Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tea Party movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:35, 18 February 2013 editNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,160 edits Tendentious POV work← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:24, 31 August 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,662 edits →top 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm|style=long}}
{{pbneutral}}
{{calm talk}}
{{Not a forum|the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever}} {{Not a forum|the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high|American=yes |American-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{Ticket confirmation|source=http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america|id=2010102610010161|license=c}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive index |mask=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 20 |counter = 25
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Broken anchors|links=
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot |age=1 |units=month }}
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010","appear":{"revid":352403019,"parentid":352400715,"timestamp":"2010-03-27T21:03:57Z","replaced_anchors":{"Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010":"Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":382303098,"parentid":382302852,"timestamp":"2010-09-01T16:24:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"69≥19","rename_to":"2010 Reform details"} -->
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{WPLibertarianism|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Low|Social movements=yes}}}}
{{ConfirmationOTRS|source=http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america|otrs=2010102610010161|license=c}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive index |mask=Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{section sizes}}
{{tmbox
| type = delete
| image = ]
| text = '''Attention: This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below.'''<br>
Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction:
*No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
*This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
For more information, see ].}}

== Just some typos ==

Under Organization:

"...notable politicians Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul,..."

should be

"...notable Republican politicians Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul,..."

for clarity and correctness.

Under Agenda:
Delete New York Times definition - They are far left and not factual or credible.
NOT "anti-government", but anti "irresponsible" government

== The tobacco industry and the Tea Party ==

*
*Amanda Fallin, Rachel Grana, Stanton A Glantz,

{{cquote|Background The Tea Party, which gained prominence in the USA in 2009, advocates limited government and low taxes. Tea Party organisations, particularly Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, oppose smoke-free laws and tobacco taxes.

Methods We used the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, the Wayback Machine, Google, LexisNexis, the Center for Media and Democracy and the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org) to examine the tobacco companies’ connections to the Tea Party.

Results Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations. As of 2012, the Tea Party was beginning to spread internationally.

Conclusions Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations.}}
&mdash; ] 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The first items is about 6 levels below being a source and credibility. The second one has some real facts in it plus spun statements that don't follow from the facts listed. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:As usual, your comments are strictly partisan, have no relation to Misplaced Pages policy, and can be ignored as irrelevant. The academic journal article that the blog post describes and which the abstract summarizes is a reliable source of the highest order and will be used in this article. &mdash; ] 14:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
::Why don't you discuss without the baseless personal insults? More specifically:
::#On the first item, I was commenting on what you linked to (a clearly anti-TPM advocacy blog) not the item which you are now referring to but didn't link to.
::#On the second item, a link to the "TobaccoControl" web site, what I said is that the material on that web page it contained some factual items and some statements that didn't follow from those factual items.
::How in your imagination do you get your "strictly partisan" crap out of that? Quit it! <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Actually, I am being more polite and charitable than your comments warrant. No matter, I have already requested through my local public library a copy of the full text of the academic journal article. I suggest that you do the same. &mdash; ] 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I'll charitably skip to your second sentence. Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I love these correlation without causation studies. Some anti-TP people think that Big Tobacco must be behind the TP and then go look for anything that confirms their hypothesis. Finding anything then confirms their hypothesis. It might be more believable if the TP had been a notable participant in any big tobacco issues. I would be far more likely to believe that the TP was created by Big Oil, but that is just to passe to be of interest by the MSM. ] (]) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::agreed, i first heard of the tea party in 2007 and was about income tax. ] (]) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::The whole core of the TPM agenda and driving force of the movement is prioritizing less government, lower taxes, lower spending. A reader of this crap-hole attack piece of an article, where every possible piece of negative trivia has been gamed and battled in would think that it is about everything but those things. And a few people have work aggressively and tendentiously to prevent it rising from attack-piece junk status, and people have given up on fixng it. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Well, if you can tell that a study is flawed without reading it, then I guess you don't need a copy of it. &mdash; ] 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Please look up a few lines, I didn't say that. More specifically I said "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there. It might be good material." <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Most Muslims claim their religion goes back to Adam instead of Mohammad. We do not accept this claim but merely note it and go with outside observation. We have outside academic observation that the Tea Party was created by non-profit groups founded and funded by corporate interests. Per NPOV, unless we find ''academic'' sources that present them as being a grassroots movement, we cannot present them as such. I've summarized the findings, and only cited the HuffPost article for verification that Citizens for a Sound Economy (mentioned even in the abstract). I could also cite the source that says the same thing at our article on CoaSE, but this source, which is about the study, is the most appropriate secondary source. ] (]) 14:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:The issue, of course, is that we're not *required* to use any source that comes around, especially if it doesn't pass the smell test. Per WP:V, it seems pretty controversial to add so far, and I would agree with its removal at the moment until we've got more information on it. ] (]) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::''Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks'' are not the whole of the tea party, or even a majority. OR at best, POV pushing more likely. ''Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies'' is the snippet sniped from the cancer study some unknown blogged about. weasel word alert; '''associated''', '''ties''', is a far cry from the edit you support. ] (]) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Thargor Orlando: Please present any non-Tea Party source finding that the study's conclusions are controversial. We don't do original research, but we do use published original research from peer-reviewed academic journals with editorial oversight (]). It is nothing but ].
:::Darkstar1st: You clearly didn't see the edit I made, please actually know what you're talking about before posting. I only summarized what was in the two source, and gave those two sources only one sentence, so there wasn't an issue of undue weight. I only summarized what was in the sources (including ), so there wasn't OR. As the source points out, Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks are not the Tea Party movement as a whole now, but (as is documented in sources here and in the journal article), were responsible for getting the Tea Party movement started. so your application of ] is incorrect at best and false at worst. The Huffington post article did use those words in summarizing parts of the study, but trying to apply WP:WEASEL to outside sources is nothing but Wikilawyering.
:::Overall, I'm seeing wikilawyering (''bad'' wikilawyering at that) and tendentious editing in trying to apply BLP to groups, arguing that summarizing published works with no embellishment fails ''our rules'' preventing ''us'' from doing original research, and arguing that a peer-reviewed journal on how big tobacco has affected society is anything but the best source for one more way the tobacco industry has affected society. That is the shameful POV-pushing going on here, not my addition. ] (]) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I don't see a lot of coverage ''period'' yet, which should probably tell us something. As it stands, it appears that the link is "Big Tobacco wants to use 3rd party groups, one third party group that agrees with Big Tobacco also agrees with the Tea Party, thus the Tea Party roots are in Big Tobacco." I don't see how that exactly makes a ton of sense, or why it needs to be in this article. We have enough bad sourcing from both sides of the debate in this article to begin with, I fail to see what this adds at this time. ] (]) 17:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's not what the source says. Try reading. &mdash; ] 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I did read it. That's functionally what it's saying. I'm not seeing consensus for the addition. ] (]) 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Your (Ian.thomson) source, even if it were reliable, says "associated" and "tied"; if you do not, it's a clear ] violation. — ] ] 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

== "Tobacco Control" ==

Is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about living persons. One eensy indication that it is not a "neutral source" is the bit:
:''It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations. ''
Sources which make clearly editorial comments are unlikely to meet Misplaced Pages requirements about contentious claims. ] (]) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::It has a LOT of problems. An "F" grade source telling us what the "study" says, and it only talking about a tiny piece of the TPM, not the TPM. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 14:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

: is the website of the academic journal ''Tobacco Control''. It is unquestionably a reliable source of the highest caliber. That the article argues about what is important for tobacco advocates to do or to not do in order to be effective has absolutely no bearing on its status as a reliable source. &mdash; ] 15:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:The journal is published by ]. &mdash; ] 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::The "study" is based on Google and Wayback - and the journal is not a reliable source on ''political issues'' at all -- any more than the JAMA would be a reliable source on economics. No journal is "reliable" when it ventures far outside its actual sphere of expertise. ] (]) 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::BLP applies to persons, ]. An imprint of the peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted British Medicinal Journal focused on how the Tobacco industry affects society is an RS for issues relating to how the tobacco industry has affected society. Just because ''we'' do not use Google archives and Wayback does not prevent ''peer-reviewed, editorial-oversighted'' '''academic journals''' from doing so. It is ], and it is wikilawyering to apply the standards for living individuals to unliving (if active) organizations. ] (]) 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::That's just one of the many problems with that problematic attempted insertion. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::As you ignored above, however, WP:V does not require us to use every source available. If the source is generally reliable, but the assertion doesn't really pass the smell test, we don't have to use it. As it stands, I can't tell whether this is a good study or not. I think we should wait until we know whether it is or not. ] (]) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I was getting to commenting above, and have done so. "We don't have to use it" is meant to prevent original research, not as an excuse for partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering. ] (]) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::It's not narrowed to that one case, and the last two items you listed (" partisan censorship based on bad wikilawyering.") don't exist regarding keeping it out except as you baseless insult/ mis-chacerization. Please quit that crap. Also you violated the 1RR restriction. Let's see if there is any quality stuff in the actual study and stop trying to war in crap from an advocacy blog. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I did not violate 1RR, I only make 1 revert. Misapplying BLP to this group was wikilawyering, applying WP:WEASEL to the HuffPost article was wikilawyering, rejecting the study for OR is wikilawyering and tendentious, and saying that a peer-reviewed academic journal with editorial oversight on how the tobacco industry has affected society is anything but the best source for how big tobacco has affected society is tendentious, and all those are things that have occurred on this talk page. ] (]) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::What you are trying to put in is a faulty construction built upon a faulty construction built by an extreme op ed piece. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
No, I put in a summary of , and only cited the secondary source for the part saying that ] was founded by the Koch brothers, something we affirm in our own article about that group. Did you even bother to read my edit? ] (]) 18:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:I think the edit was appropriate and support its restoration. ] (]) 18:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
No, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:At best, your assessment there was completely mistaken.
:My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal ''Tobacco Control'' concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests
:Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."
:You are absolutely wrong to claim that what I added was not supported (or even contradicted) by the academic article. I did not have to include the HuffPost article, but only did so for confirming that the Koch brothers founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (and if you want to dispute that that was my intention, read ]). ] (]) 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The number 1 problem is that your statement (claim regarding the entire movement) is not supported even by your selected references. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of ] and ], and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

== WP:RSN discussion ==

I've raised the issue of whether or not a peer-reviewed ] academic journal with editorial oversight concerning how the tobacco industry has affected society is an appropriate source for how the tobacco industry at ]. ] (]) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:I don't believe the argument is that it's not reliable, but whether or not the reference and topic are appropriate for the article. ] (]) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::, and RSN does address whether it's appropriate to use an RS in a particular situation. ] (]) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you put there is a mis-statement of the question and issues and so is not relevant to the debate here. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:Have you been reading the above threads and the edit summaries in the article? Your friends have tried applying BLP to a group, they've tried applying WP:OR and WP:WEASEL to sources instead of articles, and they've said that a peer-reviewed academic source on how the tobacco industry affects society is not a reliable source for one way the tobacco industry has affected society. It's not even archived discussion, it's something that anyone keeping up with discussion would know unless they intentionally ignored it. ] (]) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::I never said anything about BLP. Per above, your statement came from the op ed in the advocacy blog (the second cite) and actually conflicts with the source which you used to cite it. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Will you actually read what I'm saying? I said "your friends have tried applying BLP to a group," it was first brought up .
:::I never said I got the statement from the HuffPost piece, I only said that I got confirmation that Citizens for a Sound Economy was founded by the Koch brothers. If you continue to get that wrong, I will only be able to assume that you're actively lying about things I've said. ] (]) 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I'm talking about your statement "the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests". Even the "Tobacco Control" website source ("out there" as it is) that you used to cite that does not support that statement. Even the content of the op ed piece from the Huffington doesn't support that, only its title which its body doesn't support says that. Thus my "faulty construction built upon a faulty construction" statement. The biggest problem is even the highly biased sources that you chose don't support the statement that you are trying to put in. The second biggest problem is the low quality of the sources with respect to this. And I've not been discussing BLP. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::My addition: In 2013, a study published in the journal Tobacco Control concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests
:::::Quotes from the study, not the HuffPost article: "Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry's anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda." "Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations." "Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests."
:::::You said that I put a misstatement of the question over at RSN, I did not misstate your question, I did not say you raised BLP, quit acting like I did because Collect did and you cannot deny that he did.
:::::You accuse Tobacco Control, published by ], a highly respected academic journal that is peer-reviewed and has editorial oversight, of being low quality? Ok, are you a corporate shill, or a Tea Partier in denial about being an unwitting lobbyist? Because that kind of tendentious editing cannot come from someone reasonably acting in good faith. A source not giving into the Tobacco company's propaganda is not the same as a biased source. ] (]) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::The number 1 problem is that your statement is not supported even by your selected references, and you have just proved me right. The material that you and others are trying to war in is in direct violation of ] and ], and is highly controversial material which has nothing even near a consensus for inclusion . <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:At this point, however, whether or not the source is reliable is secondary to the complete lack of consensus for addition. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's clearly something wrong with how this addition is going. ] (]) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

== New US gov't study on origins of Tea Party -- add to article ==

Someone should incorporate this into the "Organization" section: a new study from the National Institute of Health showing that the Tea Party originated out of a movement started in 2002 by the tobacco industry and the Koch brothers to foment action against taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We're trying to cite the academic article that HuffPost piece is about, but some individuals who keep misinterpreting the situation have been removing it. ] (]) 18:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:HuffPo is not RS for such a claim, and the "source" is not RS for ''political claims''. Health publications are RS for health studies. Cheers. ] (]) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


== Original "Tea Party" VS RINO "Tea Party Patriots" ==


During Ron Paul's bid for presidency, the "Tea Party Patriots" (red white & blue "Shield / flag" logo) ran an online discussion board called "Tea Party Patriots" - teapartypatriots.ning.com:
Anent POV of a source:
::''was very surprised to be invited to present as part of an FDA-sponsored “Facilitated Dialogue” panel also featuring tobacco industry representatives, which would be focused on the topic of industry-funded research. This very type of industry engagement with senior public health figures is straight out of the tobacco companies’ public relations “corporate social responsibility” playbook and was something that at least one tobacco company anticipated as a favorable result of FDA legislation. Such “dialogues” have long been part of this and earlier industry public relations campaigns. Public health authorities and scientists – to say nothing of the federal agency charged with regulating this industry — should not lend their legitimacy to the tobacco companies’ efforts to position themselves as socially responsible.''
The idea of "peer review" is for ''scientific studies''. Political statements are != "scientific studies" as far as I can tell.
::''. For this very reason, Tobacco Control, the journal that I edit, and other reputable scientific journals including PLoS Medicine '''no longer publish tobacco industry-funded research.''' To engage the industry as a legitimate partner in the discussion of how to deal with industry science is to ignore this large body of evidence.''
And we are thus to accept a political paper about the topic where the organization appears to have an eensy bit of a POV? Sorry, Charlie. ] (]) 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001205028/http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
:::''Tobacco Control'' is not a government or academic source; it is solely political, even though published by a professional organization. HuffPo is a reliable source that the claim was made, though. — ] ] 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::And the NCI is apparently not a governmental organization; it's affiliated with NIH, not part of NIH. The article appears to be the individual opinion of the authors; as NIH, NCI, and BMJ are not ''political'' experts, reliability would depend on the reliability of the individual authors. — ] ] 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


They were the Republican RINO group that promoted Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and actively demonized RON PAUL and his stands on Non-intervention, "End the Fed" positions etc. and dismissed the "Original" "Tea Party" members who followed Ron Paul as well as dismissing Ron Paul as "the crazy uncle" to derail the true Tea Party movement.
== News articles on tobacco industry-Tea Party ties ==


RINO backed Radio hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin all slandered Ron Paul by dismissing him as "the crazy uncle".
* ''Rolling Stone'' &mdash; ] 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::More proof that the text that you are trying to war in is wrong and violates wp:ver and wp:nor.
:::When all you have is a hammer... &mdash; ] 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::??? <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::The text that you are trying to war in makes claims about the entire tea party movement, which is unsupported by even the cherry-picked sources and in fact in conflict with them. The text is in clear violation of wp:ver, and doubly so of wp:synth (not only is it synthesis, but it is faulty synthesis). And the additional source that you just provided reinforces that point. So mere presence of the material violates wp:ver and wp:synth, putting it in over such objection violates wp:burden, and trying to war it in makes it three-times-over problematic. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::goethean, ], where are you seeing the consensus to add this? ] (]) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::the tea party is about income tax, big tobacco is about cigarette tax, the Boston tea party was about tea tax. to draw the three together is beyond synth and approaching delusional. big tobacco is seeking to associate the $1 a pack tax with the tea tax of 1775, the TP is trying to associate the income tax with oppressive statism ala king george, big left is trying to paint a legitimate grassroots movement as manufactured meat puppets of corporatist, which it is anything but and about as true as OWS is the bastard spawn of Soros . ] (]) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::All 'health'/'sin' taxes are oppressive statism. ] (]) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Well then, I guess that you should remove all of the negative material from the article, because that would make a certain group of editors here very, very happy. Is that what you suggest? &mdash; ] 17:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Are you going to answer the question? ] (]) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I've answered your question. Your refusal to acknowledge my point does not invalidate it. &mdash; ] 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I must have missed the point. If you're saying that there's consensus to remove all the negative information, or to exclude it, I don't see that consensus. I also don't see a consensus to include this information. I don't disagree with you that the source is reliable. I do disagree, at this point, that there's consensus for inclusion. If you see consensus, can you point it out? ] (]) 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::There will never be consensus on this talk page to add any negative material about the Tea Party to this article. Is that clear enough for you? &mdash; ] 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Nice try. Trying to pretend that it is bias based vs. the clear issues raised. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's right. I am pretending that you have argued against every addition of negative material about the Tea Party that has been suggested in the history of this talk page. That's what I am imagining. How far away from reality is this product of my imagination? &mdash; ] 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::So, what you're saying is that you're adding the information even though you lack the consensus to do so, against policy? Or is the consensus policy ? ] (]) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::What I'm saying is that this article has continued to exist and attain balance despite a group of editors who have opposed the addition of every proposed piece of negative information about the Tea Party. &mdash; ] 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::And yet you seem to be avoiding the key point that you're adding information against policy. ] (]) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And you are avoiding he key point that the consensus on this talk page is to completely whitewash the article of all criticism and controversy. &mdash; ] 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't seem to be true, actually. If that were the consensus, there would be no criticism or controversy in the article. So, since we've established that you're incorrect on that note as well as unable to demonstrate consensus for inclusion, will you remove the section or should I? ] (]) 19:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::You have proved nothing apart from the depth of your own rhetoric. &mdash; ] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


At that time the (RINO) Republican Party would explain to the public at all the local republican headquarters that they were promoting Gingrich, Santorum and Romney and explained to people that "they", the Republican Party, "were" the "Tea Party".
:::::::::::Answering Goethean's question, a look at the substance of the talk page discussion s will tell you the reality is a million miles from your imagination. For example, if someone would have written something that summarizes what this study actually said, I'd likely support its inclusion. What I said earlier was "Sounds like a good idea to see what is in there." Whereupon your team immediately started trying to war in some heavily spun erroneous synthesis. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::If that were to happen, that would be the first time that any of you have supported the addition of information which is at odds with the Tea Party's public relations narrative. &mdash; ] 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::In my mind I have had you pegged (if you will forgive me) as a rude POV warrior who has only been pretending to not notice that I push for article quality, not article POV. Now I'm starting to think that you genuinely have that misunderstanding, which would be an improvement compared to my previous perception. Which means that if your actions have been based on that misperception, then there is the possibility that you are actually 2 levels better than my perception. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I can't tell you how gratifying that is. &mdash; ] 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I can't tell whether you really meant that or the reverse or something in between. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


This clever move by RINOs who derailed the Original RON PAUL "Tea Party" (for Constitutional Originalism) movement into the Republican "Tea Party Patriots" (Corporate Capitalist so called Conservative) movement. This occurred from 2007 to 2012.
'''Wow''' So... what's wrong with the Rolling Stone article? Just asking. Cause they have really good reputation for very solid journalism, yanno ;) I don't have a lot of time for this, but if the real problem is the usual Tea Party allergy to HuffPo, then maybe you guys can try:
*http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/11/documents-reveal-tobacco-companies-funded-their-own-tea-party-first/
or even
*http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/15/taxpayer-dollars-used-to-fund-study-tying-tea-party-to-tobacco-lobby/
then there is this, which is editorial in nature, but is, I believe, the Tucson daily newspaper, which would probably make it RS even as opinion:
*http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/fitz-blog/fitz-blog-tea-party-s-over/article_97e7da3a-76d9-11e2-bfec-001a4bcf887a.html
I am not familiar with this publication and normally would question it as RS; however given who's complaining here it's interesting to note that even though, like Fox News, it wants to discredit the study, it essentially agrees with HuffPo about what the study *says* and has to complain about the funding in order to find something to be outraged about.
*http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/02/13/new-liberal-claim-tea-party-is-actually-a-front-group-for-big-tobacco/
Then there is what UCSF has to say about it:
*http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13507/study-tea-party-organizations-have-ties-tobacco-industry-dating-back-1980s
That should be enough to be going forward with.... ] (]) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


I was active both on the teapartypatriots.ning.com discussion board defending Ron Paul as well as being active in the Ron Paul original "Tea Party" discussion board called the "Daily Paul" that promoted Ron Paul http://www.dailypaul.com:
== Al Gore ==


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20080701000000*/http://www.dailypaul.com
The opinion of a prominent opponent is not a reliable source for the history of his enemies. His criticism might be noted elsewhere if others agree that it is an important opinion. ] (]) 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


I and others battled the RINO's on the "Tea Party Patriot" discussion board for months in support of Ron Paul and to educate others to who the "Tea Party Patriots" were and what they were doing.
:The opinion of a prominent politician, as published in a prominent news piece, the news piece commented upon widely by others, is notable opinion. It does not matter whether he is the political enemy of the Tea Party. ] (]) 01:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:What do people have against consensus building on this topic? ] (]) 02:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::''the center of the earth is several million degrees'', Al Gore, actual temp, 9,800 °F, get an actual MD or scientist. ] (]) 03:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Laugh all you want; Al Gore's opinion is still mainstream and prominent. That is all we are looking for in writing this article. ] (]) 05:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::it wasn't a joke, mr climate expert really believes the earths core is a few thousand times hotter than the surface of the sun. ] (]) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I could not care less what temperature Gore thinks the core is. You have not addressed any policy reasons why Gore should not be quoted regarding his opinion about the connection between the tobacco industry and the Tea Party. The quote is prominent; that's all we need for the encyclopedia. It is that simple. ] (]) 11:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::wp:weight. Al is neither an expert nor notable in tobacco or tea. this article already has enough about why people dont like it. see if you can find a positive opinion about the tp from someone, and you may add both. ] (]) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::You appear to have misinterpreted ] to mean that equal time must be given to positive and negative opinions. This is not what NPOV is about; it is about transmitting to the reader the correct balance of positive and negative opinions—a balance that reflects mainstream opinion. If the majority of opinions are positive, our article reflects that. If the majority of opinions are negative, our article reflects ''that''. We should never try to establish an artificial parity. The ] section of NPOV follows this general rule, of course. It says "'''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.'''" Al Gore's opinion is a "significant" viewpoint in that it came from a significant politician (a former vice president, a former presidential candidate), it appeared in a significant media publication (Huffington Post) and it was noticed by other media observers and commented upon (, , , , ). As such, we summarize for the reader what Gore said. There is no tit-for-tat wherein a positive opinion must be found to 'balance' Gore's. ] (]) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}As I said at the beginning of this thread, Al Gore is prominent and notable. What he said is critical opinion not reporting, and certainly not history. To leave his comments at the beginning of the history section is, I think, inappropriate. It should be moved if consensus is to keep it in the article. ] (]) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


The present "Tea Party Patriots" may still be influenced or backed by Newt Gingrich (the RINO who allowed Bill Clinton to run over all of us in the west when he was Speaker), Rick Santorum ...and others, possibly still even Mitt Romney who the "Tea Party Patriots" Promoted in the 2012 Election.
:The first insertion clearly has to go. It not only violates wp:ver, wp:not/wp:synth, and wp:consensus, but even the synthesis is defective. The second insertion (Gore related) has fewer of these problems. Someday when we finnaly nuke this article and start rebuilding it to get it out of junk status, stuff like the Gore material might be good in a section with commentaries by prominent proponents and opponents, with Gore obviously being one of the latter. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Understanding the True "Tea Party" movement, (or even Trumps Movement, which follows many of Ron Paul's non-intervention and other policies) so the cause is not derailed again is important as RINO's will try to make "similarities" of "causes" to get close and then veer people in the wrong direction.
::So, based on Binksternet's logic of NPOV I guess we should report what his sources are saying about Gore, namely that he doesn't have a freaking clue what he is talking about with regards to the Tea Party. ] (]) 17:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::FWIW I wasn't arguing for putting the Gore piece in. And certainly if it were in it would be under "statements by TPM opponents". Maybe have juxtaposing statements by Gore and Rush Limbaugh. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 18:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::It is my opinion that the content regarding Al Gore's opinion of a study at the top of the history section, has been given ]. Furthermore, the study itself should not be at the top of the history section, but listed chronologically down in the ''Current status'' section. The alleged ties of the subject of this article and the tabacco industry shouldn't be given undue weight, but I can understand some neutrally worded content somewhere in the section I stated. This article does not to begin to devolve into an ] by those who oppose the subject; neither should this article be a ] for the subject either.--] (]) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I see this akin to the ] that ] is not a citizen; it wouldn't be given heavy weight in the Obama article, and this claim tabacco connection claim shouldn't be given undue weight here.--] (]) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::::No where in the Barack Obama article is there a link to the ] article, nor is there a link on the ]. So if that is the case, I would argue that the theory of "Big Tabacco" connection to the Tea Party movement should not be given ] here.--] (]) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Oh wow, really? In what peer-reviewed academic journal was a well-researched article, written by experts in the field published which outlined the evidence for the Obama conspiracy theory? &mdash; ] 22:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Links referring to Ron Paul Tea Party VS RINO's can be found on the old American Patriot Party (of Oregon) website: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/
The TPM is a bunch a things, (a movement, an agenda, a metaphor, a rallying concept, an agglomeration of hundreds of organizations and zillions of individuals who support it on an occasion or continuously) but it isn't an entity, nor a specific group of people. Al of the bogus trivia that opponents of the agenda game in here start with a premise that it is an entity. That way they can pretend that what on supporter or unknown supporter did or might have done is "about" the TPM )cut a BBQ line, someone in the crow saying something bad at a rally, a twitter comment is "about" the TPM. That's how hey were able to make this article a junk collection of irrelevant trivia / junk attack piece that it is. The same for this most recent bout. Somebody finds some support of someone in tobacco industry for one of the zillions of person or groups in the TPM and tries to gin that up into a statement that implies that the tobacco industry founded the TPM. Prior to that the Koch's "founded" it. Basically, gaming in more crap to a crap article. This thing needs to be nuked to a stub and started over. Meanwhile, lets keep it from descending deeper into crapdom./ <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:It is unsurprising that someone on the inside of the movement disagrees with the description of the movement given by the media, since (1) the media is not owned by the TPM and (2) feelings of contempt towards the "mainstream media" is one of the central doctrines of the TPM. However, Misplaced Pages needs to reflect what the media says about the TPM, not just what TPM insiders believe about it. It is perhaps expected that TPM believers will have an origin story which contradicts the mainstream account of the movement's origins. But Misplaced Pages cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Misplaced Pages needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. &mdash; ] 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::This is not a forum for broad discussions about media etc. Let's keep discussion on the article everyone. ] (]) 03:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::Agreed! Please see ]. Whether someone is "inside of the movement" is irrelevant to this discussion. No ].--] (]) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::If North8000 continues to repeat his upside-down understand of Misplaced Pages policies as if it is fact, I will continue to explain to him how Misplaced Pages policy actually works. If you don't like the digression, then maybe you can help to alleviate his confusion. &mdash; ] 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Except for that policy about consensus, right? ] (]) 17:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I love it how you look the other way when the right-wingers spout their creative interpretations of policy, but then you reference policy in order to block good material from being added to the article. It is a good education in how to use policy in the most cynical way possible. &mdash; ] 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Thargor, in the last two threads the only argument you have used is the consensus one. Apparently you think consensus is equivalent to voting—that the weight of numbers is the primary concern here. This is not the case; well-formed debate points can win out over sheer quantity. To have an effect on the outcome here, you must actually have an argument ''about the issue'' rather than about the process. Without a relevant argument you are a bystander. ] (]) 18:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Goethean, exactly how (per your allegation) is what I said "upside down" with respect to policies? <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 17:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::To North8000, far above; actually, they found evidence that the tobacco industry (as a whole), along with Koch, supported organizations which became organizations which became organizations which were active in the TPM ("founded" ia a separate conclusion, not in any reliable source, including the scholarly paper). If written that way, it's not totally inappropriate (even replacing "organzitions which became organizations which became organizations active in the TPM) by organizations connected with the TPM.) — ] ] 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Yes, as of my most recent post on this, I said that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources. Then you fixed the problem and I have not commented since. Goethean characterized my post as "upside-down understand of Misplaced Pages policies" and now I'm waiting to hear from Goethean how me saying that it was a problem that that the text conflicted with the sources and was unsupported by the sources constitutes "upside-down understand of Misplaced Pages policies". <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I was responding to comment, in which you explained how the article is a piece of crap which should be stubified immediately. I attempted to explain that Misplaced Pages needs to reflect mainstream media coverage of events, not the right-wing media coverage of events, as Misplaced Pages is not an organ of the right-wing media. One of the central doctrines of the Tea Party is that the mainstream media is biased against the Tea Party. So one would not expect a member of the Tea Party to be pleased with the Misplaced Pages article on the Tea Party. The issues which you think that you have with this article are issues that you in fact have with Misplaced Pages policy. &mdash; ] 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I would not expect ''any'' rational person, with familiarity with Misplaced Pages polcies and guidelines, to want to include critical comments about random statements of random people who may be "members" of the Tea Party (whatever that means), even if the comments are reported in the news media. That doesn't apply to the comments in this section, but it does suggest that much of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section should be removed. I also would not expect anyone to want to misquote sources. That ''does'' apply to Gore, in a sense; ''he'' misquotes the article in question, and ''we should'' point that out. at least indirectly, by accurately reporting what the article says, and what Gore says about it. Furthermore, ''opinions'' of the news media should be properly reported as "opinions", if relevant at all. — ] ] 11:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::I guess that by now I shouldn't be surprised that you would elide those aspects of the Tea Party that have been most noted. &mdash; ] 12:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120717105509/http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/
== Koch Brothers/Citizens for a Sound Economy redundant coverage. ==


Submitted by Richard Taylor, American Patriot Party: http://www.americanpatriotparty.com <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Why are these mentioned in 2 different sections, history AND Influence of Koch Industries? I remove the redundancy only to have it reverted without discussion. Since there are hundreds independent funded and operated tea party groups, with different urls, leaders, credos, creation dates, etc. it is possible the Koch are getting to much credit. RS do mention Koch in relation to a group who formed a group, who made a websites with a list of protests they did plan but knew about and told others who searched for info about where to protest. reading the article may give the average person the impression Koch hired people to build a website, arrange meetings, print pamphlets, rent offices, buy advertising for each of the several hundred tp groups around the world. Koch is mentioned more times than all the politicians who self-identified with the TP. the article is way too long, much is trivia, even more opinion, i suggest we trim the article to focus on what the tp is about rather than its history and what those who do not like it think. wp:weight ] (]) 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:It appears to have been ; I would agree that the section gives ] regarding a ] news story about an article written in a British Journal.--] (]) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::Lets just get whatever objective material that there is in both and get it into one place. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 19:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::It appears to me that the focus of the more recent information is on how "big tobacco" (and "Big Business" in general) influenced the formation of the movement, whereas the recently removed material (as redundant) says more about funding and ongoing organizational support. Sure, Koch is mentioned in both, but the content doesn't appear to be "redundant", as one editor has suggested. ] (]) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


:What exactly are you proposing to change in the article? The links you give are not ]. If you want to portray anybody in that movement as anything other than a crazy uncle (or aunt), you will probably encounter difficulties in finding reliable sources saying so. --] (]) 06:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
== "Tea Party" ≠ contemporary "]" ==
Someone inserted (and recently reinserted) content alleging that a December 2007 fundraising event with the words 'Tea' and 'Party' in the name was an early event in this movement. If we're going to add to this article every political event that references the ] as if it were related, this article will need to be renamed. A 90-second search of news archives shows that "Tea Party" events have been happening for centuries (some more recent ones: , , , , ...). ] (]) 21:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


== Original History of "Tea Party" Political Momentum ==
== new ref for ron paul 07 ==
Related to the links supporting the reference to the T-Party as the recent culmination of the tobacco direct enfluence on the democratic process here are a couple of links.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4078698/bin/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815f01.jpg, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23396417/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-1-uid-0
This also bears a relation to the reference to Ron Paul taking the chair of the CSE.
In an emmotionally neutral space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil.
How have Philip Morris Brown & Williamson Lorillard RJ Reynolds furthered democracy with financial backing for Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, TASSC to enter a neutral political space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil? ChatGPT: It is not accurate to say that Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and RJ Reynolds furthered democracy by providing financial backing to organizations such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, and TASSC.


These tobacco companies have a long history of engaging in deceptive and manipulative practices to protect their profits and influence public policy in their favor. They have been known to fund and support organizations that advocate for policies that benefit the tobacco industry, such as opposing tobacco taxes and smoking bans, while downplaying the health risks of smoking and targeting vulnerable communities.
without objection, i submit this rs to replace the source removed and will restore the material and suggest we add material to the history about the actual creation of the tea party from when it first makes news, not a vague private memo from a tobacco lawyer 40 years ago about needing public support. ] (]) 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


While it is important for all voices to be heard in a democratic society, it is concerning when corporate interests use their wealth and power to sway public opinion and policy in their favor. It is crucial for citizens to be aware of these tactics and to critically evaluate the sources of information and influence in public discourse.
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)</small>


== Trump not "President" in 2015! ==
==Tendentious POV work==


A sourced sentence near the bottom of the article refers to President Donald Trump. The source was written in Aug. 2015 when he was one of numerous candidates. Even saying "future president" would not be a correct usage of the sourced material as he was a third-generation real estate investor at the time. If anything, it would only be correct terminology to say "businessman Donald Trump". ] (]) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A recent incident has highlighted again the ] long term POV efforts that have brought this article to it's current junk status. Xenophrenic & Goethean have been warrign to remove the following from the history section:
:Fixed. --] (]) 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for the fix. ] (]) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


== Why "was"? ==
"A fundraising event for Ron Paul dubbed "Boston TeaParty07" was held on December 16, 2007. This event included the throwing of boxes labeled "tea" and "IRS" among others, into the bay." A prominent name in the founding of the movement, throws a "tea party", with the title of the reference named "tea party"


The related organizations – e.g., ] – still exist. Why are past tenses used in the article? ] (]) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Xenophrenic's excuse was that something mentioned later in the item was not germane. Goethean's excuse was quoting a non-existent policy that a RS has to state an explicit connection in order to include something in an article. BTW Goethean is the who who was warring in erroneous statements about Ron Paul which made no mention of the TPM; his excuse then was that if an RS said it that was enough for him to force it in. And Xenophrenic was actively warring in things about some unknown person cutting a BBQ grill line, a huge section about a twitter comment by a low level supporter, and a "somebody said that somebody said that someone at a rally said something racist." This tendentious POV work has to stop! <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:24, 31 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Libertarianism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject icon2010s Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Tea Party movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Section sizes
Section size for Tea Party movement (39 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 10,047 10,047
Agenda 16,462 19,735
Foreign policy 3,273 3,273
Organization 6,408 6,408
Etymology 1,210 1,210
History 37 70,191
Background 5,312 12,142
Commentaries on origin 6,830 6,830
Early local protest events 7,817 7,817
First national protests and birth of national movement 8,287 8,287
Health care bill 1,851 1,851
U.S. elections 11,470 11,470
IRS controversy 6,627 6,627
Role in the 2016 presidential election 3,793 3,793
Decline 18,167 18,167
Composition 208 28,436
Demographics 10,917 10,917
Polling of supporters 6,497 6,497
Leadership 953 10,814
Individuals 2,463 2,463
Organizations 7,398 7,398
Fundraising 1,468 3,057
Support of Koch brothers 1,589 1,589
Public opinion 19 12,991
2010 polling 7,610 7,610
After debt-ceiling crisis 1,971 1,971
2012 polling 1,053 1,053
2013 and 2014 polling 2,338 2,338
Symbols 3,995 3,995
"Teabagger" 3,801 3,801
Commentary by the Obama administration 4,118 4,118
Media coverage 7,950 8,734
Tea Party's views of media coverage 784 784
Perceptions of the Tea Party 9,675 9,675
Controversies 6,245 6,245
See also 895 895
References 28 28
Further reading 5,237 5,237
External links 1,670 1,670
Total 196,473 196,473

Original "Tea Party" VS RINO "Tea Party Patriots"

During Ron Paul's bid for presidency, the "Tea Party Patriots" (red white & blue "Shield / flag" logo) ran an online discussion board called "Tea Party Patriots" - teapartypatriots.ning.com:

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001205028/http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

They were the Republican RINO group that promoted Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and actively demonized RON PAUL and his stands on Non-intervention, "End the Fed" positions etc. and dismissed the "Original" "Tea Party" members who followed Ron Paul as well as dismissing Ron Paul as "the crazy uncle" to derail the true Tea Party movement.

RINO backed Radio hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin all slandered Ron Paul by dismissing him as "the crazy uncle".

At that time the (RINO) Republican Party would explain to the public at all the local republican headquarters that they were promoting Gingrich, Santorum and Romney and explained to people that "they", the Republican Party, "were" the "Tea Party".

This clever move by RINOs who derailed the Original RON PAUL "Tea Party" (for Constitutional Originalism) movement into the Republican "Tea Party Patriots" (Corporate Capitalist so called Conservative) movement. This occurred from 2007 to 2012.

I was active both on the teapartypatriots.ning.com discussion board defending Ron Paul as well as being active in the Ron Paul original "Tea Party" discussion board called the "Daily Paul" that promoted Ron Paul http://www.dailypaul.com:

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20080701000000*/http://www.dailypaul.com

I and others battled the RINO's on the "Tea Party Patriot" discussion board for months in support of Ron Paul and to educate others to who the "Tea Party Patriots" were and what they were doing.

The present "Tea Party Patriots" may still be influenced or backed by Newt Gingrich (the RINO who allowed Bill Clinton to run over all of us in the west when he was Speaker), Rick Santorum ...and others, possibly still even Mitt Romney who the "Tea Party Patriots" Promoted in the 2012 Election.

Understanding the True "Tea Party" movement, (or even Trumps Movement, which follows many of Ron Paul's non-intervention and other policies) so the cause is not derailed again is important as RINO's will try to make "similarities" of "causes" to get close and then veer people in the wrong direction.

Links referring to Ron Paul Tea Party VS RINO's can be found on the old American Patriot Party (of Oregon) website: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/

Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120717105509/http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/

Submitted by Richard Taylor, American Patriot Party: http://www.americanpatriotparty.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7900:D9A:A828:65A4:C9FA:58 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing to change in the article? The links you give are not reliable sources. If you want to portray anybody in that movement as anything other than a crazy uncle (or aunt), you will probably encounter difficulties in finding reliable sources saying so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Original History of "Tea Party" Political Momentum

Related to the links supporting the reference to the T-Party as the recent culmination of the tobacco direct enfluence on the democratic process here are a couple of links. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4078698/bin/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815f01.jpg, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23396417/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-1-uid-0 This also bears a relation to the reference to Ron Paul taking the chair of the CSE. In an emmotionally neutral space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil. How have Philip Morris Brown & Williamson Lorillard RJ Reynolds furthered democracy with financial backing for Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, TASSC to enter a neutral political space where openness is encouraged and all viewpoints and participants are civil? ChatGPT: It is not accurate to say that Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, and RJ Reynolds furthered democracy by providing financial backing to organizations such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, RJR Smokers’ Rights Groups, National Smoker Alliance, and TASSC.

These tobacco companies have a long history of engaging in deceptive and manipulative practices to protect their profits and influence public policy in their favor. They have been known to fund and support organizations that advocate for policies that benefit the tobacco industry, such as opposing tobacco taxes and smoking bans, while downplaying the health risks of smoking and targeting vulnerable communities.

While it is important for all voices to be heard in a democratic society, it is concerning when corporate interests use their wealth and power to sway public opinion and policy in their favor. It is crucial for citizens to be aware of these tactics and to critically evaluate the sources of information and influence in public discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIndie (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump not "President" in 2015!

A sourced sentence near the bottom of the article refers to President Donald Trump. The source was written in Aug. 2015 when he was one of numerous candidates. Even saying "future president" would not be a correct usage of the sourced material as he was a third-generation real estate investor at the time. If anything, it would only be correct terminology to say "businessman Donald Trump". 173.23.42.9 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. 173.23.42.9 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why "was"?

The related organizations – e.g., Tea Party Patriots – still exist. Why are past tenses used in the article? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: