Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 23 August 2011

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, U.S politics, the President of the U.S, the office of President of the U.S, any political party in the U.S, individual politicians or characters involved in U.S politics or the U.S. elections at the Reference desk.

Attention!!! This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction: No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large. This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. For more information, see this page.

Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt: " ... eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. ", "Energy subsidies are the sordid legacy of more than sixty years of politics as usual in Washington, and they cost us somewhere around $20 billion a year.", "Most are in the form of tax benefits ...", and "In December, the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission released a plan calling to cut or end billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the oil and gas producers and other energy interests." 108.73.113.47 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could develop a section that covers the TPM relative to that topic I think that it would be good. But if we just throw something in that isn't about the TPM, and only about something with some connection to the TPM (e.g. they exist on the same planet :-) ) then that would be adding to the off-topic junk that 1/2 of this article consists of. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly appears to be about the TPM, here are some excerpts:

And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

The first is the rise of the Tea Party and of the budget- and deficit-cutting mood of the new Congress. There have always been libertarian elements within the Republican Party that have railed against “corporate welfare,” including the massive tax expenditures that favor oil production. Now they are joined by many Tea Party sympathizers who, appalled by the bank and auto company bailouts of recent years, instinctively share the same hostility to big business subsidies. The distinction is often lost on progressives, who hear Tea Partiers railing against cap-and-trade legislation or Sarah Palin crying, “Drill, baby, drill,” and conclude that they are simply gullible tools of Big Oil.

Since the midterms, this Tea Party willingness to take on energy interests has migrated to Washington. In November, two senators who are darlings of the Tea Party, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, drew the ire of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa by signaling their opposition to ethanol subsidies. Coburn went on to say that even subsidies for the oil and gas industries should be on the agenda for budget cutting.

This fall, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth joined forces with Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks (a key supporter of the Tea Party) and Taxpayers for Common Sense to oppose extension of one of the most senseless of all subsidies, the so-called Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays oil refiners like BP forty-five cents a gallon to blend ethanol in with gasoline.

99.181.150.237 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See Pork barrel. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases. We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. TFD (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did this come from (above)? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume that there are TP supporters who want to do any number of things. Unless those beliefs are held by a majority, or at least a significant minority, of TPM members then i don't see why we'd include them.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So, how does a twitter message by one TP'er shake out under the standard that you just described? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a reply to your comment that members of the TPM want to "elimate all energy subsidies". We need sources that explain how prevalent these views are and whether TP-supported politicians would act on this. (There are TP supporters who want to close Guantanamo Bay and overseas bases.) No reason to move my reply to a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the tp is very clear about its desire to reduce spending across the board. challenging the tp support for reducing the size of military and ending subsides is rather laborious. it appears there is an erroneous perception that the tp is more neo-con than con. less tax requires less spending, challenging each individual spending issue could be perceived as obstructive. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ron Paul wing would, sure. Remember that Rand Paul wants to cut US funding for Israel. The thing is, the Paul family are outnumbered by TP supporters who don't want to do that. I think more of the Tea Party listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Andrew Breitbart (founder of among others, the website "Big Peace"), and Pamela Geller (leader of opposition to the NYC Mosque and major backer of Israel/critic of Islam who's concerned about Sharia Law in the US) on foreign policy than those who listen to Pat Buchanan. Not all of course, but it seems a clear majority. Most of them, you know, I believe would not support closing Gitmo or other examples of a non-interventionist foreign policy. The anti-war libertarians/paleocons/non-interventionists are not absent, and indeed do have a degree of voice, but it would be incorrect to say they're the majority. J390 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless folks have sources this is just a forum discussion and should move to another website.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not conversation. It's a fact that the public voices in the TP with an interventionist foreign policy outnumber those who don't. Saying they as a whole reject the neoconservatives is intellectually dishonest if they listen to people like Palin and others. That's simply a fact, you can't say you'd catch her supporters at an anti-war rally. Take from that what you will, it's not objectively a good or bad thing to beleive in an interventionist foreign policy. BTW I have sources that the people I mentioned are not non-interventionists. It's like saying water is wet. J390 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is getting coverage on USA TV currently, should we add more sources? 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but more good sources are always welcome.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this be one Energy tax breaks under attack: Bipartisan effort targets ethanol subsidies?

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists to kill $6 billion a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Corn Refiners Association the "corn lobby"? 99.181.134.238 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not the best term for it. The concentrated interest for ethanol production is core refiners. Beyond that it gets broader/ less focused, i.e. all farmers / the farming industry. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And/or this Forbes.com May 3rd Cato.org article Eliminating Oil Subsidies: Two Cheers for President Obama ...

Last week President Barack Obama responded to rising public anger over soaring gasoline prices by banging the drums for the elimination of various tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, initially suggested that he might be open to President Obama's proposal, the House GOP leadership chose to answer the president's weekly radio address — which advocated elimination of those tax breaks — with freshman Tea Party Congressman James Lankford, R-Okla., who charged that the plan was about "hiking taxes by billions of dollars."

99.109.124.16 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Fobres version (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/02/eliminate-oil-subsidies_3.html)

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win. If the left can entertain this idea seriously, why can't Tea Party Republicans?

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about VIDEO: Tea Party Activists Oppose Billions In Taxpayer Subsidies To Big Oil from Freshman GOP Rep. Hultgren Dumbfounded After Constituent Grills Him On Oil Subsidies? Here is some commentary from Bill Becker on climateprogress.org May 16th. Here is Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars ambivalence also with Gas prices soar to near record levels across Wisconsin, Midwest

But conservatives are not united on that approach to subsidies. Some libertarians and Tea Party activists have also attacked the continued oil subsidies, even as they agree with fellow Republicans on the need for increased domestic production.

Keeping in mind Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Twelve Times Renewables Support per July 2010 Bloomberg.com. 99.181.147.43 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This? Video: Tea Partiers, Sponsored by Big Oil, Speak Out Against Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine). 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good is an anti-reliable source. If something appears there, it makes it even less likely to be accurate. Still, there may a reliable source for the fact that some TPmms (Tea Party movement members) are against subsidies for and/or against Big Oil, although you haven't yet produced one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is anti-reliable, can't find it: WP:anti-reliable ... ? 99.181.156.238 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin) implying Evil (magazine) would be a wp:reliable sources; please help me understand ... ? 99.56.122.77 (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but there are publications which make a serious effort not to research their articles. Good is among them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence for your Anti-? 99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

'Taxes are off the table': GOP family feud over what that means, exactly ... Two GOP icons of fiscal restraint clash over eliminating subsidies or tax credits. Should saving reduce the budget deficit or go back to taxpayers? from the Christian Science Monitor 30th of May 2011; include? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example excerpt from the csmonitor:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, founder of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus, says ending that ethanol subsidy would amount to a tax cut for everyone else. "Mr. Norquist says that violates the pledge," he says, "but when you look at what tax-payers have to pay , it's a tax reduction."

99.181.155.61 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin calls to eliminate energy subsidies this one is from Politico.com 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wants to terminate all energy subsidies, including ethanol and this is from the LA Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this in Sarah Palin too? 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

From Reason (magazine)'s Reason.com ... Mitt Romney's Embrace of Ethanol Subsidies is Enough to Make Tim Pawlenty Look...Less Bad! by Nick Gillespie; May 31, 2011 99.181.159.117 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty stated that energy subsidies of all kinds (including those for ethanol) would have to be phased out because we can simply no longer afford them. from The Ames Tribune ... but at the same time

One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman (Jr.), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.

from GOP presidential contenders are cooling toward global warming (Denver Post) 99.181.132.99 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Energy subsidies hard to quit for GOP candidates on Politico.com and In an Era of Partisanship, Who Are the Grown-Ups? by Katie Howell of Greenwire on the New York Times published: June 8, 2011. 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Resource ... Op-Ed: The American GOP: Spoon-feeding the rich, bankrupting the nation from the Digital Journal 7.June,2011 by Daniel R. Cobb

In 2010 Exxon Mobil Corp., the most profitable company in the world, earned over $30 billion in profits on gross revenue of over $350 billion and paid no U.S federal income taxes. In fact, the industry receives over $4 billion per year in direct taxpayer handouts to promote drilling - as if the energy industry needs to be motivated to drill. This contradiction is obscene. (New York Times)

Contrast with Democrats' deficit-cutting plan: Big Oil subsidies the first target from the Christian Science Monitor

The targeted tax breaks for the top five oil companies – Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips – account for about $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 10 years, or $2 billion a year.

99.19.43.74 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This one: Corn Beef: Time was, GOP presidential hopefuls had to support ethanol subsidies to get the nod in Iowa. The tea party changed all that. by Beth Reinhard, Updated: June 16, 2011 on the National Journal? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is one from Obama's Oil Release Leaves US Vulnerable in Emergency:

Fred Upton, who was first elected in 1986, discussed the decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “Let’s face it — it is a bad idea,” he declares.

from teaparty.org, relating to this news ...

Portal:Current events/2011 June 23 "Fuel prices including petroleum (oil) prices drop sharply as 28 industrialized nations (International Energy Agency members), including the United States, agree to release 60 million barrels of crude oil from their strategic oil reserves. (Los Angeles Times) (Bloomberg) (USA Today) (CNN Money) 108.73.113.82 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From June 26, 2011; The San Diego Union-Tribune's SignOnSanDiego: Congress, put country first: End oil subsidies by John H. Reaves. 99.35.13.202 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented on most of your references, but this one does not say much of the Tea Party. It might be appropriate in other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin on this one, too vague and all-inclusive to be in just the TP movement wp article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See related http://energytomorrow.org by the American Petroleum Institute. (Fossil fuels lobby). 99.181.136.35 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The greenwashing fossil fuels lobby TV ads? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You could say that, but stay focused on this section. 99.181.146.221 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting: GOP Rep Seeks to Stop Kids from Learning about Energy Efficiency on TreeHugger by Brian Merchant, July 18, 2011.

The Tea Party crowd's aversion to better energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is well known by now: A straightforward, industry-supported 2007 bill signed into law by George W. Bush has now been falsely construed as a 'light bulb ban', and pushed as the latest overwrought metaphor for freedom itself slipping away into the cold American night. Of course, it's mostly little more than opportunistic grandstanding. ... Sandy Adams (R-FL) has introduced an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill that would "would limit funds for any DOE website 'which disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents,' according to Politico. In Adams' cross hairs is the Dept. of Energy's "Energy Kids!" website ...

99.190.80.55 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See Energy Information Administration for eia.gov 99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See United States Department of Energy for "DOE". 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See George W. Bush or more accurately Presidency of George W. Bush for Executive Branch of the United States. 99.181.137.224 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from Republicans Seek Big Cuts in Environmental Rules by Leslie Kaufman, published: July 27, 2011 in The New York Times ...

Environmental regulations and the E.P.A. have been the bane of Tea Party Republicans almost from the start. Although particularly outraged by efforts to monitor carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas linked to the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, freshmen Republicans have tried to rein in the E.P.A. across the board — including proposals to take away its ability to decide if coal ash can be designated as a toxic material and to prevent it from clarifying rules enforcing the Clean Water Act. ... “It is already like a wish list for polluters,” Mr. Dicks said, “and it is going to get worse on the floor.”

also see Environmental policy of the United States, Energy policy of the United States, Climate change policy of the United States, and Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration #Climate change. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Republicans should have a wp article. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No need for any different article, but the title might lend itself to decreasing the confusion of this article. But you can get to where you want to go from here. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see Tea Party Caucus. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would the fossil fuels lobby/Tea Party Republicans holding-up progress on lowering the Federal debt with 2011 U.S. debt ceiling crisis brinksmanship be part of this section? 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

See United States public debt, but it needs improvement in its graphs, for example clarity of Presidency of Bill Clinton era verses Presidency of George W. Bush era. 99.35.14.231 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See National debt by U.S. presidential terms, focus on increase in debt/GDP % ... 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.231 (talk)

How about this, with a quote from Judson Phillips of the Tea Party Nation regarding post-carbon sustainability ... Crashing the bus: why we should watch the Tea Partyby Erik Lindberg, published Jul 30 2011 by transition milwaukee, archived Jul 30 2011. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the Post Carbon Institute associated with energybulletin.net? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What of this The EPA: the Tea Party's next target _ House Republicans aim to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, rolling back 40 years' progress on clean air and water by Diane Roberts on guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 August 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Energy Subsidy Battle Reignites as Debt Deal Preserves Tax Breaks by Elana Schor of Greenwire via The New York Times published: August 1, 2011 ... excerpt

The study sought by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) restricted EIA to "models that have long been used by the fossil fuels lobby to defend the massive government handouts it receives," environmentalists at Greenpeace, Oil Change International and the Checks and Balances Project wrote in their request for data today.

99.181.151.50 (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an Easy $100 Billion Cut NYT Editorial published: August 7, 2011, excerpt

If the Republicans are truly determined to slash the budget and end government waste, they will start with two obvious and long overdue cuts: ending the web of tax breaks enjoyed by the rolling-in-dough oil industry and terminating the ethanol subsidy. Together these cuts would save up to $100 billion over 10 years, without hurting the poor and middle class or slowing the economy. If only. The oil industry’s well-paid defenders — lobbyists and lawmakers in unison — will surely scream “tax hike” and claim that ending $4 billion a year in sweetheart subsidies will decrease production and increase prices at the pump. All of which is nonsense ... According to the Congressional Research Service, ending the subsidies would have no effect on gas prices and a trivial effect on profits. The Big Five — Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Shell — reported combined profits of $35.1 billion for just the second quarter. Yes, you read that right. The ethanol subsidies are just as unnecessary. The big one is a 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit that costs between $5 billion and $6 billion a year and goes not to corn farmers, as commonly supposed, or to ethanol producers, but to the refineries that blend ethanol with conventional gasoline. Which is to say, the oil companies.

99.109.124.5 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, see Petroleum industry for "oil industry". 99.190.85.108 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

99, are you going anywhere (regarding TPM article content) will all of this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a great idea Special:Contributions/North8000! Do you want to help? (",) 99.181.138.215 (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no North8000 response, how about Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race August 17, 2011 NYT article by John M. Broder; excerpt

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., the former Utah governor, thinks most new environmental regulations should be shelved until the economy improves. Only Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has a kind word for the E.P.A., and that is qualified by his opposition to proposed regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. Opposition to regulation and skepticism about climate change have become tenets of Republican orthodoxy, but they are embraced with extraordinary intensity this year because of the faltering economy, high fuel prices, the Tea Party passion for smaller government and an activist Republican base that insists on strict adherence to the party’s central agenda. But while attacks on the E.P.A., climate-change science and environmental regulation more broadly are surefire applause lines with many Republican primary audiences, these views may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say. The American people, by substantial majorities, are concerned about air and water pollution, and largely trust the E.P.A., national surveys say. “Not only are these positions irresponsible, they’re politically problematic,” said David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group that believes that conservation should be a core value of the party. “The whole idea that you have to bash the E.P.A. and run away from climate change to win a Republican primary has never been borne out. Where’s the evidence?”

99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism redirects to Global warming controversy, while Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirects to Climate change denial. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Intellectual Grandfather? (quote fix needed when protection lifted)

Whoever has editing access to this article, please correct the term "intellectual grandfather" with the correct "father," - or "intellectual godfather," if you must.

Yup -- the Atlantic reference actually has "intellectual godfather." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A great deal more must be included in this article about the birth of the modern tea party movement.

On December 16th, 2007 - the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party - Dr. Paul's grassroots supporters effectively launched the Tea Party movement with a massive fundraising "money bomb" for Congressman Paul's campaign.

This money bomb raised six million dollars, shocking the political establishment and its pals in the media.

As the movement has grown, Ron Paul has been called the "Father of the Tea Party," or its "Intellectual Godfather."

Cited to what? If I recall correctly, Paul's "money bomb" campaign fundraising had nothing to do with the present Tea Party movement, even though Paul invoked the Boston Tea Party like so many other politicians have over the past century. I have seen a lot of Paul's supporters try to paint him, however, as somehow having something to do with the "birth" of the present movement even though reliable sources seem to indicate otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He is widely referred to as the "godfather" of the movement: "the man dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party' by Fox News", "...Tea Party voters who could credit Paul with being their philosophical godfather.", "Paul, often dubbed the 'godfather of the Tea Party,'", and "Paul's mix of libertarian and Republican politics has prompted many to call him the 'intellectual godfather' of the tea party movement.", for just a few recent examples.

Oh, I have no doubt that some have referred to Paul as the "intellectual godfather", just as other individuals have been called "the voice of the Tea Party", "Mr. Tea Party", and "the face of the Tea Party", etc. (Bonus points if you can name each of the individuals wearing those monikers!) My point was that his 2007 campaigning, even while making Boston Tea Party references, was unrelated to the formation of what we now call the Tea Party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article discussing exactly how credit started shifting from Ron Paul to Rick Santelli. —Torchiest _edits 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An article. I rest my case. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. TFD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a gander at WP:PG. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Ron Paul and people from his campaign is what started Young Americans For Liberty, it would be ridiculous not to cite Ron Paul as the father of the Tea Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A Hodgepodge of Trivia

Too many poll results and newspaper editorials are used. The vast majority of the article is pointless trivia and needs to be removed. Rather than the result of scholarly research, the article is clearly the result of a battle between opposing right and left-wing positions. A simple Google search is more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.48.177.4 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a mess, and has had little or no progress. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably an unfair assessment. the article developed through news stories. We should now re-write it based on serious writing which has since emerged. TFD (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your second and third sentences. How do we start? North8000 (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely trash the current Wiki article and do a rewrite based on academic sources, if there exists solid coverage in high-quality RS. The article should be a stub right now, IMO anyways, since there had been little more than news articles to draw from. BigK HeX (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We should agree that the source and the material should both be high quality and where the source says that the content is about the TPM. For example, if a reputable source covers that Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi said "The Tea Party is xxxxx", that doesn't mean that "The Tea Party is xxxxx" goes in as fact. We're talking about higheer standards than the ones that got us into this mess. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of books have come out in the last few years: A New American Tea Party by John M. O'Hara, The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Rand Paul and Jack Hunter, The Whites of Their Eyes by Jill Lepore, Mad As Hell by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, and Boiling Mad by Kate Zernike, to name a few. —Torchiest _edits 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I last looked there were few sources available on line, but my most recent search shows a huge number of hits. "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism", the second hit, for example would be useful. TFD (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We should also agree on what to keep in the stub. I'm think that the only stuff that stays is what 3/4 of us agree should stay. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, the most controversy on this page has been regarding books and academic sources. I recall that there were serious objections to using Rasmussen's book, for example. And folks have argued that we should delete the Meade paragraph. This article might have made more progress if there had not been so many complaints about the use of sources that meet Misplaced Pages standards.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I think that the Meade situation was an anomaly. A decent quality source which clearly made an erroneous inference. I don't even remember the Rasmussen issue. Most of the issues have been about the pure crap which most of this article consists of which no quality source is even saying is informative about the TPM. . North8000 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that any academic sources have been presented. We have however had sources written by academics and they are controversial because we are reporting the opinions contained within them without showing what weight they have. TFD (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will look through the anthropology/sociology journals when I get to college at the end of next month --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the big question is should we follow BigK's advice above, and delete it to a stub and then build with just quality stuff? North8000 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. The only reasons that I can see to do so are illegitimate, purely partisan ones. — goethean ॐ 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the status quo is a complete, absolute, total, miserable failure, with zero progress for at tleast he full 9 months that I've been watching it. Do you have a better idea of what to do different? North8000 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubbing would be inappropriate in this case. The existing article is well-sourced and the text is generally presented with the NPOV. Deleting sourced material would be disruptive. If there are problems let's fix them rather than discarding the article that's already here.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, you are implying that sourcing means that the material should be in the article. That is absolutely not true. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that sourced, neutral material in a stable article should not be deleted without a good and specific reason. The proposal here is to delete everything in the article, and I just don't see any justification being given for that drastic action.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In your first sentence, you must be talking about a different article. This thing is an unstable, POV wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of an occasional skirmish, this article has been fairly quiet since November 2010.Edits over Time If there are POV problems then discuss and fix them. Aside from the endless complaints over the Meade paragraph, and vague arguments over the racial material, I don't see any significant disputes on this talk page. Rather than deleting all of the contents of the article, and arguing over every re-addition, it'd be more productive to focus on whichever areas you think are particular problems.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are severe POV problems, mostly via insertion of irrelevant wp:undue junk just for effect, and as part of an OR racial construction. But approx 2 editors have blockaded any forward progress. It looks like nuking it to a stub and rebuilding it with quality stuff may be the most realistic way left to make progress. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest addressing the problems directly. If editors disagree now about editing decisions then starting fresh won't make them more likely to agree.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right, the racial incidents were just completely made up out of whole cloth by Misplaced Pages editors. — goethean ॐ 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) The article was put together presenting views when they appeared but since then research has looked at many of the issues including the organization, make-up and objectives. At present the lead says, "The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.... Commentators... have suggested that the movement is... a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies". Lots of speculation with no weight assigned to the various opinions. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you propose text that would be more comprehensive?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but the first paragraph is the ONE thing in the article that has arisen from a recent, very thorough input process. Like a full blown RFC/ mediation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a good reason not to stub the article: most of the contents have been worked out following long discussions to represent a middle ground. Throwing all of that out and starting over again with the same arguments that have already been settled seems very unproductive.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's only one paragraph that has arisen from such a process. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Please review the talk page archives. Many parts of the article have been drafted or altered in accordance with discussions on this page. I think it'd be hard to find a section that hasn't been discussed here.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussed? Yes, drafted in accordance with the discussion here...not likely. Most participants (like myself) have simply given up on this page. It is little more than an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party Movement with obscure claims of racism and manufactured links to extremism. If not for a couple of specific editors, this page might actually be a neutral presentation of material, unfortunately that is not the case. Arzel (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, progress on the article has been blockaded, mostly by 2 people, preventing any progress from coming out of discussions. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to actions that have blocked "progress"? Diffs? Threads?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about 50% of the last 50,000 words of this talk page. The most recent one is one line up. from this post. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a helpful answer. If there haven't been any specific problems then we shouldn't be making general claims that cast aspersions on other editors. Let's focus instead on addressing identifiable issues.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Monkey god incident is a perfect example. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement. The incident was not made with respect to any Tea Party Movement aspect. It has no relevance to this article at all, other than some Tea Party guy said it and the will to try and marginalize the movement as a whole. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that material dates back to May 2010. Have you initiated an RFC or mediation about the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK Will, there's another example of "Can you point to actions that have blocked progress". implying that their statement about taking out one of the many many many many many many irrelevant pieces of crap in this article is less valid because they did not dedicate the huge effort of an RFC/ mediation to this only one of many many many many in the article. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The way to solve disputes is through the dispute resolution steps found in WP:DR. If you don't want to follow them then don't complain about the result. An RFC isn't a huge effort.   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The real RFC needs to be to nuke this junk article to a stub and start rebuilding it with quality, relevant material.North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the same editors are involved why do you think the outcome of a rewrite would be different than the existing article?   Will Beback  talk  06:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

I noticed the move that Xenophrenic just made to re-order the sections, and I'm wondering if the other controversies section is another case of WP:UNDUE weight. Every large organization has bad apples, but it seems like every single negative action taken by someone who claims association with the Tea Party is included in this article. The more I think about it, the more I think a lot of these events should be compressed down, at least. For example, describe in a sentence (or two at most) what occurred, and then a general statement about official responses from Tea Party groups. Whole sub-sections for every event is a bit too much, I think. 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs)

I never oppose condensing material if it can be done without losing important, meaningful content; however, my understanding is that the Tea Party Movement has been — and has been portrayed by the news media as being — dogged by racial and other controversy since its inception. It seems to me that racial controversy and instances of apparent bigotry have been a fundamental feature of the movement. The introduction to this article, however, does not refer even indirectly to any controversial aspect of the movement. Nor does it mention Obama, who I think it's fair to say is a focus of a large proportion of Tea Party anger. just as way of gauging the focus of the news media (which I believe that this article is required to follow), the terms '"Tea Party" tax OR taxes' gives 67.8 million Google hits, and 47,000 Google News archive hits. '"Tea Party" +racism +racists +racist' gives 30 million Google hits, and 8,000 Google News archives hits. My point is simply that racial etc. controversy has comprised a significant portion of the media coverage of the TPM. However, the introduction to this article treats the TPM as a purely intellectual movement! This over-emphasis on political philosophy is due, in my opinion, to the influence of Misplaced Pages editors who have strong sympathies with the TPM. — goethean ॐ 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the intro is the only section of the article with which User:North8000 seems to be relatively okay with. The rest contains too much "junk" in his opinion; i.e., material which presents the TPM in a bad light. — goethean ॐ 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

If the intro does not mention the controversies then it is probably incomplete.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only real controversies that are specifically about the TPM are opposition to their agenda, that their agenda is a bad idea, wrong-headed etc. and opposition to their political actions, initiatives, speeches etc. The other crap (i.e. that a TP'er kicked a dog or posted a bad twitter comment or might have cut a BBQ grill line) are not really about the TPM, there are lots of newsfeeds on them in the real world because ad-hominem/mud-slinging attacks work, and have been thrown into the article for similar reasons. They shouldn't even be in the article, much less the lead. And if they stay in the article, the the real both sides must be covered. The other side is those saying what I said above. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about kicking a dog. Hyperbole isn't helpful.

The TPM doesn't make speeches or take political action. Individuals do.

While we're working on fixing the rest of the article, can you propose some text for the lead that will cover the TM controversies you think are relevant?   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

North800

That is a fascinating and revealing comment, User:North8000. Per my Google hits numbers above (admittedly a crude method), fully one-third of the online discussion of the Tea Party mentions the terms 'racism', 'racist', or 'racists'. But your position is that this article should completely ignore the controversies associated with the Tea Party Movement! I submit that your position is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. — goethean ॐ 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To get the article out of crap status, coverage of those areas should be coverage based on quality sources which are discussing that issue itself (e.g. racism or alleged racism of the TPM). It should not be coverage of tweets etc. (out of such context)(and even if they made the newspaper) by an individual which a WP editor has put in just for effect. Could you imagine me going to the top level Democratic Party article and putting in a section on some bad comment made by some local member of the party? It wouldn't last 2 minutes based on wp:undue. Here we have people fighting to put/keep that kind of crap in. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the better pieces on the TGea Party Movement was written by one of the top living Foreign Policy experts in the world and was published in Foreign Affairs magazine, an unimpeachable source. You and your co-partisans, of course, went completely berzerk over our use of that source. — goethean ॐ 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which one are you referring to? I don't remember ever going bezerk over any such source. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In any normal discussion, Foreign Affairs would be considered a reliable, uncontroversial source. But on this page, we argued over it for six weeks. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not use it as a source. TFD (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't use Foreign Affairs as a source? — goethean ॐ 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think my standards are a little lower than TFD's .... I would use it as A source (not as gospel, but a A source.) At least it is overview/analysis of the TPM rather than trivia inserted without such and just for effect. But you mis-stated the history on this. The issue was that it included one clearly-incorrect word, and in the roadblocked situation here, it took 14,000+ words of talk to take out one clearly-false word. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that we still have Misplaced Pages editors who consider themselves to be more reliable sources than Walter Russell Mead writing in Foreign Affairs. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Academic books journals are the best sources because they are peer-reviewed and writers must clearly distinguish between facts and opinions and when they express opinions must explain their degree of acceptance. If Mead had written his article for an academic journal then we would be clear whether his description was generally accepted or merely his own opinion. We could then look at later papers to see the degree of acceptance his views had, whether they represented academic consensus, a majority view, a minority view, etc. Instead, Misplaced Pages editors must decide among themselves what weight to assign the views. TFD (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm not sure whose comments you are responding to. If mine, you have characterized it. Wanting to leave out one obvious error the source made does not equate to what you describe. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your comments, which display a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's policy and mission. The role of a Misplaced Pages editor is to accurately summarize what reliable sources have written on a topic, not to weigh in with what he assumes is his expert opinion on matters of public policy. Mead is an expert, writing in Foreign Affairasc magazine. You are some random guy on the internet. You have no authority to "correct" a leading expert writing in a reliable source, or to inform us what is or is not obviously the case or what is right or wrong about anything. I am sorry that you find this difficult to understand. — goethean ॐ 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, the mis-application/mis-statement of policy that you just put forth is very common, and of interest for various reasons unrelated to this.....if you would bear with me, may I ask you a question? (even if you do do not agree with my "mis-application/mis-statement" terms, which I assume you don't) You have basically just said (restated in more neutral form) that it is improper for a group of editors to say that they feel that an rs'd item should be left out of the article because they feel that it is clearly false/in error. (as a sidebar, in this case, there was really nobody arguing that the item was correct, the arguments for inclusion were along the line of your last post) Where specifically in Misplaced Pages did you get that from? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Summarize in the article what notable authors with expertise in the field have said on the subject. It escapes me how you can think that your own personal opinion is more valid, and more deserving to be enshrined in this article than Mead's. That said, if sustained talk page consensus agreed that a source should not be used, obviously that is okay. But I don't think that we have had consensus here on any matter, let alone your opinion that Mead is wrong. Frankly, I thought that the six-week conversation about Mead's comments was perfectly insane. It should have been a two minute conversation, with you told to take your complaint to the WP:V page. You and your fellow Tea Partiers opposed Mead's comment because he called Paulites isolationists — which they are. Mead's comments were approved by the editors of Foreign Affairs magazine. Did any readers write to the editors and complain about Mead's mischaracterization of the foreign policy of Ron Paul's Tea Party followers? I sincerely doubt it, because Mead's comments are perfectly accurate. You tried for six weeks to have his comments removed because you just know that he's wrong. Luckily for our readers, Misplaced Pages policy is that what reliable sources say matters, and what editors say doesn't. — goethean ॐ 02:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that abstract discussions like this won't result in any improvements to the article. Unless someone is going to propose an edit this thread doesn't seem like it's going anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if editors feel that a reliable source is in error, they should attempt to produce a reliable source or sources that contradict the erroneous statement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular error was so implausible that sources would tend to not discuss it.

Now you are saying that what Mead wrote in Foreign Affairs was just so completely wrong, that no one bothered to correct him. Clearly, you do not understand what it takes to get an article published in a journal ilke Foreign Affairs, and what happens when an author makes an obvious error of fact in a journal like that. Thank you for clearing up my confuision. — goethean ॐ 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this difficult to believe from a journal as respected as Foreign Affairs. Even if this is true, how do you prove your case if there are no sources rebutting it? Shall we just take your word for it? That's not how we write an encyclopedia, I'm afraid. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Goethean, so, based on the sentence from wp:ver which you quoted, you are saying that that, beyond saying the verifiability being a condition for inclusion, that wp:ver also weighs in on the "inclusion" side of that controversy, because the material is sourced? 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the criteria for inclusion is WP:NPOV. But to argue against the inclusion of Mead's comments, you would have to argue that his comments on the subject are not significant or notable, which is not a plausible argument. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that the opinions expressed are notable? TFD (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we back to discussing the Mead view, yet again?   Will Beback  talk  04:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The big argument was about whether or not Mead used the term "neoisolationist" correctly. But the problem with the article is that the opinions presented are taken from non-academic writing and therefore we do not know the degree of acceptance they have. I assume that Mead's description is generally accepted, but you should use a secondary source that explains Mead's opinion and the degree of acceptance it has and then you would avoid discussions about whether or not Mead was mistaken. TFD (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs a peer reviewed journal and is the leading journal in the field. Mead is, according to this, the James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College. I'm not sure how much more academic we can get here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No it is not peer-reviewed. But the main issue with quoting the opinions expressed in an article, peer-reviewed or not, is that we cannot establish the degree of acceptance they have. That can only be determined once other writers have discussed the article. TFD (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is, and the peer review process generally insures that material is within appropriate bounds of academic acceptance. Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect. Foreign Affairs's website says, "We do not have fact checkers and rely on authors to ensure the veracity of their statements....we try to avoid using footnotes". Many of the articles are written by members of think tanks, politicians and civil servants. TFD (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My motivation for my questions was different, not even that Goethean was initially trying to beat me over the head with their mis-interpretation of wp:ver, but that it is a common mis-interpretation which is of interest for other reasons. . Overall, I think that, on a scale of 0 -10, TFD is shooting for an "8" regarding quality of source for inclusion, which is great. I'd put Mead at a "5" and am willing to settle for that as an improvement from the "0" that most of this article is. "5" means use them, but when they make an obvious error that nobody on either side here says is correct, that we not use that portion of the material. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, peer review should contain a fact checking component, but they are not synonyms. Some articles are written by members of those groups you mention, but those authors usually are also credentialed academics or people with a great deal of experience in relevant areas. None of this alters the fact that it is the leading journal in the field. This is pretty much the Misplaced Pages gold standard for sources we're talking about here, and taking the stand that Foreign Affairs is something we shouldn't be using would generally be considered laughable. So I'm wondering why we are entertaining this notion here, or is there something I'm missing since I did not participate in the six week debate (?!) mentioned earlier in this thread? Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two different topics. The endless debate was over the one erroneous word. TFD is pressing for higher quality sources. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That facts are not checked and are unsourced makes it less than desirable for factual information. What do we do if someone challenges the facts? Have pages of discussion. But in this case it is used as a primary source of opinion and is certainly rs for that. But the issue is what WP:WEIGHT to assign the opinions expressed, which becomes a subjective decision by editors. It is after all a current events opinion journal. BTW, FA published an article by Earl Ravenal of the CATO Institute, where he uses the term "non-interventionist". TFD (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately many reliable sources written by credentialed experts suffer from the same lack of fact checking; at least FA is upfront about this matter. Occasionally, this comes back to haunt publications and publishers (Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, James Frey), but no one can seriously suggest that Misplaced Pages stop relying on The New York Times or Random House. If someone wishes to challenge an article from a prominent peer reviewed journal written by a credentialed academic from a leading university, then let them lay their sources on the table and we'll have a look. But we're not going to throw out a gold standard source with nothing more than assertions and weird policy readings. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree on several of those comments and characterizations, but this is talking on at least 2 different topics at once and isn't going anywhere. I think that TFD's comments are good guidance, and see no real open issues here. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If there are no open issues, then I propose we remove the tag from that section of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

i think the the tag should stay. the controversies are directed at individuals, not the tea party. they belong on the specific pages of those people, not in a group that has denounced such transgressions. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources associate an incident with the Tea Party Movement, it can be covered in this article, sans tag. — goethean ॐ 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have specified. We were talking about Mead so I was referring to the tag in the foreign policy section. Your comment doesn't make much sense in that context, so I assume you are referring to a different tag. Is there any objection to removing the tag from Foreign Policy? Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no objections, I am removing the tags. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party politicians and debt ceiling

The news is full of references to the impact of the Tea Party members in Congress on the debt ceiling negotiations. The dust hasn't settled yet, but it appears that this will be significant enough to merit a section. We have sections on "Agenda" and "Impact on the 2010 election cycle", but we don't have any section to cover "impacts on legislation" or a similar wording. Does anyone object to starting one? What would be the best heading?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "Impact on 2011 debt ceiling negotiations". —Torchiest _edits 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would do for a subsection, but it'd be nice to have a more general title to cover other legislative activities where the TP politicians have had an impact. "Legislative impact"?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the relentless attacking of the TPM as "Terroists", "Hostage Takers", and so forth I can see this section being little more than an attack section unless carefully worded. However, this article already has a ton of problems already so it would probably fit right it. On a side note I wonder if the MSM realize how much they are pissing off a large section of the population on a daily basis. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

At least it would be ABOUT the TPM, which most of the crap in this article isn't.North8000 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Either way they certainly are missing the obvious boat. This is basically a collision of ideologies / principles / intended directions for the country, (each fighting for their beliefs which got them elected) and the MSM are making it out to be just people who can't get along. And, a strategy point of those who want to make sure this doesn't come up again before the next election. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading these comments, one would never guess that major portions of the news media are directly owned by conservatives and effectively used to ideologically alter the American political discourse. But I guess having a victim mentality is part of the conservative ideology. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...right...How much is that bridge you are trying to sell? Arzel (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem with U.S. terminology. Under some definitions the media can be seen as conservative. TFD (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is on the brink of going completely off the topic/article. I guess one germane point of what I said is that we should just use really intelligent analysis/overview sources ..... avoid past mistakes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• It'd be great if someone could have a go at writing a bit more about the Tea party political philosophies and their influence over congress. (As someone from overseas whose stockmarket (as many are) is holding its breath waiting to see what happens with the debt ceiling, it would be great to understand why this is happening. In international terms, this probably deserves more weight in the article than the intricate details of the racist views that some members have) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts

• The deficit-reduction deal outlined Sunday night bears the unmistakable stamp of tea-party conservatives, who, ironically, may not even vote for it in the end. The plan's total deficit reduction falls well short of many tea-party targets, and if other cuts aren't agreed to in coming months, the deal's automatic, across-the-board spending reductions could result in as much as $600 billion in defense cuts over the next decade. In addition, the final deal makes it harder for Congress to block additional increases in the debt ceiling. The plan requires a two-thirds vote to deny the president additional installments of new borrowing between now and 2013. And neither increase is dependent on passage of a balanced-budget amendment--a key conservative demand. Those perceived flaws may stop some tea-party lawmakers in the House from backing it when it comes up for a final vote there, on Monday or Tuesday.
  • Deal Bears Stamp of GOP Leverage, If Not the Entire Party's Support Patrick O'Connor, Carol E. Lee. Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.: Aug 2, 2011.
• Republicans, pushed by their conservative "tea party" faction, had sought steep cuts in federal spending before agreeing to allow more borrowing that would further increase the national debt.
  • ROUNDUP: President Obama announces deal to increase debt limit Eds: Quotes Obama, adds details of planned budget cutting process Frank Fuhrig. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Aug 1, 2011.
• What has held up a deal? A small number of Tea Party Republicans then demanded that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. That gambit failed but ate up weeks of negotiating time. What will be the effects on the 2012 election? Tea Party Republicans can look their electorates in the eye and say they kept their promise to control spending, so boosting their prospects. Mr Obama has appeared weak and done his chances of a second term no good at all.
  • Debt hits the ceiling while political reputations lie in the gutter; US standoff [Scot Region. The Daily Telegraph. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 2
• Raising the debt ceiling is normally routine but Republican members of Congress, especially a hard core allied to the Tea Party movement, have used it over the last month to hold the White House hostage.
  • Front: US close to debt deal but credit rating still at risk Ewen MacAskill. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 1
• An official close to the president said it might be possible to raise the debt ceiling by just enough to cover the next few days if Congress needs more time to get the deal finalised and approved. It was a comment that reflected lingering anxiety over whether the compromise being hammered out would satisfy the Tea Party wing of the Republican majority in the House and their government-strangling agenda. It will fall to John Boehner, the Speaker, to bring them into line when a vote is called but, as recent events have shown, party discipline is not a Tea Party priority. Not helping is the mood of antagonism that has engulfed Capitol Hill and all of Washington in the past several days. The struggle over the debt ceiling has been responsible for "an enmity that in my 37 years as a legislator I have never seen",said Senator Charles Schumer of New York. Much of that bitterness has been centred on the lower chamber and the tensions that have blown up not just between Republicans and Democrats but also between the factions within the Republican Party, thanks to the Tea Party faction.
  • US leaders edge towards debt deal as clock ticks to default deadline. The Independent. London (UK): Aug 1, 2011. pg. 4

Discussion

this should help muddy the water 23 tea party republicans voted yes to debt, only 17 voted no.  :::http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/01/us/politics/how-different-groups-voted-on-debt-compromise-bill.html?ref=politics

I suggest we collect sources here and then draft the text.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thin them to where it sound like the writer is doing overview/reporting,analysis and less where the writer sounds like they are on a soapbox. I see the latter there in both directions, so it's not a matter of them all going either way. North8000 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a few to get the ball rolling. Let's find better sources to use instead.   Will Beback  talk 

I'm more of a "get it done" type....how /bout you pick what you think are the 2-3 best sources and write a paragraph or 2 and put it in? This isn't as risky as it sounds; IMHO anything done in that/this frameworks is 99% sure of being much much better than the irrelevant trivia crap that this article is full of. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of these sources are that good, and four out of four thousand isn't a useful sample anyway. There's no rush. Better to take a week or two and get it right (more or less) instead of rushing.

What are the best sources on this so far? Magazines and newspapers? What's the most TPM-friendly media outlet, and what's their take on it?   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not looking for friendly vs. unfriendly to the TPM. I'm just looking for stuff that looks like overview / analysis/ reporting on the big stuff vs. where it sounds like the writer is on a soapbox. And, unlike the rest of this article, not trivia thrown in for effect. Will, if you feel like it, just pick the sources and write it. I'll bet such would be fine. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wording in "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" section

I propose changing the following text (indicated in bold) in this paragraph from:

On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs at a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot". Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times". Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time." Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

to

On March 20, 2010, during a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot". Representative André Carson said that while walking with John Lewis and his chief of staff from the Cannon building, amid chants of "Kill the bill" he heard the "n-word at least 15 times". Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd, and one man "just rattled it off several times". Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time." Heath Shuler, a Democratic U.S. representative from North Carolina commented on the tenor of the protests, saying: "It was the most horrible display of protesting I have ever seen in my life." He also confirmed hearing the slur against Frank.

The reason is reference 251 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040903716.html) only reports what the black congressmen said instead of reporting it as fact. This is in contrast to the Frank incident, which is proven and presented as fact by the source. Rather than try to explain the differences in a lead-in summary sentence, I say we just cut that part out and get to the facts. I have been involved in a long discussion on my talk page about this but that has stalled and it would help to get other editors' opinions. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. — goethean ॐ 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

People also say that they were spat at:

Some African-American lawmakers, including Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, a hero of the civil rights movement, have said that tea party activists yelled racial epithets or spat at them as they arrived at the Capitol for the final vote on health-care reform legislation in March.

— goethean ॐ 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see now that the spitting is included. I approve. — goethean ॐ 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The spitting incident was always mentioned, but regarding Cleaver, not Lewis. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for perspective, the real fix is that something about a few unknown individuals possile saying something bad shouldn't even be in this article. Something a few unknown goofballs might have said is not material about the TPM and also a massive wp:undue violation. But I support CWenger's proposed tweak. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

the whole event was a huge scam manufactured for effect (wp:selfsourced). lawmakers never cross the street, they use the underground transport. they purposely walked thru a group of protesters trying to bait them into action. a cash reward was offered for audio or video evidence, non has been produced, yet several versions not containing the alleged attacks. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if someone had stepped forward with audio or video evidence, they would have received a cash reward? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

yea, i know, rather improbable that it occurred, yet no evidence exist. Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward. you cant even beat down a skatepunk these days for doing an ollie on the captains cruiser without it being on youtube the next day and an aclu lawyer in your office the next morning wearing brooks brothers and patchouli. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart didn't offer a $100,000 reward to anyone who could step forward with audio or video evidence. So if someone was standing in the crowd, there to show their support for the TPM, surrounded on all sides by fellow protesters, and they happened to have a video camera recording the scene, and someone next to them uttered racial epithets, what would be the motivation for coming forward with this? You wouldn't get any money for it, and you'd just damage your own side in the issue. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was saying "Wow" at your comments, which are quite divorced from reality, reveal a comfort with racism, and are internally inconsistent. (1) the account is not "selfsourced", it is sourced to the Washington Post. (2) You equate walking through a crowd with baiting the crowd into calling someone racial and homophobic slurs (and spitting on people?). This reflects a comfort with racism on the part of a movement that you support. (3) You also believe that the event never happened because there is no video footage of it, despite multiple eyewitness tesimony. Plenty of things happen without there being video footage of it happening. — goethean ॐ 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

apologies, "self-sourced" i meant my claim the scandal was manufactured is my own opinion. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

since i don't think any racial slurs were made, what i meant was they were baiting an obviously upset group of protesters by choosing to walk instead of using the normal mode of transportation. you assume i meant baiting racist, actually i meant baiting fiscal conservatives of any race, which is actually a misnomer since there is only one biological race of human on the earth. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Walking across the street is their normal mode of transportation during daylight hours. That's already been established. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

His arguments demolished, User:Darkstar1st blithely goes on to pursue other topics... — goethean ॐ 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a popular misconception. There was never a "reward". Breitbart offered to give $100,000 only to the United Negro College Fund for video proof of the slurs. It is improbable that a TPer would cough up a self-incriminating video of racism, when they wouldn't see a single dollar for it. Pretty clever of Breitbart, if you ask me. The couple videos we do have of that moment show that there were no news media cameras near enough to the walking congressmen to catch any audio — just protesters there — and there is no monetary incentive for those protesters to make their recordings public, even if they have them.

As for the slurs being improbable, I'll ask you what I asked CWenger: Do you see any logic in claiming: Sure, some of the "loud and angry" protesters called the gays "faggots" and "homos", left swastikas on the Jew's desk and fax machine, called the Hispanics "spics" — but call a black man "nigger"?!? That's un-American, and I refuse to believe it happened unless I see it on 3-D Video with Dolby surround-sound! It makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Take any crowd of people in riled up argumentative situaition and it's quite plausible that one of them said anything imaginable. The implausible, rare and stupid thing is for such to be in an article about the overall group or organization. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

nigger is the most popular song lyric behind ho, i have no doubt it is uttered often. what is improbable, is a group of people pissed off about spending, would switch gears mid-protest and start hurling racial insults instead of rhetoric matching their protest. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• C'mon folks - this isn't a forum. We're just here to discuss improvements to the article. CWenger has made a specific proposal. Let's keep our focus on that. Does anyone have anything further to say about it?   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is a good idea. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And already implemented, along with a few other minor changes that people seem to be content with, after some tweaks with a couple editors. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NAACP report

I don't think that there's any coverage of this event in the article, except for Mark Williams' response to it. — goethean ॐ 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Political Cartoon

This cartoon is inappropriate for the article. It is impossible to select any one cartoon without presenting undue weight associated to that specific cartoon. The editor that added it is Peter Welleman and it appears to be his own personal work under which it fails WP:SELFPUB. I am not even sure it is published anywhere. I would remove again as a violation of WP:SELFPUB but won't because of 1RR. Arzel (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to select any one cartoon without presenting undue weight associated to that specific cartoon.

If that argument held up, you could probably use it to eliminate all content from the article. — goethean ॐ 15:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Images are always a touchy subject I know, but this clearly fails for reasons outside of that aspect anyway. Self submitted artwork is rarely included, especially when it is trying to promote a point of view. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see by your reluctance to remove unpublished poltical artwork that you are more interested in pushing a POV than following WP policies. This should not even be a debate. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please spare me and the other readers of this page from your pathetic whining. The teabaggers here have done nothing but to clearly push their own POV, at a great waste of time and effort to well-meaning editors and to the great detriment of the article. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear I can now disregard anything you have to say in the future. You show no interest in civil discourse or following WP policies unless they serve your own purpose. I suggest you also remove your personal attack against the Tea Party Movement people. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to your personal attack, genius. — goethean ॐ 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about the delete it but Fat&Happy got there first. Political cartoons are clearly inappropriate in this article, and that addition was inappropriate for a number of other reasons anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests

Please merger, there is no need for them to be separate articles. Would protests by an political group, assume the Communist Party of Portugal(yes, I know that their political ideologies are opposed but this example isn't political), had a Misplaced Pages article on their protests. It wouldn't be considered notable. 216.105.64.144 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to predict what becomes notable. Merging that material back here would swamp this article.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reduced-scope RFC

So we have the proposed RFC to nuke this to a stub and rebuild (only) from quality sources. I would like to propose a more limited RFC, on one narrower topic which is representative or emblematic of the problems here. I have worded it without a rationale so as to have it's wording be neutral. Proposed wording of RFC:

Remove the section and material relating to Sonny Hale's twitter comment.

Now I know that there are folks that would oppose this change, or even oppose the question going to an RFC. But what you think of the wording, keeping in mind that it must be neutral? North8000 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we process to an RfC, what is the reason for removing the material? Have we discussed this proposal before? Maybe we can come to an agreement without needing an RfC.   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed the issue beyond-extensively, but, as your astute question points out, I don't think we've discussed any specific proposal regarding this. So I hereby convert the above to a proposed change. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the rationale?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

several editors have noted the pov may be slanted, would that count as rational? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, that would be the yet-to-be-had discussion. I'm ready to start it, but not this morning. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Outline of reasons for removal

(mostly just the headings at this point)North8000 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons partially or fully related to policies and guidelines

Massive wp:undue violation. This is about a twitter comment by a low level person, and it's in the top level article about the movement

No RS indication that this is about the TPM. ABOUT is different than "some connection to"

The juxtaposition per the previous point is OR

Reasons related to article quality

Selected trivia like this put in for effect is not informative about the TPM.

Selected trivia like this put in for effect is is a construction (OR) by WP editors and mis-leading There is no quality sourcing given that says that the "issues" implied by this construction-from-trivia exist and, in fact, it says the opposite. The actual controversies about the TPM are assertions that their agenda is wrong-headed, and strident pursuit of their agenda. This type of real coverage has been pushed out by the POV trivia.

This a good place to start on the extensive, unresolved expressed concerns that this article is a low-quality collection of trivia, selected for POV purposes.

North8000 (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Useful to add that all members of the Tea Party Caucuses are Republican.

Useful to add that all members of the Tea Party Caucuses are Republican. Suggest in the lede. 99.181.131.76 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be appropriate at Tea Party Caucus but not here. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate here, as the caucus is part of the movement. Is there a source for it though?   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort of:

• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/29/who-is-the-tea-party-caucus-in-the-house/
• http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Tea-Party-Tally/2011/0128/Why-senators-are-avoiding-the-Tea-Party-Caucus/%28page%29/2
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706966.html

The problem being that, although I don't expect a mad rush of Democrats to join any time soon, statements on the membership composition are heavily time-dependent. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it would be a logical addition to the "Impact on the 2010 election cycle" section. It'd only take a short sentence to say that all of the Tea Party members elected in 2010 are Republicans.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the election info would be useful info if written well and accurate/sourced. The right wording will be important so as to inform rather than confuse. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest Section Discussing The Controversy Around Republican Party "Bosses" Using Tea Party Smoke Screen To Distance Themselves From Their Past Bad Acts Regarding Fiscal Responsibility

During the deficit ceiling debate, the likes of Karl Rove and others that appeared on Fox News referred to the tea party in inclusive fashion, "... our side ..." That raises doubt about the tea party's independence from the Republican establishment that brought on the hyper-debt and deficit spending that the tea party is supposed to be against.

In present form, this article does not expose the hypocrisy of aligning within the republican establishment. Further hypocritical controversy is the difference between republican rhetoric and performance on the issue of fiscal responsibility. None of this is presently part of this article and I believe it should be.

Many believe the tea party to be a simple smoke screen by party bosses to recapture previous momentum lost by performance of the republican party over the years leading up to and through the Bush administration. Please consider a more balanced discussion of the tea party with these elements, as well as the tea party's role in the deficit ceiling debacle.

Quazula (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources that make that argument before we can put it into the article. I do not think btw that that analysis represents mainstream thinking. Instead, the Republican establishment sees the Tea Party as an opportunity to rebrand themselves. TFD (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they see the TPM as a mixed blessing. On the down side, as an unruly bunch that often butts heads with the traditional Republicans, and that won't take up the social conservative agenda, since many of the TP'ers have libertarian ideology, or downplay or don't follow social conservatism. On the plus side, they bring a sort of psychological rejuvenation, and they run and get votes and get elected. And since practically every TP candidate is a Republican, every TP'er who wins office is another Republican in office, including tipping the balance in the House. Not that this is article material, but maybe helps sort some things out. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This Karl Rove? 99.181.132.165 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "Populist" should not be used

A majority of the country does not agree with the Tea Party Movement. They side with corporations, how is that populist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.154.247 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It warrants an encyclopedia article as it meets Misplaced Pages's standards of notability. Falcon8765 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the first paragraph was developed through an extensive comment and review process. There is a large amount of material regarding that specific question there. North8000 (talk)

Populist does not mean popular. Note that the original U.S. populists were a third party and right-wing populists in Europe routinely get about 15% of the vote. TFD (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling Notre Dame and Harvard professors work "junk"

Hello. I appeal to whomever reads this talk page and will be back tomorrow to check on this. If you think Notre Dame and Harvard professors' work is junk, I wish you luck in life. My revert is within the page guidelines which allow a single "revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period". -SusanLesch (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. One of them, Robert D. Putnam, is not only notable enough for a Misplaced Pages biography, but three of his books have articles as well. Folks keep asking for high quality material about the movement itself, and this qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is an article in the New York Times by two scholars who challenge the convential understanding of the Tea Party. The problem with including their views is that we do not know what weight it should have. Do other scholars accept their views? It would seem that they do not. TFD (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How much credence has been given to the view that the TPM is made up of political neophytes anyway? I think that one narrative has always been that it is run by experienced political mavens.   Will Beback  talk  01:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not even an article but an op-ed. This article seems to be loaded down with opinion the way it is already. Arzel (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because an article is printed on an Op-Ed page doesn't mean it's just an opinion. In this case, the piece clearly describes the research upon which they base their analysis.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it as peer-reviewed research, thus it is just opinion, researched opinion, but opinion nontheless. I suppose if you believe them though, we can get rid of all the Koch idiocy since they are obviously not the source of the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By "junk" I meant just more op-ed statements, statements by political operatives, and irrelevant crap gamed in for effect. I meant that these these are just more junk in the context of this article which is flooded with such junk. We need to start getting this article out of the junk hjole, not have it pushed in deeper by gaming in more pure pOV stuff. Plus anybody who say that the TPM is religious is either dumb or saying something for effect that they know is wrong. Half of it is Libertarians, and many of them are atheists. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are you making assertions about the makeup of the movement?

I don't think that these two poli-sci professors could be called political operatives. They are experts, one of them notable, writing within their field of expertise. Let's not give it excess weight, but all significant points of view do need to be included.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis is opinion and we do not know what weight this opinion has. The op-ed for example says that the Tea Party goes back to 2006, not 2009 as stated in the WP article. Also, I think that experts say that Tea Party supporters are not politically experienced, although many of the major organizers and financial supporters are. Their views on the religious influence also appears to be outside mainstream writing. TFD (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to include all significant views, not just the mainstream view. I don't think the article is saying that the movement started in 2006. Rather, they are saying they interviewed people in 2006 who would go on to become members of the TPM.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that the view expressed in the op-ed is significant? TFD (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Two notable poli-sci authors and professors at the top U.S. universities, published in the New York Times. On that basis alone I'd say it is not what we'd call a "fringe" view. A ongoing problem with this article is editors protesting the inclusion of anything about the movement's membership. That doesn't leave much to talk about.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, even though I think the story is bogus. It is very peculiar for a poll like that to not show its raw questions and results. So it's hard to tell if what they are saying is directly from the poll results or their own analysis, e.g. did they actually ask Tea Partiers, "what is your overriding concern regarding government?" And the survey started in 2006, so almost half of it was completed before the TPM really started! Anyway, I digress...I think it merits two sentences. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the poll results are based off the CBS poll, to which I cannot believe is still regarded as reliable. They have consistantly overweighted Democrat views, you would think that after years of having to weight their polls in favor of Democrats that they would maybe, just maybe, come to the conclusion that the real poll results are probably closer to their raw numbers rather than their weighted numbers. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Putnam is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences among other honors. I will edit the article to say that what they wrote in the New York Times is in anticipation of publication in the paperback edition of their book, due out in February 2012. Hope that helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You need first to establish how significant the views expressed in the book are. TFD (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, the fact that someone is a professor does not mean that his opinions are always correct. That is the nature of academic writing. Scholars publish papers presenting new views which are then discussed by the community and may result in a new consensus. Scholars may also write books for a popular audience that do not enter academic discussion at all (which is the case here). The correct approach we should take is to determine what academic consensus exists and what are the major issues of controversy and reflect that in our writing. That means reading current scholarly papers, not op-eds. Bear in mind that the so-called "conservative" editors often do exactly what you are doing here. They take an op-ed by Professor Mark Skousen or Professor Arthur C. Brooks and try to tilt articles to a non-mainstream POV. TFD (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, the opinion piece has been out for less than a week. It's been covered extensively, for example in Salon, The Daily Caller, The New York Times, The Item, National Review, The Washington Post, New York magazine. Would you prefer that I quote them instead of the authors? I think it is most economical in terms of word count to quote the sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan, to recap, I didn't mean that it is inherently junk; I meant that it's just another opinion, which, in the context of this article, is adding more junk. Putting the article even more deeply into that hole increases the likelihood that the only way to fix it will be to nuke it to a stub and start over, as discussed above. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

North8000, it makes no sense to ignore the work of a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Their job is to be "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine" and to work us out of holes not put us in them. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan, I really haven't reviewed them in depth, only the insertion: "their rank and file is more concerned about "putting God in government" than it is with trying to shrink government." is absolutely implausible, and contrary to overwhelming evidence of what the TPM has been pushing and where it has been having conflicts with the regular republicans. I figured that no writer could be that stupid and so "political operative" or a op-ed piece by a TPM opponent seem the only other explanations. BTW I'll be gone 4-5 days and won't be able to converse much on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That a new theory has been out for a week and has been covered in the media does not mean that it is a significant viewpoint. TFD (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't answer my question. WP:NEWSORG says "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." So I'm sorry but we disagree. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There we get to where actual reliability has context. He might be a reliable source on what the talking points of anti-TPM people are, but be very unreliable regarding the TPM itself. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has received a lot of attention in the short time since its publication: I think these address TFD's concern about showing that it's a significant POV.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it has. It portrays the Tea Party movement as a bunch of White, Racist, Xenophobic, Religous zealots. Everything the left media loves to rant about, everything the left has been trying to portray about the movement for the past year. Incidentally, the meme about the Tea Party Movement being nothing more than ignorant morons being lead about by the Koch brothers to futher their capitalistic monopolies is now passe.

To Susan, just because he is a member of the Academy of Science doesn't mean that they are infallible. If they were we wouldn't have any problems in the world at all. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first source Will Beback provides is an op-ed by Scott Galupo, "a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times. Do you think that every article about social sciences could benefit from including his views? What about articles on climate change and evolution articles too> TFD (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing those as sources - they are there just to show that this viewpoint is significant. Let's not fight over straw men.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct way to show that views are significant is to find reliable sources that say they are notable. Finding multiple examples of references to a paper in non-notable sources does not establish notability. TFD (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a standard across Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the standard promulgated by Will, we should have Rush Limbaugh provide substantial "information" about the US Democratic party in that article because he is widely known and quoted by RS's. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, once Limbaugh is appointed a political science professor at Harvard.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We can either find a source saying that any opinion is notable, or we can conduct our own research. If we do the latter, as we have here, we get 18 pages of discussion and no resolution. But if an opinion is notable, then one would expect to find a source that says it is notable. And although Limbaugh is not a Harvard professor, there are plenty of right-wing professors who can be used as a source to make comments similar to his. 11:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)TFD (talk)

That's great. We should be relying more on professors (despite their prejudices) than other sources.

I have yet to see anyone say, in a reliably published source, that some view or another is "notable". Nobody says that. It's an impossible standard.   Will Beback  talk  11:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout we stop putting in political rants period, except that explaining that such are the views/talking points of opponents/proponents. This article is so full of crap that has been gamed in that it is currently worthless. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I object to calling major research by credentialed academics published in the most reputable newspaper in the US "junk" or a "rant". If we toss out this source what kind of standard are we setting for the rest of this article?   Will Beback  talk  12:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they meant it, anybody who says "more concerned about putting God in government than it is concerned with trying to shrink government" is definitely dumber than a 6th grader on the topic; hopefully they know more about what they actually teach. But my main meaning for "junk" is in the context of this article. Putting in rants from one side or the other, (except in sections identified as being about the talking points of the two sides) whole sections on a twitter comment or a cut BBQ grill line are junk in terms of trying to inform the reader which is why this article is such an uninformative piece of junk right now. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What you mean by 'junk' is anything which does not advocate for your ideology. — goethean ॐ 15:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, in the context here, by junk I mean ideology and off topic stuff instead of information North8000 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Photos

Just struck me as less than neutral that there are 9 total pictures on the page but not a single one showing either Ron Paul or the December 2007 Tea Party event. Of the 9 pictures four of them show events from 2009 and of those four there are three showing the September 9th, 2009 event. Seems a little lopsided although I realize I'm only one person with an opinion. Does anyone else see this as slightly unbalanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.32.102 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, because the Tea Party did not begin until 2009. It seems too that the people who came out for Paul had different demographics. Also, I don't see the Tea Party protesting the wars in the Middle East, the War on Drugs and the War on Crime. TFD (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll

Hello. Can anyone else make sense of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over time? I find only one occurrence of the string "Tea" in July 2011, and several occurrences for "Tea" in September 2010. It's almost like they did two different surveys. Help. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Items with VRTS permission confirmed