems very composed, even after the CNN piece wrapped up (hey, I can hear some of the F-bombs from daddy in this one!). I've also seen footage of her conversations with baby-daddy and Hitler-sign-man before her actual interview, where she gets their OK to be interviewed and talks a little with them, and there's also footage of even more conversation with those protestors afterwards that the FoundingBloggers didn't dare include. YouTube has a zillion of them. Bottom line: some view her interview as confrontational and unprofessional, while others applaud her for asking the tough questions and remaining calm through all the hostility and heckling. Opinions, and more opinions - but what does it add to this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Roesgen adds anything to this article. The point of the video I posted was to show protesters who were there for themselves.Malke2010 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Media Section

In an effort to avoid any further edit wars, I propose that the media section be eliminated and that in its place we craft two paragraphs, using agreed upon sources, to describe in an neutral point of view as possible, to include the following:

1) Fox News covered the protests and used the protests in their ads. Fox News took out ads suggesting no other news outlet covered, etc.

2) That MSNBC and CNN countered these claims.

3) Using sources that are not directly involved: the best sources might be U.S. News and World Report and an article by Howard Kurtz, who I know is not unbiased, but he did finally say that the media was starting to make the story about them and not about the protests.

4) I think the Roesgen interview should be eliminated n it's entirety because it's contentious and it's only one interview and doesn't really deserve mention in the first place. She doesn't work for CNN anymore, they only showed her interview that one day, etc., so I think including it at all is WP:UNDUE.

5) No quotes from any news anchors, commentators, talking heads, as in "Joe said on MSNBC, etc. and then Tom said on Fox etc." The comments are stale and invite opposing edits, which leads to bloat, etc.

The point of the media section should be that the media on all sides made the story more about themselves, and not about the protesters. And yes, there was derision of the protesters by the media, but adding quotes and all the rest of it leads to contention and edit wars.

I think we've seen enough of that here. I've certainly been guilty of it myself and no more is needed here by anybody. Also, when asking for comments from editors, please be aware that everybody has RL issues and cannot always come back and respond quickly. But since we have two weeks to get this written and resolved, I think it is possible to come up with an edit that will satisfy everybody.

And because RoyGoldsmith is really good at organizing the comments and asking for support/don't support postings (I don't want to say getting votes because there's no voting on Wikipedia) to establish where we stand and gain consensus, I recommend that he do this here. And if we get it done quickly, we can go on to other things and maybe by the time the page is available again, RoyGoldsmith can post it and also embed the notes about consensus so other editors will come here first with questions/objections.

But everybody has to be willing to work together. That means, don't be snarky, don't be married to your edits, think of the reader, and forgive and forget. It's just Wikipedia. And this should be fun. It's our free time, afterall, and we shouldn't be spending it under stress.Malke2010 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is pretty long and could be condensed a bit. But there really is too much content to be fit in two paragraphs. When we can edit the page again I'll take a shot at condensing things incrementally. I agree with an emphasis on sources "not directly involved", although there's nothing wrong with using an agency's coverage as a source on that coverage. The trap (which we seem to fall into a bit) is to have too many detailed quotes turning into "he said she said." The Roesgen interview, for example, might be useful as an example to illustrate CNN's coverage but right now it has excessive weight. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's something that can be looked at. We can make suggestions about what should be included and then we can practice with it here. I think we should try to condense as much as possible. A lot of it is not necessary. We don't need Jon Stewart or the Scott Brown quote. He's a senator now media personality, etc. Malke2010 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree that the section is unwieldy, and possibly WP:UNDUE, but in the past there's been a rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am definitely not in favor of a "condense at all costs" approach. My view is there should be a greater emphasis on WP:VERIFY first.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Balance with reliable sources written to be clear and concise.Malke2010 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that in principal, but we're asked to make a qualitative assessment, per WP:VALID. "The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views" and "we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are note worthy."--Happysomeone (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is plenty out there about the Fox/Other Cables debate. And Rick Sanchez of CNN had a nice quote. And Howard Kurtz' is hardly on Fox's side, but he even he said the media were making themselves part of the story. That's the point. The media was making itself part of the story. Fox was like a cheerleader for these rallies, and the others derisive. It was the same on both sides.Malke2010 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"And Howard Kurtz' is hardly on Fox's side, but he even he said the media were making themselves part of the story. That's the point. The media was making itself part of the story." Agreed. And we have RS for that. And it's notable.

"Fox was like a cheerleader for these rallies, and the others derisive." Disagree. It's a blanket statement of Fox vs the Whole World. I don't see the RS for that.

"It was the same on both sides." Hmm. The cheerleading for (by Fox) and against (by everyone else) the protests, in equal measure? I think it's a little less black and white than that. I always thought the US News and World report story had it about right.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You can find sources that to support any argument. Rachel Maddow was talking with a guest about the protesters and mentioned scrotums and teabagging, etc. 51 times in 10 minutes. That's kinda over the top. I liked Rick Sanchez from CNN's quote and the US News and World Report. And Howard Kurtz. The point is, they all made themselves part of the story instead of staying out of it like their professional ethics says they should.Malke2010 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer to stick with RS sources to support the claims made here. And I'm not sure you could find yourself an RS that says "they all made themselves part of the story".--Happysomeone (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of article uses very old material

Much of the article, particularly in the Responses section, uses material that is almost a year old - when the movement was just a bunch of protests, and not called a movement. The first few paragraphs in Politics are from last April; the Obama reactions are from April; most of the bias in media section is from April. If we were writing this article from scratch now, I doubt that we would have so much material from so long ago.

It might be useful to have a very small set of old material to show the early reactions, but then have more material from later in the year and from more recently to show how reactions have evolved. Rather than discussing the Roesgen interview from almost a year ago, when it was just a few minutes from what now must be millions of minutes of coverage, and rather than trying to fine tune all this old material it might be more useful to think about how the article might be organized if we started from a blank piece of paper and tried to collect references to show the history and evolution of the movement with a mixture of old, not so old, and recent material. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a fresh perspective that we have not considered here. You are absolutely right. These sources are old and the whole article is old. A mixture of sources as you said, would probably help alleviate a lot of problems. Malke2010 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--Happysomeone (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Racist

Why is there no discussion of the role racism played/plays in the the teabag movement? A movement which arose when the first African-American was elected president. Nitpyck (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Compile some reliable sources, be bold WP:BB, and add it - perhaps under the controversey section. It's obviously a touchy subject, so one has to be careful in covering it in regards to WP:NPOV... --Izauze (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The discussion over the "Racism" subsection in the article continues in the latter part on the #Discussions about Incorrect Citations below, beginning with "Speaking of WP:BLP, I just deleted a new section by an IP titled "Racism". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem. has brought up a valid point, therefore steps should be taken right here to address the role racism has played in the teabagging movement so that information can be added to the article. Clearly there will be many deletion-happy people out there who will be quick to butcher such statements, so this is why the issue of racism should be brought up here...for concensus. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should state that if the KKK was legal today the Tea Party members would be in it. the opposition to Obama from this group is race based, its just a new name for the same old racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.138.3 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Nitpyck did not bring up a valid point. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Just because Obama is black does not mean any opposition to him is racist. It's actually more racist of you to assume that anyone who is against a black president must automatically be racist. The reason why you are racist for assuming that is because it implies there is no logical reason a person would be against a black president. There would be no logical reason for a person to be against a black president if such a black president could possibly do noo wrong. Either he can do no wrong a) because he's black, or b) because he's a president. Bush was a president who wasn't 100 percent right, so obviously you feel that Obama can do no wrong, simply because he's black. That means that you put black people on a higher level than someone of a different race. Therefore, your statement is racist. -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The KKK is legal today. Riffraffselbow (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

67.42.107.14, The accusation of racism did not come simply from the fact that they oppose President Obama. There are many other elements of the tea party movement that scream racism. These people are spitting on African American congressmen and yelling racial epithets during protests. These protesters are primarily white and have not only made it clear that they are anti-Obama, but are opposed to a diverse United States. Racism is one of the most important elements of the tea party movement and should be represented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwizard (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

background

You know, this tea party has really morphed into a fringe element/extremist organization, why doesn't the article reflect that at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.110.43 (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No I don't know. Reliable sources would help verify. In the future, please sign your posts with ~~~~ and add comments at the end of subsections instead of up top.Cptnono (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The citations do not support Izauze's claim that the protest rallies emerged as President Obama took office. This is original research on his part. I checked the citations given there and they do not support his claim. He reverted what I removed. This is his typical pattern for disruptive editing. He doesn't go to the talk page first to ask or to offer an new version. President Obama is not the cause of the rallies. The economy is the cause as the tea party organizers make plain. The movement was not started because President Obama is the first black president. Slipping in President Obama's name there makes it appear that he is part of the reason and that is just not true.Malke2010 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Izauze please review WP:STATUSQUO before you revert again. Please stop this disruptive style of editing. You make claims not backed by citations and then you get upset and revert another editor's good faith edit of your work. Please review policies and use the talk page. When an editor sees information that is not verified, they can remove it. You can't just put it back. You then come here to the talk page and open the discussion if you disagree.Malke2010 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I didn't mean to offend you. You made an edit because you said there was no citation. So I simply added the citation. If you look over WP:revert you will see that you shouldn't delete information except as a last resort or vandalism. If you felt it was unsuported by citation, all you have to do is request a cite. Now that we're discussing this, which I appreciate, I'll make my case that the information IS supported by the cite. It says "Many of those attending said that Mr Obama’s election and big-spending, deficit-expanding first year had been a sort of negative epiphany." This seems supportive of the fact that the movement arose partially in opposition to his presidency. Even the rep from freedomworks (who organized the first tea partys) said that the Feb 10th protest was the first tea party protest because it is the first anti-obama protest he knew of. Therefore, he is using "anti-obama" as on of the qualifiers for what a tea partier originally was about. Interested to hear your view though. --Izauze (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your citation does not support this claim. As I said, you are performing original research when you claim that the tea party rallies emerged in response to President Obama assuming office. The Economist article you cite makes no such claim. You have already been told by an administrator that but for the fact that the noticeboard complaint had gone stale he would have blocked you for your four reverts in less than 24 hours. Please review policy and do not edit war here on this page. You have caused disruption here already. Please stop. I've left an edit warring notice on your talk page. Please heed the warning and review policies.Malke2010 06:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You can leave notices wherever you please, but the fact remains that you have reverted twice now - not I. If anyone else wants to wiegh in on the question of whether Obama's presence in the presidency has NO connection to the increase in protests which led up to the tea party, I'd like to hear from them. To me it seems wrong purely by common sense as well as cites and other information already on this page, but if you want to make the contrary case, I'd like to hear it. In the future I'd like you to follow WP:revert and WP:AGF. --Izauze (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed original research which does not count. You do not have a source for your claim about President Obama. There are no rallies protesting the Obama presidency. This is your POV. This is disruptive editing for you to simply put this assertion in another section on the article page. Please remove this. You can be blocked for this behavior.Malke2010 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure I have a source - I even quoted from it above. And I can get plenty more if that would help to satisfy you, as there is no shortage of article talking about the tea party as a reaction to obama's presidency. --Izauze (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are continuing to insert this edit [11] into various sections of the article in violation of WP:SYN. This is disruptive editing. This is your second warning. Please go back and remove these edits. You can be blocked for disruptive editing without having violated 3RR.Malke2010 07:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection to this one now? Please WP:AGF. --Izauze (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of hurling blockage threats against Izauze what about entertaining the idea that he has got a point. Engage in civil discussion. All interested parties need to bring their citations to the discussion, not simply revert edits because their are petty disagreements going on. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Too much for me

Izause and Malke apparently have been editing and arguing since 5:23 UTC, when I asked them to step out. I guess they have too much involved, emotionally, to take a one or two day break and calm down. (I'm not saying they fighting. In my opinion, they're each on an editing-high and those highs feed off each other.) Their comments above (and below) are obviously only meant for themselves; it would take far to much trouble to figure out what specific change they were talking about in any remark-and-reply mini-conversation. And they may have settled it already. I sure hope they're using something like the WP:BRD cycle or most of their work will come to naught.

Happysomeone, I'm sorry that I can't deal with your fixes to Fox News right now. Until this exchange burns down to a level I can deal with, I wouldn't get any satisfaction from editing the article. Two of the references with embedded quotations (Zernike, Feb 27) that I spent a fair amount of time on last week were deleted in the rush. (See here and here.) I know some people will say "You added the quotations a whole week ago and you expected them to survive without constant attention and fights?!?". Well, I guess that is what I expected. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roy, I don't think it's accurate to portray me in that way. Izauze is making changes that border on vandalism. And your dismissive comments and attitude are not helping things here. The article has been coming along and the editors were working well. Izauze seems to have taken on a new editing pattern. I have done no such thing. And no, I don't go to noticeboards with frivolous complaints in an effort to get an editor blocked as Izauze has done.

If you care about this article and a cooperative editing environment, you should be aware that comments such as those above are provocative and claiming editors are on 'editing highs' can also be taken as a personal attack, which coming from you surprises me. Also, Happysomeone's wishes for an edit do not take precedence over any other editor, so it would be better if in the future you simply address all the editors here in an attempt to get things back on track.Malke2010 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

hah, I actually agree with Malke. :) I agree that Roy, comments like these are completely inappropriate. Please point to a concrete example of an inappropriate action I've taken next time, and I can try to address it - otherwise it's just looking like a personal attack. I've done nothing but help make this article better, I don't appreciate the repeated discouragement of an active good faith editor, calling me out in a public forum as if such a tactic is somehow helpful, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I could have had something to do with your missing contributions. I rarely if ever delete things unless it's out and out vandalism. --Izauze (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Citations

The following citations are missing or need to be reviewed, revised and/or replaced:

Lead section

• as well as the 2008 bailouts[3] -- dubious; the citation uses "bailout" in a general sense, not just for the bank bailout of Oct 2008.
• revelations about bonuses paid to AIG executives[4][5] -- both citations disputed; neither about Tea Party.
• It has been most visible through a series of Tea Party protests, which have occurred ever since early 2009 -- citation needed.
• the social networking outlets Facebook, Twitter and MySpace as well as blogs and conservative media outlets[6] in promoting Tea Party events[7] -- partially disputed; MySpace not mentioned in either citation.
• The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation in the British Parliament[8] -- original synthesis? The citation says nothing about Boston or taxation, with or without representation.
• Tea Party protests have nevertheless sought to evoke similar images, slogans and themes to this period in American history[9][10][11]. Requesting quotation(s) from any of the three references: where is the material on "similar images, slogans and themes" that Wikipedia is summarizing/paraphrasing?

Positions and goals

• "This is a protest that has been in government the last few years... Bush himself was guilty of socialist policies" -- this quotation does not appear in either of the two citations.
  • "Bush himself was guilty of socialist policies" quote removed at 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) for BLP reasons. Uncited quotation dispute still stands for "This is a protest that has been in government the last few years...". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• "It’s obvious they’re trying to ride on the brand that we created... It’s somewhat insulting."[13][14] -- this quotation does not appear in either of the two citations.
• the protests could have tapped into real feelings of disillusionment by American moderates...[16] -- original synthesis? Please quote the material in the citation that is being summarized or paraphrased.
• "It's very much anti-establishment at both parties....They don't care about party labels." -- this quotation does not appear in the citation. [See "Ghost Story" below.]
• "I think we're getting to the point where you can truly say we're entering a post-party era. They aren't going to be necessarily wed to a certain party -- they want to see leadership that reflects their values first.....They don't care what party you're in; they just want to know if you reflect their values -- limited government, fixing the economy."[19] -- this quotation does not appear in the citation. [See "Ghost Story" below.]
• Thomas B. Edsall in The New Republic concludes that the findings of Robert D. Putnam... -- misplaced citation. The reference to "Ghost Story", now being used for the paragraph above about Ned Ryun, belongs on this paragraph; please relocate it.

Etymology

Section skipped for now.

History

Background

• The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints.[28][29][30] -- the last two citations disputed. Both are about the same event and, although they mention Tea Bag, neither mentions Tea Party or Boston Tea Party.

• It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[31][32][33][34] -- second and third citations disputed. The news articles were published in July and October and don't refer to Tax Day in April.

• ...and details of the 2009 stimulus bill became known, including the provision for the AIG executive bonuses...[38][39][40] -- all three citations disputed; none mention stimulus or AIG.

"Tea bag" campaign

• On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a portfolio manager for an investment firm[41] posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate".[42] The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout." [43] -- all three the last two citations disputed. The first has nothing to do with Tea Parties; it's about a Mexican cement manufacturer. The next two are self-published posts to a forum-style chat area.
  • Upon review, the first citation does say Makohoniuk is a portfolio manager of an investment firm. I am therefore withdrawing the objection to the first citation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forum moderator, Stephanie Jasky helped organize the group and "get it to go viral."[44]...She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1, 2009) in a coordinated effort.[44] -- disputed; another self-published post to the same chat area.
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party."[48] -- date and quotation disputed. (Scroll down to The Long Arm of Goldman Sachs.) Date is April 12, 2009; quote is "Attend one of the many Tea Parties; start your own".
  • If the change is approved, this sentence would read "On April 12, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation to "attend one of the many Tea Parties; start your own". Since the date is now April and the reference is to Tea Parties rather than Tea Bags, the sentence should be removed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO),[49]... -- disputed. A Facebook mirror of that same, self-published chat area.
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail out of Bear Sterns, had been a guest on both Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports.[51][52] -- for both citations: publishing date (of video) not found.

Denninger was on Glenn Beck August 21, 2008. His part starts about half way through video. He said that his group started the protest against Fannie and Freddie about 6 or 7 months prior. [12] I also saw a reference for a CNBC appearance by Denninger but there's nothing about tea bags. Hope this helps. Malke2010 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On his blog in 2009, Denninger asked people to send a tea bag to the White House, but there's no reliable source I can find that says people did this or that the White House said they received it, which I doubt they would anyway. I also found a source that said there was a problem if people sent tea bags, especially loose tea, because of anthrax concerns post after the post 9/11 anthrax mail attacks. So probably most people didn't do that for fear they'd get a visit from the FBI. Personally, I'd never mail anything to the White House after 9/11. That could be why nothing ever came of it. In any event, it doesn't deserve it's own heading or claim of a tea bag campaign.Malke2010 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, but only for Denninger's appearence on Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports right now. Upon review, I can find no reason why the lack of a date should per se preclude a valid citation. I have not yet seen the broadcasts in their entirety and do not know about the veracity of the other claims. However, if those claims are verified, I see no reason for removing the entire sentence simply because of missing dates. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign.[53] -- citation doesn't mention forums or email campaigns as of Feb 1st and the only reference to a blog is Carender's, covered elsewhere in this article.
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• ...who that morning had outlined his plan to use the $300 billion or so dollars remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. He intended to use $50 billion for foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks.[55] -- disputed; citation doesn't mention Tea Bags or Tea Party.
  • Original material contributed by Izauze at 07:35, 2 March 2010 --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tea bag" campaign, phase II

I have restored this subsection to the way it was on March 9th, inserting the appropriate tags (like ^{[non-primary source needed]} and ^{[not in citation given]}) where ever needed. I have also tracked down the original editor of each bullet point above and posted a message to their user talk page.

Let's give them at least a few days to respond before removing the content specified in the bullet point. Remember, the documentation on these types of citation templates suggests that "most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a [better] citation can be provided." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More to come...

As each citation is resolved, please indicate the resolution with your signature after each bullet point. You can use the {{resolved|1=~~~~}} tag if you like. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about Incorrect Citations

The Tea bag campaign is original research. I can't find any credible news source that credits the fiannce guys with starting any such thing. Nor can I find any widespread "campaign" to mail tea bags to Washington. I mentioned this earlier and in posts above. This is OR and I'm removing it.Malke2010 18:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, please do not remove Tea Bags without a consensus. (If you have already, please put it back.) You are only one of perhaps five or ten editors and everybody should get a chance to express their views before we remove anything. This is not the time to Be Bold.

What you can do is to insert your comments above, beneath any specific bullet point, telling your findings about the individual source or reference itself. You should not comment on (or remove!) any text in the article right now. You can comment on whether the citation applies to the material in question.

This will take us more time but I believe it will result in fewer changes (or edit wars) in the future. If you want, you can always insert a {{important-section}} or a {{citecheck|section|talk=Incorrect citations}} banner at the beginning of the section and forget about it for now. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to unilateral action on this edit until consensus is established. Please restore the deleted content.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on tea bags greatly reduced

I see that some editor has greatly contracted the contents of the Tea bag campaign subsection, removing almost all of the citations mentioned above and reducing four paragraphs to one. The heading was even changed from "Tea bag" campaign to Use of Tea Bags.

These actions might be considered disruptive to the consensus process. We have not yet even determined that any of the citations above are invalid. All we have now is opinions (mine included) that the material that depends on these citations may be original synthesis or self-published or disputed in some other way. Just because we can't find any credible news source doesn't mean that other editors can't.

We, as a group, have not allowed, as yet, other editors to come up with better citations nor to comment on why my contentions above may be wrong. Please remember that these editors have spent a great amount of their voluntary time assembling their material and citations. We can afford to spend a week, or a month, deciding on this. We shouldn't just remove most of their work in less than a day.

Because of this, I invite the editor or editors who condensed the Tea bag campaign subsection as it was at 17:01, 9 March 2010 to restore it and its heading so that we may continue the consensus process with all of the above, disputed citations intact. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. How long shall we wait for a response?--Happysomeone (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the article is live. We always have to remember that. And it's good to remember also to assume the editor had good faith here, especially since the removal in question was well explained in the edit summary. The edit by me to remove OR is a good faith edit in that I've recently explained my reasons several times on these talk pages prior to removing it. There is no notability for a tea bag campaign, nor are there any reliable sources to back up these claims that this finance guy named George started any kind of national tea bag campaign. Nor are there any reliable sources that say all these tea bags were received by various congressman and senators and the White House. I Googled this, searched the New York Times archives, the Washington Post, etc. there's nothing. This is the very definition of original research and can be deleted. The only source for these claims is the guy's website, which is a primary source and is not reliable. If a 'tea bag campaign' has been widely reported and credited to members of the Tea Party movement or that some tea bag campaign is what started the entire Tea Party Movement, then it could be included after discussion here, but for now, restoring original research in a live article doesn't seem like it will help the project.Malke2010 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some editors believe that some articles are "live" and therefore deserve special treatment, particularly in the area of immediate removal. This is a valid point of view but, for any given article, it does not override consensus.

• First, the only policy that speaks about immediate removal is WP:BLP. Other than that, the majority of Wikipedia essays on how to deal with current events say to take it slow.
• Second, I disagree that our article is live. Certainly, it's not a live as, say, the February 2010 Chile earthquake. The Tea Party movement began in early 2009. It's tough to see a current event lasting a full year. Is Barack Obama a "live" article? How about the US Congress (or even the 111th United States Congress)? Are they live? We also have the subarticle Tea Party protests. In my opinion, if anything deserves the appellation of "live", it's Tea Party protests, not Tea Party movement. What do we mean by "live"? Just an article that many people will be interested in?
• Third, but even if the article is live (whatever that means), that does not give us the right the remove significant content from the article without discussion. This is because, once removed and sufficient time has gone by so that all the active editors have forgotten that material, it is not recoverable. Even if some editor might have found some other, valid reference (or explained why the current reference was valid). Therefore, we should delete material only after extended discussion, here on the talk page and also after inline warnings (like ^{[citation needed]}), invisible comments and messages to the original editors' user talk pages.
• Fourth, as a side-issue, notabilty only applies to whole articles. No one is suggesting that Tea Party movement should be deleted so let's leave out all discussions about notability in this talk page.
• Fifth, some editors (including myself) have suggested that most "tea bag" material may be (or is) original research or unsourced for various reasons. This is their opinion and they are perfectly entitled to hold it. It may even be the opinion of the majority of the active editors of this article. But it is only opinion and, even if it's true, Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, only with verifiablity. So these opinions don't say anything about what we should and shouldn't do about the "tea bag" material in the article itself.
• Finally, in the absence of clear BLP violations, the subsection on Tea Bags should not have been gutted until all editors had been given a chance, if they wanted, to defend it. We can place as many warnings as we like around the subsection but we should not delete meaningful content except by consensus. At a minimum, we should have inserted inline warnings next to each of the unsourced statements and then waited at least a week or two before removing that statement. Can we all agree that "live" articles do not override established procedure?

Furthermore, I believe that whoever gutted the Tea Bag section after reading about my intention to institute a more formal, consensus-based process did not act respectfully towards me, regardless of their intent. If they acted without seeing and/or understanding the Incorrect Citations section above, I apologize but I still think that they should restore the Tea Bags section as of March 9th, now that they've seen my intention above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to this and thank RoyGoldsmith (talk) for a clear and reasonable proposal to move forward. I am curious, though, are there any other sections (beyond the Tea Bags section) that have since been removed that also warrant consensus? There have been several content deletions over the past week, but the Incorrect Citations section hadn't yet addressed that specific content. Please let us know if there are additional sections that should be restored until we can complete this review. Thanks very much.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other sections above since March 9th (when I noticed the severe abridgement of Tea Bags). I wouldn't worry though; I can always restore them one at a time as we get to them. I just happened to pause after Tea Bags; there are still about a dozen sections after that to go.

Happysomeone, I think you are saying that significant content (and citations) have been removed since March 9th. In one sense that is like saying that we might have to check all citations that were removed before March 9th too, back to the original article a year ago when Tea Party Movement was combined with Tea Party protests. Where do we draw the line? Do we choose to be responsible for every deletion back to day one? Should I just cite check a combination of the March 9th version and the current version? What about something that was added on the 10th and removed on the 11th? Do you know of any extensive removals that happened because of my plan? If anyone would like to take this on (or would like to help me take this on), please comment below.

I planned on a minimum of a month to get through these blatant citation problems and it may take longer if we run into editor squabbling. Then we go onto the real problems: for example, deciding which of two or more sets of citations deserves relative prominence in the article -- Does one large NY Times story outrank several, smaller Washington Post stories? We have a lot to do. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One possible past point of reference is to look at the state before the edit war started. Of course, I'm sure many things had been deleted here and there beforehand, that is when the flurry of editing really began. This was pretty much within hours of when the new history section was posted. --Izauze (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to include other editors and not just you and Happysomeone. And you could reduce the size of your project. It's not very realistic. The size of the thread will grow exponentially and be impossible to navigate. One section or item at a time would be more realistic. Also, considering how time consuming it is to search out citations, etc., it isn't realistic to demand that editors find problems, search out solutions, but not fix the problem. You're demanding that editors come back to the talk page where you and Happysomeone will either approve or disapprove of the new edit before it can be posted. And your post where you now claim that an editor who 'gutted', (your term) the tea bag section did it deliberately as a sign of disrespect to you? What? Are you claiming that removing original research from a primary source is now being disrespectful to you, RoyGoldsmith? Huh? Is there another Wikipedia the rest of us don't know about?Malke2010 04:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved these discussions to their own subsection. I have also refactored the following text in the sense that I adjusted the indentation levels. Nothing else was changed. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, they do. First, please read WP:CONS: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Second, if I'm reading it right, the only exceptions to consensus are in WP:CONEXCEPT, which doesn't apply to the situation here. Third, look at the flowchart in WP:CONS#Consensus as a result of the editing process. Although you are allowed to be bold one time, if any other editor edits your changes (which, of course, includes reverting them) then you must stop and seek a compromise on the talk page through consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Yes, it will take longer. And some editors "will come along and add/delete as they see fit." The way to deal with that is to insert banners and invisible comments, both in the article next to the invalid edits and, if necessary, on their user talk page, inviting them to participate in our discussions. This is what I did during the populist versus grassroots discussion. You must assume that everybody has good faith; that all editors will join our discussion (or stop editing the article) once they are informed that the discussion exists. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to generate a consensus, but it might be too many topics at one time. Plus, editors don't have to use the talk page to remove original research and non-sourced edits. So that means, while the rest of us are here debating, other editors will come along and add/delete as they see fit. The way to help prevent reverting is to do what we did with the 'populist' versus grassroots debate. Remember that? That got resolved and then Roy embedded the note in the edit. However, we can't do that for every single section. Sending off some of this material to its own article is one solution for the media section and the astro-turfing. It could be combined as one article about "Tea Party Movement Controversies" or something along those lines. And, look, already we've got an editor, an admin, no less, right below suggesting we dump more stuff into this article.Malke2010 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RoyGoldsmith's approach, and disagree with Malke. There is no deadline, so what's the hurry? It has been suggested that up to a month or more to discuss tags is a reasonable length of time to review a tag and try and find a remedy. I agreee with that. What is suggested directly above also sounds like content forking to me, which is something we should avoid.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear, I'm not suggesting a deadline. I'm pointing out the problems with such a huge project as this appears to be, taking on everything at once, while in the meantime other editors will be coming along. We certainly can't tell them they can't edit here. And as I said, removing original research and edits that are without citations, etc., anybody can do that. They don't need the talk page.

And my suggestion for a new article is along these lines [13]. And certainly not content forking. If this media controversy and the astroturfing are really such a firestorm that it requires all this space, then it can have it's own article because it would certainly be notable enough for that. And then the focus here can be on the protesters and the groundswell, and how it's evolved, which seems to be the reason for the article in the first place.Malke2010 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, no -- they shouldn't, even if they can. Read my comments up above and, in particular, study the policy on consensus. Does it really say that any editor may remove original research and other material without citations, except for the first time? I know we could "game the system" and find some wikilawyering sentence that says we could do what we want but, taking the whole policy into consideration, doesn't it really say we should try for consensus on any contentious material? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you cannot Be Bold, for astroturfing or anything else, except for the first time. If you've already modified any paragraph (or significant sentence) in astroturfing and, within say two days, it has been changed, that's a good indication that you need some consensus with at least one other editor.

I know that this sounds like clerical work, but we're all going to have to get use to far less edits to the article itself and more attempting to build consensus on the talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone 'game the system' or 'wikilawyer.' But another point that goes along with the need for consensus is that since the article is about living people these rules apply as well. And it would be good to keep in mind open editing policy means nobody controls the article. And always remember to comment on the edit and not the editor..Malke2010 08:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about BLP. In reviewing the citations above, I noticed that the first "Positions and goals" bullet point above involves the quote "Bush himself was guilty of socialist policies". I have removed it immediately, with an invisible comment inviting interested editors to join our discussion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP apply to the entire movement? --Happysomeone (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement is about living people. It was created by them, it is populated by them, it does not exist without them. Yes, it applies.Malke2010 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:BLP, I just deleted a new section by an IP titled "Racism" [14]in which the IP characterizes an individual's speech as racist. I'm not naming the speaker because the rules apply to talk pages too. Even our talk pages. But the speaker in question is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. Malke2010 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not (and cannot) apply to a movement. However, within an article about a movement, if you refer to specific people, then WP:BLP applies to those references. Malke's edit is a good example of confronting text with BLP issues because the text refered to a specific person as racist, not the movement. However if there were significant accusations against the movement that would be another matter. --Bertrc (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your comments. And if there were accusations against the movement that would be one thing. But you still can't make a claim that the whole movement is racist, especially since this movement is made up of various organizations. But if one of the platforms in the movement was a commitment to racist practices and a lobbying for laws that allow open discrimination against any group or religion, etc., then yes, you could characterize that platform as discriminatory and you could say the group was supporting discrimination, but you would still have to avoid the racist term which is inflammatory/perjorative. Malke2010 03:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of qualifiers there that don't seem to hold much weight. Racism is a form of discrimination, and while you may personally not like that descriptor, Wikipedia is not censored and guidelines require asserting facts about the opinons.

Here's an example provided to illustrate this at the WP:NPOV guideline page:

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made."

Further, if it's verifiable and notable, it should probably be there. If what Bertrc (talk) says is true, then unless content refers to a specific people, "WP:BLP does not (and cannot) apply to a movement." Therefore, you have no basis to act without consensus which is advocated by both myself and RoyGoldsmith (talk), above. As Roy said, "Again, you cannot Be Bold, for astroturfing or anything else, except for the first time." I agree with that.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HSO. You have to have a specific individual (or individuals), addressed by name, in a context that says something significant about that individual before the sentence or phrase rises to the BLP level. And a movement, by definition, is not a person, living, dead or in the afterlife. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, so far as the "Racism" section [15] is concerned. Someone submitted that paragraph for review and upgrading. They do not deserve to have their work summarily dismissed. Only those phrases that are directly in violation of BLP should be removed immediately. Therefore, unless every sentence in that section fails this test, the section as a whole should not have been removed without further discussion and warnings.

Who is insulted by that section: "some of the notable speakers", Tancredo, the Tea Party movement itself? The only one that rises to the BLP level is Tancredo because he is mentioned by name. So the sentence "Some of the notable speakers drew large criticism for their racist remarks at the event" alone is not a BLP-vio and should not be removed.

If every sentence about Tancredo by Maddow was correctly quoted or paraphrased (and if we can get something better than a mirror of YouTube as a citation; the same broadcast should be on the FoxNews site), then the content stands with an introduction that says something like "Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reports that Former Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo was quoted...". If the quotes themselves are correct (that Tancredo did say them) then you don't even need the intro. In the same way, if Maddow says that Tancredo was one of the "notable speakers" at the TP convention then the whole sentence including the word "racist" stands.

But notice that if Maddow doesn't say or can be paraphrased as saying that Tancredo was one of the "notable speakers" at the TP convention then the sentence should be removed. But not immediately. We should flag it with a "failed verification" tag and allow it to sit for several weeks. We can also stick a "citecheck" banner on top of the section.

In my opinion, we should restore the subsection and insert a very stong warning banner. If every significant sentence in the section is tagged for some kind of citation dispute and the tags remain for several weeks then the whole section can be removed. Or you can wait for me to get around to it in our Incorrect Citations review above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about the Racism section is continued under #Where is racism? below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the source review: (Thanks for undertaking this giant project!)

• Lead section #4 - The reference to social networking is true, but hardly notable for inclusion. Anything that happens in the 2000s makes use of social networking.

• Lead section #5 - Someone is trying to criticize the TPM because there is no "taxation without representation" this time. It is certainly true, but there is am implied POV.

• Background #1 - Your criticism only holds for the third source. I've removed that.

• Background #2 - The two sources you criticized have been moved to the previous sentence, where they fit better.

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for several days. MBM, with your permission, I'd like to move your bullet points up into the main body of Incorrect Citations, so that each bullet point is aligned with its disputed citation. Like this:

• the social networking outlets Facebook, Twitter and MySpace as well as blogs and conservative media outlets[6] in promoting Tea Party events[7] -- partially disputed; MySpace not mentioned in either citation.

• Lead section #4 - The reference to social networking is true, but hardly notable for inclusion. Anything that happens in the 2000s makes use of social networking. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (moved by RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

• The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, whose principal aim was to protest taxation without representation in the British Parliament[8] -- original synthesis?

• Lead section #5 - Someone is trying to criticize the TPM because there is no "taxation without representation" this time. It is certainly true, but there is am implied POV. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (moved by 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC))

and so on. In this way, your remarks here will become comments on each bullet point.

Then, I would ask you to restore any changes you've made that were a direct result of the Incorrect Citation section. (Since you won't be able to edit the article until March 30th, here is a "reference" version (permanent ID 349784656) that contains all the changes up to the edit that inserted the citation warning tags for Phase II.)

Everybody should get a chance to comment and, if necessary, hold a consensus straw vote on each bullet point. No one should remove any material (unless its a clear BLP-vio), even a sentence, unless we reach a consensus for removal here on the talk page. I started out with the Tea Bag Campaign section so we may not get around to your sections for some time. This would've taken two or three weeks (in my estimation) but now it just may go faster because of the article's protection. We can't edit the article so now we can try to reach consensus. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of An Editor's Posts Without Permission

Roygoldsmith: Please don't single me out and parse apart my posts for your criticisms here. It is considered disruptive editing to refactor an editor's posts on a talk page. In addition, singling out one editor in this way can also be seen as disruptive. Please remember nobody owns this article. Talk pages are meant for editors to comment on edits to the article. When replying to another editor, simply post your comments in order and trust that other editors will see and respond to them. Thank you.Malke2010 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't believe I singled out or even mentioned any other editor in any of my comments above. Can anyone tell me of a particular instance in the Incorrect Citations section where I did mention a fellow editor by name or implied they were more responsible for anything than all editors as a group? At any rate, I certainly appologive for any offense this might have caused.

Second, I believe that using "interruptive" breaks to tie one's comments to the specific sentence one want to discuss is perfectly OK. See WP:TPO: Interruptions. I did this frequently in the Merge Discussions above and I thought it was OK with all of you. I only used these breaks to connect my comments to the particular sentence or subtopic I was addressing.

(By the way, if any editors want to reply to a particular paragraph or sentence of mine, I would prefer that they do this same thing: interrupting my remarks with a properly indented comment. If fact, I would like other editors to comment on the use of "interruptive breaks" here.)

(Like this :)

Third, I don't believe I refactored anyone's comments, except for indentation. This is allowed by WP:TPO, Refactoring for relevance and WP:REFACTOR. I don't believe I edited or interrupted anyone's comment to change its meaning. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to have my posts refactored or parsed or in any way altered. Thank you.Malke2010 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK by me. WP:TPO away, since all you're doing is responding to specific points. Makes it harder for others to follow the discussion, though. Just a thought.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interspersing comments in someone else's comments can work well when there are only two parties but is confusing when there are multiple parties (as here). The original comment gets split into pieces that don't have signatures so it is hard to tell who said what. The split original comment is harder to read and the chronology goes back and forth. And if multiple editors interspersed, it would be very hard to follow the conversation. There are rare occasions where interspersing works but a double indent then makes it a little clearer that it is interspersed. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)