Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

One more piece

(I would have waited for RoyGoldsmith to archive the merge discussion because he is the one who closed it, but there is one piece I want to discuss more but did not want to be inside the closed discussion, so I apologize for skirting the edges of protocol.

Here is the piece copied from above that might merit more discussion. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

[Re: Sbowers3 and Happysomeone] -- I have one last thing I'd like to introduce before we decide to close this... In my recent review of wikipedia:consensus and wikipedia:what is consensus? I am finding a lot of language related to the idea of building consensus by trying to understand and accommodate the honest, good-faith concerns of the opposing Editors. And that, in the interest of coming to a decision that respects these points, negotiations of sort can be entered into where any number of ideas and proposals can be on the table. Since a number of editors have expressed that their reluctance to support two separate articles is based largely on a perception of an unjustified and/or redundant link found in Tea Party protests, 2009, why can't we ask that the termination or redefinition of this link be part of the possible negotiation tools in order to achieve a consensus? If a SPLIT (or even a boundary/name change) is what it takes to possibly achieve a compromise and a consensus inbetween the merge and non-merge positions, then shouldn't that proposal be allowed here? Wikipedia says "begin by understanding the group's interests, and work towards a proposal that meets those collective interests." I believe we have tried to understand and accommodate your interests re: the preservation of this expanded information on these central events and re: preserving the historical roots of the movement, but I haven't seen any proposals or compromise that attempts to acknowledge or address our interests or concerns. I believe both proposals of SPLITting the link or redefining the nature of the link could do that and should be on the table here, though I would be happy to hear other opinions from (admittedly) more experienced editors... --Izauze (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? What is the "unjustified and/or redundant link" found in the other article? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The language might be more confusing than intended, but I am using "link" as shorthand for how Tea Party Protests link together information about a number of early protests over the 12 months of 2009. A number of us have expressed reservations about maintaining this second article because either we can't seem to find a justifiable reason these protests are linked together into one meaningful entity (if it is because they describe an early, pre-convention period or a historical root of the movement, than perhaps it is misnamed; if it is not the link between them that is important to preserve, but simply the ability to access info about a few specific important events, then perhaps it should be split) and/or because their linkage seems to be motivated primarily by how together they comprise the movement -- which would flirt with being redundant with THIS article. Ultimately our unanswered question seems to be: how is this specific 12 month period of protests collectively important in a way that distinguishes it from how the collective movement (found in this, its parent article) is important? If the article was about ALL the protests, it would at least be a justified spinoff and expansion on the "protests" section of this article (though it might seem even more redundant), but now it is 12/14ths of the protests thus far, which doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. If we can answer or address these questions, not only will it help alleviate our concerns, but it will probably help each of the resultant articles find a clearer identity and a stronger foundation on which we can more easily build. --Izauze (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought you were using "link" as shorthand for "wikilink" but you're using "link" to refer to the connections between events and in what way they should be separated from what is in this article.

I haven't completely worked out my thoughts on why the two articles should be separate - or I would have answered RoyGoldsmith's questions on that topic earlier - but here is what I am thinking. This article, TP movement, describes what the movement is, what they believe, what they support/oppose, who they are, what are the various components, and perhaps what effect they have had on the (political) world. The daughter article, TP protests, describes the actions they have taken, and how the movement has evolved over the months.

TP protests probably needs even more work than this movement article. It makes it appear that the protests mostly occurred at a few specific times. The reality is that they occurred almost weekly. There was the early formative stage, then the April 15 events, then many more events, July 4th, then August Congressional recess events, some outdoors like previous protests, some indoors at town meetings, then the 9/12 March on Washington, events continued in the following months up to the National Convention put on by one of the many Tea Party subgroups, and protests continue. The focus of protests changed over that year, starting with the stimulus and bailouts, then some mention of cap and tax, then mostly health care reform, and all along a demand for smaller government, less spending, less borrowing, etc.

By the way, I do think - was it RoyGoldsmith who first suggested it? - that TP protests, 2009 should be moved to just TP protests (without the year).

Did I correctly interpret what you are asking and does that help answer it? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. And I do think that expanding the daughter article to be about the protests in general does help solve some of its identity problems in relation to this, its parent article. One problem that might be encountered though is that they seem to have quite recently approved changing it to 2009... but I think this might have to be reevaluated with an eye towards its relationship with the Movement article. --Izauze (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. I've removed the merge tags on both articles (TPP just became unfrozen) so the closing of the merge discussion is now complete. (Although we could rename this section "Merge Discussion II". :)
2. Izauze, where are they discussiing changing Tea Party protests, 2009 back to Tea Party protests (no year)? BTW, Tea Party protests is currently a redirect to Tea Party protests, 2009.
3. If we're agreed that TPM is the main article and TPP is the daughter then, according to WP:SS, there ought to be a summary section in TPM titled (say) "Major Tea Party protest events" with a {{main}} link to TPP. If someone could come up with such a summary, I believe that this might resolve some of the difficulties we are having with distinction between TPM and TPP.
4. Lastly, I believe the major participants in the present discussion are currently Happysomeone, Sbowers3, Izauze and myself ('tho anyone else can join in). What would you say having about an IRC/chat conversation about the TPM and TPP? I live on the east coast of the US and work at home so I would be available most any day from 13:00 to 3:00, UTC.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

re #2 I'm not sure who first brought up the idea of reverting to TPP without a year, but I do recommend it. The article is not large enough that it needs to be split by year. If later it does get too big, we can split it at that time. For now, it will read better as one article without an arbitrary split by year. re #3, we sort of have a summary with a {{see also}} instead of a {{main}}. The first step should be to rewrite the TPP article, then summarize it here - see my comment in Talk:TPP.

Please look at WP:SS#Basic technique. Doesn't this say we should build a summary section in the main article at the same time we're building the lead section in the daughter article. I'm not saying this just for form. If we can't summarize what should be in the TPp article in its lead section then (IMO) there'll always be massive overlap due to scope creep between it and TPm. Please look here for a suggestion about the lead.

I suggest we transfer our discussion to the Tea Party protests, 2009 talk page and leave this "Merge Discussion II" to die quietly. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

re #4: I've never used IRC and am too old to learn how. :-) Sorry. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the archive for TPP2009, I see that the name change was simultaneous lumped in with the split proposal that created the movement. I understand why they were drawn to the idea of using "2009" - they mentioned emphasizing the importance of pre-convention protests, but the events were not limited to 2009... and besides, any article about protests is always going to emphasize the most important ones, and the most important ones will generally be those same early ones. I agree that if the length of the article one day becomes unwieldy THEN talk of splitting it by year or pre and post convention or whatever can be discussed. But I guess a renaming proposal has to be broached over there, right? Now to figure out how to do that..

I agree with #3 that this is the main article and TPP will be the daughter article - and if we're able to find some consensus for not limiting it to 2009, this will work a lot better as there is already a general protests section in the movement article (of course both could probably use some work)

re #4, If anyone else finds an IRC chat useful, I can be there, time independent --Izauze (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all these actions, Izauze (talk). It really helps discussions when the context is mutually understood and demonstrates respect to those who have already reviewed many of these same points that have been recast here. I tried and failed to link the archive over there to here to help everyone understand the background of our discussions in the past. Salutations.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate material in lede

Loremaster has three times inserted inappropriate material into the lede. I am again removing it for these reasons:

• It does not have a reliable source.
• It violates WP:UNDUE "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". If there are sources to show that it is more than a tiny minority, then let's see them.
• It violates WP:LEDE: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

A single opinion piece is by definition a tiny minority. If there are in fact sufficient RS to make this a minority - not a tiny minority - perspective, then and only then might it be appropriate to include in the body. And then if it satisfies LEDE "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources" might it be included in the lede. Until then, policy says that this material should be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted an attempt to restore this material. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1. False. The source is reliable. The only problem is that one must subscribe to the online version of Z magazine in order to read Berlet's article. That's why I provided a link to blog that reproduced the content of the article.
2. False. It is not a minority opinion. Countless progressive and conversative commentators have described the Tea Party movement as a right-wing populist movement that popularizes conspiracism. That being said, I will provide more sources.
3. True. When I find the time, I will work on creating a section in the body of the article focusing on criticisms of the Tea Party movement by sociologists and political scientists.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the statistics in the lead should be dropped. If you look at the source it comes from a source (CNN) that often has it's own baised view. Far more importantly the poll directly states that this is a non random poll. Seeing as the the population of the US is about 75% white , I see no reason to state in the opening paragraph that the tea party movement is 80% white unless trying to unfairly make it look like the teaparties are overwhelmingly white supremacist groups. Also due to the high variety of the nature and organization of tea parties I would be somewhat unlikely to believe a poll to show a good estimate of the make-up of all of the groups in the nation (particularly with a sample size of only 1,023) even if done by a reputable polling group such as a Gallop poll.

--RyanG92 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll down you will see a section asking for 'consensus for moving (not eliminating) breakdown of participants in the lead.' I agree with you that this poll is probably aiming more to characterize the protesters in a negative way and I said that in my post in the other section. I think it would be all right to remove it for now and place it elsewhere until a consensus can be reached about what section, if any, this poll belongs in. Especially since the methodology is not revealed, it is misleading.Malke2010 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Grassroots/Astroturf in the lede

(I moved these comments into their own section because they didn't seem to have much relevance to the Merge discussion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

To answer the majority/minority question about grassroots/astroturf, I read the all of the hundreds of references in List of Tea Party protests, 2009. My conclusion is that grassroots is the predominant perspective of those sources. Regarding RoyGoldsmith's thought about "Tea Party protests" (without the year) I'm beginning to lean in that direction. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. The vast majority of content at that article is composed of spot reporting - a snapshot of the event, if you will, with interviews of participants. So I could see how you would get that impression. Of course, this phenomenon is much bigger than that. For example, we know that the Tea Party Express and the Sept. 12 march was largely organized and funded by conservative political activists. We also know that Tea Party Patriots are (listed as "partners") supported by Freedomworks (scroll to the bottom of the page), Newt Gingrich's 527 American Solutions for Winning the Future and Michelle Malkin. So this should really be sending up some red flags when the claim "This is grassroots" is made.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Tea Party movement is a United States conservative and libertarian protest movement, described by some adherents as "grassroots". It emerged in early 2009..."? Or how about substituting the phrase "mass movement"; to wit, "The Tea Party movement is a United States conservative and libertarian mass protest movement..."?

In my opinion, all protest events are "grassroots", even those that a lot of people think are professionally managed and funded. When they evolve into something resembling a political party (does a movement qualify?), they cease to be grassroots. The problem is with the technical definition of grassroots (popular, arising from many places) versus the pejorative definition (grassroots = good).

However, all of this has very little to do with the decision on whether to merge the two articles? It really belongs in a separate, top-level section below. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the movement has elements of both "grassroots participation" and "corporate coordination". Yes, if you ask the protesters they are sincerely behind their ideals. And yes, if you look at Tea Party Express or Tea Party Nation you will find that they're trying to use the movement for their own aims. ("The Republican party would be smart to absorb as much of the Tea Party as possible.") The article should reflect both aspects. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MakeBelieveMonster. There are elements of both. However, the astroturfing should not dominate. It was a small part that got wide media coverage for the corporate purposes of those media outlets. They were selling product, nothing more. Notice how they never interviewed a single individual protester who said, "Never heard of Freedomworks. I'm here because I just lost my house."Malke2010 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How about having (1) a single sentence in the lead, saying something like "Right now there is a controversy over whether the term grassroots should be applied to the Tea Party movement or whether there is too much astroturfing (orchestrated by traditional power structures) for the term to be appropriate" and (2) a section (and, if necessary, a sub-article) called something like "Controversy about Grassroots versus Astroturfing". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The only controversy is on this page. People in the movement see it as grassroots. Also, if someone sees a flyer about a demonstration, leaves their house, shows up, etc., that doesn't make him or her conservative or libertarian. It just means he showed up because there's something there that spoke to his interests. Groups like Freedomworks are trying to co-opt it, but they didn't start it, etc. What would motivate someone to leave their house and show up someplace just to support the agenda of an organization? People weren't doing it before the stimulus package.Malke2010 05:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Grassroots" is a really vague and subjective concept. Is a protest grassroots if it's only the organizers? If it's organized by non-professionals? If the participants know each other?

We should state the facts and let people make this judgement for themselves. We should describe how the protests are organized and leave it at that. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not "state the facts" about how the protests are organized. As Wikipedia editors, we are not responsible for "the facts" (whatever that means); we are only responsible for what is verifiable based on reliable sources. I quote from our core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". So if the preponderance of sources deem the Tea Party movement as "grassroots", Wikipedia should so state with a subsection on "Grassroots versus Astroturfing".

Now I agree that our determination of what constitutes a preponderance of reliable sources is a question. Do we just count -- 146 for grassroots, 79 for astroturfing, 835 that don't mention either? (Boy, that's a long line of inline citations!) Do we give recent sources more weight? (Say, give any reports in the last month extra credit or totally ignore reports over 3 months old?) What determines if the preponderance is large enough to include "grassroot" in the definition up at the beginning of the article? I don't believe that anyone seriously objects to having the word "grassroots" somewhere in the article. The problem is that some people want to have it in the definition or the first paragraph while other people do not.

But I've got to say, when I was looking up Tea Party for the first time (because I didn't know what the pundits were talking about), I was glad that, at that time (only three weeks ago, sigh), grassroots was still in the definition. To me, at any rate, it was worthwhile to have it in such a prominent position, even if, later in the article, I also learned about Astroturfing (which I again had never heard of). This is only one person's opinion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When I say "facts" I mean "facts that are verifiable and sourced per wikipedia guidelines" but that's awfully long to write. But good point, for some people it means "what I think."

I don't think there's likely to be consensus to state as fact that Tea Party is "grassroots" or "astroturf" in the article. But what makes more sense (and what we do now) is to cite other people's views. Citizens at the protests, Talking Points Memo, etc.

The really tricky issue is dealing with this topic in the lead. The initial draft used the word "populist," which I still like. It suggests the movement has passionate supporters without implying that they're organizing the protests themselves. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw in with whatever the majority wants, but I think the lead needs to be as neutral as possible so random editors don't roll along and start the delete/edit war/ cycle, so that every time we come to the page it says something different.Malke2010 06:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in and say that I don't think using "grassroots" is a problem in general, but using it (especially in the abstract/lead/summary) without at least referencing the opposition viewpoint is not reflecting neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izauze (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines grassroots as "Of, or relating to people or society at the local level". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And is there a good deal of dispute regarding how much this movement was born wholly "of the people at the local level"? Absolutely. So remain neutral... use the word, mention the controversy - seems easy enough to do both.

(I also support MakeBelieveMonster's points re: "populist")--Izauze (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Grassroots or Populist

Should we try for a consensus?

I propose that the word "grassroots" be permited in the article's first sentence definition, until and unless the word ceases to be used extensively as a general descriptive term for the movement in reliable sources.

• Support the use of "grassroots" in the definition. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the use of "grassroots" in the lede. There seems to be an overwhelming number of sources that speak of the grassroots nature of the protests, the movement, and those who show up at the movement. Several of them do it explicitly, and are quoted in the current article. N2e (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the use of grassroots in the lead as per N2e rationale.Malke2010 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the use of the word "grassroots" as a descriptor in the lede. Given all of the verifiable information that we have, it doesn't seem to 1) be as accurate as "populist" (per MakeBelieveMonster and 2) doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOV or WP:MOSBEGIN ("needs to unambiguously define the topic").--Happysomeone (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is a significant minority of sources disputing that description. If we use "grassroots" we would have to (1) attribute that description and (2) acknowledge the controversy - which all becomes fairly cumbersome. Conversely, I don't think anyone would dispute the label "populist." MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose describing the movement as "grassroots" without acknowledging the controversy. As the body of the article reflects the great deal of dispute about the nature of the movement, it seems a great violation of WP:NPOV to not reflect ANY of that in the lead. --Izauze (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose using "grassroots" as a "general descriptive term for the movement" in the lede, without also referencing the considerable non-grassroots nature of the movement as well. While there is certainly a grassroots component to Tea Party movement activity, there is also significant influence on the movement by the traditional power structures (i.e.; Media promotion by FOX News; Issue steering by the Republican Party; financing by professional conservative lobbyists and other astroturfing, etc.). "Grassroots", by itself, is not an accurate description - and an accurate description requires more space than the lede section affords us. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the use of "grassroots" in the lede because the majority of hundreds of references indicate that the participants are indeed grassroots. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, with all of the editing activity we see in the first sentence of the lede, it's likely this type of discussion may be needed for other words or phrases. I would kindly ask editors here to familiarize themselves with all aspects of WP:LEDE to guide this discussion. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. We don't seem to be reaching a consensus on "grassroots". How about this?

1. I propose that the word "populist" (instead of "grassroots") be permited in the article's first sentence definition. This says nothing about what may appear in the second sentence or thereafter.
2. I further propose that the word "grassroots" not be permited in the article's first paragraph.
3. Finally I propose that, if "grassroots" is included anywhere in the lead section, the controversy about grassroots versus professionally-organized astroturfing be acknowledged in the same paragraph.

• Support proposals (1), (2) and (3). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three proposals. --darolew (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Only the third proposal. The lead will be balanced for those who believe it's either grassroots or Astroturf. It's actually both, like all major organized political movements on either side of the spectrum. Doesn't matter, though. It seems the lead has been hijacked using some ridiculous CNN poll with a 9% margin of error. †TE†Talk 06:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But see the section below on moving that material. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should've just created a new section, instead of mentioning it here. †TE†Talk 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support all three. Also, how did the lead sentence end up saying, it's a right wing etc. etc. etc.? Did we agree to that? Does Happysomeone know?Malke2010 08:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Malke2010, I haven't the foggiest idea how it got there, though I'm sure you can find out by reviewing the edit history. I've been trying to monitor the numerous edits there (as I noted above & in several ES pleas to editors) but can't keep up. Perhaps someone can request a semi-protected page. I'm getting very tired of it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support all three. --Izauze (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone: I mentioned it because we're all slogging away here trying to make this thing work and then someone comes along not even using the talk page. How do we get it protected? Do just put a request on an admin's page?Malke2010 07:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke2010, my understanding per wiki's BE BOLD stance, is that edits don't necessarily need to be discussed. Someone who apparently understands this movement as right-wing in nature probably added it, and someone else eventually settled on the more diplomatic "fiscally conservative" description. Since no edit war resulted, it seems no discussion is necessary... and I would think, no protection is necessary. --Izauze (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Izauze, you're probably right about it not needing protection. I've been looking over some of the edits and unless the article starts getting heavy vandal traffic from IP's, I don't think an admin would consider it anyway. Thanks, Malke2010 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a consensus at last (yea!). I'm adding "populist" and a long comment to the definition. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that both "populist" and "grassroots" are POV-pushing, as the evidence shows that the Tea Party phenomenon was generated by Fox News, while "populism" as a consept is largly opposed by tea party members. Populism favors the employee and not the business, which is contrary to the rhetoric of the tea partiers. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for moving (not eliminating) breakdown of participants in the lead

User:Digagecivrights has inserted the following two sentences in the first paragraph of the article: "Approximately 80% of those who have participated in Tea Party activities are White Americans.[1] 60% of tea party protesters are male.[2]" The references are to a CNN poll and appear to be reliable and valid.

I propose to move these sentences down to the section Composition of the movement, probably just after the first paragraph.

Rationale:

1. This type of statistics does not belong in the lead (see WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis) but does definitely belong somewhere else in the article.
2. There are many other statistics about the Tea Party movement in the CNN poll that deserve a place in a online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Examples: 35% support for Tea Party, 16% would vote for a TP candidate, 4% of TP activists are Democrats, many others. Some of these statistics should be included as well.

Is there consensus for this?

• Support moving the two sentences above to the Composition section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the proposed move. --Izauze (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed move. I tried several times to shift this content to the "Public Opinion polls" section instead, which is where it should belong. But a very persistent editor kept moving it back in to the lede. Moving it back to the "polls" section would meet the WP:VERIFY (specifically WP:SOURCES) and WP:NPOV hurdles for me.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this info, if it is useful at all, is useful as demographic information about the composition of the movement, as opposed to info about what the movement thinks, or what the public thinks of the movement. --Izauze (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of this poll is highly divisive. White males, women? Is the movement based in racism(I've been told the president is black)? Are their women too busy being barefoot and pregnant to partake in the activities? Seems like an attack to me.

Should we also use the poll to point out that 12% of the voting age population(VAP) has participated in the movement. That 74% of tea partiers have some form of college education. That those who have only graduated or dropped out of high school are far less likely to support it. That there is virtually no drop-off in the Hispanic community that supports the movement, compared to their VAP. That there is huge and alarming drop-off in the black community, an 82% difference from their VAP.

There are many more examples for an editor willing to spin this flimsy poll to identify an entire political movement. I suggest eliminating the use of this poll in it's entirety. †TE†Talk 18:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with eliminating this poll entirely. Always lean towards inclusion rather than exclusion of valid information. I do however support the idea of adding any additional information that is useful to discuss the composition of the movement - such as education and support within the hispanic community so long as it comes from a valid source and is presented in a neutral manner. (for instance, not using words like "alarming" in regards to the level of support in the black community)--Izauze (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It would never make a edit using a term like alarming, I was just making a point. Generally, my edits are about as neutrally worded as humanly possible. Everything I listed is from the same poll, and I fear this one poll will be far too prevalent in the Composition of the movement section, at the least. There is so much that can be taken from the poll, too much. That's why I think it would be better not to use it. At least until more of these pop up in the upcoming elections, when the pollsters will be going wild. †TE†Talk 19:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the addition of the poll disturbing. Given the derisive attitude of the media to the protests and the protesters being called everything from red necks to tea baggers, etc., I find there's a racial element with this poll and I won't participate in that. If we're talking polls, what was the demographic makeup of the vote for Obama? I'll bet the majority of the voters were White. So the addition of that here, especially in the lead, is inappropriate in my opinion. This is afterall, an encyclopedia.Malke2010 07:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Patriot movement

Someone added this article as a "see also" for all TPM related articles. A recent New York Times article gives some support to this link: [1] I'm wondering if we should be removing the "see also" links or giving coverage to this in the text. Also, the patriot movement wikipedia article is really bad. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the Patriot Movement? Do you know?Malke2010 07:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They're a more extreme right-wing group; the FBI considers them domestic terrorists. I'm sure they turn out en masse for the Tea Party protests, but it's unclear how much they're "part of the movement". MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke2010, have a look at Militia movement and Patriot movement.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MBM and Happysomeone. Are we going to be putting something about them in this article? This is just my opinion, but I doubt they have the same agenda as the guy who just lost his house.Malke2010 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Tea Party movement & Tea Party Patriots)

Editor Koavf did not bother to explain the merge tag, so let's comment here:

• Oppose because TPP is a distinct organization that can be covered in detail. The articles are following WP:SUMMARY. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose same as MBM above ...if no reason is given, perhaps it should just be reverted. --Izauze (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose same as Izauze same as MBM.Malke2010 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead/Lede

The lead reads better. Who done it? Malke2010 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

raygold --Izauze (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, just saw above he did it after the consensus. Glad to see that worked. Now let's see how long it stays like that.Malke2010 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It lasted for about one day. Then anonymous user 67.235.213.182 removed populist. I restored it with a comment/message specifically targeted at 67.235.213.182. We'll see if that works. Growl (said more in disappointment than in anger). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll raise the idea again: Is there any support at this point for semi-protecting this article?--Happysomeone (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. We're working well here and I think we could actually get this article to GA status. We could use the help. I asked an admin, Gwen Gale, earlier about this, and she said she'd keep tabs here. I'll ask her again if everybody agrees we need semi-protection.Malke2010 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to whatever the consensus is on this one, but my instinct is to Oppose protection measures. A guy making a change here and there w/o regarding the talk page isn't too unexpected. Unless its en masse or repeated edit warring, I lean towards keeping everyone involved as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izauze (talk • contribs) 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be getting to that point. I guess this is more of a heads-up, folks this is an option type-thing.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If everybody is fine with a 'wait and see' stance, then we can just deal with randoms as needed. Also, be sure and mention the talk page discussions in your edit summaries. It will give these editors a heads up on what we're doing here.Malke2010 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CNN Poll

I removed the CNN poll from the lead. I think we should come to a consensus fairly quickly on what is to be done with this, where it is best placed, if it is to be kept, etc., so as to avoid any edit warring.

Also, Roy, excellent job on embedding within the lead, all the work done on reaching consensus on 'populist.' That's a great idea for heading off problems.Malke2010 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I tried several times to shift this content to the "Public Opinion polls" section instead, which is where it should belong. But a very persistent editor kept moving it back in to the lede. Moving it back to the "polls" section would meet the WP:VERIFY (specifically WP:SOURCES) and WP:NPOV hurdles for me.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, CNN polls are cited in two sections of the article: the one taken Feb 12-15 at the bottom of "Composition of the movement" (which also mentions "White Americans") and the one in the middle of "Public opinion polls", taken Jan 22-24. I assume you're talking about the more recent one that's now in Composition. In the first place, I think this sentence should be moved to the end of Public opinion polls. I also think it should be expanded because (a) there's a wealth of valuable statistics that we could summarize and (b) so that it doesn't seem that the article is implying that the Tea Party movement is racially-motivated, for which we have no reliable sources (see WP:SYN).

Second, who is this "persistant editor"? If he's registered and moves the sentence back to either Composition or to the lead again, I would insert a friendly message to join our discussions on his user talk page after you've reverted it. If he's anonymous, you can always try sticking an invisible comment (<!--...-->) at the spot where you removed his text. If he does it again, we can report him to WP:ANEW, although I dislike reporting anyone to the sysops: you never know what they will do.

By the way, the use of the "lede" spelling would be discouraged in Wikipedia (see WP:NEO). I paraphrase from wikt:lede: Dated neologism intended to avoid confusion with "lead", which also meant a strip of metal used in US newspapers for positioning type on an old-style printing press. "Lead" or "lead section" is the proper usage within Wikipedia (see WP:LEAD). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a single-purpose editor called Digagecivrights. I agree, it should be moved to the end of Public opinion polls. I tried to do that previously but didn't have support and was overwhelmed by said editor. By all means expand it. And thanks for the heads-up on proper wiki-usage of "Lead". Not sure it's technically a neologism, but hey, fine with me.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the poll to Public opinion polls and left a long, friendly note on Digagecivrights talk page. We'll see if that works. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very good, hope that works. Yes, putting the poll in Public opinion is a good idea.Malke2010 06:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul mention in Background subsection

While I don't agree that a Ron Paul "tea party" was the progenitor to the Tea Party movement, it's clearly relevant and claims have been made by Tea Party affiliate Campaign for Liberty that this fundraiser influenced the movement. It was in the immediate political background during the 2008 presidential campaign and his supporters shared (and still share) many of the same aims as the Tea Party movement. This content should be kept in the article. --Happysomeone (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the argument being made about it?Malke2010 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Over the past, oh, I'd say at least year or so, people have made various attempts to either credit Ron Paul with creating the Tea Party movement or scrub him from the article entirely. Based on the RS I've seen, I'd say the Ron Paul material merits a passing mention, but no more than that. Another editor has lately been persistent in the claim that nothing merits inclusion because there is no connection. That is clearly not the case.--Happysomeone (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree there should be mention. I just did a quick Google and lots of connections with Ron Paul are there.Malke2010 07:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

but how is he connected to this? Should all anti-tax events be added? He did use the same term, but it was for a different purpose and at a different time. I'll put back the text, but also some of the cites are not third-party RS. Jmcnamera (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can state that Ron Paul used it for a different purpose and a different time.Malke2010 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just reverted an edit by an IP. When I first looked at it, I thought someone had taken an article from USA Today and refactored an opinion piece and my edit summary shows that. Then I realized too late after I hit the return button, that it was simple vandalism. I put the diff on an admin's page. I'm hoping we can get the page semi-protected. Also, try not to laugh too hard when you check out my edit summary. LOL. Malke2010 03:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Page is Semi-Protected

Good news, admin Gwen Gale has semi-protected the page for now.Malke2010 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Crossing the Pond

May be worth mentioning that the Tea party movement is starting to be copied in the UK as well; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100027366/british-tea-party-movement-to-launch-on-saturday/ - JVG (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for the link.Malke2010 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama quote

I trimmed down the Obama section. The quote is rambling and loses the point. It's WP:UNDUE.Malke2010 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I did two boo-boos there: 1) made an edit before heading to WP:TALK and 2) Forgot to sign in. Sorry about that. I agree the quote is long, but not sure about rambling. By removing the end you're removing the kernel of his response (begining with "But ..."). It would be difficult to summarize the quote. Perhaps a judicious use of ellipses might accomplish your aim for maintaining "the point".--Happysomeone (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let's work on that. I think we can cut out Claire McGaskill and the budget thing.Malke2010 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On April 29, 2009, Obama commented on the Tea Party protests publicly during a townhall meeting in Arnold, Missouri, saying: ". . .(when) you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're going to stabilize Social Security. . .We are going to have to tighten our belts, but we're going to have to do it in an intelligent way. And we've got to make sure that the people who are helped are working American families, and we're not suddenly saying that the way to do this is to eliminate programs that help ordinary people and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. We tried that formula for eight years, and it did not work, and I don't intend to go back to it."

What about that?Malke2010 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay Happysomeone, since I haven't heard from you, I put that edit in.Malke2010 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Happysomeone (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On April 29, 2009, Obama commented on the Tea Party protests publicly during a townhall meeting in Arnold, Missouri, saying: " (When) you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're going to stabilize Social Security ... But let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got. We are going to have to tighten our belts, but we're going to have to do it in an intelligent way. And we've got to make sure that the people who are helped are working American families, and we're not suddenly saying that the way to do this is to eliminate programs that help ordinary people and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. We tried that formula for eight years, and it did not work, and I don't intend to go back to it."

Yeah, I think that one sentence, "But let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got," needs to be in there. It seems to be an important part of his argument.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Media Section

Given the actual Tea Party Movement content vis-a-vis the "Media" section, I think it's time the Media section got pared down. Let's examine each item here and just keep the most salient elements and delete the rest. It is clearly against WP:UNDUE.

It might be helpful to first agree to what is salient and what is not. I would welcome comments here on what the rest of you think would sum up the media input best. Thanks. Malke2010 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I dislike removing any well-sourced material. How about moving the Media content to a sub-article ("Media responses to the Tea Party movement"?) and substituting a one or two paragraph summary? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. That would be the better thing to do. It certainly has enough material there to get started as a sub-article and it can grow on it's own without overwhelming this article. Good idea as always Roy :)Malke2010 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the problem is necessarily about reducing or moving material. I think the problem is that there are two separate topics attempting to be covered by "Responses>Media". One is the response of the media to the movement. But the other is about the movement's response to the media, if you will... it's about the controversy surrounding the role of Fox News and talk radio in fueling the movement and organizing protests.

This information is also worthwhile, but it is not really about the "Media Response". Therefore, I would propose creating a new section for this material (which is about 2/3rds of the section). This will greatly reduce the size of the "Responses>Media" section and will give us the ability to fine-tune/shape/condense each of the two resultant sections much more effectively --Izauze (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But the size is the problem. It's totally WP:UNDUE. This Movement isn't about Fox news and Rachel Maddow, etc. And it overwhelms the reader. The detail is confusing. I avoid it now, but when I first looked up Tea Party Movement, the media section and the astroturfing make it look like it's a mud fight between Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann with inappropriate sexual comments by Anderson Cooper. RoyGoldsmith has a good idea, I think, that preserves the edits and yet gives this page some breathing room.Malke2010 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you've long stated your opinion that Fox News has nothing to do with the TPM and that you think others are just trying to cynically capitalize off of a 100% grassroots movement, but we can't make your opinions the basis of our edits. Plenty of sources have discussed Fox News' role in this (along with talk radio), and that controversy must be reflected in this article. (After all, how can we ignore the role of Glenn Beck in calling for the 9/12 protests - the largest conservative protest ever in washington?) And IMO, this controversy has to be separated from "Responses>Media", and THAT will make the size of this section more manageable. Raygoldsmith's suggestion was in relation to your complaint about the size of the section, but perhaps it is instead the content of the section that we should be looking at. --Izauze (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I've never said that. I said that you can't say they were promoters. They have not sponsored events, etc., like FreedomWorks, etc. And I don't think they could do that legally anyway, even if they wanted to. The only thing these outlets can legally sponsor is polls and that's why they all put out polls every week.

I think you are reading into things. My point here is that the news media's actions in all of this should not dominate. And all the detail, all the back and forth, this one said that, and then this one said another thing, is not necessary. And I've made very clear that I think the news media are just selling product and they have the means through the television and the radio and the newspaper outlets but especially the television, to put over their shows as the ones to watch because they've got all the latest. And they appeal to nuts on both sides of the wing. At the end of the day, they're all salesmen. That's how they make a living.Malke2010 19:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I misread you. Here is what I did: I greatly reduced the section about Responses by the Media by moving out the material that seemed miscategorized. This was principally stuff about the controversy of Fox News acting as promoters. I just gave that its own section. I tried to shape and contextualize that material, but it is more of a starting point than anything and may need some additional work. There are things that could have been removed due to UNDUE, but I left it all in so others could make those decisions and remove or move material as they see fit. Nonetheless, I believe the Fox material reads much better now and has more focus than it did before. The Media section however is still kinda scattered as I did not shape it at all, but is of a much more manageable size now. --Izauze (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Izauze, you have placed all of the Fox News text in the article under History. I do not believe it belongs there (except that everything is history). Because Fox News is a media organization, I believe it belongs in a subsubsection under Responses>Media.

I was entering the following comments at the same time you were making your changes. I present them now. When I say "now" below, I mean the state the article was in before you made your changes. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 11 paragraphs/stories right now in Responses>Media:

1. "According to US News...". Fox News explicitly mentioned.
2. "The protests have been derided...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.
3. "Media Matters for America...". Fox News explicitly mentioned.
4. "At an April 15 protest...". Fox News explicitly mentioned.
5. "Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly...". Fox News explicitly mentioned.
6. "On April 12, Howard Kurtz said...". Fox News explicitly mentioned.
7. "CNBC news editor Rick Santelli said...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.
8. "On April 19, 2009, Senior White House Advisor...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.
9. "In January 2010, New York Times...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.
10. "Following the election of Scott Brown...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.
11. "In February 2010, Marvel Comics...". Fox News not explicitly mentioned.

Five out of eleven (almost half) mentioned Fox News. All five are about how Fox covers the Tea Party movement. The eighth paragraph is misplaced; it should be under Responses>Politics. Of the other five, three are descriptions about the Tea Party movement itself. One is a long list of people who support and don't support Tea Parties and one is about the Marvel Comics controversy. Except for that long list (which appears fairly evenhanded), none of the other material in Responses>Media has anything to say about how news organizations, other than Fox (and Marvel), cover the TPm.

In my opinion, the Media section should begin with the three paragraphs (numbers 7, 9 and 10) that describe the Tea Party itself. Then the long list (paragraph #2) should start off a subsection at the bottom of Responses>Media called something like "Allegations of bias in the media". The five paragraphs about Fox should go into a 4th-level subsection: Responses>Media>Allegations of bias in the media>Fox News controversy. The Marvel paragraph should go into its own subsection: Responses>Media>Allegations of bias in the media>Marvel Comics controversy.

In this way, if some other sources claim they have found bias, we can have another subsubsubsection called Allegations of bias in the media>NY Times controversy or whatever. If there are allegations about (say) a particular CNN Poll, we can have a subsection on Responses>Public opinion polls>Allegations of bias>CNN Poll controversy. Etc.

This is a diagram of what I imagine the Media subsection should look like when we are done:

==Responses==

===Politics===

:

On April 19, 2009, Senior White House Advisor...

:

===Media===

CNBC news editor Rick Santelli said...

In January 2010, New York Times...

Following the election of Scott Brown...

====Allegations of bias in the media====

The protests have been derided...

=====Fox News controversy=====

According to US News...

Media Matters for America...

At an April 15 protest...

Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly...

On April 12, Howard Kurtz said...

=====Marvel Comics controversy=====

In February 2010, Marvel Comics...

:

I would then start trying to find non-allegation references about the ongoing Tea Party movement as a whole and begin adding summaries of them in the main subsection Response>Media. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know some might find it a little misplaced, but it was my attempt to make it fit somewhere. Personally, I really don't think it is better placed by categorizing it in some sub-sub-section under "Responses", because it's not a response to the tea party movement (as all the other subsections are), it is about whether Fox helped create the tea party movement. Because of it's role in fanning those flames, I thought it might fit best in the history category in some way, helping us to understand the elements that helped form and motivate the movement. I could also see an argument for a subsection within astroturfing. Or that it even deserves its own section. I just don't think responses is the right place for it. When I made the edit I added this note:

!-- Created this new section for material related to Fox News' role in fueling the movement, as it was miscategorized in a section about responses to the movement by the media. Since the controversey is largely about how much Fox is involved in the growth of the movement, I thought "History" was an appropriate section, but if others feel it is better organized elsewhere, that's fine. Almost everything in here is material previously in the media response section. I reordered, contextualized and shaped some of the material, mostly using additional material from other tea party related articles. It may need to be edited and shaped additionally, but I think it's better than it was before. --

Additionally, I was on pretty much the same page as you about #8, but moved it under response>Obama, since I felt it worked as a sort of combined white house response, but response>politics would be serviceable too. --Izauze (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What about creating a new section named "Controversy" or something to that effect, and put the astroturfing thing in there, the fox news thing in there, and anything else that might fit like subsections about allegations of racist elements within the movement and such? Just a thought. --Izauze (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Izauze, I didn't realize that Fox News has become such a lightening rod in all of this, for lack of a better phrase. It seems the thing with them is that they claimed they were the only news program covering these protests, and giving the viewers all the facts that they said were being suppressed at other news shows. But then of course, they all started in on it because it gave them ratings and higher ad prices. Anyway, you know how I feel about the media being salesmen. I'd like to mention that, if possible.Malke2010 06:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence, "Where many have pointed out the role of Fox News and its hosts in supporting and assisting the tea party protests, going even so far as to suggest that the movement was essentially created by Fox, others complain that the other news outlets simply ignored the movement at first.515253" is not supported by the citations given.

On the other hand, "Many have pointed out the Fox News Channel cable network supported and promoted the tea party protests, going even so far as to suggest that the movement was essentially created by Fox." is.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Significance of first paragraphs under The Protests

What do the first two paragraphs under The protests (beginning with "On January 27" and "On February 10") have to do with the Tea Party movement (or the Tea Party protests)? They seem to be simply two of perhaps dozens or hundreds of criticisms leveled at the stimulis bill in that period. Both were inserted into the article by an anonymous editor on April 24, 2009 (when everything was under the name Tea Party protests). What is the significance of these in relation to the Tea Party movement? Can anyone tell me why they shouldn't be removed forthwith? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The narrative I see presented in Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 (I have no idea what the point of P2 is) is that Limbaugh responded to the stimulus package and called it a porkulus package. 2 weeks later a seattle blogger took this phrase and called for a porkulus protest. This is purportedly significant because some call that the first tea party protest (though I don't see a significant source for WHO calls it that). A week later after the stimulus bill had been signed, a guy on CNBC business network complained and suggested the need for a new tea party. Within hours websites were springing up in reaction to that call, and thus the tea party was born.

If we can't find any kind of source that says that somebody refered to the Limbaugh criticism the first tea party protest, I suggest that we get rid of the entire paragraph as not germane. The original posting of Mary Rakovich's protest in April 2009 said that "This was the first known protest against the "stimulus" bill in the country" but it was apparently shot down for lack of a citation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how much, if any of this, creates an accurate picture of how the movement was born and began to take off, but that's how these paragraphs read to me. IF it is accurate and verifiable, I think we can shape the material better and present it as being in regards to the genesis of the protests rather than being under the banner of just "The Protests". If this is not an accurate picture, we may need to start over. These events only seem significant to the degree that they are attributed to starting the movement. Thus any element within these 4 paragraphs that can not do that should be moved or eliminated, IMO. --Izauze (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Izauze sums it up well there. Apparently, Keli Carender (not sure if that's correct) is the Seattle housewife who already had a blog and with the passage of the stimulus bill and the news of what it contained, etc., and it may have also been the AIG bonuses, got mad and wrote on her blog and her readers started tweeting and emailing. And then the CNBC guy said something on air, and it just reached a tipping point. So, maybe it could just be summed up like that with cites and all the rest of it eliminated.

I'll throw in with whatever the majority decide.Malke2010 06:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone can find an outside consensus of reliable sources that says that the stimulus (and only the stimulus) originally gave birth to the Tea Party movement then I would say leave the two paragraphs in. Otherwise, unless we can find something about "tea party" in one of the individual sources, I would say throw 'em both out.

I'm going to change "The protests" heading to "Origins" and insert a warning at the top of the subsection. Malke, if you want to try "summing up" the first two paragraphs (possibly combining them with paragraphs 3 and 4) using verifiable sources, we'll wait. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC;)

Okay, I'll work on it. I'll have something by the weekend. Really busy in real life today.Malke2010 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's RS that provides the linkage sought by RoyGoldsmith for paragraphs 1,3 and 4. Paragraph 2, the one about the FreedomWorks-organized protest in Ft. Myers, is RS linked to the Tea Party protests here.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add in the references.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, did you look at the Obama speech edit?Malke2010 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did. I'm worried that excising his comment specifically identifying the "Recovery Act" might muddy things a bit, however. I'll have to take another look. Agreed that the McCaskill comment was unnecessary. I'll give it a whack in a few and post it at talk before I do anything else.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I included that. I thought I put posted it just as I had it here on the talk page. Maybe I made a mistake.Malke2010 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of this discussion, I did some research this weekend to try and make some sense out of this messy "origins" section. I think I've found some stuff that actually will completely change not only the history that is presented here, but in the popular media as well. I'll try and type something up tonight and post it for evaluation. --Izauze (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking forward to it.Malke2010 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, turns out finding the info is one thing, compiling/sourcing/formatting it all is a decent sized task. If I have spare time I'll try getting it up tomorrow. --Izauze (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we start off with a look at the WP:RS cites? We can get to editing the present content later.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if RoyGoldsmith wouldn't weighing back in, that would be helpful. I see his WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT and WP:TOPIC concerns substantially resolved at this point and advocate removing the Importance tag.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, the Obama speech edit is reading much better now. Good. Malke2010 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Who said anything at all about WP:VERIFY or WP:NOT? But what about WP:TOPIC? The article is supposed to be about the Tea Party movement. I don't think it matters how many RS's you find if you can't justify by those RS's the relevance of the first, second and even third paragraphs in the Origins section to the Tea Party movement.

First, according to the article, the words "Tea Party" weren't used before Santelli. Now I did find and insert a new citation over the weekend (Zernike, Feb 27, 2010) that finally reported over a year later that the "leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her [Carender] with being the first" so I guess that justifies P3. But the same Zernike story [2] says that "Ms. Carender decided to hold a protest against what she called the porkulus.”

The Zernike story doesn't even mention Limbaugh, although I agree that reliable references have named him as also using the term porkulus. But unless you find a reference that says that the porkulus mentioned by Carender relates in some way to the porkulus used by Limbaugh in his Jan 27th comment then we can't use the first paragraph because we don't have a reliable source relating the Limbaugh comment to the Tea Party movement.

(We are not reporters. We can not presume that the porkulus used in one context is the same as the porkulus used in a different context, as they can -- see WP:SYN. We have to find a reference that says they're related. In effect, we have to dumb down our intelligence and make pretend that we only know (or really, only report in Wikipedia) stuff that is reported in other sources and nothing else.)

As for the second paragraph, I don't see what it's doing in the article in the first place! It doesn't mention either Tea Party or porkulus. Since we can't assume that porkulus is the same in different contexts (see my paragragh just above), we certainly can't assume that porkulus equals a pig on a protest sign. Is there any other justification to P2? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to my previous comment that you may not have seen above, which I will reproduce here: "Here's RS that provides the linkage sought by RoyGoldsmith for paragraphs 1,3 and 4. Paragraph 2, the one about the FreedomWorks-organized protest in Ft. Myers, is RS linked to the Tea Party protests here" I believe this amply provided you the significance and relevance of the material that was there to the Tea Party movement.

I reference WP:NOT and WP:TOPIC because that is what the Importance tag placed there was asking for. In regards to WP:VERIFY, you said "If we can't find any kind of source that says that somebody refered to the Limbaugh criticism the first tea party protest, I suggest that we get rid of the entire paragraph as not germane." Well, I believe the previous information satisfied that request as well.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the big Origins edit

So I took a big stab at it...

Let me say first of all that I now know way more about the tea party than I ever wanted to know (and this represents only a small section of what was important and sourceable). Secondly, let me say that this is by far the biggest contribution i've ever tried to make to wikipedia. So as a less-experienced editor, I fully expect a barrage of edits, reformatting, citation requests and punctuation fixes. That's fine, I hope others can make this better. Also, I know it's pretty big. It was what I had to go through to make the origin story make sense to me. Like Raygoldsmith, I really did not get how porkulus and such tied into this all until I did this. Also, because of its size I would understand if anyone requested to eventually split and synopsize it.

I definitely tried to be as neutral as possible and as well-documented as I could. I refamiliarized myself with wikpedia's verification and sourcing articles for guidance. Being less experienced here, I'm not familiar if you have some sort of tool to do all that "date accessed" stuff in the citations, but if anyone wants to clean up or expand the info in some of these references, all the better.

I am pretty confident of the facts I present. If any of this material might be better supported to meet wikipedia's verification standards, just let me know and I'll be happy to share where my info came from and see if we can make it work. --Izauze (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bypassing the format of the citations (which I'll fix later; see Template:Cite Web if you want to try it yourself), I'm going to start with the second paragraph. You say "the modern Tea Party movement may be able to be traced back to a single message board post". You then give this reference to cite that the message had actually been posted.

My question is: what reference do you cite that the modern Tea Party movement may be able to be traced back to this specific message? In my opinion, it is not enough to claim that this is the first occurrence of tea bags that you have been able to find. If someone else claimed that this was the first occurrence and you could cite him, that would be fine. (Even if your reference was wrong; the first sentence in WP:VER says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".)

It's not that this message is the first that you could find (and someone else may always find an earlier one) but, unless I'm wrong, you have not provided a citation. Someone else (not a Wikipedia editor) may be mistaken in saying that this is the first but we deal with that all the time by providing references. Then it's on the shoulders of whoever made the reference and not us. Of course, if you think that your reference is not only wrong but is also pushing some non-neutral point of view, well, then that is another reason why you might reject the source. But, if you don't have the source to begin with, the NPOV discussion is moot.

I also feel that the phrase "may be able to be traced..." is sort of weaselly. Wouldn't it be better, if you have the citation, to say something like "it has been reported<ref>...</ref> that the modern Tea Party movement may be traced back to...".

I have only checked out the citations for the second paragraph. Do the following paragraphs follow the same line of reasoning? (I did make a small change in the "Porkulus" protests section: I reversed the appearance of Carender and Limbaugh, to make them occur in date order.) Do you even agree with reasoning I stated in the paragraphs above? Talk to me. By the way, my name is Roy, not Ray. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just reviewed your rewrite of Origins section more extensively. In broad, I think your changes are fantastic. I'll start inserting citation-needed tags and fixing the reference format when this discussion has died down. But kudos to you for an excellent first big contribution. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is Keri Carender and the blogs of everyday people? I've added mention of the mortgage foreclosures which is the real reason ordinary people left their homes and took off work to show up and protest. They were caught in mortgages that were ruining their credit and making them homeless. That's how all of this got started. This needs to be mentioned.Malke2010 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Roygoldsmith... (sorry for screwing up the name :P) re: my cite for saying "might be able to trace back to a single message board post" was the huffington post tea party timeline. if we dont think that is significant enough, we can take it out...looks like someone already has. I agree with "has been reported" instead of "may be", if there is support for that via the HP entry. thanks for the kudos :)'

@Malke: Carender is in there prominently. I mentioned how things spread across blogs and such, but never found need to cite them. If u have something that u think is significant, let us know --65.25.161.137 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saw that. But Keri Carender's efforts actually made the first Tea Party which came about a week after her Porkulus Party. So I moved her to the opening of the origins.Malke2010 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, yes, kudos on finding all this stuff and organizing it.Malke2010 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I'll take a gander at the changes - I just want to be sure everyting is easy to follow chronologically, so the order might need to be preserved. -Izauze (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of edits. Hard to even wrap my head around where each one is. I think there's some helpful additions and streamlining in there. I also think there are parts that just get a lot more confused (such as moving pieces out of chronological order) and some valid and sourced material seems missing. There are parts that need to be reverted and then if necessary can be discussed here, I suppose. Hopefully some other editors show up, since this is such a big job. --Izauze (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. I think an important issue that needs to be discussed first is what is reaching the WP:RS and WP:SOURCES threshold and how we treat than information in a certain order. For example, much of the new information is referenced from Web forums. Is this verifiable? Using this sort of cite also opens the door to similar Web forum information that has been added and removed that credits Ron Paul's campaign with starting the Tea Party movement. The other problem here is using partisan blogs as primary sources, such as Michelle Malkin's blog, and properly attributing their influence. For example, the Zernike's story explained that Carender contacted a number of influential conservative voices and blogs and tried with mixed success to market her Feb. 16 event. Malkin was the exception, embracing the Seattle protest and posting several times about it. Might want to re-write the way it presently reads to explain that.

Happysomeone: Obviously there are difficulties sourcing a small non-mainstream phenomenon that did not get a lot of direct and immediate attention in mainstream media sources, but in including the February 1st protest to mail tea bags, I felt using this material as a source only on itself was justified . I agree with your proposed changes regarding Carender and Malkin. --Izauze (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the title "February 2009 Tea Party" doesn't make much sense as there was no actual "Tea Party" held, just mentions of it here and there.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Happysomeone, I thought that too. But apparently, the second protest held by Keri Carender is claimed as the first Tea Party and it was Feb 27, 2009. Also, this article is a good one about her. [3]Malke2010 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone: the title is "February 1st Tea Party" to reflect the protest to mail tea bags to politicians on february 1st (in which they referred to it as a "tea party"). Could clarity be improved through a name change like "February 1st tea party PROTEST"? or something along those lines?--Izauze (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke: I tried to make a few changes to preserve material and make it more neutral. The biggest change is that I took out your material related Carender because it was miscategorized under the february 1st event. If you think the additional material is significant enough, you could try incorporating it into the section about the early porkulus protests or the section on the february 27th protests. --Izauze (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is accurate to delete her efforts from the first Tea Party. She is credited with that. And the first one is claimed to be her second protest. And I don't think there should be a separate section for "Porkulus." This is the origins of the Tea Party. So Keri Carender needs to be prominent.Malke2010 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You also removed the New York Times article which help explains the origins of the Tea Party. I protest this edit and the separate section on Porkulus. This isolates Carender and that is just plain wrong. What these finance guys did sitting around emailing each other is not at all the true genesis of this movement. This is undue weight to minor participants.Malke2010 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

also, mailing tea bags on February 1st is not a tea party. And giving it a heading as such makes no sense. The Tea Party is the protest gathering of ordinary citizens called together in Seattle by the efforts of Keri Carender.Malke2010 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A solution would be to have a small paragraph with a title that mentions the first use of tea bags. But it should not be represented as a tea party. And mention of the mortgage crisis should not be deleted.Malke2010 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mortgage crisis belonged in the background section. It currently reads: "The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints.[18][19][20] It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[21][22][23][24] The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.[25][26][27] As home mortgage foreclosures rapidly increased, and details of the 2009 stimulus bill became known, including the provision for the AIG executive bonuses, organized protests began to emerge.[28" NYT cite removed? It's still there.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So the edits are coming thick and fast. What do you think of the latest shift, separating the "first" claim from the tea bag origins section?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah theyre too fast for me to keep up with :P I like combining the porkulus and first tea party claims. --Izauze (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Malke, I disagree with putting the Carender "first" claim before mentioning there is a competing WP:RS claim. After the competing claims mention, the Rakovich mention comes first based on chronology. Then the Carendar protest. This is the logical progression of encyclopedic writing, insofar as I understand it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, I'm laughing because I keep passing you in these edits. I think Carender needs to go first and then these other because the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly are claiming she was first and then with the competing claims it follows from there. Also, Izauze good work on the tea bag origins, I didn't mean for it to seem that I don't like them. I just don't want an actual protester to get buried here. It is also a populist movement as we all know after all that consensus.Malke2010 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I find this a little irritating because I feel like we are talking past each other on this specific point. To whit: the two cites, the NYT and the Atlantic, make subtly different claims in "who is first". The NYT story says "But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first." No leader is ID'ed here, so we take the reporter's word for it. The Atlantic says: "one of the first". Not "THE FIRST".--Happysomeone (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, please don't simply revert. You wipe out all my work. My section on Keri Carender is well sourced and adds to the competing claims that follow.Malke2010 20:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's difficult (understandably) trying to get your attention. Let's slow down and discuss.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit I have with Keri Carender and also the addition of the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly supporting Carender as the first tea party are fine where I have them. In fact, the use of tea bags should come last in all of this. You can dispute that she is the first but that doesn't mean she should get buried here. And also, her quote is the first quote from an actual protester.Malke2010 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, no, no. Read the cites. Then take a look at the PBP story on Rakovich, which quotes a Tea Party organizer saying: "It was actually the first protest of President Obama's administration that we know of. It was the first protest of what became the tea party movement.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, remember that bolding something is screaming and also put the comments in order. We can arrange things in a chonological order if you like, but I would like the paragraphs I edited on Carender added back.Malke2010 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the cites? The reason I bolded the text was not to "scream", but to acquire your attention. It is also appropriate to respond to specific comments in the space immediately following. I am only trying to follow WP:AGF, which requires an attentive and willing collaborator.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing you about the bolding thing. Just a reminder. I didn't know it was screaming until someone pointed that out to me so I don't use that anymore. I put the Carender paragraph where you're saying it should go. Also, I always assume WP:AGF with you. And really, everybody here.Malke2010 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was this material added back in again and other material deleted? I don't see this reflected here on the talk page.

Malke, I would try and get consensus or bring up the issue here before making any other big edits.--Izauze (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keri Carender quote(s)

Yes, it's here. We're talking about the paragraph on Carender that I added. There's nothing wrong with it. Her quote is relevant and it is well sourced. If you want to keep in Michele Malkin buying pulled pork for the first party, fine, but the quote from Carender needs to stay. As does the cites from the New York Times and the tea party post where she was quoted also.Malke2010 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean multiple quotes? It seems like overkill, in my opinion, and much of the information there needn't be in quotation, we could paraphase it. Also, I know she claims to have organized the first "Tea Party" protest on Feb. 27, but weren't there 39 other Tea Parties the same day, as mentioned and edited by Izauze?--Happysomeone (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Context is needed that Carender's February 27th protest was just part of a nationally-cordinated day of protest in 40+ cities simultaneously which were collectively the first tea party protests. I do not know why this contextual information was removed by Malke2010. --Izauze (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to confirm, Malke, that you've read those cites you mentioned, just so we're on the same page.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. WP:EW IF you and happysomeone have come to an agreement, which I'm not sure you have, then by all means proceed. But you don't have to delete info to insert your own --Izauze (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

more material deleted by Malke2010 w/o discussion minutes after I added it. This is getting a little frustrating. --Izauze (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on the heavy quotation by Carendar, which I don't think is necessary. Also, Izauze, you've got my support to re-add the "40+ cities simultaneously which were collectively the first tea party protests" mention.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean to badger Malke, but I really need to know that he's reading those cites previously mentioned. I'd like everyone on the same page and prevent a circular argument.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK: Where is the added value here: "Carendar organized what she called A "Porkulus Protest" on President’s Day, before, as she says, "Rick Santelli’s rant!" referring to the CNBC reporter who called for protests after the announcement of the AIG executive bonuses in the face of increasing home mortgage foreclosures. Carender said, "Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came." Carender held a second protest on February 27, 2009 which she claims was the first Tea Party. "We more than doubled our attendance at this one, and that is very much due to the fact that I had collected email addresses at the first one and was able to tell a couple hundred people at once about the second rally."[59] [60]"

That isn't here: "However, instead of branding it a "Tea Party", Carender began organizing a "Porkulus Protest"[59] with a February 10th blog post. According to Carender, she received no support from a national movement or officials from any organization and claimed 120 people participated. She later held a second protest on February 27, 2009 which she says was the "first Tea Party".[60]"?????--Happysomeone (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, please use the talk page. This constant editing without discussion isn't productive, and you don't have consensus.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

agreed. --Izauze (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone I've been right here on the talk page. Carender's quote is fine. And Michelle Malkin's follow up is not relevant to the section. If the lengthy edit about the origin of the tea bag doesn't seem undue to anybody, then Carender's quote is fine too. It adds information about her for the reader and it's accurate.Malke2010 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the quote. Why don't you want it in there?Malke2010 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Malkin promotion of the denver protest (another porkulus protest which is VERY relevant) was part of her blog post about carender - she was using carender to show others how they should get involved in the protests both specifically in denver, and in general around the country. This is VERY relevant to the tea party movement. Please do not delete valuable information. --Izauze (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Carender is valuable. It is VERY relevant.Malke2010 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't speak to the Carender quote. That is something you should take up with happysomeone. My only addition to the carender paragraph was to include context re: the feb 27th protests, which you also removed. If you are asking my opinion about the quotations though, I generally agree with happysomeone that there is little information contained in those quotes that is not contained in the summary (and in a more NPOV as well). If there is any important facts that are not in the summary, I suggest you outline them to happysomeone.

But to avoid getting sidetracked, I remind you that MY comment was in regards to the Malkin paragraph, and the material you deleted there. I provided reasons regarding its relevance. If you have any further concerns I can address, let me know. Otherwise I'll assume it's safe to re-re-introduce? --Izauze (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I added info regarding the denver and arizona protests to clarify the malkin-denver releance. Let me know if you want to discuss this addition please. --Izauze (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple quotes, not just one as you say. Please address the substance of my comparison, above. Please. Also, please review how WP:BRD works. It's an attempt to avoid WP:EW and WP:3RR, and that doesn't include ignoring a revert dispute by saying "Hi, I'm here on the talk page" while simultaneuosly editing content in question. Resolve the differences here first, then take the consensus edit back to the article. That's how it's supposed to work.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please don't just revert without discussing here first. I was in making changes and kept finding them reverted without any discussion. That is frustrating to an editor. The quote is fine. I don't know how many times you want me to say that. It's my edit, it's relevant, it explains something about how this whole thing got started. She said it on the Tea Party blog where she was answering questions about how she did this. There's no problem with it. I might ask why do we have so much material on the origin of the use of tea bags. A couple of finance guys sitting around their offices with time on their hands probably doesn't need that much space.

And, please no sarcasm. I have yielded to your requests for putting things in chrono order, and allowing the tea bag thing to go first, which is most irrelevant in my opinion. The Carender quote helps explain a lot and it should stay.Malke2010 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to resolve this conflict on its own merits, w/o reference to other areas you think are problematic. If you have issue with other sections, propose a change at some point and see if we can find a consensus. It is probably best to avoid sidetracking and to communicate to happysomeone (and the rest of us) and address his concerns directly by explaining what facts contained in the quotes which you believe are important to the article. Just saying "the quote is fine" repeatedly doesn't seem to help your case. --Izauze (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If I haven't made my point regarding Keri Carender's quote then let me clarify: this quote tells the reader what she did, how she did it. It's her own voice and that is far more interesting and accurate. Also, note, there's been no hesitation to include Michele Malkin's quote after the Carender information and Malkin did not originate anything. She mentioned it on her blog and she sent them food.

Summarizing what Carender did and then moving on to Michele Malkin and giving her so much space was WP:UNDUE. You have to think of what a reader is asking when they get here.Malke2010 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One at a time, please. Discussing "the tea bag origin" here is a strawman/false equivalency argument. Believe me, we'll get to that tea bag origins part later. For now, we're talking about this specific section.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep stating that we're talking about the "Carender quote". No. I am talking about several quotes attributed to her that are lumped together. It reads badly. It's better to summarize that she received no support from a national movement or officials from any organization and claimed 120 people participated, instead of having three different quotes from her that say the same thing. Wikipedia is written in a certain way that utilizes quotations, cites and footnotes. From WP:QUOTE: "When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when: * a summary of a quote would be better."--Happysomeone (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is Keli Carender's direct answer to a direct question during an e-interview on the Tea Party Protest website:

Question: Wasn’t Seattle one of the first protest sites? Answer: Yes, the first protest I planned was on President’s Day, in February, before Rick Santelli’s rant! Without any support from a national movement, without any support from any official in my city, I just got fed up and planned it. We called in the Porkulus Protest. I had 120 people show up, which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came. The second protest was the first Tea Party on Feb. 27th. We more than doubled our attendance at this one, and that is very much due to the fact that I had collected email addresses at the first one and was able to tell a couple hundred people at once about the second rally.

Happysomeone, I don't know what else to do to make you Happy again.Malke2010 00:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a run-on quote that can be better summarized. Remember when we tried to summarize the Obama quote? Think we did that OK. I think the same is possible here.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So what would you take out?Malke2010 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of making this easier for you guys to resolve, I'll try to outline all the info contained in the above quote:

1. it was on president's day
2. it was before santelli's rant
3. planned w/o national support
4. called it a porkulus protest
5. 120 attendees
6. organized over 4 days
7. held a 2nd protest
8. which was part of the national feb 27th protests,
9. which was the first to be billed as a tea party
10. double the attendance

am i missing anything relevant?

(1),3,4,5,7,8,9, and 10 are all included in this summary (1 is in the next PP):

Carender began organizing a "Porkulus Protest"[59] with a February 10th blog post. According to Carender, she received no support from a national movement or officials from any organization and claimed 120 people participated. She later attracted double the attendence for her second protest, which was held in conjunction with the nation-wide February 27th protests in over 40 cities, which were the first protests which referred to themselves as Tea Party protests.[60]

which means the only info we're missing is 2 and 6 (though 6 could be inferred by the dates provided) If those are important to you, let us know... otherwise, it seems an appropriate summary that covers all the important facts found in the quotes, right? --Izauze (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Izauze, you've nailed it. In fact, that looks an awful lot like the edit we collaborated on earlier today. In fairness to Malke and in the interest of consensus, we should search for a one-sentence quote from Carender that really gets to the core of WHY. It would seem a little unbalanced if we didn't at least have *a* quote. Thoughts?--Happysomeone (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks. and i'm sure any quote that can pass your filter, passes mine. hopefully you two can find something appropriate and agreeable.--Izauze (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to Protest page?

Nice work! This really improves the history. My only quibble is that I think material this specific belongs on the Protest page. Do you agree? I think the Movement page should only have an overview per WP:SUMMARY. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, I knew as I was writing it, people might be wary of the length. I would like to give it a chance to settle in and be shaped by the editors here before we move too quickly into discussions re: moving, splitting, summarizing, etc. Does that sound reasonable? --Izauze (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime though, you could certainly duplicate useful elements found here into the Tea Party Protests page... --Izauze (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hapysomeone's citation tag

Hey, sorry I didn't talk directly before, but i wasn't sure who added it. in regards to

"On February 1[1]th, talk radio host and Fox Business Network personality Dave Ramsey appeared on Fox and Friends, waving tea bags and saying "It's time for a Tea Party.""

You can find the "but it's time for tea party" line a little more than halfway through the last paragraph of the automated transcript, though they actually say: "And that's why you brought a prop from Lipton." (teab bags brought out) "But it's time for tea party, isn't it? Aren't we, the people, pretty disgusted with this whole process?" The best cite I have for that this was a february [11th] broadcast (aside from it being about the TARP2, which was announced feb11th, is this: What're your thoughts? sufficient?--Izauze (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. When we format the cite make sure the date gets in there b/c the Google News page is the only date verification I can see.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm embarassed to say I don't know how to incorporate the date into my citations. Do you recommend adding a citation to the google page too? --Izauze (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox>Problem sentence?

Had this sentence removed from the Fox News section. Said I would bring it up here in case someone has an issue with the way it is worded. It is meant to provide context to the next few paragraphs which contain fox critiques.

As the protests grew, other media outlets as well as media watchdog groups began calling attention to or criticizing Fox's role in the movement. Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America, a self-described progressive media watchdog organization, wrote an open letter to Fox News Sunday host...

Any objections to leaving it in as is? --Izauze (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole section is too long to begin with. What is the importance of these various comments? If Media Matters had some regulatory function and they had ruled that Fox News had violated an FCC rule, etc., then all these comments would be relevant. But just because someone doesn't like the fact that Fox News provided coverage when the other cable news outlets and the network news did not, is not really that important. This whole thing can be summarized in one paragraph. Media Matters is just another organization with it's own agenda. What they think of something doesn't really matter. Only if Fox News had broken the law in providing coverage would any of this be relevant. And by giving such undue weight to this, it makes it appear that Fox News has done something illegal and therefore all these pseudo organizations that claim some self-importance appear to be rising up against them. As if what Media Matters thinks is important anyway. There's no story here. And as I said before, this is about selling product. Notice how none of them are really covering the Tea Party Movement. There's no quote from Mary in St. Louis who just lost her home. Or a quote from Jorge in California talking about losing his job, etc. The media ruckus is not about the Tea Party Movement. It's about selling advertising to pay for the salaries, etc.Malke2010 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I removed that sentence because it is original research and it claims again, incorrectly, that Fox News has a role here. They are providing coverage at heavy levels to jack up ratings.Malke2010 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's better not to isolate sections into a "Controversy Section." I added a tag because in any event, now that it's there, the material is questionable POV. Also, I restored the edit I made that opens the section on Fox News. Calling it "Fox New's Role" is not neutral. Neither is it neutral to delete the fact that Bill O'Reilly and several Fox News commentators mentioned the lack of coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC. It is POV pushing to isolate Fox this way and then pile on with the Media Matters type groups as if they have some critical role here. Fox News believes this is a major event in American history and the other outlets believe it is white people complaining about a black president. That's just not true. It's not about Obama. It's about the economy and Obama didn't make the mess. Congress did. And from what I'm reading, that is what these protesters are complaining about. The economic meltdown occurred before Obama got elected.

There is nothing in these sections that criticizes MSNBC especially for not providing coverage and for whipping up the notion that this is somehow about the election of the first black president. It is not. The more I've been reading about that, it's clear this is not about that at all. I think the focus needs to be back on Wikipedia and presenting a balanced article on the Tea Party Movement, and not on trying to make this movement out to be something it is not. This is not a WP:SOAP.Malke2010 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of opinion being presented up there. In regards to this instance, I think you are using NPOV too heavily in support of your own above stated opinions. There is a controversey - it has gotten significant coverage. Mentioning that a controversey exists is not pov pushing. Some of the material was taken from the article Fox News controveries. And the section was called Fox's role, because that is what the controversey is regarding - and that is well-established via the selected sources. And just like the astroturfing section, laws don't have to be broken to be significant. I think your application of NPOV to erase anything that might reflect negatively on Fox is what is not NPOV at this point.

(and btw, it wasn't me who deleted the mentions of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC)

Can we can get anyone else to jump in on this and offer their thoughts? --65.25.161.137 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, it's not the whole controversy. MSNBC is as much pushing their own view that the Tea Parties are merely protests against President Obama. That's controversial too, but the presentation in the article makes it appear that only Fox is being controversial. And the weight here is undue. MSNBC et al are being presented as if they have some morally correct outrage that Fox is covering these events. You can mention Fox but you also have to mention what MSNBC is doing as well. And at the end of the day, it can still be reduced to a paragraph. It doesn't need to overwhelm the article. If you believe this needs to be expounded on, then a second article just covering this would be fine. But in the overall Tea Party Movement it's small. And also, there needs to be a section explaining the mortgage crisis and the other aspects of the financial meltdown. That is what people are protesting. And the focus needs to be on that and not on the media. And it's not POV pushing to point out POV pushing. WP:AGF.Malke2010 17:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there IS verifiable material out there that outlines some controversey regarding some of the coverage of various news outlets. Fox's controversey is a bit different just because it is not just about how they responded to it, but about how participated in it. If you can find some sources you could add material to the responses>media section or create a new section if the coverage was significant enough.

It may be your opinion that the Fox News story is small, but the amount of verifiable coverage this story has gotten is significant

And if you think that material regarding the significance of stuff like mortage crisis is missing, find sources, be bold, and add it.  :)

--Izauze (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no more controversy over Fox than over any other outlet. It just seems like it because of the piling on and the lack of pointing out what the others are doing. Putting up Fox's name in it's own section is also adding to the impression that it's all about Fox. It's not. It's all about the media. Which comes down to advertising and ratings. And regarding the mortgages, that's the major reason people started protesting. They were losing their homes and nobody was helping them.Malke2010 18:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox News was an important force in the growth of the Tea Party Movement. Without Fox, the movement probably would have not reached a national scale so quickly. Of course it's also fair to criticize the other networks' coverage, but Glenn Beck was literally promoting the protests and organized his own event. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MakeBelieveMonster, I agree about that guy. I've heard that about Glenn Beck. But he's also got some other organization or program that he does in movie theaters, or something. The point is, they all promoted their POV's. MSNBC and CNN did the same kind of promoting by trying to discourage participation by suggesting and in blatant ways, that the participants were only there to protest the election of the first black president. And nobody mentions the mortgage meltdown, etc. So my point is, this whole thing is not balanced to show that the other side was doing as much in their way. And it's not taking sides or being a POV to point that out.Malke2010 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for it, you can certainly add criticism of MSNBC etc. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I will since you think it will be okay. And also, we need to think about reducing the size of this section. It could be summarized to what both sides are doing with a some relevant quotes that explain it best.Malke2010 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing a pattern of editors writing content that is not supported by the citations given. I tried to edit this and accurately represent what is actually WP:VERIFY, but there doesn't seem to bwe much interest in that approach. So I'm going to add a few tags where I can't verify the claims made.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

some of the citations you request are already there. often they follow a sentence or so later so there's not repetition of the same citation after every sentence in the paragraph. Some of the citations were removed and/or misplaced around the time of Malke2010's repeated editing reverts to apparently soften the language regarding criticism of Fox News, which I find to be clear WP:NPOV and probably WP:EW/WP:3RR infractions. But I have left the fox section alone for the most part today in order to focus on the history transition. --Izauze (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I never moved or misplaced any citations. I did see a broken link after a Happysomeone edit, however. And making statements that suggest my edits were made to "apparently soften the language regarding criticism of Fox News", suggests to me that you don't care if you insult another editor by failing to WP:AGF.Malke2010 05:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I share the same concerns, Izauze. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just edited out a claim that the tea party protesters used teabagging themselves. This citation that was used to make this edit claims just the opposite. This citation is all about CNN (Anderson Cooper's famous and disgusting comment) and MSNBC and their guests on their talking head shows using this term. This is blatantly false and clearly POV pushing.Malke2010 05:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is another revert of my good faith edits (supported by the above completely non-neutal rationale). It already says elsewhere in the paragraph (and in the photo) that Tea Partiers occasionally use the term "teabagging" in a humorous context. Therefore, not all Tea Partiers are opposed to it. I see no attempt to reflect these concerns in your revert.

At this point I'm afraid that I find you are well beyond the WP:3rr rules. I'm reporting this activity to the administrator's WP:EW noticeboard so that they can take a look and help us decide how to resolve this. Hopefully this will help. --Izauze (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, I appologize that you got dragged into this, but Malke_2010 is now reporting you to the administration as being in violation of the WP:3RR rule. I figured you should know. --Izauze (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If I'm going to be any help at all on this, please provide me with a reference or references. Remember, in reading over your discussion, I didn't know which version of the article was current when you made a specific argument (so I gave up after about three paragraphs). I can't tell which end is up with this rather enormous section unless I know what you're fighting about.

Please, everyone take a deep breath and we'll tackle this one step at a time. Malke, in my opinion, knowing nothing, there is no reason to report anyone for 3RR violations. Nothing that was said before this paragraph, by anyone, has any meaning whatsoever, OK? There is no need to solve this argument today or even this week. If anyone would prefer to take a rest for a couple of days, that would be just fine. My suggestion is to start with fresh slate and one or two sourced references and proceed from there. Is everybody with me? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, I didn't report anyone for 3RR. Izauze reported me and he used Happysomeone to do it. I would never take Happysomeone to the edit boards. We always work things out here. But Izauze has made this noticeboard report to include Happysomeone. Go look at it. He's put Happysomeone all over it. So I had to respond to explain my edits and my talk page contributions.Malke2010 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Check it out. [4]. Malke2010 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Roy, the edit that seems to have put Izauze over the top is the one I made as explained above. He used a citation to make a statement and the citation doesn't say that at all. It's WP:SYN and WP:NPOV and also violates WP:BLP so I deleted it. And I discussed it on the talk page.

And the edit in question between Happysomeone and myself, the way we both left it yesterday was that it would get worked out the way we worked out the Obama quote, so I don't undertstand why Izauze would do this.Malke2010 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm sorry I accused you of 3RRing but I still don't know what you're talking about. Would someone please provide me with a reference of what you're all fighting about? What I mean by "a reference" is a URL from a third-party source, usually starting with http:// and/or surrounded by <ref> and </ref> tags. Not a link to a noticeboard with dozens of diffs. With a URL, I have a place to start; without it; I'm lost.

(If there are no published references, then please say so explicitly. Of course then I'm going to say: If there are no references then nothing at all should be entered into Wikipedia for a reference that we don't have in the first place. Sheesh.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Roy -- per your request to return, I'm leaving this note. I just wanted you to know I have read your above attempt at mediation. I definitely appreciate it.

As far as what the dispute entailed, this single edit is not the central focus, but I don't want to put Malke2010 or anyone else in the unfair position of having to re-debate that here. Let's just say that following "the big origins" addition, there was a LOT of activity and things got messy... and hopefully it can be resolved in the appropriate forum.[5] I want to make sure discussion here remains to be about the Tea Party, not yesterdays little edit war.

I don't think there is anything stopping people from continuing to discuss improving the article in relation to the Fox section or the origins section. But I'm in no rush - as you said, nothing has to be resolved this second :) --Izauze (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hang back for a while. RoyGoldsmith, Malke is talking about a few different disagreements, so you'll have to wait for his explanation. I think this all came to a head when an edit was made to the Humor section. In my opinion, the edit was incomplete (a phrase was added that was supported a few sentences back, but the supporting cite was not moved along with it) and was deleted before any discussion took place. This came after a series of edits over a section on Kelly Carender. As a side note, I didn't appreciate the WP:3RR accusation against me. I'll just leave it at that.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I have drawn the line above. I'm specifically not considering, or even looking at, what's above that line. I don't even know the specifics of what you're arguing over, other than it apparently has something to do with Fox. I do this so I can remain neutral and an honest broker.

Second, in the last few paragraphs below the line, you have been giving me arguments about your disagreement. For the same reason of being an honest broker, I'm not interested in those reasons either.

What I want is references -- and only references -- that you can agree fairly represent the material in question. Then I will attempt to rewrite a small portion of the article based on those references. This will probably take several days. Then we can discuss this.

In this way, I won't have even looked at the current state of the article (honest broker again). In the meantime, let's agree not to edit the paragraphs in question, until we've come to a consensus. If you want, stick some kind of "Under review" banner on top of these paragraphs and forget about them temporarily.

If your disagreement is based on something besides references, I'd say forget about it. I will gladly delete any phrase or sentence that does not have a citation, if that's all it takes to resolve this. If your disagreement is about the entire Fox section then we'll have to think of something else because I'm not going to attempt to rewrite the whole section. If you think that this matter has already been resolved to your satisfaction and you're willing to resume editing with the current article and no bad blood, please say so.

So, do you have any references for me to work on? Please submit only (a) references (URL's) that pertain to this disagreement and (b) your signature. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, as per your request, these are the URL's that speak to the edits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/politics/28keli.html

http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/03/meet-keli-carender-tea-party-organizer-in-seattle-washington/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/cable-anchors-guests-use-tea-parties-platform-frat-house-humor/

Regarding the bad blood, I feel bad for Happysomeone that he was used as a beard by Izauze. I am not to be blamed for that. That is something that Happysomeone must take up with Izauze. And for Izauze, I think he owes everyone here an apology and the best way for him to do that would be to go over to the noticeboard and delete his complaint. If an admin has not ruled, he can certainly do that. He should take responsibility for this and make it right.Malke2010 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"[If] you're willing to resume editing with the current article and no bad blood, please say so." So. ;) I have no bad blood... Everyone should continue editing this section and any other as you normally would. --Izauze (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Izauze, are you willing to go to the EW noticeboard and retract your complaint against Malke with no bad feelings? I would insert a sentence at the top of your notice saying that you, as instigator, withdraw your complaint. You should repeat this at the end of the section, just in case.
• Malke, are you willing to go to the EW noticeboard and retract your remarks against Izauze (including the comment that starts "Actually, the characterizations of me..." at the bottom of the complaint) without any bad blood? I would simply insert a comment at the bottom saying that you accept Izauze assertion that he didn't intend to attack or insult you.
• Happysomeone, you are at least tangentially involved. Do you have anything to say?

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, I would indeed be happy to delete my part over there.Malke2010 17:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy, as I said, I am generally averse to relitigating what is already perhaps over-dilineated on the noticeboard on here as well. I do not want to argue with Malke over what has passed, and I harbor no ill will towards her. I like where things are going in respect to moving on and dealing with these individual edits and hope things can continue in this productive direction. However, though she has not acknowledged or apologized for it, I feel the posted administrative notice is valid, and that they can decide how to best handle the situation to discourage future counterproductive actions. --Izauze (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And apparently, the adminstrator has ruled and believes no action is necessary. I definitely hope that is the case. As I said I have no personal animosity. I believe we should all be able to edit alongside one another in a productive fashion. --Izauze (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, all. Well, here's my thoughts:

1) Wouldn't mind an apology and retraction from Malke regarding his accusation that I also engaged in WP:3RR.

2) "Humor" section edit entered by Izauze is supported by these references:

http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/12/18/what-are-you-doing-for-jesus-today

Please also refer to a Wikipedia-registered fair use photo on the right-hand side of your screen: As I said previously, and in fairness to Malke, the edit was made based on refs a sentence or two back, but not appended with ref tags to point the reader back there. So I understand how one could technically say "It's not in the reference there" because the cite at the end of that sentence is only the Fox News "Frat-House humor" cite. It would have been better, however, if the editor had placed a {{failed verification}} tag there in deference to the dispute, rather than hit the delete button repeatedly and ignore a WP:BRD format or some other casual mediation solution.

I agree. I admit my addition was imperfect, but it is my understanding that deleting/reverting editors contributions whole cloth is to be reserved as a last resort except in cases of out and out vandalism and such. Citation tags or a rephrase might have been appropriate. And discussion about it is always more productive if it reflects and focuses on the reporting of reliable sources, rather than on one's own view of what is true. I'm sure it should not be difficult for any of us to find a workable solution to this one simple edit. --Izauze (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

3) Re: Keli Carender. We seem to have resolved the way we will handle the "first Tea Party" claim, which currently follows a chronological hierarchy. The issue where there is no agreement yet (and where Malke referred to our collaboration on the "Obama quote" section) is slimming down the use of quotations per WP:QUOTE. It appeared both Izauze and I thought there was an excessive use of quotation because a) the information quoted could be much better in paraphrased form and b) seemed to diminish the value of a quotation that actually conveyed "a unique phrase" or "dealing with a potentially controversial statement" Editor Malke disagreed with our approach at that point and reverted to a previous edit. That's about where we are right now.

Thanks RoyGoldsmith for your efforts to arbitrate the situation here.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The paraphrase form also deletes out that she said this: (Carender said 120 people participated): "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."

The quote is relevant. So we could paraphrase everything up until, she didn't have help from the outside, etc., and then leave in the rest of her quote which includes the bluest of blue cities and what how exactly she did it.Malke2010 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Happysomeone, I would ask you now to cease and desist from factoring posts with my name and adding diffs of deletions as if you are making some sort of case here. Your post appears that you are making a case for isolating me and singling me out as a disruptive editor in the same way that Izauze has refactored diffs on the noticeboard to make it appear that other editors are now weighing in with opinions over there when that is absolutely not happening at all.

I could just as easily do the same to you but I'm choosing to be honest instead. Stop biting me. And I would ask you now to remove or strike through that last bit about me reverting, etc. Malke2010 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, please don't assume my intent. Everything I have written above is in response to an apparent attempt by RoyGoldsmith to both mediate an editing dispute here and coax Izauze to withdraw his WP:3RR noticeboard complaint against you. Please take notice that my comments were directed at your contributions, not personally, and it should not therefore be interpreted as a personal attack. Out of respect to all the editors here, I will not water down or indirectly explain my criticism. It strains credulity when, instead of responding to the edits, your comments are directed at me. Finally, in my view, you are hardly a newcomer to Wikipedia and I urge you to learn from your experiences here. I will try to do the same.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You might not realize that the way you write your posts is more a comment on the editor than the edit. You have not included the entire story that includes your reverts of my edits and also your later conversation with Izauze where the two of you are agreeing on what you both want, etc. I will provide the diffs to help clarify my point.Malke2010 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And biting WP:BITE doesn't have to apply to just newcomers. It's a polite way of saying, please don't be rude. Sometimes your posts come across that way and I don't think you necessarily intend that result, so I don't say anything. However, I think given the circumstances we're in right now, it's a friendly reminder.Malke2010 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to ask about this apparent collaboration between editors Happysomeone and Izauze [6]. Can you show us diffs of this earlier collaboration that produced this version? Thanks.Malke2010 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have been referring to how the summary reffered to in your diff was similar to a summary proposed earlier: [7] --Izauze (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's definitely not it. That paragraph is not the same as the one that was in the edit originally and Happysomeone makes an explicit reference to a collaboration with editor Izauze. In going over the threads, I don't see evidence of such a collaboration between these editors on the talk page here.Malke2010 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I could dig up all the different version that paragraph has gone through as it has been edited and adjusted and readjusted via the article and brought up for discussion and resummarized, but it would take more time than it seems like it would be worth, and I don't see what the benefit is. (and just to be more precise with the language, he said "that we collaborated on", not "that izauze and I collaborated on") --Izauze (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone is speaking directly to you here: Izauze, you've nailed it. In fact, that looks an awful lot like the edit we collaborated on earlier today. I don't see the earlier collaboration for that day. Was this an off-Wikipedia collaboration?Malke2010 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

1. the "we" he refers to does not necessarily have to mean he and izauze. It could mean that it's the version everyone was making adjustments to on the article page.
2. even if he did mean he and I, I don't see how that is an important distinction. Why does it matter?
3. No we did not collaborate off wikipedia.
4. Most importantly - I seriously hope this inquiry has nothing to do with an inquiry I saw you make on an administrator's page regarding sockupupettry, because I think Happysomeone as well as other editors would be very interested if you were exploring the idea of filing a WP:SOCK claim against him. I hope I'm completely 1,000% wrong, because I really hope you would not continue in engaging in paths that continue to alienate yourself from other editors on this board by cooking up wild conspiracy theories against them. I want us to be able to come together and work for the better of the article - not get pushed farther apart to its detriment. So please tell me I'm wrong and kindly explain the nature and importance of your inquiry. --Izauze (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you would like to clarify that inquiry for us, Malke?--Izauze (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So... Anyone care to help me fix the Fox section and insert the appropriate references where necessary, and cut unverified information? That seems to be needing some attention...--Happysomeone (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Happysomeone, can you answer my question above about the 'collaboration you speak of?Malke2010 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've answered it. Your point?--Happysomeone (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears you prefer making another uncivil accusation against me, personally, rather than address the substance of my comments or the article itself, I've raised this at the Wikiquette Alerts noticeboard. I've warned you before about uncivil behavior but not only did you ignore that, your comments then veered into the realm of an WP:SPI against fellow editors (e.g. "Was this an off-Wikipedia collaboration?"). In my view, that is also uncivil (specifically, see WP:CIVIL: Identifying incivility, 1(c): "ill-considered accusations of impropriety"; 2(a): "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"; 2(c): "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information"; and 2(d): "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them").--Happysomeone (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee Party: Should we include it in the article?

Huh. So this is new. It is also obviously related to the Tea Party movement. As for notability, I think it has already met that threshold. Editor TeaParty1 recently removed a "See also" reference pointing people to the Coffee Party Wikipedia article, but I see no merit in the claim that the article is "no(t) related" and reverted it. This editor has also been steadily removing any "Opposing view" section on WP:NOTE claims, where he may have a point.

My question is, given the above, should we go beyond a simple link for Coffee Party in the See also section?--Happysomeone (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We could certainly link to it.Malke2010 20:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's already linked in the See also section. Should we go beyond that?--Happysomeone (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it to be a response to the movement and appropriately catalogued there, perhaps. For a while it seemed rather insignificant but it has gotten increasing attention from mainstream media sources (saw it on cnn and msnbc as well). --Izauze (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. My feeling is we could monitor it and see if it merits anything beyond that.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I support that. --Izauze (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No violation

This is the administrator's decision. On the Izauze's noticeboard claim.

" No violation - I don't see 4 or more reverts by Malke in a 24 hour period. I don't see any user talk warnings given to Malke despite what Izauze claims, or even a notice that this report was created (and yes, I checked the talk page history). The only thing I see is a big dispute on the talk page of the article, which is nothing unusual. Even in the report above, Izauze admitted that there weren't actual reverts occurring. I see nothing actionable."

I've been vindicated and it feels very good. [8].Malke2010 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the ruling, I posted it on this same discussion page 30 mins ago, expressing the hope we could work together now instead of taunting with errant claims of vindication. I will repeat what I said in my talk page reply to you - I did not create an editing crisis, as you claim... I simply saw behavior that I and others thought was in danger of crossing the 3RR/EW rules and reffered the information to an administrator. Simple as that, it's not personal. As Happysome1 said - my criticism is in regard to your contributions not your person. You should not interpret the lack of a ruling as endorsement of what I and others seem to see as counterproductive actions. I filed the report both to stop the reverts and the edit war (which it did - I think you STILL have not made another single edit to the TPm) and to hopefully give you pause and a chance to self-examine and see how you might be able to collaborate more effectively and productively. I know this report caused you some concern, and I'm glad you are now out from under that. But I hope that now that this is the case, we can move together in a more productive and mature direction. I know I can continue editing alongside you just as I had before this happened with no extra vitriol or argumentative stance. What I would like to ask is whether you can? Even if you think this report was in 100% error, shouldn't we use this experience to both make our interactions better and the TPm article better? If we do that - everyone "wins", and that is a result that I'd be happy about. Sound good? --Izauze (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Izauze's your comments above do not reflect your talk page comment to me. Your comments here now and on your talk page in your discussion with Roy, illustrate, in your own words, your desire to stop me from editing here. No, I won't be discouraged by you or anybody else because Wikipedia is not about you. It's about the project. I hope you will stop the next time you become angry with someone for editing your 'first big contributon to Wikipedia' as you called it and discuss things first. All of this disruption by you could have been prevented if you had adhered to WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:Disruption and WP:OWN. Take a moment to review your behavior here and grow from it.Malke2010 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, Izauze, going back to your talk page and inserting comment to make it appear as if Roy was engaged at the time is also a form of disruptive editing. [9].Malke2010 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection - could you maybe expand on your thoughts there? Roy commented, I responded. --Izauze (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments above do reflect what I said to you - anyone who wants to can go see that I said almost the exact same thing on my talk. And yes - I believed you were a generally counterproductive force. My ideal administrative action would have either been to explain to you directly the need to follow guidelines and if you seemed to understand leave it at that, or if you did not understand, temporarily topicbanning you from the page until you acknowledged the counterproductive behavior, at which time you could return. If you want to know my view - that's it. I don't want to silence you. I don't want to ban you from wikipedia. Really, I wouldn't want you gone from here either. The more positively engaged collaborators the better. I simply wanted the counterproductive behavior and attitudes to stop. And you can disagree that your behavior wasn't counterproductive and that you never did one thing wrong, and that I or other editors did. If you want to think that, obviously I can't stop you. But irregardless of all that, we are both going to be here working together on this article, right? So don't you think we have to find a way to work together positively, maturely, productively? So if I am willing to bury the hatchet and agree to try to work positively with you, shouldn't you be willing to do the same with me? Especially if the benefit of this page and of wikipedia in general is really your concern? Think about it. If you want to talk privately where neither of us would need to feel defensive about ourselves, I think that would be great too. As I said to Roy, anyone with an adorable kitten like that on their talk page can't be bad :) --Izauze (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you would move on from the matter. Your behavior has disrupted editing here plain and simple. Take responsibility for it. Be quiet now and move on. As the saying goes, "lest said, soonest mended." Another editor would have you soaking on WP:ANI right now. Learn when to quit.Malke2010 01:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to take a poll of other editors views of my behavior? I think I am trying to be very honest and very nice with you here. I don't understand why you would not agree to bury the hatchet and attempt to work positively with me in the future, as I have agreed to do with you. --Izauze (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Izauze: see post above.Malke2010 02:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the post above that answers my questions. --Izauze (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. Can't you guys leave it alone? You say that there's nothing personal but everybody sees you're as mad as two hawks fighting over one hen. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Roy - I appreciate your efforts to take the middle road here, but could you please not attempt to characterize my emotional state? I don't see anything so angry and emotional in my repeated attempts to extend an olive branch, asking to help improve the article, and talking about how cute her kitten picture is. Really. --Izauze (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)