Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ThinkEnemies (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 17 May 2010 (→Lenny McAllister: Xeno chopped comment in half leaving lonely and confused orphan to fend for itself :-(). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 20 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tea Party movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tea Party movement 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 20 days

March 20 and recentism

I'm starting this as a new section because the discussion above has got bogged down with arguments about POV. When editors attempt to balance POV by adding or deleting content there are ultimately no winners, and the reader is the big loser because the result is not encyclopedic. It might be more useful to look at it in terms of Misplaced Pages:Recentism and ask, is the article becoming "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens"? I propose to apply the ten-year test as a guide to what is worthy of inclusion:

• Four members of the House of Representatives said that they heard or experienced racial or anti-gay epithets or abuse: definitely notable.
• William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said: "Never did I hear any type of racial slur": probably notable, but it doesn't belong where it is. Claims of abuse should be documented, then the counter-claims.
• Emanuel Cleaver thought a man was going to say sorry: definitely not notable.
• Barney Frank "started it": in no way notable. Either he was called a fag or he wasn't.
• The quotes from Andre Carson: excessive, and not correctly quoted. "The N-word, the N-word, 15 times" is all that's needed.
• Andrew Breitbart says the slurs never happened: notable, but way too much detail. The first quote, "By crafting a highly symbolic walk...", is a good one; the second one, "It didn't happen..." is superfluous.
• Breitbart offered 100 grand: probably notable, but only after the foregoing - it has no proper context otherwise. Again, too much detail.
• Richard Trumka's response: notable, but again the qoute is excessive.
• Youtube video: not notable. Who is going to be talking about that in ten years time?
• Opponents say they plan to infiltrate...: not notable, and not relevant to this section. When it is reported that they have infiltrated the movement, it will become notable; if it is reported that opponents were responsible for the abuse on March 20, it will become relevant.

Taking all this into account, I propose the following as a concise, clear and NPOV account of March 20 and its aftermath:

On March 20, 2010, as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was being voted on in Washington D.C., it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs. Several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted the "n-word" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he was spat upon, and Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "fag". Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times". William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said: "Never did I hear any type of racial slur."

Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart asserts that the racial slurs never happened. He says that, "by crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up." Breitbart has offered a charitable donation of $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if John Lewis could either provide video evidence of racial epithets or pass a lie-detector test. In response, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said he had seen the events in question. "I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word," Trumka said. "That’s real evidence."

Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart's paragraph needs to be cut in half. It is just back and forth that doesn't say anything. I do think a blurb about the "infiltration" is needed though.Cptnono (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cptnono. This section is bloated and also POV pushing. Keep the blurb about the infiltration.Malke2010 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Scolaire, an AFL-CIO president has an awful lot to gain from supporting a Democratic congressman. I wouldn't give so much credibility to Trumka's claims as we would be doing if we let his words be the last ones in the edit.Malke2010 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In fine with the first paragraph and think the second one is too fat. Also think that "infiltration" is notable and needs to be in a different section to avoid synthesis. MookieG (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The news reports did group it together and racism and homophobia were directly mentioned. I didn't even think about synth though. Any suggestions on where else it could go instead?Cptnono (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving the infiltration to its own section would also require more citations, more notability. It's not that notable as it stands right now. If there are other groups springing up all over the country as a counter-movement, then that would rate a new section, but one article about one guy, not really.Malke2010 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Two minor changes I would suggest are just for accuracy. 1) change the anti-gay slur "Fag" (cited only to the claim of one nobody protester) to "faggot" (multiple times, supported by reliable witnesses, and video tape ). 2) change the "chanted the n-word" wording to note that Carson said they were chanting "kill the bill" and following that with the n-word, and he heard it as many as 15 times. Your present wording makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times.

You named this section "March 20 and recentism", but other editors are expressing concern for unrelated events and dates, like the "intended infiltration", and there are similar incidents in the article (depending on which version you view) about bigotry. How about we apply the 10-year test to the whole section, instead of just the March 20 incidents? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Xenophrenic: 1) "fag" to "faggot" is fine, if that's what the majority of the sources say; 2) the sources I'm looking at say 'Andre Carson some among the crowd chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times"' - to me, that makes it sound like they were chanting, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger! ..." 15 times; 3) I did in fact apply the 10 year test to "infiltration" (my last point above) and decided it fails. Without that, only March 20 is covered in this section. Other incidents are dealt with in the other article, but this is not the other article.

General comment: my proposed text above is only that: a proposal. I hope that those of you who have replied will suggest your own text. That way it should be possible to reach a consensus fairly quickly. Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your justification for point (2): one of your two sources is not a valid reliable source. Your other source gives a shortened (and thereby misleading) quote excerpt, as you have acknowledged. There are ample quotes noting that Carson claims the crowd was shouting "kill the bill" then the n-word. Here is a more complete description of what he heard:

Soon after leaving Cannon, "I hear someone say it," said Carson, a former police officer. "You see one or two tea party people kind of look at him, and then you hear it again as we're walking. Then we walk across (Independence Avenue), and that's when it starts getting deeper." Carson said he heard it coming from different places in the crowd. '"You heard it in spurts, in the midst of 'Kill the bill. Kill the bill.'"

The present sentence is more accurate: Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "Kill the bill, then the N-word." They chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times. It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis." Let's try not to mislead the readers by leaving them with the impression Carson claimed hearing, "Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!" 15 times.

Regarding your observation that, "Other incidents are dealt with in the other article...", is that true? I've seen efforts to remove related content from both articles. Is there a consensus as to which article should contain the content outside of the March 20 events? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you don't have the impression that I'm pushing a POV here. I don't have a POV. What I did in my proposed edit was to tighten up the prose based on the citations that are in that paragraph. The sentence you quote here is referenced by the two sources that I cited in my "justification" (more or less - the second ref in the article is actually a dead link, so I found another source with the same article; I believe the original source is AP). The NYT article doesn't, in my view, support the sentence as it is written.

You say the present sentence is more accurate. How do you know what is accurate, when nobody seems to know what was said? You don't believe they chanted "nigger, nigger, nigger", but what do you think they did chant? "Kill the bill, then the N-word" is nonsensical. Why would a racist want to kill the N-word? Or are you saying they chanted "kill the bill, then the nigger"? Or was it "kill the bill, nigger"? None of those are directly supported by any of the sources and, frankly, none of them sound likely as chants.

If you don't like the source, then you should re-write the sentence altogether based on the NYT or some other source. Just so long as it is intelligible. For instance:

Representative Andre Carson said that as he walked from the Cannon House Office Building with Representative John Lewis, he heard the word coming from several places in the crowd, amid chants of "Kill the bill". One man "just rattled it off several times." Carson quoted Lewis as saying, "You know, this reminds me of a different time."

Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't there, so I must rely on what the sources say - I have formed no "beliefs" about the incident. Please note in my first response to you above, I cited the Herald source which says: who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying “Kill the bill, then the n-word.” While it may sound nonsensical to you, that is how it was phrased in the source. The Washington Post phrased it thusly: Carson told reporters that protesters yelled "kill the bill," then used a racial epithet to describe Carson and Lewis, who is a revered figure on both sides of the aisle. Hearing the 'Kill the bill' chant punctuated with the n-word makes a lot more sense to me than hearing just the n-word chanted 15 times - that would be nonsensical. Looking at one of the only public videos of the event, it sounds like the slur was allegedly used as a punctuation to the "kill the bill" chant. (Personal note: I don't find that particular clip conclusive at all, but then I have a lousy sound system.) You can hear Carson, in his own words, explaining what he heard here. The first part is cut off (maybe intentionally?), unfortunately, but you can hear enough to get the basic idea.

I do see that the sources also say, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard “nigger.” That appears to be a very unambiguous eyewitness statement, but isn't included in your proposed edit. You suggest I rewrite the sentence altogether, but to what purpose? Your proposal already states several lawmakers were called the n-word. What additional information were you trying to add to that? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This has got way more complicated than it should be. So I'm just going to say it straight out, at the risk of hurting some feelings: the section as it stands is rubbish. It makes absolutely no sense to somebody like me who's not in the middle of it and is not reading those appallingly-written news articles/commentaries on a daily basis. I don't want to add anything to it; I just want to see it written in plain English. Yes, "Kill the bill, then the N-word" appears in a source, but it's stupid. It doesn't need to go in this article and it shouldn't be in this article. I don't want "The N-word 15 times" either; that's equally stupid. I realise I should have said "I agree with you" earlier. It was thoughtless but I do agree with you. To paraphrase what you said there, "the 'kill the bill' chant was punctuated with the word 'nigger'." Why can we not just say that - any or all of the sources support it - and cut out all the other crap? Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkey talk talk. Are we debloating it or not? A couple of us have agreed on that much at least. I would prefer to not see revert after revert so would

• “I watched them spit at people, I watched them call John Lewis the n-word,” Trumka said. “I witnessed it, I witnessed it. I saw it in person. That’s real evidence.” Breitbart had posted two columns on his website alleging the claims were fabricated, and both led with a 48-second YouTube video showing Lewis, Carson, other Congressional Black Caucus members and staffers leaving the Capitol. Breitbart says that the absence of any audible racial slurs in the excerpted 48-second video clip proved that no racial slurs were made by protesters. Later interviews have revealed that the 48-second video was not of the Congressmen walking to the Capitol, when they said the slurs were used, but instead showed the group leaving the Capitol — at least one hour after the reported incident. When asked about using a video from the wrong time period, Breitbart stood by his assertion that the members of the United States Congress, their staffers present at the time, and Trumka were all lying. "I'm not saying the video was conclusive proof," he said. Journalist and author Bernard Goldberg stated that in regard to the accusation's claiming that an individual had spat upon Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and the supposed chanting of the "n-word" that "The more I look into this, Bill, the more I’m convinced that it never happened."

hurt anyone's feelings?Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt mine. I've taken all of that out. Maybe we can have a go at tidying the rest. Scolaire (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is wikilinking Freedom Rides original research? He could have meant plenty of other things in America's racially tense past. It is a good assumption but it might still be considered original research.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we are meant to understand what he meant by "a different time". It was a time when he had "nigger" shouted at him for standing up for something he believed in. It was personal, not just "America's past". If we're meant to understand it, it can't be OR to link it. Scolaire (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My original comment reads "racially tense" past. I guess I am trying to say that there are multiple wikilinks available related to African-American history#Jim Crow, disfranchisement and challenges and the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968). And people shouted slurs at sit ins and other protests. The Little Rock Nine were subject to the slur. So he may not have been refering directly to the freedom rides.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

None of those deal with racial abuse against John Lewis except the Freedom Rides 1961 section of the Civil Rights article. My response to you was that it was personal, not just American history generally. Scolaire (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono has a point about Wikilinks within quotations. WP:MOSQUOTE says about linking:

As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

While Scolaire's Wikilink to the Freedom Rides may be accurate (and obvious, and common sense, self-evident, etc.), we have no real way of knowing that with absolute certainty unless it is explained in a source. Adding the link would provide more information to the reader, but goes against Misplaced Pages convention. Perhaps, instead, try adding in the same identifying wording present in every source that mentioned Lewis & the March 20 incident: he is a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. I think the Fox source we're using now called him a "legend" in that movement. Or you can keep the link - every Misplaced Pages guideline leaves room for exceptions. Just my two cents... Xenophrenic (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries about being personal. I didn't take it like that. I read the quote and just assume the civil rights era based on the time before and during it. Something like that would link to "time" better anyways. But if he was really big in the freedom rides then it could make some sense. Still seems like an an assumption and Easter eggy to me. This really is not a HUGE deal and shouldn't disrupt the conversation for the other stuff too much.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am so sick of the "inappropriate behavior" argument. That is POV and vague. Racism is a charge that has been made multiple times. The section could clarify (and maybe even dispel) the rumors but instead people are treating it with mittens.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Populist"???

The Tea Party movememt is not populist. Remove this part now. (I can't because it's locked.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You get more with honey then vinegar or something like that. Do it "now" typically doesn't get much response. That being said, a single source is not sufficient to give the label prominence in the first line of the lead. See WP:LABEL and WP:UNDUE and the whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources thing. "NPR says that they are populist" might be fine in the body of the article somewhere. It can easily be read as "socialist" or "class warfaring" so the requirement for clarification means it should not be in the lead like that. There was previous consensus on this but consensus can change and, God forbid, be wrong. The conversation reads to me like it was implemented to remove grassroots which means the consensus building was done under false pretenses.Cptnono (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So I am going to pull the trigger on this and remove it or tag it with an inline dubious tag if there are no comments. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We had a big consensus discussion back in March about the first sentence in the article. It was decided by consensus (we actually took a vote) that grassroots was out as a description of the movement (because there was a conflict with astroturfing) and populist was its replacement. If you actually edit the lead, you'll see a bunch of invisible comments about this. Please don't modify the first paragraph in the lead without getting consensus here first. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, that was done under false pretenses and I am attemptint to reopen the discussion since "populist" can be misread and people obviously disagree with it. The question isn't "populist over grassroots" it is "populist".Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Populist is defined as "A supporter of the rights and power of the people.", which the Tea Party is definitely about. They are big about individual rights, and the power of people against large government. The Tea Party is definitely populist and we should change start changing it back. Ink Falls 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it requires explanation and can be read differently then that single definition. If populist is mentioned it should be explained or else the reader can easily jump the incorrect conclusion. Other definitions:

• wikt:populism - "A political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this."
• wikt:populist - Democrat (?!?!)
• Populist - A supporter of Populism, a political philosophy urging social and political system change that favours "the people" over "the elites", or favours the common people over the rich and wealthy business owners. Populists are against big business owners.

You could argue that 1 does apply to a certain extent but it could certainly be disputed so explanation would be required. I'm not saying populism shouldn't be mentioned but it shouldn't be an immediate vague label in the first line.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is not populist, it's anti-populist. It doesn't favor common people - if it does, it would have supported the Obama tax cuts for the middle-class instead of trying to destroy health-care reform or continue the Bush tax cuts for the rich. 143.89.188.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

False Dichotomy. Furthermore, Bush cut taxes for EVERYONE, which some people fail to acknowledge. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Claim

Quick note: "claim" is being used in a manner that is against WP:CLAIM. Try something else?Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop it.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

reports of racism and homophobia

This section needs more clarification. What exactly is the point here? Is this section supposed to prove/show that the tea party movement is really a movement with an agenda against blacks and homosexuals? Emmanuel Cleaver is making a claim here that he was spit on, and so are the others. They have no proof. These are claims not proven facts. And the section is missing the important fact that these men went into the crowd with a video camera and yet the only 22 seconds of video they have don't support their claims. As it is right now, it's WP:UNDUE. There's nothing here by a tea party movement official or organizer or everyday guy saying that the tea party movement is against blacks and homosexuals. So you can't just make a section with a heading that says there are claims by these few men who it appears went into the crowd to deliberately provoke something. Otherwise, why did they bring a camera? If there's no evidence that the tea party movement has an agenda against blacks and homosexuals, then this whole section needs to go or at least it must be rewritten to show that these are claims by a few at a single demonstration and that there is no evidence that the tea party movement has this as it's nationwide agenda.Malke2010 17:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of corrections, just so we keep things factual here:

• Cleaver was spat upon. The counter argument is that it was "just unintentional spittle from a screaming protester", but the spitting did really happen. When Cleaver paused and confronted the spitter, saying "You spat on me!" ... the spitter made no amends.
• The 22 seconds of video isn't from the group of lawmakers that walked through the protest, it's from someone in the crowd. Yes, the lawmakers had a camera-phone, but what motivation do they have to publicize it's contents? Lewis has already said he wasn't going to make an issue of it. What is missing from the article is the fact that despite hundreds of Tea Party protesters armed with cameras as the Congressmen started their walk (when the reported slurs happened), no one has come forward with any videos proving it didn't happen.
• As for the ludicrous conspiracy theory that the lawmakers wanted to "deliberately provoke something" -- there is one glaring flaw: how does walking through a crowd "provoke" racism? "Of course I'm not racist, except when black people are near ... then I don't know what comes over me, I just start spouting off epithets." Right.
• Yes, Barney Frank was called 'faggot' several times (it's on ABC News video, and witnessed by reporters) in two different locations, and no, Frank didn't "start it by saying f--- you" to anyone. But we all know Frank was trying to "deliberately provoke something" by walking past protestors in the halls, right?
• You correctly note that there is nothing by Tea Party organizers indicating they are against blacks or gays. Shall we add something about spics then?

All of that aside, I do agree with you that these incidents do not (or should not) represent the movement as a whole. But the fact is the perception is out there, and it has recently grown significantly. The national attention given to these and similar incidents make it impossible to scrub the articles of such content, but we should still be able to make sure the movement is fairly and accurately depicted. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might do that? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The spic thing and that article are exactly why such a section should exist. Some memebers are obviousley racist and some people hear of such instances and jump to conclusions. "“I don’t think it says anything about the movement per se,” state Sen. Shannon Jones, R-Clearcreek Twp.," shows that some people do not equate it to the group as a whole. It goes on to say that the founder and president of the Dayton Tea Party says it is not a racist movement.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To address Malke's questions and comments directly: What exactly is the point here? There is no point. Misplaced Pages doesn't make points, it gives information. Is this section supposed to prove/show that the tea party movement is really a movement with an agenda against blacks and homosexuals? No, it states the verifiable, and notable, fact that four Congressmen - not just four random guys - say they encountered racist and anti-gay abuse at a Tea Party protest. It neither says nor implies that there is a "nationwide agenda", or any other kind of agenda. They have no proof. Irrelevant. The incidents were reported; the section deals with those reports. This section needs more clarification. No, it doesn't. The whole point of my edits was to clarify the situation: the Congressmen reported abuse; others including Breitbart said it didn't happen. That's the whole story. This is Misplaced Pages, not Wikinews, and not a soapbox. As it is right now, it's WP:UNDUE. It's two short paragraphs in an 87 kb article! It could hardly have less weight. "More clarification", presumably meaning more content, would only increase the weight given to it. 'Positions and goals' has gone from one miserable sentence to no section at all. That's where weight needs to be added, not this section. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The congressmen reported abuse, yes. But they offered no evidence that it happened. And the section ends with the AFL-CIO president, who was with the Congressmen, stating that it did happen. This makes it appear that it did happen. There is no evidence to support their claims and the paragraph should end with that. The reader should not conclude that the president of the AFL-CIO, who has much to gain by supporting these claims, is the most credible of all the participants. He is not. And it should be mentioned that he was with the congressmen.Malke2010 12:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the paragraph leading off with "It was reported that. . ." is original research. Who reported it? This sentence makes it sound like this is a sweeping, widespread news story. Reported by whom? What is the evidence? All that exists is claims by these congressmen. And they are claims, not facts, therefore, it is appropriate to use the word.Malke2010 12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking a step back and looking at the tone in aggregate, I believe there needs to be a removal of any implication of the following broken logic:

If a movement has situations where some people attending are racist, then it invalidates the movement as racist.

This is among the most insidious types of arguments.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually though this section would have support from both supporters and detractors. NOTNEWS/RECENTISM plus too much bickering has convinced me to just remove it. The article should never make GA without such informaiton but until something like that comes up screw it.Cptnono (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This section has evolved to make it appear that the Tea Party Movement is racist and homophobic. There's no evidence of that. There will always be these types of people who show up to all sorts of rallies because it's the only way they can get attention. But there's no credible evidence that the Tea Party Movement is based in racism and homophobia.Malke2010 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The section heading is "Controversy". The subsection deals with a controversy relating to the Tea Party movement. It does not try to make it appear as though the movement is racist or homophobic. It does not follow broken logic, or say that the incidents "invalidate" the movement in any way. If it asks a question at all, it is not "is the movement racist?" but "does the movement attract racists?". According to these reports i.e. news media reports of which several are cited, this is a question that needs to be asked. You keep saying there is no evidence. The testimony of five members of Congress, both black and white, each of whom has the trust and confidence of many thousands of voters, and a union leader who has the trust and confidence of many thousands of members, is compelling evidence. The onus is on those people calling them liars to provide proof that they are lying. That proof has not been forthcoming. Scolaire (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of video out there of the Tea Partiers shouting "Kill the Bill" but there is none shouting racial slurs. News cameras were there reporting the whole thing and not one could find (despite a reward of $100,000) any evidence of the thing. Also, if any of the police escorting the congressmen heard racial slurs, it would've been in their report. They probably just misheard some people yelling. Their claim is the many people were chanting nigger and seems completely implausible given the evidence, and the article should reflect that. Ink Falls 01:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't been reading or watching the videos, I see. News cameras were nowhere near Lewis, Carson and staff as they left the the Cannon building. No police with them either. There was also no reward; if I had audio of the slurs, I wouldn't see one red cent of that money. The claim is that Carson heard it as many as 15 times, from several places in the crowd, not that "many people were chanting nigger". Lewis also heard it. Lewis' aide also heard it. Cleaver, about 10 yards behind them during the last part of the walk, also heard it. Perhaps one person might "misheard" something, but not all of them. That would be implausible. So far, not one video has been produced to show that slurs did not happen as reported. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Random break

This section lacks any hint of neutrality. The entire section and section heading are in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, Misplaced Pages:No original research. Accordingly, I have flagged the section as lacking neutrality, pending consensus and resolution.

Please review the WP:BLP policy related to groups:

Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Misplaced Pages could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

In addition to large groups, these events deal with small groups and specifically named and photographed individuals. So since this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure. Therefore it is essential that every source and every statement be supported precisely, by reliable sources, without a hint of POV.

The article also violates WP:UNDUE by taking alleged actions of a tiny handful of individuals and attempts to use this to brand an entire political movement of millions of ordinary citizens of various races, who are concerned about fiscal responsibility, taxation and the size of government, not race.

Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section heading: "Reports of Inappropriate Behavior" or "Disputed Events During Protest of March 20, 2010"

Otherwise by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants. The current heading uses obviously loaded non-NPOV interpretative wording more suitable to a political campaign hit piece, rather than a respectable encyclopedia article.

Here is my proposed neutral wording for the section:

On March 20, 2010, it was reported in Washington D.C. that certain protesters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have acted inappropriately. Several black lawmakers said that a group of demonstrators shouted at them and called them the "n-word".

However in the current version, the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word". Therefore the editor's changing it from the text represents a blatant non-NPOV interpretation on the part of the editor. The same applies to the loaded descriptions of the behavior within the section as "racist" and "homophobic". The proper solution in an encyclopedia is just to describe the alleged behavior and leave the interpretation to the reader.

So please review the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy:

Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

More proposed neutral wording:

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver claims he was spat upon, later adding, "I said to this one person, 'You spat on me.' I thought he was going to say, 'Hey, I was yelling. Sorry.' But he continuing yelling and, for a few seconds, I pointed at him and said, 'You spat on me.'"

However the current version lacks NPOV because it omits the key phrase which clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior. Obviously there is an immense difference between the intentional act of spitting and accidental spittle during speaking or 'yelling', which happens routinely.

More proposed neutral wording:

Gay Representative Barney Frank claims he was called a "homo", a "fag" and a "faggot" several times. One protester alleged that Frank had been the one to start the exchange by saying "f--- you" to her.

However, the current version states these alleged events as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?

More proposed neutral wording:

Representative Andre Carson told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Lewis, some among the crowd chanted "Kill the bill, then the N-word." They chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." William Owens, a black Tea Party activist said, "Never did I hear any type of racial slur."

However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.

More proposed neutral wording:

Conservative activist and Tea Party speaker Andrew Breitbart asserted that the racial slurs never happened. He said that, "by crafting a highly symbolic walk of the Congressional Black Caucus through the majority white crowd, the Democratic Party was looking to provoke a negative reaction. They didn’t get it. So they made it up." Breitbart offered to donate $100,000 to charity if someone could either provide video evidence of racial epithets or Representative John Lewis could pass a lie-detector test.

Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance. Breitbart is a well known person who is an active speaker within the Tea Party movement. His challenge is well-sourced and relevant. It is notable that "100000 Breitbart" gets over 350,000 hits on Google. It allows the reader to weigh the credibility of the charges, beyond just the he-said-but-he-said allegations. That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism". You may disagree with this logic, but the facts should be presented to allow the user to decide. However, someone keeps trying to remove this response which is unacceptable.

In conclusion, this section presents serious, disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage (not that they would ever actually do that). Unless there is some attempt to provide fairness and balance, then you as an editor risk losing the presumption of good faith and start to look like a political campaign manager specializing in dirty tricks (which of course, you are not). These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications.

So until this section is brought into compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and consensus is reached, please leave the POV tag to alert the reader to this important ongoing discussion. Thanks.

Freedom Fan (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my post immediately above yours re "tiny handful of individuals". These are elected representatives of the people. There is a presumption that elected representatives do not wantonly and maliciously lie in order to bring an organisation into disrepute. To accuse them of maliciously lying, or even to infer that they did by the use of the word "claim" (see WP:CLAIM) is a BLP violation. To cite reliable sources that say that unnamed people shouted "nigger" conforms to BLP. WP:ATTACK does not apply - I wonder if you have even read it. I and others have repeatedly stressed that the section is not there "primarily to disparage" anybody, and no neutral reader would see it that way. WP:NOR does not apply - every statement is meticulously sourced. Your idea of POV is not the same as other people's; for instance, I don't see how the word "faggot" becomes not homophobic when the person it is directed at says "f--- you". What led to the epithet is irrelevant if the epithet is used. I won't deal with your other points in detail because they have already been dealt with at length. Suffice it to say that some of your "proposed neutral wording" is decidedly non-neutral to me.

By the way, making legal threats ("These charges are serious and have dangerous legal implications") is frowned on here, and an ironic disclaimer ("which of course, you are not") does not prevent what went before from being a personal attack. Anybody I have interracted with will tell you that I have been scrupulous at all times about maintaining NPOV and encyclopedic content. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the above. I'll outline and number some of them here:

...this article deals with the reputations of living persons, it represents potential WP:BLP policy violation and potential libel exposure.

• (1) No, it really doesn't. Please describe here the exact wording from the article that you feel is in violation of WP:BLP, and why.

...by labeling the alleged episode "reports of racism and homophobia" the editor is taking a series of unprovable events and drawing a legally dangerous conclusion as to the malicious intent of certain participants.

• (2) Wrong. The cited sources convey that there were reports of racism and homophobia, so the article also conveys that there were reports of racism and homophobia (or alternatively, racial and anti-gay slurs), as it should. The "intent of the participants" is left up to the reader.

...the use of the loaded word "nigger" is not supported by the source, which only mentions the "n-word".

• (3) I call b-word. Er, I mean bullshit. I distinctly see the word "nigger" used in several sources in that paragraph. We all know what the word is - please don't play games. The same applies to the "racial slur" and "anti-gay slur" descriptions, too.

...clearly shows that Cleaver expected an apology for apparently accidental behavior; no one would expect an apology for intentional behavior.

• (4) Say what? If anyone spit on me, intentionally or accidentally, I would be in their face demanding an apology, and so would many other folks. There is nothing in Cleaver's words or actions that indicate he thought the spitting was accidental. At most, Cleaver was giving the spitter a chance to make amends by apologizing (and apparently he declined) - nothing more. Nice bit of personal synthesis you performed there.

...the current version states these alleged events as if they were fact, not an allegation, and therefore violates NPOV. Furthermore, it is a violation of BLP especially since there are specifically named persons and a small group of protesters involved. In addition, the current version has sanitized away the equally bad behavior on the part of Barney Frank. Where is the balance?

• (5) First, there is nothing "alleged" about the anti-gay slurs having been hurled at Frank. It's a fact - get used to it. It is also conveyed as a fact in reliable sources and video, not as an "allegation" or a "report". As for BLP violations again, see number (1) above: you need to specify the exact wording you feel is in violation, and why. What "equally bad behavior" from Frank? Do you mean the claim by a protester that Frank said an unprovoked "fuck you" to her (does he have Tourette's now?) during just one of the several instances of anti-gay slurs?

If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.

• (6) Dozens of videos failed to record it? Source, please? How about a source that says just one video (that was actually taken at the time and place reported) missed it? You are doing your own unfounded synthesis again. If there were dozens of protesters with cameras near the congressmen when they left that building and heard the slurs, why has not one of them come forward and offered video proof that the slurs didn't happen? What are they hiding on those cameras?

Although it is impossible to prove the negative, this response is a strong defense and therefore essential for balance.

• (7) Breitbart and his theories and his donation offer are already present in the article.

That is, the user must decide whether it makes sense that out of all those dozens of videos, if any had captured the "n-word" being chanted 15 times, that the owner just walk away from the $100,000 reward? Even if the reward was offered for charity, obviously it would be incredibly valuable to those making the charges of "racism".

• (8) See number (6) above: there aren't any "dozens of videos" - there isn't even one video. And no, there is no "reward". We certainly saw cameras in the crowd, so why has not one of them come forward to prove that the slurs did not happen? Maybe they can't? You are asking why won't just one of those protestors step forward with self-incriminating proof of racism so that some black folks can get some of Breitbart's money? Gosh, that's a tough one to answer, too.

...disgusting allegations against ordinary citizens by powerful politicians with reasons to spread these charges for political advantage...

• (9) At least 5 powerful politicians lying about racial incidents to create political advantage... seriously? But they aren't powerful or smart enough to just pay some people to create some comotion while making sure plenty of media record it? I think I'll stick with logic, and reliable sources, instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we have plent of coverage available for the following info: use of nigger in Washington, use of faggot in Washington, disputes over what happened in Washington, use of spic that drew condemnation from the movement, a related study on the make-up of the group, a group planning to infiltrate and another incident with the teacher in Oregon. Misplaced Pages is not news but we should be able to tie it all together in a coherent couple paragraph summary. What Freedomfan fails to realize is that not mentioning some of these things leaves the question open and he isn;t changing anyone's mind. Would you rather have nothing so that individuals keep on thinking they are racists or would you rather provide some details so they can make an informed decision. You are actually editing contrary to what would benefit your beliefs (assuming you are a suporter from your comments).Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is how biased this section is. In this case your source originally did not use the word; that is what made it a synthesis by an editor eager to use the word. Now that you have changed the source, sure keep the word. But the section is still ridiculously biased. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? The only error I made was using "nigger" when the source used "n-word" in what was obviously a reference to the racial slur. And that mistake was fixed with using within a day.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe he's saying that when I changed the word to "nigger", the reference was to Fox News, which didn't use that word. In response to Freedom Fan's OR comment, I added the HeraldNet ref. Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a much better example of synthesis:

• However, it is unacceptable that the current version has sanitized the phrase that "the 'n-word' was used 15 times". This is crucial to the episode because it goes to the credibility of the source. If the "n-word" was spoken softly only once, it is possible that all the videos missed it. However, it is dramatically less likely that the "n-word" could have been shouted 15 times while dozens of videos failed to record the alleged misconduct even once.

What source is that taken from? Scolaire (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Show me where "synthesis" applies to a talk page. I suggested using exactly what the man said and I stated the reason, but this content has been removed. No synthesis there. Freedom Fan (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that synthesis applies to a talk page if it is used to justify the inclusion of specific content. "The 'n-word' was used 15 times" is not encyclopedic of itself, as I said above (and it says 'one man "just rattled it off several times"' in the current version anyway), and William Owens is fine where he is - it wasn't even me that put him there, it was somebody who is in agreement with you. To put the two of those together on the basis of your synthesis would itself be synthesis. Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick layout note not related to content: I think that breaking up the section into subsections is premature since paragraph breaks already provide the distinction between information. It comes across to me as over doing it organization wise. Could just be my personal preference though so I am happy to defer to what looks the best to everyone else. I am a little concerned that it may give prominence to issues that are worthy of inclusion but do not deserve the weight of an independent section heading. Not sure though.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Claims of bias in media coverage, minor omission.

In the section Claims of bias in media coverage I checked the reference and saw that the citation did not include where Howard Kurtz had made his comment. It seems important, since CNN itself was referenced. I prepended "On CNN's Situation Room," as it exists within the citation. I am trying very hard to verify the citations here. There are far too many of them IME in wikipedia that either do not exist, or are not complete. Lemme know if this isn't an innocuous change in your opinion.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten. Howard Kurtz's original comments were in the Washington Post.Malke2010 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New study showing supports likely to be racially resentful

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236996 Needs to be added in under the makeup section or the controvery section. Bortson (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That study is not a national representation of the movement (the study was limited to 7 states). Arzel (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with inclusion. This is not notable or relevant. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with inclusion as a line or two in a section discussing racism. Calling it not relevant smacks of not being objective. The story is written in a somewhat leading manner so neutrality standards will need to be strictly adhered to.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion. It is limited in its scope and I am not sure the study itself is valid and free of bias. Boromir123 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant information, and very timely, considering a large segment of the public perception and narrative about the TP movement now revolves around racism and the right. With immigration reform being pushed to the front of the legislation docket, race is likely to remain a hot isssue. The talking heads are sure talking about it, but opinions are a dime-a-dozen; the interesting part is that they are citing hard polling data and recent studies and reporting in their commentary. As others have noted, trying to sweep this aspect under the rug will just allow it to fester and grow. Better to properly address it outright. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes there certainly seems to be a lot of MSM press and politicians out to disparage the Tea Party Movement. We are fortunate that we have no editors here trying to do that. Which is why I disagree with adding yet more nonsense to this transparent WP:Coatrack. Bogus Rorschach tests disparaging 24% of the American population and probably commissioned by some politician are irrelevant to the movement. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Oppose. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose which? Trying to sweep it under the rug, or trying to properly address it outright and factually? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can include a study that polls 1000 people about the make up of the tea party and apply it to the nation, then why not include a study conducted by a university? What if the results showed the opposite? Would there be a rush to include it or no? Bortson (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a tendency here, as so often happens, to assume that citing a source means duplicating it. Many of the news sources, both pro and anti, are very unpleasant in tone. That sort of sentiment, and the loaded way in which certain facts are presented, should not be reproduced in an encyclopedia. But the facts themselves should be. Questions of racism, in particular, have surfaced again and again. The Tea Party movement has needed to respond, and it has responded, again and again. The Newsweek article links to several other articles including one that is already in the "Opinion Poll" section. In many cases the movement has answered the criticism. The specific responses should be included in this article, not just the fact that a federation was set up in order to respond. The challenge is to present these facts in a truly NPOV way, not just to vote for or against inclusion, or to balance POV sentences with opposite-POV sentences. Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, this particular study is not generalizable and has selection bias. The study was not randomized throughout the entire country. The PI stated that he selected specific states for a predetermined purpose, now it is randomized within the states, but those results cannot be extended out to the entire population. It reminds me a statistical study I read about years ago looking at the effectiveness of a specific drug. The drug was tested on a specific subset of the population for specific reasons, which is fine. However, they then attempted to generalize the effect of the drug onto the entire population. While possible that the drug was similarly effective throughout the entire population, the design of the test did not allow one to say this with any statistical knowledge. Furthmore, as revealed here, the methodology leaves a bit to be desired. The only real conclusion that could be drawn is that the view of pro-Tea Party people differs from the view of anti-Tea Party people. There was no baseline comparrison to use for a general view of Tea Party people versus that general population. To include this particular survey would require a large section listing the limitations of the survey. Arzel (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is more sweeping of information under the rug instead of presenting it and potentially addressing an issue that is causing commotion (look at this talk page for an example of how many people assume they are racists). This is an opportunity to get some information in the article. Yes the study appeared bias from reading the story. However, it is easy enough to spell out who made the survey (a red flag to me), that it suggested resentfulness (not hate), mention one of the quotes from the Fort Lauderdale guy, and make a mention that some in the movement think the media shows them in a poor light. It doesn't have to be "THEY ARE RACIST!!!" and it is all in that source.I t fit it in 2-3 sentences. Not including it appears to be more knee-jerk editing.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your position. It would not be possible to include a neutral presentation of this survey in 2-3 sentences, at which point you have to determine if weight is an issue. The PI himself stated that the survey is not extendable past the survey group, and even then it doesn't say anything about the Tea Party compared to the general population. Does it really say anything to add that in the states (list), Supporters (the group wasn't even classified as being Tea Partiers) of the Tea party are more likely to be racially resentful then those that do not support the Tea Party? It would be difficult to present the information in a minimal fashion without presenting a causal link that has not been shown to exist (admitted limitation of the survey). Arzel (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the following neutral and concise while providing some information some will find important? "A 2010 survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality conducted from a sample of 1006 across seven states suggested that sympathizers of the movement were more likely 'of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters'. In response, the founder of Tea Party Fort Lauderdale called it 'pathetic' and said that she did not know any racists in the movement." Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree there cptnono. I would make a few additions. About how the study was conducted using questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. That the study suggests the movement is about race, and that those supporters polled have a higher probability of being racially resentful vs non-supporters. Bortson (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, but, this is really about how to document something without it appearing to be slanted against the movement, isn't it? I think Cptnono's proposal is just fine. Adding that kind of selective and suggestive detail turns it from NPOV into POV, as well as being more coverage than the study merits (see recentism). Keep thinking encyclopedia. Scolaire (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The two groups not all inclusive. It is not simply supporters vis a vis non-supporters. It is those strongly supporting the Tea Party compared to those strongly not supporting the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Scolaire (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the study cannot be used to explicitly say anything about the Tea Party compared to the general population. Additionally, it cannot be stated in any way that Tea Party supporters are different from non-Tea Party supporters, because the questions responses were not phrased in this manner. The only thing that can be said is that strong supporters of the Tea Party movement are different than strong supporters against the Tea Party movement within the sample frame (ie 7 states). For example. People in NY that really support people that like Animatrix are more likely to resent people that own cars, than people in NY that really don't support people that like Animatrix. The results don't say anything about the people that like Animatrix, only the people that have a strong feeling about the people that like Animatrix. At which point you have to ask, does it add anything about the people that the article is about. This survey is highly flawed in the interpretation that others have given it, and to properly frame the survey correctly leaves the reader without any addtional information about the Tea Party. Inclusion within this article must be properly framed, and at that point the survey loses most of its value. Arzel (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you are not a reliable source while a reliable source has provided coverage of a study done by a university. It is a good thing that it can be properly attributed, a source is provided, and what is essentially a rebuttal is available. The amount of ignoring information regarding race and the subject in this article as a whole is really starting to look like editor's simply not liking the idea of race being mentioned even thought it has recieved the amount of coverage from RS to justify inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Random break 1

This Newsweek magazine article is a blatant political dirty tricks hit piece, and a clear violation of WP:Notable, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:Attack, etc. Just look at the disturbing photographs which were chosen to accompany the pathetic farce. What's next ... prosecution of thought crimes like in the movie Minority Report? This analysis by John Hinderaker at PowerlineBlog says it all The Smear Continues:

You'd think the Lamestream Media would give it up, but no: they are determined to push the absurd claim that Tea Partiers are "racists." Never mind that the issues driving the Tea Parties--the constitutional role of the federal government, bailouts and government takeovers, spiraling deficits and out of control spending--self-evidently have nothing to do with race. The smear is the only kind of argument most liberals know, so they press on doggedly. This time it's Newsweek, carrying out its new mission as a limited-circulation journal of liberal opinion... Newsweek's headline reads, "Are Tea Partiers Racist?" ... "In the absence of empirical evidence to support either characterization, the debate has essentially deadlocked."

Is the author of the Newsweek piece a child molester? In the absence of empirical evidence either way, apparently it's 50-50.

The Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality is exactly what you think it is. Its "study" is here. It measured whether a respondent was "racially resentful" by whether he agreed or disagreed with propositions like these:

• "Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors."
• "Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class."
• "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve."
• "It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites."

nly one of the four statements above is actually "racially resentful." That is number three, "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve." Yet disagreeing with this statement was scored as racially resentful by the Institute!

I'm just surprised that Newsweek used the polite term "Tea Partiers" rather than the more disgusting "Teabagger" smear favored by Joel Klein at the competing leftist rag, Time Magazine. The bottom line: There is no objective way to measure "racism". Even this "study" doesn't; it attempts to measure "resentment" using dubious methods, and the article is inconclusive. This piece is just an amateurish part of a transparent political vilification campaign that has absolutely no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Freedom Fan (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comments Freedom Fan. Totally agree.Boromir123 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that in a free country like the USA almost any movement opposing Obama will attract some racists. This will especially be true of a new movement like the Tea Party, without formal membership requirements or a list of members. That doesn't mean that a majority will be racist, but it's quite likely that some people attending the rallies are. And it will be extremely hard to identify them, unless they publicly self-identify. For the hard core supporters of the movement posting here (it's obvious we have some) it's important to accept that reality. What they and Misplaced Pages need is better research. Find out how many racists there really are at the rallies. Don't deny their existence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comments, HiLo48. Totally agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So some people have opinions on the research here. I'll admit I believe the department is incredibly biased. However, some people see inclusion as fine and I believe we should be working to add content and not sweeping it under the rug overall. I also believe it is an incredibly intersting aspect of the subject. Does anyone have any problems with the wording I provided or is the general idea so disgusting that zero inclusion is the only option?Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Random break 2

This is total B.S. The Wiki article is supposed to be about the purpose of the Tea Party movement -- not trying to psychoanalyze and interpret the supposed, unexpressed, innermost feelings of the individual participants. You would not apply that same sort of anal exam to any other living person or group. I sure couldn't do anything remotely like that with the Weather Underground organization, which was treated with kid gloves -- even sworn Congressional testimony by an undercover FBI witness was blocked by a Wiki admin because it might be a BLP violation of some un-named persons in the group.

Try this experiment in fairness: Go look at the Barack Obama article and see how they handled the Jeremiah Wright story. They called his contact with Wright "controversial". They did not try to smear the Obama family as "racists" and "bigots" as some of you editors are doing here to the Tea Party members. Not convinced? Now go look at the Jeremiah Wright article; you will not find the word "racist" or "bigot" anywhere in the entire article. We have living persons as subjects in all cases. Tea Party members are real people Constitutionally petitioning Congress for redress of legitimate grievances. These are just ordinary folks being smeared in disgusting terms by powerful Congressmen trying to pass sweeping legislation. The Tea Party folks are not just objects -- political pawns -- and they must not be treated with any less dignity than any other subject. Just try applying the Misplaced Pages policies evenly with common decency and a modicum of a sense of fairness.

For example the "Reports of Racism and Homophobia" section instead should be entitled simply "Dispute Regarding Alleged Intolerance", and present only words used verbatim by the accusers and defenders standing without any disgusting subjective POV interpretations. If there is a choice of two words, use the more neutral word. If there is any doubt, give the benefit of the doubt to the target of the accusations. If there is a choice between a primary or secondary more interpretive source, use the primary source. The Wiki policies are clear on this. Lose the loaded words so we can get rid of the POV flags and bring this back into the respectable family of Misplaced Pages articles. Otherwise, let's admit we are hopelessly stuck in the midst of a violent edit war. Bring in the admins and lock down the article. That's not my first choice, but it is an approach used in extreme situations, which will certainly intensify as the election approaches. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Intolerance", like "inappropriate behaviour", is an inappropriate description of the contents of the section. Intolerance, according to my Chambers dictionary, is "refusal or unwillingness to accept ideas, beliefs, behaviour etc. different from one's own." That is not the same thing as shouting racial epithets. "Alleged" is specifically excluded by WP:ALLEGED. "Dispute" implies that the section deals with suggestions that the Congressmen lied, rather than reports of racial abuse. If there is a choice of two words, use the more neutral word. "Reports" is more neutral than "alleged" or "dispute". As an alternative heading I suggest "Reports of verbal abuse at a rally". This keeps the neutral "reports", it states the specific behaviour reported rather than an -ism, and the singular "rally" keeps it in context. Scolaire (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Use "Reports of verbal abuse at a rally". Freedom Fan (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Freedom Fan - you seem to have missed the point of my post above. No-one is accusing you of being racist. Nor would most Tea Partiers be overtly racist. But I am 99.9999% certain that some racists will have turned up at rallies simply because the rallies are anti-Obama. That's how political behaviour works. Don't be stressed by it. Accept that it will happen. Don't pretend that, just because you're a tolerant person, everyone else around you will be too. The Tea Party has no membership requirements, no membership lists. You must admit among those thousands of enthusiasts, a few racists will likely exist. Accept that reality, deal with it, and move on. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Freedom Fan, I am puzzled by your repeated use of the word "disgusting", especially "disgusting subjective POV interpretations." Is it that you think the word "nigger" shouldn't be used? Unfortunately, that is Misplaced Pages policy. In Misplaced Pages:Offensive material it says: "In original Misplaced Pages content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all". Using direct quotes from André Carson doesn't work, as I have said before. Unless you are reading the news report in full, or listening to the interview in full, phrases like "The N-word, the N-word, 15 times" or "Kill the bill, then the N-word" just don't make any sense. So it seems to me it has to stay. I have read the section over and over, and I cannot see anything that could be called "interpretation". I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the word "nigger" is disgusting, but that is not my objection. We should use exactly what was said: "The N-word, the N-word, 15 times". This is for two reasons:

1) Why use a tertiary source willing to interpret the quote as "nigger", when you have several more reliable secondary sources with the exact quote? Especially because you then risk violating WP:NPOV and WP:Original Research?

2) The outrageous fact that the slur was alleged to have been chanted "15 times" is central to the credibility of the charge. I suspect that the whomever removed this wording is well aware that it weakens the credibility of the charge. However, an assumption of good faith causes me to hope that this is not the case.

Freedom Fan (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind about "the N-word", not because it is an "interpretation" - it's not - or because of NPOV or OR concerns, but just because I think the euphemism is justified after all, given that it is used in the sources. It was me that removed the "15 times" reference, and I've explained three times why: it does not make any sense to any reader who doesn't have the whole article in front of them. As I have also said, the idea that "15 times" is central to the credibility of the charge is your opinion only. Unless there is a reliable source that says that, it should not be in the article. I'll ask you again, please do not make accusations of bad faith followed by insincere disclaimers. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for questioning your motives. I'm glad as a gesture of good faith, you restored the precise "n-word" quote in compliance with the best original source. I still fail to comprehend how it is possible that using the exact quote would "not make any sense to any reader". Here is the quote:

REPORTER: How many people were saying ?

REP. CARSON: ... Maybe fifteen people about fifteen times.

As an unbiased editor, I'm certain you'll agree that using this exact statement is essential in allowing the reader to independently evaluate the credibility of the charge.

Freedom Fan (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, no. As a reader, as well as somebody who has read through all those reports, I believe it is irrelevant. At least, as you have quoted it there, it makes more sense than what was previously in the article: They chanted "the N-word, the N-word, 15 times." But the words you are using there - "evaluate", "credibility", "charge" - are all loaded words and I can't accept that any of them are necessary. I am seeking NPOV. Slanting the paragraph to cast doubt on the credibility of one of America's most respected politicians has nothing to do with NPOV. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the "loaded" words I used to make an argument on this talk page are relevant to establishing NPOV in the article. Also irrelevant is your subjective POV opinion that the accuser is "one of America's most respected politicians". If you are really "seeking NPOV" (a neutral point of view) then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to use the exact words of the person making the accusation. No one can challenge that. If you are really seeking a neutral view then please stop insisting on replacing the exact quote with your own subjective interpretation of André Carson's words in violation of WP:Original Research. It's really very simple, isn't it?

"The accuser" is at least three different lawmakers, and several other staffers, Union chiefs, aides, etc. It is not irrelevant that one of them (Lewis) has many character witnesses vouching for him, insisting that if he says it happened, then it happened. As for using exact Carson quotes - we already are. Yup - very simple. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As for your earlier statement that "There is a presumption that elected representatives do not wantonly and maliciously lie in order to bring an organisation into disrepute. To accuse them of maliciously lying, or even to infer that they did by the use of the word "claim" is a BLP violation." Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste who must bow before royalty, whose words are given more weight than peasants in a court of law (or an encyclopedia), but that's not the way it works in America. In America you have concepts which must seem very foreign to you such as "presumption of innocence until proven guilty", and "equal protection under the law". Also in America, the standards for establishing libel are much higher than in Ireland, and the standards are even higher for "public figures" such as politicians. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are nice descriptions about how things are "done in America" - but now it's time to get back to Misplaced Pages, where things are done by Misplaced Pages's rules, including matters of libel. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's. Show me where in WP:BLP do "elected representatives" get more favorable treatment than ordinary citizens. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it says that in WP:BLP, nor did I say it did. Next? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste? If ever I needed evidence of racism among supporters of the Tea Party, you have handed it to me on a plate now! I am not going to engage with you any more. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person and your agenda is there for all to see. Scolaire (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. My intent was not to offend, but to try to understand how you could have made a statement, which sounds so outrageous to American ears, suggesting that "elected officials" were somehow worthy of special legal treatment compared to ordinary folks. Then I visited your user page and saw you were from the British Isles where your traditions and laws arose from a system of monarchy where royalty ruled over commoners.

Please clarify whether you are suggesting that my admittedly ill-advised statement somehow makes me a "racist" (especially since I have Irish ancestors). If so, that would represent a clear violation of the WP:Assume Good Faith policy.

Also please clarify why you, as an editor interested in presenting a neutral point of view, would instead be striving to find "evidence of racism among supporters of the Tea Party". In a politically charged article such as this, it concerns me that you appear to be very quick to assume "racism" on the part of people who disagree with you, and celebrate the prospect of supposedly finding ammunition to use against the Tea Party movement "handed it to you on a silver plate".

Please clear up my confusion: If I accept that you are an editor without an "agenda" then why do you feel it is okay to push "evidence of racism" in this particular article by inventing emotionally loaded, contentious labels such as "racist" and "homophobic", an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR policies?

WP:Words To Avoid specifically states that it is unacceptable to use words such as these, even in describing obviously racist organizations such as the KKK, because "such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint". It then provides this crystal example:

"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization." thus becomes
"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

Similarly, Misplaced Pages:Words to watch advises against use of Contentious Labels, and specifically the word "racist":

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Thus in order to comply with WP policies, it is necessary to scrub this article of all editorial opinions which use words like "racist" and "homophobic". The only time these words should appear in Misplaced Pages articles, is when the editor is quoting a specific reliable source using "in text attribution". Freedom Fan (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read those two policies guidelines you have cited, and I've discovered more cherry-picking. A closer reading indicates that the use of certain words to describe a group or individual, not the reliably sourced descriptions of actions of same, are discouraged. I'm fine with adding in-line attributions (i.e.; 7 newspapers, 4 news networks, and 38 other publications), but it might make the now very lengthy paragraphs look rather silly — at which time it would be prudent to apply the other admonitions from those guideines: "use common sense" and "there will be exceptions". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Freedom Fan, your statement, "The outrageous fact that the slur was alleged to have been chanted "15 times" is central to the credibility of the charge", shows not only a misunderstanding of the event, but an eagerness to perpetuate that misunderstanding in the article. Please note that Carson has described the event a few times, so we have more than one reliable source from which to draw our information. Cherry-picking words or disjointed phrases that don't make much sense alone (as Scolaire has pointed out) in an attempt to make Carson's portrayal of events sound less-credible (or "outrageous", as you say) is not NPOV editing. He did hear the word "nigger", at least 15 different times, from various locations in the crowd, interspersed with the "kill the bill" chanting. He specifically says they chanted, "Kill the bill, n-word!" The present wording is both accurate and NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"He did hear the word 'nigger', at least 15 different times". Excellent! Glad you agree. So put Carson's quote back in the article verbatim, and end your POV interpretation to avoid WP:Original Research problems. And use the "n-word" to be consistent with the secondary source.

For those keeping score at home:

Number of times "racist" is used in this article ... 4

Number of times "racist" is used in the Jeremiah Wright article ... ZERO.

Bear in mind that the Jeremiah Wright article can draw upon over 20 years of video evidence of racially charged verbal abuse, yet none of the controversial quotes appears in the Wright article because "that would violate WP:BLP". In contrast, this article about the Tea Party movement can draw upon ZERO video evidence of racially charged verbal abuse ... only a flimsy smear of ordinary citizens by "one of America's most respected politicians", who has ignored repeated requests to provide interviews, lie detector tests, or any video evidence to Breitbart or the National Tea Party Federation.

Freedom Fan (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Put Carson's quote back into the article, verbatim? You mean that he heard, "kill the bill, kill the bill then the n-word, fifteen times?" We can do that, if there is consensus. I don't have much of a problem with that. I notice that you bring up the Wright & Weathermen articles an awful lot during your arguments. You do realize that problems in other articles is no justification for inserting problematic edits into this article, right? And as for evidence, there are eye-witness accounts from several lawmakers that were present, and you keep overlooking that. You can't catch slurs with video, by the way - you would need audio; and I note there has been absolutely ZERO audio evidence produced to prove the slurs didn't happen. The congressmen were surrounded by all those tea partiers with media recording devices, yet not a single one has stepped forward with video to disprove the racial slurs. I think we all know why. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. Sounds like we have consensus to put the exact quote back in. Thanks for the WP:OtherCrapExists, but it appears to be irrelevant as it relates to "whether or not a page on Misplaced Pages should be deleted". Freedom Fan (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there is so much controversy about the inclusion of the Newsweek study, can't we wait until some other studies/polls come out about the relationship between the Tea Party movement and racism? Then we can summarize them all. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting "verbal abuse at a rally" header. The first paragraph, though not fleshed out, is obviously trying to link this to a larger issue than a rally. "Verbal abuse" also seems like whitewashing. If it's racism, just call it racism. It's hard to claim that the "n-word" isn't racist. "Verbal abuse" is too broad.--Cubic Hour (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. See comments above regarding an editor's obligation to present material in a neutral manner. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Teabagger recently had an article for deletion discussion that was closed for a lack of consensus. Merging the information was discussed. My reasoning:

• There are currently three separate articles discussing the Tea Party movement. Teabagger and Tea Party protests are the others. That is too many to comfortably navigate, is redundant, and presents upkeep concerns. The fact that Teabagger is a dictionary definition for members of the movement can easily be discussed in a short paragraph here.
• As sourced "tebagger" may refer to a man having his testicles sucked. It could also realistically refer to a video gamer who mocks the act. There is now a disambiguation page. Teabagger can redirect to that page and it can be modified to mention that "teabagger" is an informal name for Tea Party movement protesters in the See also section.
• Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary.

Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Teabagger" is used as a derogatory term by opponents of the Tea Party to ridicule the movement. Unless you intend to redirect for all political, racial, and religious slurs to the articles about the group being insulted, then I oppose redirecting "teabagger" anywhere. WaxTadpole (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the word "Teabagger" should be used the same way you use the "N-word", never, it is a derogatory term used to describe members of the Tea Party movement. It is extremely offensive, the same way that any racial slur is offensive.164.236.0.11 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it is offensive. It matters that we don't need a separate article and that it is used for others not involved in the movement. And what other political slurs are you talking about Waxtadpole?Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to mention a few, but I just checked and found that every phrase I was going to name does have its own Misplaced Pages article. So I retract that comment. WaxTadpole (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why the contents of Teabagger should not be summarized and brought into the TPm article. There is a paragraph in Background that relates to tea bags and we had a section of Controversy about teabagging as a sexual act (now merged into Claims of bias in media coverage). However, the term teabagger hasn't been applied to Tea Party participants in almost a year. The word that has gained the most acceptance is "Tea Partier". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with content merge - if there is any content that is not either already in this article or better presented. However, I suggest that Teabagger becomes a redirect to Tea bag (disambiguation), rather than to here. Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

With you two agreeable and from the previous deletion discussion I think it is appropriate now. I think the three things needed here are 1)Mailing tea bags 2)Pundits poking fun at it 3)That it made the dictionary. Any thoughts? If those are it, here should they each go? I assume all three are not for the background section but could be worng. We could also retry the etymology section that had it all summarized but was removed.Cptnono (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that "teabagger" is semi-obsolete in the US? What does the OAD say about Tea Party and/or Tea Partier? Is there any mention in the OED yet? If you can answer most of these questions then I think we should try the Etymology section again (right after the TOC and before History).

Remember, this is an article on the Tea Party movement, for which the term "teabagger" has very little importance. I would place it significantly below the importance of Tea Partier. And we don't have a whole sub-section or even a paragraph on what TP activists call themselves so we shouldn't take up that much space on what some of them used to call themselves. Just recently we removed a bunch of material about sending teabags from History because it didn't seem relevant to the movement as it now exists. Evaluate each phrase against the criteria "Would someone reading an article of this size five years from now find my material pertinent to their purpose?" And we must have reliable sources, not snopes.com. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with content merge. All that is necessary for this article is one sentence stating that "teabagger" is a vulgar term sometimes used to refer to members of the Tea Party movement by opponents. Freedom Fan (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with content merge. Redirecting Teabagger to Tea Party movement is like calling them one and the same. As someone else mentioned, Cracker (pejorative) doesn't redirect to White people, and if it did that would be highly outrageous. By making the terms link to the same page, it is like calling them synonymous, when in reality teabagging has no relevance to the Tea Party movement. Mentioning it anywhere is probably a waste of space, but redirecting it here is worse.72.201.251.230 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be redirected her. It should be redirected to Tea bag (disambiguation) since teabagger can mean other things. The term does not even come clost to the prominence of "cracker". And we don't need three articles discussing the same thing or dictionary definitions. Cptnono (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Teabagger is not obsolete. It is still widely used in left of center media. Teabagger is not vulgar, no more than the words blow-job, masterbater, or prostitute. You might think these are vulgar words, but that tells us a fact about you, not the words. The noun Teabagger didn't exist before the protests, but now it is most often used disparagingly to refer to those people involved with the Tea Party Movement. That makes the word very relevant to the Tea Party Movement because it wouldn't exist without the movement. Without the movement, there would only be the sexual-act/bullying-act of teabagging, the verb, as the only related word in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot130 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it is relevent to this article. We don't need a separate page.Cptnono (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with any proposal other than to keep it as an article about the new word that won the Oxford award, i.e. a political diminutive and term of convenience, as opposed to a sexually-charged insult. When merged, in the past, the sexual meanings end up dominating the article, and that is not how most people use "teabagger", including some of the politically so-named themselves. Keeping the sexual meaning in its proper place, when discussing the political term has been a struggle anyway; just compare current Teabagger to its version after the "no delete" decision. From the picture of the sign being held up, and its date, it appears Tea Party protesters themselves were first to mix the two meanings (send a teabag in protest and sexual). -12.7.202.2 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That article will continue to discuss the ridicule part of things since it is sources. That just the way it is. If it is merged into here it will be given less prominence and the editors who agree to the merger made it clear that very little is needed. Are you objecting based on housekeeping and fear of giving it weight or because you truly think a separate article is necessary?Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't understand why you think the article on Teabagging belongs merged with the Tea Party Movement. Teabagging has nothing to do with the Tea Party Movement. The sexual act and the political movement have nothing in common except in the brain of a certain commentator at MSNBC. Why not merge Teabagging with Tea Pots or Tea Growers? It doesn't make any sense.Malke2010 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

History subsection

I propose adding a subsection to history titled "Continued organization" or something along those lines. It can address:

1. The federation thing
2. A summary of the Contract From America

Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The Tea Party agenda is a central feature of the movement and needs its own section. The National Tea Party Federation was set up primarily to respond to the allegations like those on March 20. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Composition of movement section could also work instead of history for the federation. There is nothing wrong with having mentions in two places as long as they don't say the same ting. You are also disregarding that reponses to racism seems to be a distant second to spreading the overall message. That is m take on the source and the opening line at least. Unfortunately for the Contract bit, a giant block of text at the end of the article is simply no good. I'm not against a subsection heading for it but it needs to be compliant with MoS and should be under the History or Composition section.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"A giant block of text" describing the very purpose of the movement is entirely appropriate. It is still much smaller than the rest of the article which primarily is trying to disparage and psychoanalyze the participants. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Read my comments all the way through please. I am not supporting removing the information just moving it and making it MoS compliant FFS.

I have also struck out my comment on the federation since it was already done. I thought it had been removed but instead it was just DUPLICATED. So both mentions are fine but they need to be reworked so that they are not duplicated info.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Freedom Fan on having a separate section - not a subsection - on the Contract. The "Positions and goals" section was removed (its text is now in the lead), presumably because nobody could or would expand it to give a proper picture of what the movement stands for. The Contract may not be the agenda, but is certainly an agenda. It deserves not only its own section but to be much closer to the top of the article. I agree with Cptnono on the need to conform with the manual of style. At the moment it looks like a straight cut-and-paste, complete with percentages, which are explained in the source article but not in this article. Make it encyclopedic, then bump it up. Scolaire (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a subsection would be better organization wise and don't think moving it up in the table of contents but still independent will improve it at all. I've explained that so hopefully others will chime in agreeing or maybe I am simply wrong. So ignoring where it goes, the other step is making it MoS compliant. Anyone want to take a stab at it? To start, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." needs to be figured out. Is it better as a list over summarizing it in a paragraph? If a list is appropriate, do we take out the wording that it the groups nonneuteral assertions that may not be fact or do we do a attributed straight quote?Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If a document says "this is a list of ten items", then the ten items should be presented as a list. It should not be quoted directly - this is not Wikinews or Wikisource, and I don't think it can even be considered free. Items should be paraphrased/summarised in neutral language, and without the loaded heading e.g.

1. Any bill submitted to Congress to show that it is consistent with the Constitution
2. Emissions trading (cap and trade) to be ended

etc. The introduction should be brief, and encyclopedic, taking out any "news items" ("The project was spearheaded by Ryan Hecker, a 29-year old lawyer from Houston, Texas"). The "preamble" should not be mentioned - this is not the United States Constitution...yet. If it can be presented neutrally, and if there is a consensus that it gives a fair indication of the positions of the movement, you might feel differently about moving it up. Scolaire (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with moving it anywhere that it receives a second level header since it makes no sense layout wise. I couldn't care less about its prominence. Mentioning "a lawyer from Houston" (name isn't really needed) and referring to it as "the introduction" (as opposed to the preamble) should work. So I started a draft where I trimmed out all of the assertions of fact and puffed up language. I think it summarizes it fine but then I started thinking that it could be viewed as misrepresenting them. I would hate for the reader to believe that our wording was their wording. So I am kind of stuck.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First, a subsection entitled "Continued organization" does not belong in the History section. History means about the past; Continued organization means about the on-going present. I figured that someone would write a separate article on the National Tea Party Federation and thus would get the content in Misplaced Pages without expanding the TPm article.

Contract From America

Second. As near as I can figure, the Contract from America is the idea of one Tea Party activist, a 29-year-old lawyer from Texas named Ryan Hecker (with help from Dick Armey of FreedomWorks). Since there is no overarching organization for Tea Partyists, you can't have an agenda that purports to represent most of them. This is in my opinion, of course. I would be interested to know if Hecker applied any form of sample modeling to his "poll" or if he just allowed anyone to log in and vote. Also is there anyone else reporting about the CFA other than Teddy Davis of ABC?

So, unless a fair number of reliable sources report on the Contract from America, I recommend that we either remove the entire section by consensus or add more inline citations after April 15, 2010, that show that the CFA has gained sufficient traction that it's notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. What say you? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The Contract is notable because it is supported by these notable groups participating in the movement:

Tea Party Patriots, FreedomWorks, LibertyCentral, National Taxpayers Union, thelibertylab, Americans for Tax Reform, American Solutions, Let Freedom Ring, FairTax, Regular Folks United, Heartland Institute, TeaParty365, The NEXTRIGHT

Furthermore the Contract has been out since April 15th and no one has challenged it's legitimacy. I am not aware of any other organizations, but if some other equally credible group presents an alternative, than that would be notable. The National Tea Party Federation also has allied with the Contract From America folks, although I have not read of any specific endorsement.

The fact that Newt Gingrich has participated in its development is very significant, since Gingrich was the author of the first similar Contract, which has been credited with helping the Republican party sweep both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

The Contract has legitimacy because it was established democratically.

Also the exact wording of the Contract itself should be left intact, because any attempt to subjectively interpret the points would not add any information and would probably lead to an edit war over NPOV. I like having the author's name in the piece; he should get props. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that so many organizations supported the CFA. I assume you have reliable source(s). If so then first, the inline citations about which groups support it should be added to section immediately. Second, we should have a discussion about where the section should be placed in the article. If there now is an agreed-upon TP agenda, we should give it more prominence, say before Responses and Controversy. Third, I disagree with your statement that we can't summarize the contract. I understand your point but this is a matter for consensus.

So, the first step is to insert the inline citation(s) that verify the groups that support the contract. I'm also interested in why the NTPF doesn't support it yet. Maybe we could have a sub-section on those that support and those who don't. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I added a link to the Contract From America website, which lists sponsorship from about 100 Tea Party organizations across the country. The NTPF has only been around a couple of weeks, so that may be the reason that they have not yet weighed in. The wording introducing the contract is well sourced and neutral. The wording of the contract itself is essential to retain intact, free of POV interpretation. Freedom Fan (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there is a Contract from America article. That page merits expansion with a summary of the contract. The TPm article should give some mention to that contract because it is a product of one (or more) of the major TP organizations and it apparently has been endorsed by some 400,000 people who presumably are TPers. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Israeli tea party

unde weight to mention it in the head section , it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals , I assume there are no more than 100 people that participate in anything if at all. 109.66.17.64 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"it doesn't do anything and has no defined goals" Citation needed "I assume there are no more than 100 people" An assumption? Again, citation needed

Gone. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism and homophobia, part n

If there is to be a section of the article covering allegations or perceptions of racism and/or homophobia within the movement, then it has to be comprehensive and it has to be done properly. Ideally it should be hammered out either on this page or in a sandbox somewhere, instead of just bits being randomly added. Some people say...other people say is not encyclopedic. The Newsweek article is under discussion above, and it certainly deserves a more critical treatment than that edit. And Jason Levin is only a teacher, for God's sake! He doesn't represent anybody except himself. The March 20 events and the Twitter page are both worthy of mention, but they should not be lumped together like that. If five or six incidents, taken together, showed a distinct trend, that would be one thing, but two unrelated incidents should not be treated in a way that suggests they paint a bigger picture. And even if somebody can collate enough information to show that there is a case to answer on racism, it's not acceptable to add one man saying "faggot", then double it up to racism and homophobia. Let's see some concrete proposals for tackling the issue properly, or else leave the article as it is. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek is good enough for a source to say that some members blame the media for the racism label. That isn;t something that is even disputed. And that one teacher is not a big deal but he is not the only one to say (which you know so don't pretend otherwise) so that is also not disputed. I had two sources that laid it out clearly and was too lazy to hunt down more for information that is so undisputed it almost doesn't need a source. And I disagree with you breaking up the section into subsections since that turns it into a list of with prominence that was not given when it was a simple paragraph break. Maybe if people were thinking about organizing it instead of crying over every little thing it could take some shape already. And where is the infiltration bit?That teacher line would have worked great next to it but it got removed for what I consider knee-jerk reasoning. Cptnono (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See, you're getting emotional now, and that's not good. "I was too lazy to hunt down more" is quite an admission! We're talking about writing an encyclopedia here. We shouldn't be editing if we're too lazy to do it properly. The Newsweek article title is Are Tea Partiers Racist, and you want to cite it for "Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists." Jason Levin is a nobody. If allegations of racism are so widespread, then it should be the easiest thing in the world to cite somebody. And what is knee-jerk reasoning? Jason Levin (yes, him again!) is not notable so it shouldn't be here? Sounds like adherence to policy to me. But my biggest problem is not with the sourcing. "Some critics have called those in the movement racist and homophobic. Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists" is simply not a useful statement on its own. Please take the time to read my post again. I am thinking about organizing it; other people are "crying over every little thing". Any section on alleged racism should be carefully researched, drafted, criticised and polished before being added to the article. Adding vague statements and random anecdotes doesn't help the article, and only serves to justify those who say there's an agenda against the movement here. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem admitting my reasoning especially when it was not the best! I'm not emotional over it but I really am starting to think this section is hopeless. I started it since it looked like ti was time then it got completely broken with two paragraphs discussing one dude and his claims and said "screw it" take it all out. It got restored so I assume such a section is acceptable.

Levin is not notable but did get some coverage. However, notability guidelines are for article creation not content. And since he wasn't even mentioned in the line I don't see how there can be any worries. People have labeled them as bigots so just come out and say it. And his particular story might be good enough for a quick mention somewhere but that can be discussed later.

Blaming the media is an important aspect. That is why there is a whole section discussing media relations.

And in the perfect world I would aree that carefully crafting things first would be fine. This article has a track record of that failing. And since there is so much knee-jerking going on (not you specifically all the time or anything) nothing gets done. We get subsections on this talk page that are ignored while others turn into a wall of text. And since anyone can edit and there is no time limit (again too lazy to find the wikilinks) sometimes collaborative editing means things get included and then tweaked. If you don't like the wording feel free to adjust it. Just removing with questionable (or we wouldn't be discussing it) reasoning in an edit summary is not the correct way to go about it. Maybe if editors were more inclined to adjust instead of reverting and letting things get bogged down for weeks on the talk page it could advance. If it is too much he said she said then we can figure it out. And just to deflect a little, there are plenty of things in this article that did not get inserted after careful polishing and it shows.

And respond to the third level section header and the infiltration bits here or in another section since those need to get hammered out.

Follow-up: I did crack a bit and finally pull up a wikilink for you: WP:NOTPAPER. Since you are asserting that it is not encyclopedic I want to point out that "we can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.". Assuming this section is not ready to be spun off and we keep a check on not detailing (there is nothing about ignoring in WP:RECENTISM) breaking stories then your definition of encyclopedic might differ from other editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've addressed most of my concerns there. As regards my definition of encyclopedic, it's just a commonsense idea of what you'd find in an encyclopedia. I'm 100% in favour of updating, linking and expanding; what I'm against is content that's not relevant or useful. "Some people say...other people say" is not useful IMO, whether there's a citation or not. "Some people say the world is flat; others say it's round." "Some say there was a gunman on the grassy knoll; others say Oswald acted alone." That's not how we write articles. There's plenty of links to sources alleging racism on this page here. All it needs is somebody to collate the information and write it up in a neutral way. Posting proposed edits on the talk page for discussion is a procedure that has worked well on other articles that I've been involved with. I'm curious where the "track record of that failing" in this article is. It worked for me, here and here for instance.

WP:RECENTISM doesn't say ignore, it says not to give too much weight to current news stories, and it recommends applying the ten-year test. The probability that Jason Levin will be a household name in ten years time is close to zero, so what he says - either about racism or infiltration - should not be given any weight at all. Simple as that. If somebody who is nobody says on the net that TPers are racists or that he and unnamed "others" are going to infiltrate, and some news outlet desparate for copy picks up on that, that doesn't make it encyclopedic, at least according to my definition ;-) By the way, strictly speaking it was you who removed the infiltration paragraph. Nobody apparently thought it was important enough to replace it, so I feel safe in saying there is no consensus for it.

I've explained my reasoning for the separate subsection. Two possibly isolated incidents are not sufficient to make a section entitled "alleged racism and homophobia". They should not be combined in one section as though they are sufficient. If and when somebody is willing to take the time and trouble to write such a section and get a consensus for it, they can both be brought into it. Until then they need to be kept separate, and each to be headed appropriately.

Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jason Levin wasn't even named. Do you dispute that they are called racist and homophobic or do just not like the source?

Infiltration is an aspect that deserves at least a mention. Most of this article does not pass the 10 year test so if do apply that we need to reduce the article drastically. I wouldn't be against that if applied to eerything instead of cherry picking what to keep in and what to remove.

Sweet. I did not notice that you responded to the other bit. I'll check out your comments later.

And I agree that the incidents are not a huge deal. However, they are examples that provide a meas to present the information. We could not use any examples at all but that woud cause another stir with editors wanting it back in (as seen when I attempted the wholesale removal). Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No offence intended, Cptnono, but you're not hearing me at all. I don't dispute that they are called racist and homophobic and it's not just that I don't like the source. I don't like the sentence. It's a silly sentence. It's just there, and it doesn't say anything. Not naming Jason Levin and then citing him is even worse than naming him. Look at my examples above and compare them to the Flat earth and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories articles. Those articles start right in stating verifiable and notable facts, not "Some people say..." with a reference to the online rants of Joe Bloggs of Blackburn, Lancashire. And no, I never suggested we not use those two examples. I said that, as it stands, those two are not sufficient to make a section caled "racism and homophobia". I believe that such a section should be made, but systematically and collaboratively, not by the current process of "Hey, I just saw a really interesting piece, where can we put it?" In the meantime those two need to be separated because they're not the same thing: one is unnamed people shouting at a rally; the other is a local Tea Party blogging. Nothing connects them except the inference of racism, and they're not sufficient on their own to make a generalisation.

I can't agree with you that infiltration is an aspect that deserves at least a mention. I can't see that it's an aspect of the story at all. There's no evidence that it happened and there's no evidence that it's going to happen. It's a non-story. I mean, how do you go about infiltrating people into an organisation? Do you begin by announcing it on the net? Do you go along to a meeting and say "Hi, I'm Hal. I'm here to infiltrate your organisation to make it look bad." The story is ludicrous! That's fine for the news media but it's not acceptable for an encyclopedia.

I do wish you'd stop with the emotive phrases. First "crying over every little thing", then "knee-jerk" and now "cherry-picking". I agree that a great deal of content should be removed from the article because it would fail the ten-year test. If I had all day I'd go through the whole article and clean it up. But as it is I'm spending hours on this one small section because so many people are fighting about it, and it's time I can't afford. How does that become cherry-picking? Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I don't hear a thing but you not liking the source because there is no explanation that you can make since you are ignoring the content issue. So unclear generalizations aside: find another source if that is your concern since it isn't disputed information. I don't want to dance around it and assume you don't either. And infiltration is as important as the sources have made it. When you delete half the article for not passing the 10 year test you will be allowed to make that argument. Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I am or am not allowed to do! If that is your attitude I'm not interested in collaborating on this any longer. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What infiltration? Infiltration has never happened. All we have is one story about one man who claimed a desire to infiltrate the rallies and act up with the purpose of making the tea parties look bad. (If that was his real intent he would not have posted his plans on a public website, and announced them to media reporters.) He has been un-suspended and has been back teaching school for a week; his website is down - where is the encyclopedic content?

As for treating the subjects of racism, homophobia and other bigotry, I liked the idea proposed above of establishing a sub-page somewhere, and collaboratively developing a comprehensive, encyclopedic section on the subject. If written properly, it could replace the whole section presently listing isolated incidents, and it might also replace a portion of the media bias content. It would serve to get rid of the laundry list, as well as stem the inclinations to edit to the two (highly inaccurate) extremes that the tea partiers are a bunch of racists and the tea partiers are not combatting an image problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it must be that we're under a blue moon and the earth is off its axis because I actually agree with Xenophrenic.Malke2010 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So another fork then? We now need a fourth article about such a young movement? I could see moving protest specific issues to the protest specific article but a section that the allegations have been made in a summary style would still be appropriate here. And there was more than just one person for the infiltration thing. I assume you read the sources.Cptnono (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There was more than just one person for the infiltration thing? Name another? Levin, and his alleged 65 supporters (translation: 65 fans on Facebook gave his idea a thumbs-up), is the only one I've heard of so far. I didn't see much disruption reported on April 15 either; that was his target day, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

don't think Xenophrenic means a fork. I think he means put up a sub-page where everybody would edit a section for this article. I agree with you, Cptnono, that moving protest specific issues to the specific protest is the best way all around. I don't think the tea partiers have racism and homophobia as issues. I think it's like the woman from the Tea Party Patriots (see below) said on CNN, that it's all about the money.Malke2010 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh... oops! And certain individuals should not reflect on the movement as a whole. However, the question has been raised enough that some mention should happen. The problem I am running into is formulating a summary without riddling it with examples. It was my original hope that examples would be a way to convey the information but it just isn't working out that way. That would be great if someone wants to slap up an outline here or in an article specific sandbox.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great WP:Attack candidate, choc-a-bloc with POV. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are edit warring again.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke is right: I wasn't suggesting creating a fork. I was suggesting a neutrally-written, balanced section that would cover the public-image and perception issues the Tea Party movement is having to deal with right now. Obviously, the racism thing is a part of it, but if this section is written well, then we won't need these "lists of incidents" that keep developing in these articles. Such lists may be "reliably sourced" and relevant, but they don't leave the reader with an accurate impression, in my opinion. Editors critical of the movement will pile on these incidents to lower the image of the movement, while editors supportive of the movement will introduce all manner of content on conspiracy theories about liberal political operatives trying to smear the movement, "mainstream media narrative-pushing" to smear the movement, etc., in defense of the movement. The result is a hodge-podge of disjointed "facts" intended to sway a readers impressions, rather than to inform. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has been used in the past as an attack article, and that could well be the motives here now, but Cptnono has a good idea in that a summary without specific examples might well be the solution.

However, the language must be more specific. Saying that, "Critics charge that the Tea Party Movement. . .etc." is this. Who are these critics? Are professional critics in the world watching everything the Tea Party Movement does?

And remember this article is about the Movement, it's not about the individual organizations and people who make it up. It's the concept as a whole, so weighing it down with what Sarah Palin or Rachel Maddow said is not helpful. There should be more focus on the financial system the Tea Party Movement was formed to address. The FED, the stimulus, etc. Problems with these programs that the protesters are complaining about. Otherwise, the article is just a repeat of the Tea Party Protests article. Showing in the article what exactly the financial problems are will help the reader understand why the Tea Party Movement started in the first place.Malke2010 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining what the "movement" is about, of course, is a good thing -- but defining what it is about is a little more complicated than just saying, "Taxes, Spending and Smaller Government!" The public perception issue is about the movement as a whole now, even if it did grow from specific incidents at specific protests. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A video for everyone that contributed to this criticism section. Maybe everyone can step back, gain some perspective and try to clean up these partisan attacks. Thanks. †TE†Talk 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Once the "partisan attacks" have already been made in newsprint, cable networks and other reliable sources, how do you suggest "cleaning them up"? Wouldn't the "clean-up" also first have to appear in those same sources?

I have seen all of the footage in that video you have linked. While there is only audio of a few seconds of their several minute walk, it still managed to capture what has been called "punctuating the chants of 'kill the bill' with the word 'nigger'" at time mark 1:55 and 1:58. And I also note protesters rushing the congressmen at the 2:05 mark, as Carson described. Ditto with Carson's description that they didn't have police escorting them until they neared the Capitol building and the police noticed what was going on. (Strange that the police should be concerned enough to begin escorting, no?) Those clips also show that none of the three individuals were carrying cameras, so they couldn't be expected to "produce additional proof" even if they were so motivated. My comments above still stand, perhaps even moreso now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was as Carson described, that was the point of the video. For someone who believes a mob of racist protesters surrounded and hurled the N-word 15 times at black congressmen on the stairs of the Cannon building, I'm shocked you aren't taken aback by this video. Is this not where it happened? This video precedes the Think Progress 22 second clip and actually, the two vids share the same vehicles passing by, I've never heard any allegations down Capital Street. As I type I'm beginning to think you didn't watch the video clip of the congressmen leaving Cannon. Are you saying that the infamous 22 second clip contains the slur nigger, which was not heard by every and all media outlets that analyzed it? Please take the 6 minutes necessary to watch the entire presentation.

As for reporting, yes it's flawed and every source contradicts the next, but that's not the biggest issue. Nor is the POV presented in the RS's, or even the flaws in criticism and controversy sections in B;P's. It's the fact that daily gossip and partisan propaganda presents little to no encyclopedic value, and surely won't pass the test of time. †TE†Talk 03:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Carson described has been refuted by the video at that link, peppy soundtrack and clever editing notwithstanding. Yes, I have viewed all of that footage and listened to all of the audio (even the stuff left out of your link). It's like you and I are looking at two different sets of media. What you describe as a "mob of racists surrounded and hurled the n-word 15 times", I see as a group of protesters boisterously screaming stuff mostly about killing the bill - and mostly unintelligible from the vantage point of the recording devices. In fact, I can see people standing just a dozen feet in front of the camera - screaming things - and yet the audio doesn't pick up a single syllable of what they are screaming, let alone what is being said closer to the congressmen. Am I saying "every and all media outlets" haven't heard the "nigger slur" on existing video? No, because some have; I'm saying I haven't seen any audio media that proves the slurs were not made. That leaves us with several eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses that say it did happen, versus zero evidence showing it did not. What is shocking is that tea party defenders would go to such lengths to try to paint several individuals as part of an intentional deception conspiracy, instead of simply denounce the acts as wrong and in no way representative of the tea party movement. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking for video that proves the 'slurs' were not made. You're asking the tea party protesters to prove a negative. "No, I didn't use drugs, no I don't beat my wife. . .etc." How does someone prove they didn't do something? There is no tape that shows tea party protesters making these claimed racial slurs. If the situation were reversed, and the congressmen were being accused of making racial slurs against the tea party protesters, but no such slurs were heard/recorded on video, then what would you say?Malke2010 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking for video that proves the 'slurs' were not made.

• No, I am not. I made an observation that none have emerged, publicly, thus far.

You're asking the tea party protesters to prove a negative.

• No, I am not. I made the observation that Breitbart, et al., are claiming to have proved a negative by showing a few seconds of video with absurdly useless audio and claiming, "See?! No slurs were made!"

"No, I didn't use drugs, no I don't beat my wife. . .etc." How does someone prove they didn't do something?

• Unless there was an audio recording device traveling with the congressmen every step of their journey from the Cannon building to the Capitol building, it would be very difficult, if not impossible. Equally impossible to "prove" the slurs did happen. Any recording of slurs produced would be immediately waved off as doctored or faked.

There is no tape that shows tea party protesters making these claimed racial slurs.

• Of course there is. I've personally listened to one of them, and I know the person with the recording (and in the protester's favor, the slur, repeated twice, was immediately followed by a stern admonition to "stop that shit right now!"). There is also the clip linked in my paragraph above, which some folks believe has audible slurs.

If the situation were reversed, and the congressmen were being accused of making racial slurs against the tea party protesters, but no such slurs were heard/recorded on video, then what would you say?

• Well, I would need a little more info before I could answer that -- if you could just answer a few questions first: Did the congressmen also previously call a gay protester a "faggot" in front of a news crew? Did the congressmen also leave threats emblazoned with swastikas on the Jewish protester's desk? Did the congressmen first parade around with signs depicting the black protesters as apes, or in "whiteface" ala the Joker, or hanging from a noose? Did the congressmen previously refer to hispanics as "spics"? Were the congressmen congregated in a large, noisy mass that had been observed and described as "hostile", "tense" and having an "unpleasant tenor" when the alleged slurs happened? Armed with this additional information, I should be able to give you a reasonable and accurate answer. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that if the article is going to taut John Lewis as a Freedom Rider, it should also mention that the goal of Freedom Riders was to incite incidents between blacks and whites. Sounds like he was trying to get history to repeat itself but failed.Malke2010 05:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? That is an interesting opinion. Please refresh my memory; what did Mr. Lewis do on March 20th, 2010, to "try to get history to repeat itself but failed?" Xenophrenic (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like he lied.Malke2010 12:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to that lie? Or to what "sounds like" a lie? From the reports I've read, he didn't say anything, and even told reporters he didn't want to make an issue of it, or "fan the flames". I already know your "position" once I read "...goal of Freedom Riders was to incite incidents between blacks and whites", but I'd like you to spell it out for all to see -- just to remove doubt. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one big political debate which could use some moderation. The thing is there are no liberal or conservative interpretations of words and/or criteria. Everyone should stay on the same page of the same dictionary. Can't we all be friends? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have nominated the article to be checked for neutrality. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the heading, "racism and homophobia" is accurate. These are claims made by the opposition. Barney Frank's claim that he was called a faggot hardly justifies an entire movement being labeled as homophobic. Same thing with the racism. I think these are opposition tactics and the section should be labeled as such.Malke2010 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "Allegations of Racism and Homophobia, and the Tea Party Response"? Claiming it's an opposition tactic is synthesis. Calling "racism" inappropriate is understatement to absurdity. This title would capture both sides: I.E. some people think the movement is inherently racist and homophobic, and some people do not. --Cubic Hour (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no racism and homophobia because a couple of people with agendas make the claim at one tea party protest. The section title needs to have the racism and homophobia removed. You can't color an entire movement based on what Barney Frank and John Lewis say. They are the opposition, and coming out with these allegations without evidence sounds like a tactic to me. To date, the CBC still has not come back with any evidence. It's very unencyclopedic to use that section heading.Malke2010 18:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party response? But I thought there wasn't a unified responder until the recent Nat'l TP Federation a few weeks ago. Defenders of the movement have usually just gone through the typical response routine:

Deny it happened until it can't be denied anymore; then portray it as a conspiracy until that fails to stick; then discredit the reporters while simultaneously claiming the offenders are not part of the Tea Party; then finally denounce the offense while noting that every large organization will have its fringe undesirables. Rinse & Repeat for the next incident.

The header doesn't "label the entire movement as homophobic", by the way. It describes the contents of the section, which is: "Reports of racism and homophobia" -- but my preferred (and more accurate) header would be: "Reports of racial and anti-gay slurs". "Homophobia" tries to define the motivation behind the slurs, while just saying "slurs" defines the actual act being reported. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to accuracy to completely omit the fact that there are credible sources who have reported on allegations of homophobia and on racism. Google "Tea party signs".... it's practically common knowledge. We all need to realize that allegations of racism and homophobia do exist, then find ways to include it in the article in a neutral and inclusive manner. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to preempt somebody claiming no such image exists: --Cubic Hour (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the charges have been substantiated, with the possible exception of one. "Reports" instead of "allegations" is the most accurate proposed wording. I'm against the section anyway, regardless of how it is titled -- as noted above. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we should retitle it. What does the image have to do with the tea party movement and homophobia and racism?Malke2010 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What does a photo of a "Jesus is Lord NOT Allah" sign have to do with racism? Seriously? I mean, I know the confederate flag on this tea partier's shirt is obviously just a nod to the proud history of the righteous fight over Northern aggression, it has nothing to do with racism at all, of course. But the sign...!?! --Cubic Hour (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CubicHour, Sorry, I didn't realize this was a photo of someone from the 9/12 crowd. You're absolutely right.Malke2010 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the title could be somewhere along the lines of "Allegations of bigotry" instead of including homophobia and racism. I think that using the word bigotry as an umbrella to catch not only bigotry and homphobia, but perhaps "religious hatred" (for lack of the most accurate term) to meet Cubic Hour's above question would be appropriate. Just some thoughts. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, two things. First, I know you guys and / or chicks have been working on this section for a while and I really don't mean to patronize or just jump in, just chime in. Second, in response to the photo, I'm confused as to why religion was being brought to an anti-tax march. Further, I would venture to say that the Tea Party doesn't intend to exclude religion (I was under the impression that the movement emerged out of dissatisfaction with President Obama, et al, not religion). Therefore, in my opinion, even as a Tea Party opponent, I don't think having this picture anywhere correctly portrays what the movement is about. It's just a photo of some dude with sign that's out of line. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because somebody shows up at a tea party protest doesn't mean they are there to support the tea party agenda. WP:FRINGE groups show up all the time because it's the only time they get exposure. However, in this particular case, the photo is from one of Glenn Beck's 9/12 rallies, so he draws a certain type that the tea parties don't draw. And my understanding is that the 9/12 group was around before the tea parties and it isn't a legitimate tea party.Malke2010 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What he^ said. Haha. Thanks for expanding, I pictured this circumstance being as such. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd try out a new title for the section, "Reports of Inappropriate Incidents." I put it up and try to leave it there for a bit so others can see it. If there is strong oppostion, then by all means revert.Malke2010 23:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vague and POV (again, who are we to say it is inappropriate). Title case is also incorrect according to the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, vague, but it can be all inclusive. Somebody put in a bit about vandalism. So it should be a title that is all inclusive or the section title will just keep getting bigger, as in "Reports of Racism, Vandalism, and Homophobia and whatever else makes the news today." You see? And I think cutting someone's gas line is inappropriate. Of course, we can't know for certain if it was a vengeful neighbor who seized an opportunity to blame others, or if it was a tea party member. You can't be certain, but you can be certain it was vandalism because the authorities determined that it was.Malke2010 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Malke2010 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section

Not sure why Tea Party Portests is being added back to this section. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Is there a reason for this? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the whole article is being added back to this article?Malke2010 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section," Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Additions to Counter movements and Controversy sections

I've moved some content from Tea Party protests to here because I believe it has more to do with the movement, hence this articles' title. I think we can add to the Counter movement section as there are notable ones like the Coffee Party which sprung up because of and to counter the Tea Party. I also added content about the action of a Tea Party founder that posted a slur aimed at Hispanics, seems pretty notable, especially with local politicians dropping out of events. Also added a member that posted the address of an Obamacare supporter. The event that happened afterwards are believed to be connected. Please let me know if these additions are not welcome. †TE†Talk 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The "CrashTheTeaParty.org" might qualify as a "counter" movement (if it ever got off the ground), but groups like Coffee Party USA and Campaign for Liberty (see Ron Paul) are alternative groups, not exactly counter-organizations. CfL doesn't like that the "Tea Party" has been usurped by the Republican party, and Coffee Party doesn't like the in-your-face spectacle and "stop government instead of fix government" themes of the Tea Party; but all three have many of the same goals for changing government. I agree with you that many (if not most) of the "incidents" would fit better in the movement article rather than the protests article. The protests article shouldn't even have a separate section for these incidents, in my opinion; a single sentence or two in the appropriate event section should suffice. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the Tea Party Movement has been "usurped by the Republican party." On the contrary, they seem to be enjoying their independence. I've read many articles at this point and I don't see where there's a sudden run over to the Republicans.Malke2010 23:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

†TE†Talk, Obamacare? Hmm, I see Obamacare neither here H.R. 4872 nor here H.R. 3590. What page is that word on? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think TE is just using the slang term for Healthcare Reform. Back in the early '90s they called it something with Hillary Clinton's name attached. And in the 80's they used Ted Kennedy's name.Malke2010 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

....yeah, I know. People can call it whatever they want, it was still an attempt by Congress to ensure millions of more individuals are able to obtain health insurance and for lower cost. I don't think it puts me outside NPOV to support the current administration of a 233-year old establishment. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a perjorative to call it Obamacare. Lots of people use the term and I don't think TE means it as a perjorative. He's not that kind of editor.Malke2010 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true, I didn't use it in a derogatory sense. If I were to say a health care reform supporter, I'd probably take flak for not clarifying that tea partiers were opposed to the democrats' plan, but not health care reform in general. †TE†Talk 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)\

To Malke, thanks for backing me up (again) and for the compliment. It's good to see you're still around. †TE†Talk 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Malke2010 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal Part II

Someone has proposed merging this article with the article on Teabagging. I don't understand why that would benefit mankind and wikipedia, but comments here would be helpful.Malke2010 23:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was this merger mentioned? Teabagging isn't even an article anymore.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was in the section above (way above). Wow, I hope I've got this wrong.Malke2010 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed redirecting Teabagger here per the deletion discussion. Is that the confusion? #Merger proposal Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that must be it. You want to use the Tea Party Movement as a redirect for Teabagger?Malke2010 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NO! I want teabagger redirected merged here (a line or two). Almost every editor at the previous deletion discussion though that was an appropriate fix. My reasoning is:

Dude, I get it. You want Teabagger to redirect here. That's weird. Do you have a reliable source that says the members of the Tea Party Movement are now called Teabaggers? If you do, I'll throw in with you because I think for the most part you're a reasonable guy. But I gotta tell ya, this sounds weird. Like, would I like "Mick" to redirect to Irish Catholic?Malke2010 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No no no no no. It was a type-o. As mentioned in the previous section (which you failed to read even though it was copy and pasted below) and reworded in this section like 4 minutes ago: Redirect to the tea bag disambiguation page. And mick is 1000x more prominent than teabagger as a mean word.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Mick is about a 1000 times more popular as a perjorative which is why when it's used the reply is often a rock to the head. Well, if you want to do that, I'm for it.Malke2010 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was going to have a heart attack when I caught myself mentioning redirecting here and not the new shiny disambiguation page!Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Teabagger recently had an article for deletion discussion that was closed for a lack of consensus. Merging the information was discussed. My reasoning:

• There are currently three separate articles discussing the Tea Party movement. Teabagger and Tea Party protests are the others. That is too many to comfortably navigate, is redundant, and presents upkeep concerns. The fact that Teabagger is a dictionary definition for members of the movement can easily be discussed in a short paragraph here.
• As sourced "tebagger" may refer to a man having his testicles sucked. It could also realistically refer to a video gamer who mocks the act. There is now a disambiguation page. Teabagger can redirect to that page and it can be modified to mention that "teabagger" is an informal name for Tea Party movement protesters in the See also section.
• Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary."

Obama Administration

We're not here to sell Jonathan Alter's book. The quote from Obama where he calls the protesters teabaggers is an old one. He's used it before. Alter is just making it seem like this is a new thing for Obama so he can sell more books. I think we should delete it. Which I just did.Malke2010 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the author of the addition. I figured it was notable because Obama referred to protesters as teabaggers, and also noticed that the tea parties are dictating the republicans agenda. I believe he's right with the latter, they've even made martyrs of some democrats that voted a certain way on legislation, sealing their fates. As for pulling quotes from books, I may have painted myself in a corner by opposing the use of Game Change in the Sarah Palin article. I take no issue with the deletion, but would support its re-insertion. †TE†Talk 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was notable but I don't like the source. This is an old quote. He said it last year. I'll look for another source, that isn't trying to sell books, and add it back.Malke2010 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Happy digging! †TE†Talk 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Check this out. Click through on all the various links here. Maybe we should put this in.Malke2010 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Composition on the Movement" Neutral broader polling than just NYT

To be more balanced I think it important to cite these more neutral source’s. NYT/CBS poll is only one of many reputable polls taken on this subject. A broader base of inquiry from a variety of more neutral sources than NYT/CBS is more likely to gain deeper and substantive understanding to the makeup of the Tea Party demographics.

Gallup Poll: "Tea Partiers are fairly mainstream in their Demographics. Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income. In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."

The Winston Group conducted 3 national surveys over the winter -- one in each Dec., Jan. and Feb. -- to find out who Tea Party members are and what drives them. Over the course of the surveys, they found that more than half (58%) IDed themselves as GOPers, with 28% claiming to be indies and 13% Dems. But 65% IDed themselves as conservatives, while 26% said they were moderates. Tea Partiers also skewed older and male. Of those associated with the Tea Party, 56% were male, compared to 48% of the electorate as a whole. Just 14% were between the ages of 18-34, while 20% of all voters are under 35."

“WASHINGTON DC (April 1, 2010) — Tea Party activists may be ardent supporters of economic conservatism but are similar to the overall electorate when it comes to economic priorities, according to the findings of a new report released by The Winston Group today on the political movement. In one of the most extensive looks to date at just who Tea Party activists are, how they think, and the ideas that matter to them, the report found that 17% of the people polled considered themselves “part of the Tea Party movement” and more than four in ten Tea Party members said they were either Independents or Democrats. In three national surveys, done for New Models from December 2009 through February 2010, 57% of Tea Party members called themselves Republicans, another 28% said they were Independents, and 13% were Democrats. Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal The study also found Tea Party members are more likely to be male by a 56-44% margin, slightly older than the electorate as a whole and middle income earners. When it comes to issues, the research found that Tea Party activists espouse a strong economic conservatism. According to David Winston, president of The Winston Group, “Our research shows that Tea Party activists’ top concern – economy and jobs — mirrors the majority of voters in the country.” In the February 2010 New Models study, 36% of Tea Party members name the economy and jobs as their top issue with national deficit and spending close behind at 21% — over twice as high as the overall electorate. However, when given the choice in the January survey, Tea Party members favored “reducing unemployment to 5%” over balancing the budget 63-32%, which closely reflects the overall electorate (64-32%). While Tea Party members prioritize job creation over deficit spending and tax issues, they value economically conservative policies because they view them as a means to reducing unemployment and improving the economy. Over 4 out of 5 Tea Party members (85%) say tax cuts for small business will create more jobs than increased government spending on infrastructure while the overall electorate prefers tax cuts by a more modest 61-31% margin.“

TheHill.com. "Four in ten tea party members are Democrats, or independents." A bit different than the earlier polls. An another poll says that largely the tea party is made up of women, not men <. Seemingly for as many polls as there are, there are that many descriptions of who the tea party people actually are.

Rasmussen Reports:

"The number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. That’s up from 16% a month ago, but the movement still defies easy description.

Some on the political left see nothing but hate, while some on the right see a threat to Republican prospects. Others see a grass roots movement that is challenging a corrupt Political Class and trying to save the nation from politicians.

New data from Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveying provides some glimpses into the Tea Party movement:

· Among those who are part of the movement, 89% disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president. That figure includes 82% who Strongly Disapprove.

· Only four percent (4%) believe the nation is heading in the right direction, while 96% believe it is off on the wrong track.

· Ninety-four percent (94%) believe the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. That view is held by 67% of all voters nationwide.

· Seventy-four percent (74%) believe that government and big business work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. That’s very close to the national average. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of all voters hold that view.

· Ninety-six percent (96%) of those in the Tea Party movement believe America is overtaxed.

· By a 94%-to-one-percent (1%) margin, those in the Tea Party movement trust the judgment of the American people more than America’s political leaders. At the other extreme, among those who don’t know anybody in the Tea Party movement, 54% trust the people, and 24% trust the politicians.

· Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. Six percent (6%) are African-American.

· Fifty-five percent (55%) of those in the Tea Party movement are Republicans, 14% Democrats. Keep in mind that 75% of Republican voters say that GOP leaders are out of touch with the party’s base.

· Seventy-eight percent (78%) are politically conservative. Other research has shown that more than 40% of conservatives nationwide do not consider themselves Republicans.

· On the Generic Congressional Ballot, 78% say they’ll vote for a Republican. Seven percent (7%) prefer a Democrat.

This data is based upon a survey of 2,000 Likely Voters nationwide. The survey included 24% who consider themselves part of the Tea Party Movement."

1) Sign your posts 2) If you think it's relevant, add it. Malke2010 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carson says ... what?

Someone added: Carson also stated that the Tea Party is a racial supremacist group which represents "one of the largest threats to our internal security."

I checked the source, and he didn't say that. First, he doesn't mention Tea Party anywhere in that conversation. Second, he said racial supremacist groups are one of the largest threats to our internal security, not the Tea Party. (see below) (Partial audio here)

It would be fair to say Carson felt there were dangerous people in the crowd outside, but he never indicated Tea Party = Racial Supremacist group. It is quite evident he was referring to the people using the racial slurs. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this in the article? Is this the incident thing?Malke2010 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is part of the supposed racial slurs during the Health Care protest. This brings up an interesting circular logic. If Carson is not referring to Tea Partiers, then the allegation that Tea Partiers made racial slurs does not belong in this article. Now since the current meme is that those that made the alleged slurs were part of the Tea Party protests, then Carson was making statement as a matter of common knowledge in reference to the Tea Party. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither Carson, nor Lewis, nor Cleaver, nor Lewis' aide, nor Trumka have specifically mentioned the Tea Partiers when discussing the slurs they heard -- it was the media that did that. The media noted the TP scheduled, organized and conducted a rally at the Capitol, and just assumed the majority of those protesting were "Tea Partiers". Some of the news articles we use as citations do mention the TPers, but none of the direct quotes from the lawmakers do. We don't know what Carson's opinions of the Tea Partiers are -- we only know what he thought of the protesters who were yelling "nigger" in the crowd outside the Cannon building. (Funny thought: I'll bet every warm body in a mile radius of that protest is a Tea Partier when estimating turnout numbers, including the ones that disturbed Carson & crew...) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to tea partiers as racial supremacists, but the insertion is unnessary and where it was placed, synthesized intent on Carson's behalf. It's better not to use it. IMO †TE†Talk 23:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

section title

I had put in a new title for the racism and homophobia and vandalism : Reports of Inappropriate Incidents, because it seemed a good idea to cover things without slapping homophobia and racism etc onto the movement unfairly and disproportionately. It's WP:UNDUE to make these claims based on isolated incidents. However, the incidents should be mentioned. I think we need to get a consensus on what to name this section. Keep in mind, all sorts of things can occur whenever large crowds of people are involved and a more generic section heading seems like a good solution. So, if everyone would vote (although we actually aren't supposed to vote on wikipedia), we can see where everyone's thinking is.

See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This never works. --Cubic Hour (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It works better than this.Malke2010 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A vote is just going to polarize the issue more, and it won't be binding anyway. --Cubic Hour (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit can have an embedded message that it has been made by consensus. Consensus does not polarize issues. Refusing to participate does that.Malke2010 23:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Even an agreement reached through consensus is subject to change, so embedding a comment seems ineffectual; but the idea to discuss (and hopefully agree upon) an acceptable header name is a good one. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Title as is: Reports of Racism, Homophobia, and Vandalism

New Title to cover all: Reports of Inappropriate Incidents:

Support Malke2010 15:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Or: Some other title

Claims of Inappropriate Incidents: Arzel (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support reports over claims. Reports are better because we have both reports and reported claims in this section. I reverted a change to Alleged racism, homophobia and vandalism. "Alleged" is weaselly and "racism, homophobia and vandalism" is too harsh for section header. †TE†Talk 22:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so move/or indicate your vote for that to "Reports of Inappropriate Incidents." Malke2010 23:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" is vague and POV. Don't really care what the alternative is but I could not support anything with "inappropriate". Won't revert or anything if it is consensus.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I received a message to stop by here, though I should make it clear that I am apathetic on the title, wording, etc. I've only edited the page when another person deleted text based pretty obviously on little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Currently, I really don't care how its worded, so long as the contentious wording is fixed, rather than having tendentious deletion of verifiable text. If someone doesn't care enough to fix the "words to avoid" then the solution is the tags that are available, not a bunch of nonsense deletion. BigK HeX (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Any title including either the word bigortry or the words racism and homophobia. Again I think the elephant in the room is that these are allegations of bigotry, not just inappropriate incidents as if they are isolated. Everywhere there are reports on bigotry being embedded in this movement, whether you like it or not, and simply dismissing them by calling them "incidents" is truly unfair to the accuracy of this article. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Reports of inappropriate incidents and bigotry, or Reports of inappropriate incidents and intolerance, or Reports of improper behavior and intolerance? I prefer the third. †TE†Talk 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I dreaming?! I've never heard of compromises on Misplaced Pages. Haha. The first sounds good. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of the three headers suggested by TE are improvements. Also, the previously used Reports of abusive behavior is also good (having the benefit of being vague enough to cover tossing dollar bills in the face of a handicapped protester, spitting, leaving profanity-filled phone messages, screaming through the mail-slot in Frank's office door until police were called, etc.).

My preference, however, over all of those, is to slightly broaden the section under a header similar to "Negative public perceptions", instead of a section devoted to list-making of incidents. Right now, it is on the path to becoming a sort of criminal "rap-sheet" of events, and that isn't really fair to the broader TP movement. As noted in the discussion just below this, there has been significant discourse about "The Tea Party Movement" with respect to perceptions about its composition and activities (It's a bunch of old, rich, conservative white folks!); less than 1% black and other racial minority participants; etc. The negative perceptions are not just related to racism, but also about the sincerity of the movement's professed goals and positions. It is hard to reconcile the concerns about "taxes, fiscal responsibility and smaller government" with the signs asking where Obama's birth certificate is, or depicting him "bowing down to kiss Saudi 'jewels'", or the hyperbolic speeches (to roaring applause) about how the evil liberals are doing everything in their power to destroy America, or the sudden interest in immigration reform. Those aren't exactly fiscal concerns. The perceptions, fair or not, substantiated or speculative, do exist in a significant way and deserve to be handled in a more encyclopedic fashion.

My non-vote would be to completely avoid choosing a header name, and stop compiling a list of incidents that happened to make headlines (accompanied by their various disclaimers, denials and explanations by supporters). Condense the whole rap-sheet into a concise paragraph as one part of the 'public perception' section proposed above. Follow that with a concise paragraph of content noting what are (in my opinion, of course) the Tea Party's strongest responses to such incidents:

• Such actions are roundly condemned, and not condoned by the Tea Party
• Such actions are perpetrated by a very small minority fringe element that is not representative of the Tea Party movement, and the media needs to acknowledge this
• Tea Party organizers have stepped up proactive measures to identify troublemakers and to oust them from events

Then be done with it and move on to the other perception issues. Inflating the article with silly mitigating attempts like, "George Jefferson says he never heard a slur, and he's black!" or "Suzie Wannabefamous says Barney Frank started it!" just makes the section look silly -- especially when you have text saying "it never happened" immediately following text from another TPer apologizing for a similar incident happening. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Xenophrenic. Having a summary of the incidents and then another paragraph summarizing what the Tea Party Movement is doing about it would be balanced and encyclopedic. Also, the title "Negative Public Perceptions" can cover a lot of things. It'd be a good idea to write up something and post it here or on a sub-page for everyone to see. I know that embedding mention of consensus doesn't guarantee the thing won't change, but it would give an editor pause to at least check out the talk page, etc.Malke2010 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly reliable sources. Show us the New York Times and the Washington Post coming out with investigative articles, not blogs and innuendo and misinterpretations.Malke2010 06:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There would need to be racism as a platform in the tea party movement. You'd have to show that. Just because these people show up doesn't mean the legitimate members of the tea party, including their very visible leaders, are racists, nor does it prove they are promoting a racist agenda. This is an old argument we keep having. It's fine to mention the WP:FRINGE but it's way out of line to insinuate that the Tea Party Movement is racist and/or that it was founded to protest the presidency, the man, Barack Obama. Malke2010 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

This is considered POV pushing. The additions of

• The Tea Party has met with perceptions of racism; nearly three in ten Americans see racial prejudice as underlying the Tea Party.

• Only 1 percent of self-described tea-party members are black, and 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people, a number that is nearly twice the national average.

• According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Tea Party is helping to strengthen the white supremacist movement in America, and has helped to re-energize some specific hate groups that were on the verge of extinction.

While also removing

• Some Tea Partiers blame the media for casting them as racists. Allen West, one of 32 African-Americans who are running for Congress in 2010 as Republicans, says the notion of racism in the Tea Party movement has been made up by the news media.

We can do better, right? †TE†Talk 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation given for the Southern Poverty Law Center claim is this: In addition, what is the SPLC using as evidence to base this claim? This is a private organization that depends on donations. This sounds like a typical direct mail campaign to get donations flowing into the bank account. It's the same thing the political parties do. Republicans get letters claiming the world as they know it is about to end because Harry Reid just did something. And the Dems get the same letter with Harry's name scratched out and Newt Gingrich's name penciled in.Malke2010 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see almost zero things wrong with Cubic Hour's edit. All of the studies and analyses were from credible sources. I will concede that section including the findings of the SPLC could have been a wee bit more responsible by starting out with something like "The SPLC, which is blah blah blah, has reported that the TP...." Anyway, you can never go wrong with an unlimited number of up to date studies. Clearly, since studies are studies, there is nothing partisan about them. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The bullet points clearly show POV pushing. I would like to remove the tags from this article and Tea Party protests, edits like those above impede our progress. We can talk specifics on each of them, but as a whole, they are inappropriate. †TE†Talk 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mean to seem partisan, but I don't see what's "clearly" pushing anything. I think including this kind of information helps the article, but it could definitely use some language-tweaking to please all parties. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First 30% of Americans see racial prejudices as underlying factor for Tea Parties, then 1% of tea partiers are black, then SPLC says Tea Parties are strengthening and re-energizing the white supremacist movement, then removing a black Tea Party candidate and at least 31 other black candidates for the Republican party. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... †TE†Talk 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even worse is what appears to be a basic synthesis of material. Trying to link aspects of different or same polls to first state the racial background of the Tea Party group and then lead into sections which might imply a possible racist belief in order to prove that the Tea Party is racist. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies and Arzel are making an excellent point. These edits definitely pass the duck test. And GnarlyLikeWhoa, these studies are soaking in partisan politics. You can't just say, 'studies are studies.' They aren't subject to any special dispensation on facts and truth. Anybody can conduct a study and skew the results to the outcome they desire.Malke2010 14:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy it. I accept that you don't like it, but the Southern Poverty Law Center is, without question, a credible source --Cubic Hour (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama and racism

I was going to stick a line or two in but think it might be too heated so am throwing it out here first. Critics have charged the movement as being racist since Obama is the first black president (er... mixed). I know that there is plenty of arguments against the charge and even Obama has downplayed it. However, it is said enough and making a mention of it would simply be acknowledging the 800lb gorilla in the room. Since we seem to be going away from a list of examples, a simple "Some critics believe the opposition to Obama's policies is based on race" or something would be appropriate.cite episode not YT It has been discussed in reputable media. WP:Fringe is taken care of as long as we keep an eye on weight.Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, not a good idea. First. Who are these 'critics?' And second, show us the nationwide, mass protests with signs saying, "Throw the black guy out." That's a protest against the first black president. The fringe people who show up with signs don't count. They do that at every protest, no matter what the issue of the protest is. It could be a protest against the bathing suit category in the Miss America pageant, but these people will show up to get photographed. That's because nobody would show up for the Fringers by themselves.Malke2010 01:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it sounds like white people are not allow to protest anything while there is a black president in office. And do you realize that many of the Tea Party protesters voted for Obama? How can you vote for the first black president if you are a racist?Malke2010 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these the 'critics?' .Malke2010 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only one you care to comment on? I personally don't think whats-her-name (or any celebrity) is the best way to gauge anything but it is one of many and it is another drop in he bucket showing that it has received national (others show international as well) attention . And Penn was awesome there with the race thing if you sit through it all. Others include: "columnists, racial activists, and Democratic legislators to senior statesmen like Jimmy Carter..., Bill Clinton..., and Walter Mondale...". Even right leaning media (omitted most of it but google news it) at least acknowledge it. I don;t think it is a secret that the charge has been made.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The tea party movement was not formed to protest Barack Obama being elected the first black president. I don't see headlines in the New York Times proclaiming the tea party movement an evil racist movement formed to protest the first black president. They would be the first to do that if it were true. Sorry, I don't count the opinions of celebutards. And Democratic politicians have an agenda, especially Bill Clinton whose wife is Obama's secretary of state. And bless Obama for making her that. If there was some movement against Barack Obama, why didn't we see it BEFORE the election? Where are the protesters? All I saw were photos of zillions of people showing up to hear his every word, me included.Malke2010 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are racist. You don't need to prove anything like that to me. All I am saying is that the charge has received coverage from reputable sources across the political spectrum in multiple countries.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't across the political spectrum. Show us the mass protests against Barack Obama. Not his policies. Against him personally. Show us hundreds of posters that say "Throw out the black guy." It's the Democrats who are lodging these innuendos, along with MSNBC and CNN. It's an agenda to discredit the Tea Party protesters and suggest to others that thinking like them or joining them makes you racist too.Malke2010 05:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a passing comment: Yes, the protests were against Obama (as noted in news reports subsequently scrubbed from the article), and not just against taxes and spending. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, those protest you cited were not against the man personally. they were not racist and they were not ad hominem. Being against his policies is not the same as being against the man for his race.Malke2010 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I didn't cite any protests. I linked to a news article that covered all of the April 15, 2009, protests, in response to your remark: Show us the mass protests against Barack Obama. Not his policies. Against him personally. From that article:

Anti-Obama 'tea party' protests mark US tax day ... Critics of President Barack Obama marked national tax day with "tea party" protests ... Many demonstrators carried American flags and signs with anti-Obama and anti-tax slogans. One placard even suggested a change of job for the US president: "Obama for president of Cuba," it read. Just responding to your statement, Malke. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten bogged down here in a discussion as to whether or not we think the protesters are racist, when that's not what Cptnono was talking about. I think the question here is whether or not the racial angle is notable through reliable secondary sources. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I found these two articles to contain some fairy rational thoughts on the matter: (One) and (Two). The perception by the public and media is definitely significant and relevant, even if not completely fair or accurate. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly reliable sources. Show us the New York Times and the Washington Post coming out with investigative articles, not blogs and innuendo and misinterpretations.Malke2010 06:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I didn't say anything about sources (and they both meet Misplaced Pages's reliability standards, btw). I said, "I found these two articles to contain some fairy rational thoughts on the matter." Shall I assume you did not? Would it be too much to ask you to expand a little on what you read that you do not consider rational thought? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reading them. Here's my point: There would need to be racism as a platform in the tea party movement. You'd have to show that. Just because these people show up doesn't mean the legitimate members of the tea party, including their very visible leaders, are racists, nor does it prove they are promoting a racist agenda. This is an old argument we keep having. It's fine to mention the WP:FRINGE but it's way out of line to insinuate that the Tea Party Movement is racist and/or that it was founded to protest the presidency, the man, Barack Obama. Malke2010 06:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So you made that comment before even reading them - I understand now. Perhaps you should re-read Dayewalker's comment just above this. Do you see where he explains that this isn't a question about whether the protesters are racist? He explains that this discussion is about whether the subject is notable or significant enough. So, No, Malke, we do not need to show that racism is a platform in the tea party movement. That is a strawman, and we're not even going to go there. It seems we're not all on the same page here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Check email, btw. Well, I'll throw in with what the majority want if it can be shown reliably that these are actual tea party protesters and not just WP:FRINGE people. I can see where that might apply to the 9/12 group, for instance. The backers of that group seem inflammatory, shall we say, not wanting to violate WP:BLP.Malke2010 06:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from the first reference you put up there, Xenophrenic. I think there needs to be mention that this action is being taken by the tea party leaders.

The Waco, Texas, tea party started hiring off-duty police officers and renting their venues so that they could keep extremists out of their main events. The change happened after a group showed up with racist signs in a gathering in a public park.

"They tried to insist they were tea party members," said Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party. But she added: "Our tea party people would not hold signs like that."

At least two local tea party groups have shunned speakers who originally were scheduled for Thursday's rallies.

Alabama attorney John Eidsmoe, who has spoken previously to white supremacists, withdrew from a tea party rally in Wausau, Wis., after organizers questioned his views. Coordinators of a tax-day rally in Pleasanton, Calif., rescinded the speaking invitation of Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed lawsuits claiming Obama was not born in the U.S. and is ineligible to be president.

Tea party leaders also are concerned that opponents may pose as tea party participants and cause a ruckus to damage the reputation of the movement. A Web site has urged people to "crash the tea party" to draw attention to the party's least appealing qualities.

The National Tea Party Federation is urging rally participants to point cameras at anyone acting obnoxious or hateful. The intent is to reprimand true tea party activists, disavow fringe followers or reveal the people as plants by opponents.

Cindy Maves, who put together a tea party rally at a park in Rochester, Minn., said organizers have brought in more security and put local police on alert. "We just want to make sure the press isn't covering these people thinking they're us," she said.Malke2010 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am equally happy with having the content in the article, but not the stripped down POV version. If you'd like to discuss a mutually acceptable version, that would be great. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to dispute this. †TE†Talk 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your dispute, exactly? Someone has added content by several black people saying basically, "they haven't seen any racism, so there is no racism at tea parties". You are now disputing content from black people that says the opposite? Your edit summary says, (Oh boy, a race-baiting op-ed. Just what this section needed.) Translation: I Don't Like It! The content is from a New York Times journalist and regular columnist who also wrote this commentary directly refuting the afore mentioned comments by several black people. So getting beyond the fact that you don't like it, is your "dispute" backed by particular Misplaced Pages editing policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be textbook WP:XENODONTLIKEIT. You disapproved of an addition be some random editor. Instead of refactoring it to NPOV wording or removing it for policy reasons, you just added a completely POV undue addition to counter it. In this case it was black conservatives saying they haven't seen racism, then you adding a black journalist to project his own racial prejudices on the movement as some kind of counterpoint, not that it is. I suppose the end goal is to remove the unfair "they haven't seen any racism, so there is no racism at tea parties" additions. Why didn't you just do that in the first place? Anyways, I'd like to hear why this edit is encyclopedic and/or helpful to this article.

• After attending a Tea Party rally outside of Dallas with expectations of diversity due to the scheduled Black, Hispanic and Vietnamese speakers, New York Times Op-editor Charles M. Blow observed, "I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do? It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but." He concluded, "I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused." †TE†Talk 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't disapprove of an addition by a random editor. I added completely new content. Apparently, you feel that content is POV and of Undue Weight. It is certainly a point of view, but that does not disqualify it from a place in the Misplaced Pages article. I do not find the content to be undue at all, in contrast to the present opposing POVs. As for why I didn't remove other material: probably because I didn't view it as in violation of Misplaced Pages editing policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be odd if the impression of some random protestors was deemed suitable, but not the experiences of Tea Party speakers. I, too, am curious as to what policy ThinkEnemies is using to support his edits.... BigK HeX (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not compute. Please clarify? †TE†Talk 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no movement

Ed Rendell told Politico. †TE†Talk 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed says stuff like that. Ed Rendall is actually a cool guy. He's teflon coated in Pennsylvania. He was the Mayor of Philadelphia and now he's the Governor of Pennsylvania. People like him. He's never been afraid to say what he thinks and that could be the reason. Also, he's none too worried about getting reelected since he can't run again because of term limits. He's very practical, very straightforward. He's huge in the Irish/Italian Catholic community back there. You always know what you're getting with Ed. And no scandals, etc.Malke2010 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Rendell is pretty cool, straight forward. He's one of the few democrats that does Fox News, obviously many other dems avoid them like the plaque. Since you bring up term limits, I'm kinda interested if he has any other political ambitions, or is it back to the private sector. Not many politicians go back willingly. Anyways, I was just tinkering with this article and noticed this was already added in the 'Responses' section. I have no clue who added it. †TE†Talk 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Ed is young enough that he'll be around for awhile. Maybe run for the Senate. He could beat Arlen Specter like a drum. But it's primary season, and Ed would have to declare now because I believe Specter is up for reelect in November. In my opinion, he'd make a good president. Malke2010 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe element

I just came across this in the article:

In a February 19, 2010, column in the Wall Street Journal, Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested that, to improve its effect on policy, the Tea Party movement disassociate itself from the militia movement, 'birthers', 9/11 deniers, cranks and conspiracy nuts.

I think it's time to create a section for this aspect of the movement. †TE†Talk 05:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was time for such a section long ago, and when I proposed it (more than 2 weeks ago), the idea was met with general approval. Granted, none of us (myself included) have gotten off our duff and started the thing yet. I've thrown together a rough outline and collected about two dozen relevant sources offline, but haven't gone much further than that. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, let's do this. †TE†Talk 05:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's about time. Also, Keli Carender made some comments about specific individuals, including Glenn Beck, to the NYTimes a while back. I'll find it.Malke2010 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hal Crowther

Light sarcasm provides a poor excuse for removing the opinion of a notable writer living in the midst of teabagger turmoil. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments don't deserve their own section,WP:UNDUE especially under the title "Hyperbole," which is WP:OR. Crowther's comments were moved to another section of the article by another editor. Check the article's editing history.Malke2010 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Page shut down

What just happened? Who was edit warring?Malke2010 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
2. ~ http://winstongroup.net/2010/04/01/behind-the-headlines-whats-driving-the-tea-party-movement/
3. ~ http://winstongroup.net/2010/04/01/behind-the-headlines-whats-driving-the-tea-party-movement/
4. needs citation
5. ~ http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie%3Fpage%3D8
6. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_profile_many_ways_to_describe_a_movement