| Revision as of 05:22, 4 June 2013 editTuckerresearch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,137 edits →Edit request - dubious phrase in Use of term "teabagger" section: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:52, 4 June 2013 edit undoUbikwit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,539 edits →Edit request - dubious phrase in Use of term "teabagger" section: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
| I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. ] (]) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. ] (]) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:52, 4 June 2013
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
 | 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. |
 | Attention: This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction:
|
 | There is a moderated discussion taking place on this sub-page which is aiming to get consensus on a broadly stable and balanced version of the article so it can be unlocked and returned to open editing. The discussion is open to all, and more participants are welcome. SilkTork 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
Targeting by IRS
I saw the breaking story today about the Internal Revenue Service improperly targeting Tea Party groups for scrutiny (Washington Post. New York Times). In what section of the article should this be covered - "Commentary by the Obama administration"? Kelly 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should be under a section "Relationship with the IRS" to be absolutely NPOV, I suspect. Collect (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
More news today that senior IRS officials were aware, from the Associated Press. Kelly 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- doesn't really seem significant.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Major coverage indicates it should be covered here -- see the NYT columns on it. This is not a trivial event. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that someone has created an article - IRS Tea Party investigation. Should it be summarized into a section here? Kelly 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- We are conducting a survey of editors to determine consensus for adding a section to the article mainspace to cover this. Survey is
here:below. Your participation would be appreciated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Survey
I propose adding the following section to the main article mainspace, directly beneath the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section:
- ===IRS 'harassment' of Tea Party groups===
- In May 2013, the Associated Press and The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately "flagged" Tea Party groups and other conservative groups for review of their applications for tax-exempt status during the 2012 election. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency, and triggered multiple investigations.
- Some groups were asked for donor lists, which is usually a violation of IRS policy. Groups were also asked for details about family members and about their postings on social networking sites. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized on behalf of the IRS and stated, "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate." Testifying before Congress in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied that the groups were being targeted based on their political views.
- Tom Zawistowski, who served as president of an Ohio coalition of Tea Party groups, said, "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted." Zawistowski's group applied for tax-exempt status in July 2009, but it wasn't granted until December 2012, one month after the election. Lerner stated that about 300 groups were "flagged" for additional review, and about one quarter of these were due to the use of "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, called on the Obama Administration to apologize to these groups for "harassment by the IRS in 2012," and "ensure this never happens again."
- Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, rejected the apology as insufficient, demanding “ironclad guarantees from the I.R.S. that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.”
- Altman, Alex (2013-05-14). "The Real IRS Scandal | TIME.com". Swampland.time.com. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
- ^ Ohlemacher, Stephen. IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Groups. Associated Press, May 10, 2013.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan. "I.R.S. Apologizes to Tea Party Groups Over Audits of Applications for Tax Exemption." The New York Times, May 10, 2013.
- Strongly support. Very notable, still unfolding, could be a major scandal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support With wide coverage in all the major nespapers - thus not rug-sweepable at this point. Collect (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support and it should include the comments by Axelrod that the government is "too big" for Obama to be aware of everything. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It would have been helpful to provide links to the sources sited. Also it is not necessary to provide in-text mention of sources of facts. Words in 'scare quotes' should not be used in headings, since they raise the question of who is using the term. Comparing the text with a summary provided by the CSM, I find a few apparent inaccuracies in the text. The IRS did not flag the 75 groups for review of their tax-exempt status. Instead they flagged new applications for tax-exempt status for new Tea Party groups formed in the run-up to the 2012 election. Groups whose main activity is support of political candidates and parties are ineligible for tax-exempt status. The CSM does not say that asking for donor lists is a "violation of IRS policy", just that it is not typically required. I do not see either the need to quote so many people. Just citing Republican and Tea Party sources makes it appear that they are the only ones who hold that opinion. Why not just summarize the general reaction to the story - that the IRS has abused its power by failing to be "nonpolitical, nonpartisan and neutral." TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- TFD, inline citations were provided; quotes from conservatives and apologies from IRS executives are the only quotes I can find, although Axelrod's statement that "the government is so big, Obama can't be aware of everything" would be appropriate, don't you think? That seems to be the only quote from a notable progressive that's available. And according to the AP, asking for donor lists is a violation of IRS policy. In the first paragraph, I've added the words "applications for" (boldfaced above) so that it reads, "applications for tax-exempt status." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Here are "popped out" links to the three sources cited for TFD to review: Associated Press — The New York Times — TIME magazine. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Major and prominent, more major and prominent than 80% of the material in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The preceding was copied from the moderated discussion. Additional "votes" may be added below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's been nearly two weeks since there was any activity in the preceding discussion regarding the proposed new section on "IRS harassment," so I suggest that we have consensus and the proposed edit is uncontroversial. Please add the material to the article mainspace, below the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section. Also: We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Done, with no prejudice against further tweaks if there is consensus for them. Thanks for your work. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
12 May edit request
If you would please be so kind:
- In the "Leadership and groups" section, IMHO the organization "non-section" headings should be in sentence case (e.g., "501(c)(4) non-profit organizations" and "For-profit businesses" for the current "501(c)(4) Non-Profit Organizations" and "For-Profit Businesses", etc.).
- In the same section "The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition" external link should be converted to a reference.
- In the "Public opinion" section's subsection titles ("2010 Polling" and "2012 Polling"), change the word "Polling" to "polling" (sentence case, as above).
- In the "Use of term "teabagger"" subsection, delete the double quotation marks bracketing A Way with Words, as the title is (properly) already italicized.
- Lastly, I suggest changing the
{{Portal}}template to a{{Portal box}}template and moving it to the bottom of the "See also" section, as it currently is impinging on the "References" section (at least, in my browser).
- All done. SilkTork 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I made a mistake. -_-;;; When I wrote "
{{Portal box}}template", I meant "{{Portal bar}}template"; also, portals belong in the "See also", not the "External links" section, per WP:ALSO.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)- Hello?—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I made a mistake. -_-;;; When I wrote "
- All done. SilkTork 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article will be unlocked soon. I will take a look at the situation tomorrow, and if it looks OK probably unlock then. SilkTork 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Tea Party protesters at IRS site
Here's a photo for possible inclusion in this heavily protected (oh boy -- never seen this before in Misplaced Pages but I can understand why it happens) article.
- Not really much going on there. Are you in it or something? †TE†Talk 01:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- How often do you see people protesting the IRS? Personally, I have never seen it yet. Photo taken by James M. Bennett of Tea Party activists protesting IRS Diamondhead Building in Mountainside, New Jersey.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question, I am not in this photo. I am not really a Tea Party-er, but I support a (mostly) nonpartisan proposal to reform the IRS called the Fair Tax. There are references in the NY Times about Tea Party protesters protesting IRS sites around the nation on May 21, 2013.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit Request
Nothing specific, just want to see some edits.
One week idle -- with all that's going on? SMH. †TE†Talk 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 28 May 2013
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Howdy. Could someone please change the text for the last ref of the first paragraph in the article from:
<ref name="sfexaminer">{{Cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |title=Tea parties are flash crowds Obama should fear |date=March 19, 2009 |newspaper=] |first=Mark |last=Tapscott |accessdate=June 16, 2009}}{{dead link|date=August 2011}}</ref>
to:
<ref name="sfexaminer">{{Cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |title=Tea parties are flash crowds Obama should fear |date=March 19, 2009 |newspaper=] |first=Mark |last=Tapscott |accessdate=June 16, 2009 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20090419142317/http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Tea-parties-are-flash-crowds-Obama-should-fear-41547632.html |archivedate=April 19, 2009 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>
--Rockfang (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
hemming and hawing
instead of that, say that there's ...no officially sanctioned central leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.6 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit request - dubious phrase in Use of term "teabagger" section
I looked at the first part of this section and came across:
The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.
References
- "Scenes from the New American Tea Party" Washington Independent, February 27, 2009; Retrieved April 24, 2010.
- Alex Koppelman Your guide to teabagging Salon.com; April 14, 2009
- The evolution of the word 'tea bagger'; The Week; May 5, 2010
Now, looking at that and the sources given, this part of that section is true: "conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites"; but nowhere is there any evidence for this sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers." They used the term (one article says "innocently embraced the term"), but nowhere do these articles say they referred to themselves as teabaggers; they used teabag as a verb to refer to others and as a form of protest (e.g. "sending tea bags to elected officials", "Tea bag the fools in DC").
I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- Items with VRTS permission confirmed