| Revision as of 22:05, 15 April 2012 editNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,842 edits →FORA.tv RS for contentious claim← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:06, 15 April 2012 edit undoNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,842 edits →FORA.tv RS for contentious claimNext edit → | ||
| Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
| :::It is the only such comparison in the entire article so it wouldn't be considered Undue. ] (]) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | :::It is the only such comparison in the entire article so it wouldn't be considered Undue. ] (]) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::Chomsky is a prominent critic of US policy. There's no plausible argument that devoting a single sentence in this article to him is undue. — ] ] 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | :::Chomsky is a prominent critic of US policy. There's no plausible argument that devoting a single sentence in this article to him is undue. — ] ] 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Selecting an opinion that |
::::Selecting an opinion that likens the TPM to Nazis is inappropriate. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:06, 15 April 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
 | 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. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. 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, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk. |
| 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. |
|
| 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 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. |
|
| 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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-en  wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
 | 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:
|
Recent addition of anti-TPM material
99.112.212.201 recently added a comment from an intelligent op-ed (and sourced to it) which was critical to the TPM. To the folks who are forever warring to maximize anti-TPM material here, putting in intelligent high level stuff like this is the way to do it, not warring and wikilawyering to keep in stories on a twitter comment, BBQ grills or spending forever to keep in what you know to be an mis-characterization (isolationist) of Ron Paul that even you know is in error. Do you really want to list "I wikilawyered to keep the the TPM article in junk status" on your mental list of Misplaced Pages accomplishments? North8000 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This maybe a useful addition in the vein of North8000's comment, Will the Tea Get Cold? (March 8, 2012 issue) by Sam Tanenhaus of Skocpol's and Foley's books (in Further Reading) and the book Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution by Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots. The current review relates to the Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.
- And here is a Review Essay by Reihan Salam in March/April Foreign Affairs The Missing Middle in American Politics; How Moderate Republicans Became Extinct, regarding the Skocpol book and Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by Geoffrey Kabaservice, who writes for the National Review. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- These might be useful for astroturfing claim references. <reinstated comment> 99.109.125.170 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the wikilink for a FA article already included, David E. Campbell. 99.112.212.147 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Worst Article EVER
Without even going into NPOV issues, this article is so filled with pettiness and irrelevancies it is completely UNREADABLE. I suggest setting a (low) maximum byte limit and going from there.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Needs to be completely rewritten. I'm wondering if Misplaced Pages has a place where the disparity between what is being done to this article and the Occupy Movement article could be examined. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- actually it's a good article on a controversial topic--the critics here are expressing their own political views about the movement, rather than sober analysis of the article. They have no specific complaints. The article covers all the major points, uses good sources, has a balanced tone, and is quite thorough. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it to be 90% junk and the article to be in junk status. Most of it is trivia (tweets, BBQ grills etc. 2nd hand rumors that someone in a crowd might have said something bad etc) gamed in to leave a negative impression. POV warriors have made it so difficult to fix that most people have either given up or aren't trying to fix it. Yes, probably the worst article ever, at least on a major topic. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- the problem is that the Tea Party is not an organized anything--it's a mood among some voters, and that rumors are what it consists of and what gets covered in an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you are getting closer there. I think that it is an agenda,a mood, an identity and name associated with it. In a very loose sense a movement. Certainly can't treat or cover it as an organization. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you. The TPM is well-organized into different groups around the country and the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it IS true that the one common theme everywhere in TPM is fiscal conservatism. I guess that what I meant was that the organization aspect is secondary and that it is not monolithic. And that pretending that everything that everyone with that agenda does is ABOUT the TPM is how all of the trivia got gamed in. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, I'm thinking its time to try to fix the article North8000 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- agreed, a total rewrite is in order. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, I'm thinking its time to try to fix the article North8000 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it IS true that the one common theme everywhere in TPM is fiscal conservatism. I guess that what I meant was that the organization aspect is secondary and that it is not monolithic. And that pretending that everything that everyone with that agenda does is ABOUT the TPM is how all of the trivia got gamed in. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you. The TPM is well-organized into different groups around the country and the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you are getting closer there. I think that it is an agenda,a mood, an identity and name associated with it. In a very loose sense a movement. Certainly can't treat or cover it as an organization. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- the problem is that the Tea Party is not an organized anything--it's a mood among some voters, and that rumors are what it consists of and what gets covered in an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it to be 90% junk and the article to be in junk status. Most of it is trivia (tweets, BBQ grills etc. 2nd hand rumors that someone in a crowd might have said something bad etc) gamed in to leave a negative impression. POV warriors have made it so difficult to fix that most people have either given up or aren't trying to fix it. Yes, probably the worst article ever, at least on a major topic. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- actually it's a good article on a controversial topic--the critics here are expressing their own political views about the movement, rather than sober analysis of the article. They have no specific complaints. The article covers all the major points, uses good sources, has a balanced tone, and is quite thorough. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
My own concern (and extensively and an ongoing one in feedback here) is the amount of trivia. To take out all of the "one low level guy did this" and "one low level guy might have done or said this" stuff. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The TPM is mostly a collection of personal activity --such as wearing costumes (is that trivial or representative?) --as for issues they mirror standard conservative themes. "fiscal conservatism" for example covers multiple contradictory themes (cutting budgets, cutting taxes on rich, cutting taxes on middle class, cutting deficits, cutting benefit programs, reduce borrowing from China, cutting waste, cutting the cost of medical care--all very different themes that show no TP unity. As for political unity their first big hero was a Massachusetts liberal (Sen Brown)--and one of their more famous candidates kept insisting she is not now and never has been a witch. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also TP elements not in favor of stopping tax breaks for fossil-fuel interest, per Talk:Tea Party movement /Archive18# Energy Policy resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 108.73.113.5 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- My answer to your question is in my proposed fix below. In short, editors would not put in trivia because they think it is representative. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you use biased sources, you get a biased article. Use sources from here. – Lionel 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be a bit confused. Misplaced Pages is not a conservative political outlet. It is not owned by Koch Industries. It does not have to toe to party line on the Tea Party's agenda. It will use neutral sources such as The New York Times, not your partisan bullshit rakers. — goethean ॐ 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't be a dick. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel's thoughts are mine exactly. Plus NYT isn't exactly a shining example....it's about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, and less than many of the sources that Lionelt linked. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Misplaced Pages-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Misplaced Pages's requirements. As for "trivia", I won't be relying on North8000's fine opinion as to what is or isn't "trivia" (or "junk", or "ABOUT the TP"...) until he has been published, and has developed the requisite reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Legions of equally unsubstantiated "Me too!" responses, with nothing more to advance the discussion, will be similarily considered. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- By "trivia" I meant putting specially selected local (specially selected from the millions of things that have been said or done at the local level) and putting into the top level national article. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- "local"? "top level national"? "local level"? Interesting flip-flop there. TP apologists cry foul when the corporate and big money interests backing, promoting and steering the "movement" are pointed out, insisting the TP is just individual "grassroots" Americans organizing at the local level with no hierarchy or leadership. Yet when the focus is on these individuals, especially the ones who step up and take the reins in this movement (like the ones mentioned in this TPm article), the TP apologists throw the buggy into reverse and instead cry foul, insisting that these are just "low level" individuals, and dismissing them as not representative of the "top level national" movement. Yes, North8000, it is quite transparent what you really mean when you refer to particular article content as "trivia". Why do you suppose the WSJ, NYT, CSM, WaPo, Politico et al, "specially selected" these things to feature in their reporting, and which of those "millions of things" would you prefer to add instead or in addition? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- By "trivia" I meant putting specially selected local (specially selected from the millions of things that have been said or done at the local level) and putting into the top level national article. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Misplaced Pages-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Misplaced Pages's requirements. As for "trivia", I won't be relying on North8000's fine opinion as to what is or isn't "trivia" (or "junk", or "ABOUT the TP"...) until he has been published, and has developed the requisite reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Legions of equally unsubstantiated "Me too!" responses, with nothing more to advance the discussion, will be similarily considered. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel's thoughts are mine exactly. Plus NYT isn't exactly a shining example....it's about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh, and less than many of the sources that Lionelt linked. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't be a dick. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be a bit confused. Misplaced Pages is not a conservative political outlet. It is not owned by Koch Industries. It does not have to toe to party line on the Tea Party's agenda. It will use neutral sources such as The New York Times, not your partisan bullshit rakers. — goethean ॐ 16:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The TPM is mostly a collection of personal activity --such as wearing costumes (is that trivial or representative?) --as for issues they mirror standard conservative themes. "fiscal conservatism" for example covers multiple contradictory themes (cutting budgets, cutting taxes on rich, cutting taxes on middle class, cutting deficits, cutting benefit programs, reduce borrowing from China, cutting waste, cutting the cost of medical care--all very different themes that show no TP unity. As for political unity their first big hero was a Massachusetts liberal (Sen Brown)--and one of their more famous candidates kept insisting she is not now and never has been a witch. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Further response to Malke 2010. I guess my one other thought about treating it more as an agenda than an entity is that the latter has been used as a false premise to game in other material. Imagine that someone coined a term for people in favor of Obamacare, the "Careites". And pollsters found that people who favored Obamacare were also more likely to favor getting rid of laws against pedophilia. Considering the Careites to be an entity could be used as a basis for saying that the pedophilia poll material is germane to the Careite article and gaming it in. Such is obviously unrelated, but such has happened in this article. (for example, poll data on topics that have nothing to do with the TPM agenda)North8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- North8000, you make an excellent point. The article is loaded with that. Let's work-up a plan for a complete rewrite. We can start with an outline. Also, Lionelt has made a very good point about the biased sources. The article is top-heavy with them. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lionelt has indeed made a point about biased sources, and has even provided a link to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xenophrenic, why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not? The left leaning bias of the NYTimes is legend. I agree that they do check their facts, but they are very selective about the facts they present and are very artful at how they present that selection. Mitt Romney will always be presented on the front page in a negative light, and Obama will always be presented in the positive. Mitt Romney could personally save the life of Mr. Salzberger, and his newspaper would find a way to make it sound much less than what it was. If you don't appreciate that, you haven't been reading the same NYTimes I've been reading here on the Left Coast. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your issue appears to be with Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy. Misplaced Pages does not buy the right-wing theory that the New York Times is a leftist rag, and that right-wing sources are more reliable. Please bring up your issues at a more appropriate venue. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The comment was that NYT is biased just like the others noted. Wp:rs does not require objectivity, so biased sources can still pass wp:rs. So that doesn't mean exclude them, it just means that we have to recognize them for what they are. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quite right.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You think that right-wing sources are more accurate than mainstream media sources. Misplaced Pages does not adhere to your world view. This is the source of the conflict. I suggest that you work out your differences in an appropriate forum. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Malke: You asked me, "why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not?" I commented about Lionelt's source list; I don't recall making a comment about the NYTimes and bias, nor is the NYT "my source", so I'm not sure what you are asking. I did remark that the NYTimes is a reliable source. As a wise sage once remarked, "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Xenophrenic, hello my friend. Love your quote. That is so you. Then we're all agreed that Lionelt's sources are just as reliable as the NYTimes? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- When evaluating where we agree and disagree on sources, please recall my above comment; I'll repeat it here: Bias, perceived or otherwise, isn't an issue. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are the defining characteristics of a Misplaced Pages-compliant reliable source. Many "sources" on Lionelt's list comes up a little short in that department. (I'm tempted to quote Arzel's comments about WND from just a few days ago, but I'll refrain.) The New York Times meets Misplaced Pages's requirements. I would also add, having participated in many discussions at WP:RSN, that the reliability of specific sources for specific material often needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis. A source deemed unreliable for assertion of fact, for example, might be suitable as a source for attributed opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Goethean, please show me where I said that right wing sources are more reliable than left wing sources? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I intended to reply to User:North8000 (there seems to be very little different between your positions), who said that 'the NYT is about as biased as Rush Limbaugh.' No offense, but that's a crazy statement. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe my equating NYT degree of bias to Rush Limbaugh was a bit much, but implying that NYT is an unbiased (vs. left-leaning) source is also pretty crazy. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Talk to people who are not Republicans sometime and you may find that the NYT is among the most respected publications in the world. By the way, this discussion right here is indicative of why we are making zero progress on the article. In the FOX News universe, the NYT is obviously left-wing propaganda. In the real world, it is a highly respected publication. Misplaced Pages is not part of the FOX News universe, and someone who lives in that universe will never be happy with this article. That's just due to a clash of worldviews. — goethean ॐ 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe my equating NYT degree of bias to Rush Limbaugh was a bit much, but implying that NYT is an unbiased (vs. left-leaning) source is also pretty crazy. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I intended to reply to User:North8000 (there seems to be very little different between your positions), who said that 'the NYT is about as biased as Rush Limbaugh.' No offense, but that's a crazy statement. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Xenophrenic, hello my friend. Love your quote. That is so you. Then we're all agreed that Lionelt's sources are just as reliable as the NYTimes? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- @Malke: You asked me, "why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not?" I commented about Lionelt's source list; I don't recall making a comment about the NYTimes and bias, nor is the NYT "my source", so I'm not sure what you are asking. I did remark that the NYTimes is a reliable source. As a wise sage once remarked, "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You think that right-wing sources are more accurate than mainstream media sources. Misplaced Pages does not adhere to your world view. This is the source of the conflict. I suggest that you work out your differences in an appropriate forum. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quite right.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The comment was that NYT is biased just like the others noted. Wp:rs does not require objectivity, so biased sources can still pass wp:rs. So that doesn't mean exclude them, it just means that we have to recognize them for what they are. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your issue appears to be with Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy. Misplaced Pages does not buy the right-wing theory that the New York Times is a leftist rag, and that right-wing sources are more reliable. Please bring up your issues at a more appropriate venue. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xenophrenic, why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not? The left leaning bias of the NYTimes is legend. I agree that they do check their facts, but they are very selective about the facts they present and are very artful at how they present that selection. Mitt Romney will always be presented on the front page in a negative light, and Obama will always be presented in the positive. Mitt Romney could personally save the life of Mr. Salzberger, and his newspaper would find a way to make it sound much less than what it was. If you don't appreciate that, you haven't been reading the same NYTimes I've been reading here on the Left Coast. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lionelt has indeed made a point about biased sources, and has even provided a link to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Worst article ever- proposed step 1 of fix
Take out the trivia and non-germane material. Anything that is not somehow ABOUT the TPM in general or some national (or at least regional) level aspect of it should go. This criteria would apply to the core topic of the coverage in the sources. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I replied above. Let's start with an outline for a new article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- My idea was to start nuking out the trivia and items not ABOUT the TPM per above. Then's we'd have an article 1/2 the size of the current one. And then rbuild with quality relevant stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay with me on the nuke thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first two that came to mind are the "propane grill damaged by a mystery person" and the "twitter tweet" items. Looks like the grill one is already in progress and so I plan to take the twitter tweet (by a low level guy) one out next. Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- on the propane grill incident--I read the articles and no person accuses the Tea party of any vandalism. The TP vigorously denounced vandalism. While Democrats accused REPUBLICANS of stirring up trouble--they did not accuse tea partiers. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Our Misplaced Pages article also does not "accuse the Tea Party of any vandalism". It does, however, accurately report that a Tea Party organizer from one city in Virginia, and the Chairman of a Tea Party organization in another Virginia city, posted what they thought was the home address of a representative who was voting for the health care bill -- and urged fellow TPers to visit him personally at his home to express their anger. It was relevant enough that other TPm leaders felt compelled to denounce the action.
- Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has a following in the Tea Party movement, called the posting of Perriello's brother's address "appalling." "I think that is way over the line," he said. "I don't think it's close. It's an appalling approach. It's not civil discourse. It's an invitation to intimidation." (Link)
- The section deals with more than just a cut gas line. It also is not about what Democrats accuse Republicans of doing; it is about the perception left with the public about the Tea Party activists, and how they handle it -- as noted in the first source article cited. (IMHO, they handle it with the pat response like all the others: denounce it as "not representative" of the whole group.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "propane grill" was just the brief tag for it. It's also about 10 other things that have nothing to do with the TPM other than a Misplaced Pages editor wanted to put them in there for effect. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- And even if all of that were not true, and everything that you said true, it still wouldn't belong. This is the top level article about a national US movement. Local items, much less local items seletected by wp editors for POV effect do not belong in there. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. I prefer to abide by Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process, instead of your proposal to edit war your POV edits upon the article over the objection of other editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Our Misplaced Pages article also does not "accuse the Tea Party of any vandalism". It does, however, accurately report that a Tea Party organizer from one city in Virginia, and the Chairman of a Tea Party organization in another Virginia city, posted what they thought was the home address of a representative who was voting for the health care bill -- and urged fellow TPers to visit him personally at his home to express their anger. It was relevant enough that other TPm leaders felt compelled to denounce the action.
- on the propane grill incident--I read the articles and no person accuses the Tea party of any vandalism. The TP vigorously denounced vandalism. While Democrats accused REPUBLICANS of stirring up trouble--they did not accuse tea partiers. Rjensen (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first two that came to mind are the "propane grill damaged by a mystery person" and the "twitter tweet" items. Looks like the grill one is already in progress and so I plan to take the twitter tweet (by a low level guy) one out next. Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- the core belief that unifies them is fiscal conservatism
Not exactly, but that is the POV some editors have gamed into the article. The actual core belief that unifies them is the pretense of fiscal conservatism while Obama is in the White House. There was no "national movement" against fiscal irresponsibility until after Obama was elected, and poll after poll show TPers to be quite split (and even contrarian) on taxes, deficit and other fiscal matters.
- accused REPUBLICANS ... did not accuse tea partiers
Oh, yeah ... totally separate folks there. The sources must have been confused.
- posting a mistaken address on its web site -- this seems to be the strongest attack ever made against the Tea Party
You appear to have misread. Neither Rep. Perriello nor his brother are TPers, and the intimidation attack wasn't "against the Tea Party".
- Meanwhile we should all look for some real quality material that is actually ABOUT the TPM, pro or con.
Finally, a common sense suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. The edits North8000 is attempting to make are legitimate. Nobody is suggesting an edit war. Please don't throw around labels like that. Everything mentioned above is nonsense junk that has been gamed into the article. These are legitimate edits and should stand. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm finding it difficult to take your comment seriously when you say "don't throw around labels" in the same breath where you accuse editors of gaming "nonsense junk" into Misplaced Pages articles. North8000's proposal to delete content he doesn't personally like, over the objections of other editors, is the very definition of edit warring. A word-search of "nonsense junk" in Misplaced Pages's policy pages comes up empty, so I'll have to ask you to be more specific in describing your concerns (besides the obvious dislike of unflattering information usually exhibited by POV editors). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The cited articles DO connect, for example, the BBQ grill incident to the Tea Party Movement. To wit:
- At the same time, the vandalism threatened to be a public relations disaster for the fledgling Tea Party movement, which has tried to argue that it is, in the words of Dick Armey, the chairman of the umbrella group FreedomWorks, “more well-mannered” than protesters on the left.
- Leaders of the movement tried to contain the damage on Thursday, denouncing the violence and distancing themselves from those behind the acts. Some suggested that outsiders were responsible. In Colorado, where Representative Betsy Markey was among the Democrats reporting threats, Lesley Hollywood, the director of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, said, “Although many are frustrated by the passage of such controversial legislation, threats are absolutely not acceptable in any form, to any lawmaker, of any party.”
- Much of the media coverage of the Tea Party Movement was negative. Media coverage of the movement regularly featured people bringing loaded guns to political events, people calling politicians racist names, people comparing the President to Adolf Hitler, etc. Misplaced Pages reflects the media's coverage of the movement. The fact that conservatives want to eliminate coverage of this material, and to make Misplaced Pages reflect the conservative media's coverage of the TPM, is unsurprising but irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Worst article ever- second attempt at step 1 of fix
My proposal is to take out all of the local trivia. Everything where the core of the item refers to actions by people who are not of national stature in the TPM or of national stature. And specifically to start with removal of the twitter tweet and propane grill paragraphs. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator) Per extensive supporting arguments over the last 6-8 months. WP:undue, massive POV problem, not germane, wp:synth violaitons by juxtaposition, not relevant, emblematic of the junk loaded-with-POV-trivia state of this article, and too narrow (specially selected from tens of thousand of local item) to be included in the top level article of a national US movement. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that you are supposed to vote for your own proposal. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, no one is supposed to vote for the proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Agree with North8000. Xenophrenic, my friend, relax. Time marches on, new things arise, and the article must change to keep up. There's far to much here that is undue weight, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite relaxed, Malke :-) Reclined, in fact! And yes, while time marches on, and articles change, Misplaced Pages's policy against POV-pushing has not changed. Let's keep all editing policy-compliant, shall we? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- support the article has several errors:
- 1. the word "movement" is a distraction from the common usage of "the tea party"
- 2. the tea party was born on dec 16, 2007 by Ron Paul supporters, 100% grass-roots, small contributors.
- 3. undue weight given to what others think about the tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Editors have always been encouraged to improve the article rather than removing sections which contain material which editors personally dislike. That invitation stands. Find prominent scholarly analyses of the movement and summarize them fairly and neutrally. I doubt that anyone will stop you. — goethean ॐ 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Everybody who is doing it please stop with the invented "personally dislike" criteria crap. Persons say that are missing wp:agf by two levels....BIBF- Baselessly Inventing Bad Faith. My proposal is to take all trivia out. And dozens of people have said that the main problem with the article is that it is loaded with trivia. So, central to improving the article is removing the trivia. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, your near-constant advocacy, which has lasted for how many months now, of removing all of the critical material from this article, and replacing it with a more sympathetic narrative, has absolutely nothing — nothing, I tell you! — with your personal devotion to the Tea Party political agenda. I know. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that baseless guess at an insult has already been proven wrong. See above when I applauded putting in higher level criticism of / material negative on the TPM (rather than gamed-in trivia) North8000 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, your near-constant advocacy, which has lasted for how many months now, of removing all of the critical material from this article, and replacing it with a more sympathetic narrative, has absolutely nothing — nothing, I tell you! — with your personal devotion to the Tea Party political agenda. I know. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Everybody who is doing it please stop with the invented "personally dislike" criteria crap. Persons say that are missing wp:agf by two levels....BIBF- Baselessly Inventing Bad Faith. My proposal is to take all trivia out. And dozens of people have said that the main problem with the article is that it is loaded with trivia. So, central to improving the article is removing the trivia. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Take out all of the local trivia? So there goes the whole Early local protest events section. And no-name Ryan Hecker's whole section would need to go; definitely no "top level" stuff in that section from that low-level solo-artist. Zack Christenson? Who the heck is he? The Gadsden flag stuff; a whole paragraph about just one of the many flags waved at protests -- too narrow, and has nothing to do with the national agenda -- gone. The sections on Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell -- all national stature figures of relevance to the TP -- should probably have their presence in the article doubled, or perhaps tripled for WEIGHT parity. Overall, it sounds like a loss of a lot of good information to me. I disagree with the proposal. Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The tactic here has been to make too difficult / time consuming to fix the article so that nobody does it. In that light I'm not playing the game of dealing with your last few sentences literally as crafted. On the other items, anything where the core of it is about a national figure would not fall under the "local" criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "tactic" here is to understand what you are really proposing. If you can't point me to an argument in support of your proposal, then I think I now understand perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pointing you to anything will not change anything. A year has shown that you flatly want to keep the trivia in. To put it nicely. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- You exhibit the same lack of care in reading the past years events as you do in reading reliable sources. I ask you for a reasoned argument behind your proposal, and you balk -- more of the same. Let me know if you ever want to work on article improvement. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in your games, North8000. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, Xenophrenic, stop going on about all that. The trivia North8000 is talking about is nonsense junk blown out of proportion. The article should better be titled, "What the Left-Wing Wants You to Believe About the Tea Party Movement." It's that obvious. One article from the New Yorker, and suddenly the Koch Industries has some kind of conspiracy going. Some nutty neighbor sabotages a guy's gas grill and suddenly the TPM is all about terrorism directed at Barack Obama (by way of a gas grill in Maryland? Seriously?) It's nonsense junk, and it needs to go. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- We must be talking about two different things, Malke. I don't see any content about a sabotaged gas grill. I don't see any content about a nutty neighbor. I don't see any content about terrorism directed at Barack Obama. Are we even discussing the same Misplaced Pages article? If your outrageous characterizations of what is really in the article is an attempt to argue North8000's position by employing the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule, well, you failed -- I see through your attempt. The content North & I have been discussing is not attempting to convey anything about gas grills, nutty neighbors or terrorism against Obama. The content we're discussing is about the serious escalation in threats, violence and confrontational rhetoric coming from the TP movement as observed by the public and reported on in countless reliable sources. From the disruption of the town hall meetings (remember those?), to the tangible anger at the health care protests and the countless specific reported incidents from TP "leaders" -- if it were "trivia", it wouldn't be so widely covered in the news report sections of reliable sources. You began your comment with the word "Seriously", yet as I read your post it became evident that you had no intention of discussing the actual content seriously. Please let me know if you change your mind.
- Seriously, Xenophrenic, stop going on about all that. The trivia North8000 is talking about is nonsense junk blown out of proportion. The article should better be titled, "What the Left-Wing Wants You to Believe About the Tea Party Movement." It's that obvious. One article from the New Yorker, and suddenly the Koch Industries has some kind of conspiracy going. Some nutty neighbor sabotages a guy's gas grill and suddenly the TPM is all about terrorism directed at Barack Obama (by way of a gas grill in Maryland? Seriously?) It's nonsense junk, and it needs to go. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You exhibit the same lack of care in reading the past years events as you do in reading reliable sources. I ask you for a reasoned argument behind your proposal, and you balk -- more of the same. Let me know if you ever want to work on article improvement. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in your games, North8000. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pointing you to anything will not change anything. A year has shown that you flatly want to keep the trivia in. To put it nicely. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "tactic" here is to understand what you are really proposing. If you can't point me to an argument in support of your proposal, then I think I now understand perfectly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and as for your proposed article name change, in order to meet your description we would have to rewrite the article based on left-wing commentary sources, and it would look nothing like what we have now. What we have now could accurately be retitled as "What the Words and Deeds of the Tea Party has led the Public to Believe About the Tea Party Movement". Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Xenophrenic, I find the combination of your intense disdain for the TPM (as you have communicated many times here) combined with saying that the negative trivia inclusion is "intended to convey" (or similar "to show that" type comments on prior occasions) to be very indicative of the problem that we need to fix here. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- North8000, I used to find your expressed personal comments about editors to be caustic and disruptive; I see them now as part of your routine here at Misplaced Pages, and as they are unsubstantiated and unwarranted (Watch this: Hey North, please provide just one diff indicating "intense disdain for the TPM" from me. Golly, you can't? What a surprise! Rinse & repeat -- routine North8000.), a form of trolling that has become sadly humorous through repetition. To the rest of your comment, here is what I said: The content North & I have been discussing is not attempting to convey anything about gas grills, nutty neighbors or terrorism against Obama. If you see that statement as "very indicative of the problem we need to fix here", then I am anxious to hear your description of what that problem is. I made that statement to fix the problem of Malke misrepresenting what the TPm article actually says. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly what needs to be fixed here. Xenophrenic, you've got to relax and stand back and let other editors offer their views and suggestions. You react so strongly and so quickly to him that it seems to be keeping you from hearing what North8000 is trying to say. Compromise is the only way to function on Misplaced Pages as you well know. I've seen you do it before, my friend. There's nothing on Misplaced Pages that is that important that it can't be revisited, reexamined. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Malke, as I'm sure you'll agree, compromise between two equally valid but competing ways of doing or saying the same thing is good and productive -- and you are correct, I frequently compromise in such situations. However, compromise between Misplaced Pages policy-compliant editing competing with policy-violating editing is not a good thing. We wouldn't say, "For the sake of compromise, go ahead and violate policy just a little bit this time..." POV-warring over the objection of editors is policy-violating editing. I don't do that kind of compromise, and I really hope that you are not suggesting that I should.
- To the rest of your comment: why are you getting so wound up about this, Malke? Just take a deep breath, separate yourself from your emotional involvement, and review the present discussion from a detatched perspective. Here is the current status:
- 1) North8000 proposed the deletion of content from the article that he considers "negative" and "trivia". He claims, "Per extensive supporting arguments over the last 6-8 months."
- 2) I disagree with his proposal. Having witnessed the discussions during identical previous attempts to remove negative information, and not recalling "extensive support" for his proposal back then, I asked North, "Could you please provide a link to the most persuasive "extensive supporting argument" for your proposal, so that I may review it? Perhaps that will give me a better idea of the reasoning for your proposed deletions.
- 3) North has balked at the simple, polite request for his supporting argument. Apparently, it's either "too difficult / time consuming" to justify his proposal or point me to one of these past supporting arguments, or he feels that "Pointing to anything will not change anything". Perhaps by that, he means he expects that his suggestion to remove unflattering information from an article will garner as much support as it has previously, when his "supporting arguments" are reviewed.
- I would like to understand "what North8000 is trying to say", to use your words, and I've opened the door to that discussion. But I can't have that discussion solo. And I am 100% with you in an effort to "revisit and reexamine" the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here's how the game goes. The way to prevent fixing it is to make it so time consuming so that people give up and go away. I've spent many many hours giving many reasons why the trivia should go. Xenophrenic, who has contempt for the tea party and does everything based on that, is never going agree to take the trivia out. So, instead of looking at all of the reasoning that I have spent so much time writing out an explaining, they say "point me to a convincing argument". Then, if someone points to one, Xenophrenic will say "that one's not convincing", and if they don't they can say " "xxxxx" wouldn't even do "yyyyy" " and try to get mileage out of that......sort of a win win situation for blockading progress. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining how your game goes. I'm not interested in playing. If you ever develop an interest in article improvement instead of POV-pushing, I would be interested in working with you toward that goal. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- But what constitutes 'article improvement' in your view? That's the problem North8000 is telling he's having. All he encounters are reverts and circular arguments. You can't claim he's got a POV and pretend you don't. You can't claim all his ideas are POV pushing and your ideas, and resistance to his ideas, is not. POV pushing can also be claims that certain edits can't be changed, etc. And turning everything into a battle is definitely not the way to improve the article. There has to be give and take. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- What constitutes article improvement in my view? You could review that way back in Archive 13 (search for the phrase: from an article-improvement position). Or for a specific example, look at Archive 14 (search for the phrase: If we can rewrite the article so that the content). Here is a cut&paste from Archive 15 of a suggestion I have made more than a dozen times (just search the archives for "laundry list" to see them):
- North8000 and I share a dislike for the series of "This TPer said/did this bad thing" example list in the article, but for markedly different reasons. If I understand North's position correctly, he feels the list of examples is a POV attempt to create an "artificial construction", or a false narrative about the movement, implying that the movement is racist, bigoted, intolerant, etc., — and he would like to see much of that content removed outright. I, on the other hand, have watched that list of examples develop as a clumsy and inadequate attempt to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race. I've been pushing for a replacement of that laundry list of embarrassing behavior with a more informative and encyclopedic treatment of the related underlying issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- North8000 keeps "encountering reverts" because he keeps attempting to simply purge content that he dislikes from the article, instead of replacing that content with a more encyclopedic treatment of the information. (There have been no "circular arguments" from me, by the way; perhaps you are confusing me with one of the many other editors that have also reverted the inappropriate attempts at white-washing.) I have never claimed that he has a POV and I don't; I have merely insisted that this article is no place to be pushing it. (It is no coincidence that this is also a Misplaced Pages core policy). Xenophrenic (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- What constitutes article improvement in my view? You could review that way back in Archive 13 (search for the phrase: from an article-improvement position). Or for a specific example, look at Archive 14 (search for the phrase: If we can rewrite the article so that the content). Here is a cut&paste from Archive 15 of a suggestion I have made more than a dozen times (just search the archives for "laundry list" to see them):
- But what constitutes 'article improvement' in your view? That's the problem North8000 is telling he's having. All he encounters are reverts and circular arguments. You can't claim he's got a POV and pretend you don't. You can't claim all his ideas are POV pushing and your ideas, and resistance to his ideas, is not. POV pushing can also be claims that certain edits can't be changed, etc. And turning everything into a battle is definitely not the way to improve the article. There has to be give and take. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining how your game goes. I'm not interested in playing. If you ever develop an interest in article improvement instead of POV-pushing, I would be interested in working with you toward that goal. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here's how the game goes. The way to prevent fixing it is to make it so time consuming so that people give up and go away. I've spent many many hours giving many reasons why the trivia should go. Xenophrenic, who has contempt for the tea party and does everything based on that, is never going agree to take the trivia out. So, instead of looking at all of the reasoning that I have spent so much time writing out an explaining, they say "point me to a convincing argument". Then, if someone points to one, Xenophrenic will say "that one's not convincing", and if they don't they can say " "xxxxx" wouldn't even do "yyyyy" " and try to get mileage out of that......sort of a win win situation for blockading progress. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- To the rest of your comment: why are you getting so wound up about this, Malke? Just take a deep breath, separate yourself from your emotional involvement, and review the present discussion from a detatched perspective. Here is the current status:
In case that there is anybody who truly hasn't noticed that I'm out to get non-germane trivia out of the article (not to slant it) there is an incident above which is the proof of the pudding. See "Recent addition of anti-TPM material" section above. Someone put in some non-triva, germane anti-TPM material and I applauded it. Xenophrenic, you can't say the same. The clear common theme of practically everything that you have done and said here is to make this article as anti-TPM as you can. In the item that you quoted above, you basically said the YOU know that the TPM is bad on race, and that the article should show that, that the trivia was a clumsy attempt at that righteous cause, and that higher level material supporting the POV would be better. Aside from the obvious Misplaced Pages problems with that, if that higher level material exists, why haven't you put it in? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Someone added a single sentence, attributed and properly sourced, and North8000 didn't revert it! Stop the presses; he has saved his soul! Oh...wait, this just in: that's how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Yes, North8000, I can say the same. I applaud, and do not revert, properly added material as a matter of routine; something I've never felt the need to hold up and trumpet as some sort of exceptional accomplishment. In the item I quoted above, what I said (note: not "basically said", which is North-speak for 'misrepresented version') was that the content attempted "to convey by example what some studies and polls have asserted: that TPers have distinctively reactionary views on racial issues, and demonstrable correlation between the political positions they espouse and their views on race." Note that I made no mention of what *I* know. Your conspiracy theories that every editor who ads unflattering content to this article must be an anti-TP operative on a righteous crusade to destroy the movement are rather absurd. Get over yourself already, North -- not everyone is as emotionally invested in silly politics. To your question about why I haven't researched scholarly materials on this subject and added them, I'll just quote myself: Been there, done that. I, and other editors, have posted good sources here many times over the past two years. However, I'm as guilty as the next editor of not finding the motivation to do the heavy-lifting required to improve the article. ... how shall I evaluate them to determine which come from "operatives of their political opponents" and which do not? Shall we just assume that any source that says anything critical or unflattering about the movement has obviously come from political opponents? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, who wants to do hours of real, scholarly work which will simply be rejected out-of-hand because it hurts the feelings of Tea Party adherents? — goethean ॐ 13:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Goethean I don't know whether your stated misreading of my intentions is accidental or on purpose, but my intention is only to have a quality article, not to have it biased. As indication of my credentials regarding this, when it has jeopardized article quality and npov, I have locked horns with people who want to push MY POV at the article to prevent them from doing so. A few bigger examples of that were at the Libertarianism article several times over the last month and the Intelligent design article about a month ago. Further proof/credentials regarding this is my post about 1 inch up from this one. So, if you sincerely, mean what you said, we're on the same page. If not, not. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do believe that you sincerely want to improve the article, just as I do. But your beliefs and actions are a product of your belief system and world-view, as are mine. And as has been demonstrated again and again, our views on the Tea Party are in different universes. I think (with good reason, I believe) that the Tea Party was the result of astroturfing dollars contributed by the Kochs and other corporate billionaires, which played on people's fears, xenophobia, racism, and other regressive impulses like selfishness and tribalism. You believe, I gather, that it is an authentic expression of grass-roots concern about the national deficit, government spending, perhaps about the Obama administration's encroachment on freedoms, and other high-minded ideology. Yours is broadly similar to the view from inside the Tea Party, while mine is a view (although not the only one) from outside the Tea Party. Both of us are probably too close to the subject to write about it fairly. Me, because I can't stomach the sympathetic view (which I would characterize as gullible, facile, inaccurate and a tool of corporate/oligarchic powers) and the converse is (I imagine) true of you. In any case, it is probably true that any text which I produce, no matter how well-sourced, would be rejected by your 'side' as undue, non-neutral, biased, etc. And the converse is true of any text that you produce (assuming that it generally lines up with my summary of your beliefs).
- Goethean I don't know whether your stated misreading of my intentions is accidental or on purpose, but my intention is only to have a quality article, not to have it biased. As indication of my credentials regarding this, when it has jeopardized article quality and npov, I have locked horns with people who want to push MY POV at the article to prevent them from doing so. A few bigger examples of that were at the Libertarianism article several times over the last month and the Intelligent design article about a month ago. Further proof/credentials regarding this is my post about 1 inch up from this one. So, if you sincerely, mean what you said, we're on the same page. If not, not. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- That said, I do believe that my view is closer to what is acceptable on Misplaced Pages, and the recent conversation above demonstrates that. Conservatives think of the NYT as a left-wing rag, and just as biased as Rush Limbaugh. Apart from the fact that this is nonsense, more importantly, it completely inappropriate to Misplaced Pages, which is not a outlet for conservative/corporate talking points, and which needs to use the highest standard for reliable sources, a standard which the NYT passes, and which the above-linked list of approved conservative sources does not. This point is not up for debate, and needs to be discussed at WP:RS, if at all. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your view of the NYT only shows your bias is so strong that you are completely unaware that it even exists. Journalism in general is heavily populated by liberals, this is a fact. The NYT is read predominantly by liberals and feeds to their beliefs. It is not to say it is not a reliable source, just that it is very liberally biased. While it is inappropriate for WP to be an outlet for conservative talking points, it is eqaully inappropriate for WP to an outlet for liberal talking points. Only when you on the left argee to the second part will WP be an unbiased source of information. Example of Liberal bias for the day. Rush does his bit and the world blows up. Mike Malloy says that "God" killed those killed by the tornadoes last week, semaring them into greasy little spots on the concrete, and nary a word is spoked about it. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts at media criticism are off-topic and not of interest. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mike who? Hey, my neighbor (a flaming liberal if I ever saw one) once remarked that one out of every three registered Republicans is a closeted, conflicted homosexual ... and now that I think back on that, I realize not a single word was printed about my neighbor's remark in the liberal press! Definitely proof that Arzel is on to something here. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your attempts at media criticism are off-topic and not of interest. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, responding only to Geothean's previous post. The NYT thing is a sidebar. On to the main stuff...well, after hearing all of that, if we have any fundamental difference it's that for your analysis you are treating the TPM as an entity. I, quite the opposite view it as a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations. And the agenda is only what is in common to all followers. (lower taxes, smaller government). Every possible thing that you are talking about about probably exists. (people trying to help launch it or make it bigger, people with other agendas (e.g. social conservatives, Republican party, people seeking to further their non-TPM-agenda goals/views, trying to co-opt it, make it their own, utilize it etc.). You seeing it as an entity leads to then considering it valid/useful to characterize that entity by all of these other things. Me seeing it as (for this sentence , for simplicity call it just) and agenda makes me say that the idea of such characterization is not useful or valid. But either way, this article goes beyond that, it incorporates trivia which editors have selected to try to build the case of that characterization. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I, quite the opposite view it as a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations.
- Do you have a source for this? — goethean ॐ 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- But either way, this article goes beyond that, it incorporates trivia which editors have selected to try to build the case of that characterization.
- It incorporates episodes which were highlighted by the media. The state of the media coverage of the TPM is not the fault of Misplaced Pages editors. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, responding only to Geothean's previous post. The NYT thing is a sidebar. On to the main stuff...well, after hearing all of that, if we have any fundamental difference it's that for your analysis you are treating the TPM as an entity. I, quite the opposite view it as a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations. And the agenda is only what is in common to all followers. (lower taxes, smaller government). Every possible thing that you are talking about about probably exists. (people trying to help launch it or make it bigger, people with other agendas (e.g. social conservatives, Republican party, people seeking to further their non-TPM-agenda goals/views, trying to co-opt it, make it their own, utilize it etc.). You seeing it as an entity leads to then considering it valid/useful to characterize that entity by all of these other things. Me seeing it as (for this sentence , for simplicity call it just) and agenda makes me say that the idea of such characterization is not useful or valid. But either way, this article goes beyond that, it incorporates trivia which editors have selected to try to build the case of that characterization. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- "a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations" ... North, that's basically an informal definition of a "movement". But something you said made me recall an article I read that began with the sentence, "The 'Tea Party' is less a classic political movement than a frustrated state of mind..." I remember that article had a lot of information and analysis based on recorded facts, an interesting sidebar and plausible summaries; I would like your (both of you) opinions about it's quality as a citable source. It's located here Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- So far I just did a fast read but that looks like an excellent article. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- It does look good. I'm talking for writing stuff that summarizes it, not pulling out selected bits. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that an overview or analysis that draws heavily from that source might make a good new subsection and of trying to build that. Rather than build it in a sandbox and drop it in I'm thinking of building it slowly in place. Any thoughts? 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) (North8000)
- PS: not to delay our effort to get the trivia out, but to work in paralell with that. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can certainly see why you like the article. It takes everything at face value without asking any questions. It presents the narrative that Tea Party funders would like to project --- of a completely organic, grass-roots movement inspired solely in response to Obama's alleged overreach. The article is dishonest in my opinion.
- PS: not to delay our effort to get the trivia out, but to work in paralell with that. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that an overview or analysis that draws heavily from that source might make a good new subsection and of trying to build that. Rather than build it in a sandbox and drop it in I'm thinking of building it slowly in place. Any thoughts? 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) (North8000)
- It does look good. I'm talking for writing stuff that summarizes it, not pulling out selected bits. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- So far I just did a fast read but that looks like an excellent article. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- "a phenomena, mood, theme, agenda and catchphrase, maybe a bunch a disparate groups and organizations" ... North, that's basically an informal definition of a "movement". But something you said made me recall an article I read that began with the sentence, "The 'Tea Party' is less a classic political movement than a frustrated state of mind..." I remember that article had a lot of information and analysis based on recorded facts, an interesting sidebar and plausible summaries; I would like your (both of you) opinions about it's quality as a citable source. It's located here Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The implication of the article is that, one year after Obama won the election, tens of millions of Americans spontaneously decided that he was a socialist. The only cause mentioned in the article is Obama's liberal economic policies. No mention is made of the tens of millions of dollars contributed by conservative billionaires and spent by Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, or of the constant promotion of the Tea Party Movement by FOXNEWS. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly there are a lot of people either promoting it, supporting it trying to use or co-opt it, just as with most movements. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The implication of the article is that, one year after Obama won the election, tens of millions of Americans spontaneously decided that he was a socialist. The only cause mentioned in the article is Obama's liberal economic policies. No mention is made of the tens of millions of dollars contributed by conservative billionaires and spent by Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, or of the constant promotion of the Tea Party Movement by FOXNEWS. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
North8000 expressed a sentiment that I think has traction: " ... the agenda is only what is in common to all followers. (lower taxes, smaller government) ... " This strikes a chord with me. Surely it is reasonable to differentiate between what TPM speakers at rallies say as opposed to what the home-made signs of individual spectators declare or insinuate? It would (for example) be unfair to associate Senator Harry Reid with some of the signs that have been held up at his rallies, as it would be to associate the individual actions of SEIU members with President Obama. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- How is it determined what is common to all followers? If public opinion polls are used, then I think that anti-abortion sentiment is just as prevalent as concern about deficits, etc. Also, your Harry Reid analogy is flawed, because we are describing a movement, not a figurehead. If the article was about the Harry Reid Movement, then presumably homemade signs would be fair game. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, common to all followers is probably incorrect. But the logic is (I think) sound. What the speakers say on stage at rallies can be reasonably assumed to be the message of the movement. The same cannot be said about the messages printed on signs by spectators, no? All we can deduce from that is the belief of the individual carrying the sign. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at the TPM more as an agenda than an entity, the answers to the questions become simple. Whatever the group is demanding/advocating is the agenda. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe the Reid analogy was flawed. A better analogy would be if there is a a pro-gay marriage movement, and a pro-gay marriage parade, and gay-marriage supporter in the crowd has a pro-pedophilia sign. The content of that sign is not what the movement is about, it is simply not in their agenda. Even if a poll showed that 60% of pro-gay-marriage people where in favor of pedophilia, the movement is defined by it's agenda which does not include pedophilia. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be correct to say (in this hypothetical situation) that advocating pedophilia is not part of their agenda, in the same way that I think everyone here would agree that it's not part of the agenda of the TPM to advocate racism. However, if there was a wikipedia article on the scenario you've presented, and the pedophilia aspect had received significant media attention through public opinion polls, statements from individuals associated with the movement's leadership, and incidents that had happened at rallies (like signs promoting pedophilia), I think we'd see that covered in such a hypothetical article as well. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're headed towards our main dispute there. Rather than go there, at the moment I was more making the observation that things make a lot more sense and lots of complicated questions get simple if one treats it as an agenda rather than as an entity. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's because treating it as an agenda only gives the view from inside the Tea Party. Misplaced Pages needs to give a neutral view, not one strictly from within the organization. Would you want the article on pedophilia to only describe pedophilia from the perspective of a pedophile? You are advocating that we use an analogous approach here. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't reaching that far. I guess what it boils down to is saying to cover the Tea Party movement as a movement rather than as an entity. This is easy to forget/ get mixed up on because the most commonly used label ("Tea Party") makes it sound like an entity rather than a movement. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- i hear the tea party often in conversation and media, not once have i ever heard "the tea party movement". I suggest we remove the term "movement".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs)
- I wasn't reaching that far. I guess what it boils down to is saying to cover the Tea Party movement as a movement rather than as an entity. This is easy to forget/ get mixed up on because the most commonly used label ("Tea Party") makes it sound like an entity rather than a movement. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's because treating it as an agenda only gives the view from inside the Tea Party. Misplaced Pages needs to give a neutral view, not one strictly from within the organization. Would you want the article on pedophilia to only describe pedophilia from the perspective of a pedophile? You are advocating that we use an analogous approach here. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're headed towards our main dispute there. Rather than go there, at the moment I was more making the observation that things make a lot more sense and lots of complicated questions get simple if one treats it as an agenda rather than as an entity. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be correct to say (in this hypothetical situation) that advocating pedophilia is not part of their agenda, in the same way that I think everyone here would agree that it's not part of the agenda of the TPM to advocate racism. However, if there was a wikipedia article on the scenario you've presented, and the pedophilia aspect had received significant media attention through public opinion polls, statements from individuals associated with the movement's leadership, and incidents that had happened at rallies (like signs promoting pedophilia), I think we'd see that covered in such a hypothetical article as well. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe the Reid analogy was flawed. A better analogy would be if there is a a pro-gay marriage movement, and a pro-gay marriage parade, and gay-marriage supporter in the crowd has a pro-pedophilia sign. The content of that sign is not what the movement is about, it is simply not in their agenda. Even if a poll showed that 60% of pro-gay-marriage people where in favor of pedophilia, the movement is defined by it's agenda which does not include pedophilia. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at the TPM more as an agenda than an entity, the answers to the questions become simple. Whatever the group is demanding/advocating is the agenda. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, common to all followers is probably incorrect. But the logic is (I think) sound. What the speakers say on stage at rallies can be reasonably assumed to be the message of the movement. The same cannot be said about the messages printed on signs by spectators, no? All we can deduce from that is the belief of the individual carrying the sign. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The word "entity" simply means "thing". The Tea Party Movement is verifiably a thing; otherwise, you should nominate this article for deletion. It is a thing which exists, therefore it is an entity. To say that the TPM is a movement is not to forget anything or to get mixed up about anything. It is simply to state a fact. — goethean ॐ 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Worst article ever - 2 action tracks under discussion
I like the source raised by Xenophrenic not because of any particular angle, but because it represents a medium-higher level of summarize by a source rather than the selected trivia and primary sources (e.g. selected individual polls) that 90% of this article consists of. For example, it includes a summarization of polls rather that inclusion of editor-selected individual polls as this article does. Geothean's criticisms were basically of uncovered areas; since the article is not a total summary of the TPM, I see "uncovered areas" as a reality but not a critique, being based on comparison to a standard which is not even claimed. When the article really is is an analysis of TP'ers, views/ motivations of TP'ers, the larger scale relationship with the Republican party, and impacts on the Republican party and elections. I plan to start building a section which would have such a scope, starting with this article, but which will seek and utilize other sources that include a level of summarization / analysis. I plan to build it in place, so it will happen slowly.
The other track is removal of editor-selected low-level stuff that is related to but not about the TPM. (what many have called trivia) We have the mini-RFC above on this. Not sure what's next, but I'm not going to let the topic get stonewalled by a few as has happened in the past. Whether we can move forward, or need a bigger RFC with more eyes on this or whatever. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I said that the article was dishonest and based on a false narrative. So in response, you decide that you're going to build an entire section of the article just like that article. Makes sense. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that I partially addressed what you said. You basically said that it's missing stuff, I said that of course its missing stuff because it doesn't purport to or need to cover everything. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would the article's readers realize that the article has left out a major piece of the story? I don't think so. The article gave a coherent, seemingly-complete narrative. It filled in what's missing with Tea Partiers' internal motivation, giving the false impression that these motivations originated spontaneously, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened. In point of fact, these motivations were carefully cultivated by the well-funded conservative media. Please do not write a narrative which elides this key fact. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict, expanded version of previous note) I think that I partially addressed what you said. You basically said that it's missing stuff, I said that of course its missing stuff because it doesn't purport to or need to cover everything. But your comment blended 2 distinctly different things together. One was mentioning relevant known things that it didn't cover, and those fall under the earlier sentence of this post. But you also seemed to be implying that it conflicted with a particular view that you hold....that somehow the TPM has gained traction primarily due to financial support of those two organizations etc.. I would argue that that is inacurate, but that is irrelevant. What I am saying, is find sources that do real analysis and presentation of these things rather than trivia selected by editors because it proves a point which the "know to be true" or talking points from obvious op ed and advocacy pieces. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would the article's readers realize that the article has left out a major piece of the story? I don't think so. The article gave a coherent, seemingly-complete narrative. It filled in what's missing with Tea Partiers' internal motivation, giving the false impression that these motivations originated spontaneously, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened. In point of fact, these motivations were carefully cultivated by the well-funded conservative media. Please do not write a narrative which elides this key fact. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that I partially addressed what you said. You basically said that it's missing stuff, I said that of course its missing stuff because it doesn't purport to or need to cover everything. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you look for a good higher level analysis-type source or two source that says what you are saying (if such exists) and we can integrate that into it? North8000 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Conservative media outlets were vital to the rapid launch of Tea Party activism.
- According to Skocpol and Williamson, Tea Party protest were first planned when web-savvy conservative activists took advantage of CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's tirade against the Obama Administration's foreclosure releif plan.
- According to Ronald Formisano, Fox News Corporation was intertwined with the Tea Party during 2009.
- The strongest support for the Tea Party was found in right-wing radio and television, such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly.
- — goethean ॐ 16:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- That all sounds fine. It doesn't conflict with what the other source said but sounds fine. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that one track (removal of trivia) will require action in a contentious situation, and that the other (development of material from analysis-level sources) will turn out to be mostly non-contentious. I intend to work on both. IMHO our conversations should be by topics/content rather than blending things by people. I think that that approach would provide an amicable way forwards on at least one of the tracks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Starting on the latter building slowly, starting in a section with a generic name (analysis). Starting with the one source provided by Xenophrenic, lets find others. Lets find other sources that are providing higher level analysi and appear somewhat impartial. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
double-speak, can't be both...
- from the open, 'It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution. this article is becoming double-speak.'
- from the we dont like it section, 'then he contrasted the fiscally conservative Republican party of old that didn't get involved in people's personal and family lives with "the current Republican Party, in particular the Tea Party, that is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian' Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- We really have to go by their agenda / what the TPM advocates. Which is what quality sources will do. The latter isn't within a mile of either. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Tea Party Patriots addition
I'm doing research on the Tea Party movement. I see that there is a lot of anger on the talk page concerning left-wing bias and factual inaccuracies within the Misplaced Pages entry. However, I do have some neutral information on the Tea Party Patriots that I will try posting in the next two weeks. Does anyone have any suggestions? Any feelings towards me expanding the Tea Party Patriots section of the entry? Anything would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranklinBarbosa (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- While the motivation and result may be bias, the core problem here is that it's full of trivia, and the quality and "secondariness" level of the sources used. My advice is to make sure htat it is about the TPM on items that are inherently of regional or national significance, by sources that are doing analysis/summary level type work and are not too biased. And, if so, just put in it. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Analysis section
It's sourced to one article in USA Today, a paper not known for "analysis". Perhaps we could include the poll results if the actual questions were determined, but it wouldn't be under "analysis"; perhaps "composition" or just "poll results". I removed it, but perhaps it has a place — somewhere. The section as I deleted it is below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the sentences containing the authors' (unsupported) conclusions were removed, I could see USA today as having a reasonable reputation for fact-checking on facts, but not as to the authors' opinions. (And removing duplications: "78% are non-Hispanic whites", and "Hispancs, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth..." are the same statement.) The part of the analysis which might represent a reliable interpretation remains (although I'm not sure about "older"; it may represent the authors' opinion not supported by the polling data):
Analysis redacted
78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. Tea party members "are more likely to be married and a bit older than the nation as a whole." 90% see the federal deficit as a severe threat, and are unhappy with the country's direction. They are less likely to see discrimination as a hurdle to minorities. 75% (vs. 50% for non-Tea Party supporters) say that minorities have equal job opportunities. They are less sympathetic to illegal immigrants 80% (vs. 52% for non-TPM supporters) say that in the long run they cost the taxpayers too much.
Analysis
According to USA Today writers Susan Page and Naomi Jagoda, circa 2010 the Tea Party is more a frustrated state of mind than a classic political movement. 78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. Tea party members "are more likely to be married and a bit older than the nation as a whole." They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks. Tea Party supporters are united more by their policy views than by their demographics or locations. At the core is a conviction that the federal government has gotten too large and powerful. 90% see the federal deficit as a severe threat, and are unhappy with the country's direction. They are less likely to see discrimination as a hurdle to minorities. 75% (vs. 50% for non-Tea Party supporters) say that minorities have equal job opportunities. They are less sympathetic to illegal immigrants 80% (vs. 52% for non-TPM supporters) say that in the long run they cost the taxpayers too much.
References
- ^ What is the Tea Party? A growing state of mind By Susan Page and Naomi Jagoda, USA Today July 1, 2010
Response
All good points, but you'd need to read the previous talk to see what this section is. It is merely the starting point to build an article from at least attempted higher level summaries from sources with at least some semblence of impartiality. Not editor-selected trivia like most of the article is. The material there is it at least one step better in that respect. The "analysis" was a temporary name and temporary place to start growing this type of material. Please grow/modify it and replace material rather than delete. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Section renamed to be accurate. Note that extensive use of the copyrighted figures therein is a copyvio, and that the opinions must be clearly stated in that form (in the case at hand, citing them as quotations should suffice). I am unclear that this section belongs at all, but the form it was in was clearly not usable. And using a single opinion piece for a long section seems agaisnt policy in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if we're going to rename the sections to be accurate, nearly all of them will be "trivia and raw data selected by the wikipedia article editors", :-) so I don't know why the focus for perfection on this particular section. But that's fine for now, knowing that this is just the start of something. Lets find other somewhat impartial overview type sources and build this into something broader. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- USA Today is not a reliable source for the significance of the the opinions (supported, or not) of its writers. Only the (probably not copyvio) actual poll numbers are appropriate, and that should be absorbed into the "Membership and demographics" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arthur, I agree with everything that you have said over the last few days here. But please understand that section is is just the start of something to improve the article. And that it is one step better than much of the rest of the article with respect to being summarizaiton/analysis in sources vs. an agglomeration of editor-selected trivia. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, is it time to delete and start over? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- That may be the only way to fix this mess. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, is it time to delete and start over? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The use of all the poll numbers and the wording associated therewith did meet copyvio - entire sentences were reused, and when the entire intellectual property of the poll is used, yed - it is a copyvio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The questions asked in the poll, and the responses, are facts. The exact wording of the article (which seems to be what is left, presently) may be subject to copyright, but the poll results are almost certainly not subject to copyright, or would be "fair use" even in the context of Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Tell that to Gallup <g>. Unless otherwise noted, all materials reprinted must contain the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. In addition, the date of the survey, margin of error, and sample size shall be reported. and All materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. The source, by the way, includes the proper copyright notice for USA Today. Use of the entire poll results would seem, on its face, to go well beyong "fair use." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm following. I took (paraphrased) the material from the USA Today article, marked the quote as a quote and heavily credited the article as the source of the information. (6 citations /credits in one paragraph, one on nearly every sentence) North8000 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- In your edit you included: 2010 the Tea Party is more a frustrated state of mind than a classic political movement which is plagiarisim as the words are precisely those of the USA Today writers, and not placed in quotes. You have without quotes 78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. The sidebar has "78% are Republicans or independents who lean Republican, 77% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives. 62% are married, 56% are men, 47% are 55 or older." Entirely too close a usage. word for word. You have without quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks The source has " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Your only change is from "overwhelmingly" to "predominantly" which is clear plagiarism of the source. You use Tea Party supporters are united more by their policy views than by their demographics or locations. At the core is a conviction that the federal government has gotten too large and powerful. The source has "What unites Tea Party supporters is less their geography or demography than their policy views: a firm conviction that the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful and a fear that the nation faces great peril" Which is far beyond simple paraphrase. You have sans quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks. which is direct plagiarism of " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Cheers, but this does not fly. And is a copyright violation. Collect (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting and fixing the paraphrases that were too close. I did cite the article that it came from 6 times in 7 sentences including on every one of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- In your edit you included: 2010 the Tea Party is more a frustrated state of mind than a classic political movement which is plagiarisim as the words are precisely those of the USA Today writers, and not placed in quotes. You have without quotes 78% are Republican or Republican-leaning, 78% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives, 56% are men, and 47% are 55 years or older. The sidebar has "78% are Republicans or independents who lean Republican, 77% are non-Hispanic whites, 69% are conservatives. 62% are married, 56% are men, 47% are 55 or older." Entirely too close a usage. word for word. You have without quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks The source has " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Your only change is from "overwhelmingly" to "predominantly" which is clear plagiarism of the source. You use Tea Party supporters are united more by their policy views than by their demographics or locations. At the core is a conviction that the federal government has gotten too large and powerful. The source has "What unites Tea Party supporters is less their geography or demography than their policy views: a firm conviction that the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful and a fear that the nation faces great peril" Which is far beyond simple paraphrase. You have sans quotes They are predominantly white and Anglo, but Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African Americans make up just under one fourth of their ranks. which is direct plagiarism of " They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks." Cheers, but this does not fly. And is a copyright violation. Collect (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm following. I took (paraphrased) the material from the USA Today article, marked the quote as a quote and heavily credited the article as the source of the information. (6 citations /credits in one paragraph, one on nearly every sentence) North8000 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Tell that to Gallup <g>. Unless otherwise noted, all materials reprinted must contain the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2012 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. In addition, the date of the survey, margin of error, and sample size shall be reported. and All materials are provided for noncommercial, personal use only. The source, by the way, includes the proper copyright notice for USA Today. Use of the entire poll results would seem, on its face, to go well beyong "fair use." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The questions asked in the poll, and the responses, are facts. The exact wording of the article (which seems to be what is left, presently) may be subject to copyright, but the poll results are almost certainly not subject to copyright, or would be "fair use" even in the context of Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arthur, I agree with everything that you have said over the last few days here. But please understand that section is is just the start of something to improve the article. And that it is one step better than much of the rest of the article with respect to being summarizaiton/analysis in sources vs. an agglomeration of editor-selected trivia. North8000 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- USA Today is not a reliable source for the significance of the the opinions (supported, or not) of its writers. Only the (probably not copyvio) actual poll numbers are appropriate, and that should be absorbed into the "Membership and demographics" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if we're going to rename the sections to be accurate, nearly all of them will be "trivia and raw data selected by the wikipedia article editors", :-) so I don't know why the focus for perfection on this particular section. But that's fine for now, knowing that this is just the start of something. Lets find other somewhat impartial overview type sources and build this into something broader. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
FORA.tv RS for contentious claim
Is a "collection of videos" and is no more RS than Youtube is for contentious claims (to wit - that the TPM the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks) which likely hits Godwin's Law squarely. Ought this edit be removed? Collect (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is an incorrect description. Fora is used as a source for opinions expressed by Noam Chomsky. It is a reliable source for what Chomsky said. TFD (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Go to RS/N for that claim -- in the meantime, the opinion from Chomsky, invoking Nazism, is UNDUE as well here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is the only such comparison in the entire article so it wouldn't be considered Undue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Chomsky is a prominent critic of US policy. There's no plausible argument that devoting a single sentence in this article to him is undue. — goethean ॐ 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Selecting an opinion that likens the TPM to Nazis is inappropriate. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Go to RS/N for that claim -- in the meantime, the opinion from Chomsky, invoking Nazism, is UNDUE as well here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (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
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Items with VRTS permission confirmed