Talk:Tea Party Nation
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party Nation article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Right to vote
- "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense," Looks like present tense to me. Not "and that used to make some sense, but it's like totally idiotic for the United States to withdrawal whimpering to the past instead of standing up and winning the future" or something else that's clearly past tense. Hcobb (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I revised wording to:
Phillips has said the founders’ principle of restricting voting rights to property owners “makes a lot of sense.”
Clearly this is a neutral representation of the sources. We can not assume advocacy because one can believe an idea has merit (i.e. makes a lot of sense) while ultimately opposing it.
I strongly question whether this statement of his--not backed (according to sources) by any political action or advocacy for policy change--belongs in the summary area of the article. It looks relatively minor, among the plethora of clearly expressed advocacy coming out of Tea Party Nation. I would remove it all together, if up to me.
Why is Anti-Protestantism a category on this page? Gtbob12 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Removal of "Criticism" Section
I have removed the purported "criticism" section for mulitiple violations of Wikipedia policy:
(1) The section relies primarily on non-reliable sources, such as an apparent blog called "Homebrewedtheology." Also cited is Thinkprogess, a highly partisan left-wing site.
(2) The section violates the policy by giving undue emphasis to the alleged "critcism", which is essentially the author's POV.
(3) Although the section cites to some blogs which are maintained by ostensibly reliable sources (e.g., the Atlantic), the purpose is merely to give a one-sided account of left-of-center criticism. If this were a proper criteria, nearly every article on Wikipedia could have a similar "criticism" section, collecting the opinions (say) of right-wing blogs criticizing the subject of the article.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Removed the following
"A largely ineffective and self-indulgent platform for Phillips, he sends numerous pseudo-conservative emails to those unfortunate enough to have intentionally or accidentally joined the Tea Party Nation group. Refuting comments to Phillips' typically misinformed email tirades, or even comments that simply disagree with Phillips' political viewpoints, are usually censored, and those 'members' banned from the web site. The Tea Party Nation should not be confused with the original Tea Party started by Ron Paul."
This doesn't even need comment but here goes anyway... The above was A) not cited, B) personal opinion and C) libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)An RfC:
Southern Poverty Law Center
I removed the SPLC citation added recently and someone's twinkle bot started harrassing me for it. I will remove it again if there is no further discussion in the next week. The grounds for removing it is that the SPLC is not a neutral source and indicating that a group is a "hate group" in its introduction because of this one organisation with its own agenda violates at least the UNDUE and probably NPOV policies.
- The SPLC designation is significant and must be mentioned. Do not remove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)