Talk:Tea Party protests: Difference between revisions

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party protests 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 Wikipedia? 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, 5Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

While this is indeed a 'current event' in the abstract sense. The tag Current is directly intended for articles edited by many, many people on the same day. That's not the case here. So, the tag should not be here. The Squicks (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The tag is being placed improperly, as is obvious by reading the criteria for the tag. If this article qualified for that tag, so would every other article about politics, politicians, celebrities, etc. (which would make the tag meaningless). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of celebrities are basically permanent current events (See the obessive coverage of Lindsey Lohan Watch as an example. The Squicks (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added hidden text to this effect. The Squicks (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Scjessey is back from his block, I propose this version. All the changes can be viewed here. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what my completely unrelated block has to do with anything. Generally speaking, it seems to be okay; however, I have two problems with this proposed version (one of which is a legacy of the existing version). First of all, it removes significant parts from some of the quotes (Krugman talking about Armey, Maddow specifically stating "astroturfing", for example). Secondly, I have no idea what the last paragraph has to do with this section. It seems completely unrelated and added as an afterthought. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned your block b/c I wanted to make it clear I wasn't doing anything behind your back or while you were out of it. As for your objections, the second is fine and the material can be added back in. As for the first, I don't really think's necessary. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we basically agree except on the amount of quoting we do, right? My contention is that cutting down those two quotes so drastically misses of crucial information. In the case of Krugman, we are missing his justification for calling it "astroturfing", and in the case of Maddow we are excluding her use of the actual word, which seems rather important. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left in the quotes that were necessary to summarize the different contentions. I still contend it's fringe, but it bears mentioning. For the Krugman quote:

"The tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

It seems we are in agreement that the first part can go, I say that the in particular is too much detail and can be summarized if it goes in rather than directly quoted. Soxwon (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph was from another part of the article, and it was lumped into the 'astroturfing' section for some reason.

That information seems fine to me, but it belongs somewhere else. The Squicks (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Rachel:

On the same day, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow commented, saying that

"One of the controversies about the teabaggers is the fact that insider D.C. corporate-funded PR shops and lobbying groups have done a lot of the organizing and promotion for these events. That‘s controversial because it‘s astroturfing. It‘s disguising a formal top-down organized paid for things as if it‘s some spontaneous grassroots event."

Those statements are basically restating what's already been said, that it's astroturfing paid for by corporate money. The only thing notable is whom and that is what is in the proposal. (That's my reasoning, feel free to make suggestions on either, I really do try to be fair). Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both quotes should remain in full. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my reasoning is that they give nothing new, and what they give is all that I've quoted. What is your reason for keeping them whole? Soxwon (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quotes give an important explanation of what was happening, and they reinforce (rather than repeat) the other material. I'm not 100% sold on that though, so I'd be interested to hear what a few other people think. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotations on both sides are properly included to inform readers of what the opinions are. The Steve Leser quotation, however, gives specific factual information, about the 2008 registration of the chicagoteaparty.com domain name. That's more valuable than most of the other stuff, which amounts largely to unsubstantiated expressions of opinion.

In the Krugman quotation, his reference to the role of FreedomWorks could be dropped, because that organization's involvement is noted in the previous sentence. His reference to Armey could be dropped because Armey is named at the linked FreedomWorks article. His assessment of Fox's role, however, is more important in this context, and should stay. In the Pelosi quotation, her reference to the tax equity issue adds something new, so I'd leave that in and shorten elsewhere, e.g.:

• Soxwon proposed edit: On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated: "This initiative is funded by the high end...it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America... to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."
• My proposed edit: On April 15, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed with the "astroturfing" charge, calling the tea parties "an initiative...by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." JamesMLane t c 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit of Pelosi changes the meaning of her sentences. htom (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments of JamesMLane (which edit are you referring to Otter?): [1]. Soxwon (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "by some of the wealthiest people in America" not included in the Pelosi quote? I like the longer Maddow quote as well because it nicely wraps up the "astroturfing" allegations. But if it needs to go for brevity, I'm not opposed. Nice edits, all.--Happysomeone (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the Pelosi quote in it's entirety b/c it's really a lot of repitition of what has already been said in my opinion. Personally, I think that those whom she accuses is all that's really needed. The same with Maddow, what's there is what she adds to it and nothing more. Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent. where "This initiative is funded ..." is changed to "an initiative ... by some..." and references to tax cuts are dropped. It's bad enough that they speak in sound-bites, we don't need to "fix" them. (That would be OR in any case.) htom (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the original quote and only use what the speaker gives that is new. The newest version strikes out the part about the "wealthiest" since that was already covered. Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it was already covered is not relevant; it goes to show the bias of the Speaker in making her condemnation. Her complaint was specific, you make it general. Your edits "fixes" her speech, and that's POV.htom (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Ms. Pelosi's opinion on the Tea Party, this is about the charge of Astroturfing. We want to summarize the information and present it in a clear and concise manner. Including entire quotes is unecessary so long as the context is not lost. Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pelosi's opinion of the Tea Partys is suscinctly stated, by her: "This initiative is funded by the high end... it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." Your version changes her allegation (that of a grassroots movement now being funded by the wealthy) to a different allegation (that the movement does not exist except for the funding.) htom (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Otter meant to say is, "Your version changes her allegation (that of a non-grassroots movement being funded by the wealthy) to a different allegation (that the movement does not exist except for the funding.)" Which, when you study both versions, still convey the pertinent points. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have concensus about the new version of Astroturf? Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't agree with Xenophrenic's change. In Pelosi's long comment, she seems to admit that there was a grassroots movement, and then alleges that that movement has now (or as of the 15th of April 2009) been taken over by wealthy funders and it is no longer a grassroots movement.

That's your interpretation and quite frankly I don't agree. However, if editors are with you then we can work on the changes, I'd still like to see if there are any other changes that need to be made, or if everyone is willing to go with this version. Soxwon (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you updated your sandbox copy to reflect the version you are seeking approval on? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one showing changes yes, the one that would be inserted no, but I'll fix that. Soxwon (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the final edit Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I still have some issues with that version:

• The Krugman quote should be restored, except the last sentence about Fox News (not really needed, covered in another section), and without the unnecessary addition of "opinion" (it says "op-ed" in the source). Bizarrely, I don't see the actual source cited (although it is used in another section).
• I'd cut out all the Steven Leser stuff. It offers "evidence" of astroturfing, but only if synthesis and independent assumptions are applied.
• I'm uncomfortable with the Pelosi edits. Either have the quote in full, or cut her out completely.
• The Maddow quote should be extended to the end ("as if it's some spontaneous grassroots event.").
• Entire last para belongs elsewhere, and has nothing to do with the astroturfing.

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Pelosi quote has been commented on by others, I worked on it a bit, laast para rmved, Maddow quote put in partway, Leser re-removed. As for Krugman, the opinion is to make sure that it isn't assumed that he writes for the Times and represents them, and I'll put back the Krugman quote for now. Soxwon (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the traditional and more neutral term "op-ed" instead of "opinion". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, anything else? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. My living room needs vacuuming. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a catalgue for one of those robot maids. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, I am still uncomfortable with the treatment of Pelosi's quote, the Steven Leser stuff is still there, the crucial bit of Krugman's quote about Armey is missing, and I don't know what should be done about the Indypendent mention - it sort of just sits there in the corner like a guilty schoolboy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but isn't this what compromise is? I've put quite a bit back in from what I took out originally. I'll put back Armey (you were a little less than specific, I thought you meant the whole thing), and I think I Indy's fine. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still doesn't seem quite right. Would you mind if I produced my own edit, in a separate section, directly beneath your version? It would make it easier for us to compare and discuss. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knock yourself out, though it would be preferable if you made the edit before that. Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean I should do my tinkering elsewhere and then stick it on your page in one edit, that's no problem. At the moment, I'm leaning toward removing the mention of The Indypendent completely - it seems to be more about Fox News than astroturfing, so it is probably a better source for something in the media coverage section. Apart from that, I expect my version to be very close to yours. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could limit it to one edit that would be nice :). Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here is my alternative version for the middle paragraph. Some things are longer, some are cut out completely, and there are several formatting/grammar/structure tweaks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and it seems to satisfy all the previous complaints, so I'll go ahead and stick it in. Soxwon (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I did forget one thing - the Krugman quote has no reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to wording. The article reads "Allegations of "astroturfing" first surfaced in a Playboy article in March 2009." Is there any WP:RS to back up the claim that the allegations first surfaced in playboy? I would change the wording but I know all have been working hard on building a neutral version, so I will raise my objection here first. I also object to the use of the term "first" in a previous section of the article about the protest timeline. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying the allegations "appeared in a Playboy article..." instead? I assume the other thing you are referring to is this: "This was the first known protest against the stimulus bill in the country." I say just cut that line out - it's pure speculation -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these few issues (including the missing Krugman reference). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating Leser's information, to make more room for more opinions, is a bad choice. I don't understand Scjessey's argument that "the Steven Leser stuff ... offers 'evidence' of astroturfing, but only if synthesis and independent assumptions are applied." To the contrary, synthesis would be if we pulled the information about domain name registration from some other source and concluded ourselves that it was informative on the astroturfing issue. Someone would object, quite rightly, that we shouldn't discuss the domain name unless some outside source had drawn the connection between the domain name registration and the alleged spontaneity of the tea parties. Leser did draw that connection, so we can and should report the facts about the argument he made. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Teabaggers redirect page was created by PasswordUsername(talk) on May 7th. PasswordUsername added "Teabaggers" redirects here. For the sexual practice, see Teabagging. to the top of the article. I believe this is unwarranted pure WP:OR as there is no source or consensus that the name/noun "teabaggers" refer to "Tea Party protests", and that there is no confusion between the two to begin with. Nuβiατεch ^Talk 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it violates WP:OR. That said it still is put in there to cause disruption and has no place at the top of the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys nuts? The people involved in these protests called themselves Teabaggers before the events even happened. The term wasn't made to insult them, they choose it. Acknowledging that term, adding a redirect, putting disambiguation notice.... those are all standard encyclopedic procedures. It's not by any stretch of the imagination "disruption". Frankly it seems like POV pushing to want to try to distance the topic from the term now that you know that it's a sexual practice. Too many people are treating this article as a place to try to advance their own politics and remove info they find embarrassing instead of writing an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is whether sticking the ambiguation notice in is really necessary. Considering there is a wikilink to Teabagging already I don't see why the disambiguation is really necessary. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's inappropriate, not necessarily because it's offensive but simply because it's an incorrect use of a redirect. The purpose of a redirect message is to aid readers who may have stumbled upon this article while looking for the other article. I don't think anyone would ever type in the words "Tea Party protests" when they were looking for information about the sexual practice of teabagging. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people might be looking for teabagging when they type "teabaggers" - the opposite problem. We need to make sure that people looking for the prank can find the right article. The redirect notice is necessary, since "teabaggers" is now overwhelmingly associated with the Tea Party protesters. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case I'm fine with it. Could I get your final word on the section above Scjessey? Soxwon (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuβiατεch is right. Just because a small minority of the protesters and some portion of the media decided to dub the protesters 'teabaggers' does not mean that Wikipedia must make this an objective fact to apply to all protesters.

After all, the term 'pro-abortion' does not re-direct to 'pro-choice'. 'Anti-life' doesn't either. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue then is whether Tea-baggers should re-direct here. It doesn't really matter to me. Soxwon (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should redirect here. If people are looking for teabaggers (the sexual practice), it seems like the redirect should be to the sexual practice. The "association" that teabaggers are somehow related to the Tea Party protests is an over-statement. I suppose if the actual tea party protesters consider themselves teabaggers, then it makes sense. But so far I haven't found any reliable information that suggests tea party protesters call themselves "teabaggers." It's only been used to insult the tea party protesters. In another example, there is a overwhelming number of people who consider Bush a war criminal; however, when I do a Wikipedia search for war criminal, the appropriate search result is brought up - the article on War Crime - it doesn't redirect to Bush. The same should be done for Tea Party protests... a search for teabaggers should not redirect to this page. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't "Of the protesters, how many call themselves 'teabaggers'?" Rather, the issue is, "Of people who use the term 'teabaggers', how many mean the protesters and how many mean practitioners of teabagging in the sexual sense?" I don't think "teabaggers" is very common in the latter sense, so it's reasonable for Teabaggers to redirect here, with the customary hatnote to cover the other meaning. As DreamGuy said, this is standard encyclopedic practice. That's why there's a template for it. {{Redirect|REDIRECT|USE|PAGE}} displays as:

"REDIRECT" redirects here. For USE, see PAGE.

See Template:Otheruses#Redirect. JamesMLane t c 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disambugated the page, I hope that works as a compromise, the wording may not be 100% there on it yet, but I think the idea of a disambuigious page is much better than a simple redirect when the term "teabagger" could have multiple meanings. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'm inclined to trim the description of the sexual practice, but can't think of an appropriate way to change it that doesn't just tempt people to look. htom (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a term could have multiple meanings, it should be a redirect if one term predominates (for example, GE), but should be a dab page if no single term predominates (for example, Mercury). That's why I pointed out that "teabaggers" is used overwhelmingly to refer to the protesters, not to people who engage in the sexual act. JamesMLane t c 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig works best, IMHO. The Squicks (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be information in the article currently being supported by the following reference:

• Bruce Bexley, The Tea Party Movement: Why It Started, What It's About, and How You Can Get Involved

This is an Amazon "CreateSpace" book - a self-published work by some guy I've never heard of who apparently contributes to some blog I've never heard of. Does anyone else agree that the source is unreliable, and cannot be used as a reference? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only unreliable and unnotable, but the way in which it was added to the article [2] suggests to me it is linkspam promoting the book. Further fishyness is suggested by the users contribution history,[3], and the reviewers of the Amazon.com book's history. See [4] then 2 of the 3 users, [5] and [6] both have limited review history (3 and 4 reviews) and review the same Bo Obama and Bobby Jindal books, which happen to be published by the same self-pub outfit that the Bexley book comes from, "CreateSpace". You know, just saying ;) TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a pretty clear case that this is unreliable LOL. I shall get out my red pen... -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of! TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to work on my draw. Maybe I'll throw some teabags in the air and shoot at them. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure a stray bullet doesn't hit someone who's teabagging. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, but later on (next 12-24 hours) I plan on going through this article and removing questionable sources such as blogs or press releases, on both sides. At first I will remove the source and place a citation needed tag, because if I deleted all the content in the article sourced to blogs and press releases we would be left with a stub! Then we can work on finding good, quality, WP:RS for the material and claims. Cheers, and let me know if you have any objection to me doing this. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there a lot of material that is notable but simply was not covered by the mainstream media?

For example, I believe that the the liberal/leftist blog meme about the 'FNC Tea Parties' sign is notable, but there's no way of sourcing this to anything mainstream. The Squicks (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or take the liberal/leftist blog meme about white nationalists attending the parties. The Squicks (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now I wait for the complaints :). I tried to remove all questionable sources and replace with citation needed tags. I was concerned with both Verifiability, ie if claims made are true, and Notability, ie to see if the tit-for-tat or opinions mentioned are really all that notable. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that both TV Newser and The Huffington Post fall into the category of news blogs rather than blogs per se, and I consider both of them to be reliable sources. (I believe that there was a Wikipedia guidelines request about THP that confirmed this in the past, but I don't know where it would be here.) The Squicks (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about TV Newser, I'm more familiar with HuffPo obviously. I know that on HuffPo the vast majority of what is up there is traditional blogging. There are very few actual reporters for them, and the material deleted was from Bob Cesca, not someone like Sam Stein. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... While THP itself is notable, the Cesca column is certainly arguable. I don't have much objection to striking that.

Newser, though, I really think crosses the line into a 'news blog' and thus has some reasonable notability. The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Xeno disagrees with you, and Xeno considers Nate Silver to be an RS. The Squicks (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is free to add sources back in. Here is the last version before my changes [7]. It includes all the "references" that I removed. It consisted of about 30% PR releases, 40% tit-for-tat, and 20% Nate Silverish bloggers. I think Nate's website is a reliable source for his opinions, but that misses the large point: is Nate's opinions a fringe viewpoint? To answer that question we need outside reliable sources. I want to see this article as a Good Article, not a slap-stick collection of tit-for-tat, and blogger comments with no WP:good sources. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't following this part of the discussion page too closely. When I saw a fact tag added to the Nate Silver total number, and I knew I had seen that actual number in a source, I dug it up and replaced it. It appears the csmonitor source uses Nate's preliminary estimates, before his final estimate. Do I consider him a RS? I wouldn't use him to substantiate contraversial content in a WP:BLP, but as a source for numbers and percentages in a non-BLP article, I have no problem with him. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the current Tax Day Tea Party article is violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to hide the events that occurred on February 27. The American Tea Party, or "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" happened on February 27, and those events led to the Tax Day Tea Party. Why are people trying to hide this from the public? Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that the American Tea Party occurred on February 27. This article is deceiving because its name is "Tea Party protests," but in reality the article is the Tax Day Tea Party protests. The article covers one event, which occurred on a single day. However, the article appears to be violating the policy against hiding factual material about events that happened in the past. More on that, the American Tea Party article falls under Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and/or Related articles. It should be added to this article because "summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to WP:NPOV," which it does. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The creator to the article "New American Tea Party" just reverted it back to a much older version, which also made the article have little to nothing in common with the February 27 American Tea Party. I tried all I could to improve it, so I guess I'll just wait to see where it goes from here. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear others opinions on the outline and flow of this article. We have a mighty 1 paragraph on the actual events, and tons of reaction, responses, and media coverage. I would propose the following outline:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Formation
         o 1.2 Positions and goals
         o 1.3 Allegations of Astroturfing
   * 2 Tax-day events
         o 2.1 Major Locations 
         o 2.2 Notable Incidents
         o 2.2.1 White House Bomb Scare (Maybe Lafayette Park?)
         o 2.3 Attendance Estimates
   * 3 Media coverage
         o 3.1 Pre-Event coverage
         o 3.1.1 Alleged Fox News Promotion
         o 3.1.2 "Teabagging"
         o 3.2 Event-day coverage
         o 3.3 Poste-Event coverage 
         o 3.4 Critiques of Media Coverage
   * 4 Responses
         o 4.2 Response from President Obama
         o 4.3 Other Responses
         o 4.4 Planned Follow-ups
   * 5 References

Thoughts, opinions, ideas. Let's hear em. I'd really like to hear more about expanding the event coverage. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bomb scare really that blasted notable to merit so much weight? In the big scheme of things, I don't think so. The Squicks (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that originally under a heading called, "Incident"? And it stood out like a sore thumb under that heading, too. There were several other "incidents" that could have joined it there... like the Minutemen contingent that crashed a California tea party and got into physical altercations, or the crackpot that twittered threats to kill people at a tea party, etc. They don't quite fit under the new White House response header now. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had that long debate before about whether or not to segregate Fox in the 'Media coverage' section. But after thinking it over, it should be okay so long (a)The article says alleged and asserted, terms that are neutral and do not take an anti-Fox bias as well as (b)The section 'Critiques of Media Coverage' is of equal weight to the 'Fox' section- to ensure NPOV. The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support this (as is) because we must create articles that follow WP:MTAA. Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. For instance, the Allegations of Astroturfing section must not be at the top of the article, and it cannot be in the same section discussing the earlier grassroots Nationwide Chicago Tea party. Such allegations do not exist for the February 27 Chicago Tea Parties; the first allegation arose in March, and the organizations that are allegedly astroturfing are not of the three original grassroots organizations that sprung up on February 20 (a day after Santelli's spontaneous "tea party" rant): Smart Girl Politics, DontGo, and Top Conservatives on Twitter. The astroturfing allegations should be moved to the Media Coverage section or Responses to the Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Silver DID NOT make any estimates regarding attendance estimates. He reported the estimates from various sources which he deemed credible and unbiased. With regards to Atlanta, he initially used the ACJ as a source of 7,000. They pulled back their estimate. He then used an updated figure of 15,000 in his cumulative total from a different source. It is not correct to report the 7,000 as a credible estimate, especially if you are to link Silver. Furthermore, Silver did not make the estimate of 15,000. If one wishes to report that figure I suggest the original source be used. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the sourced material. If the article is going to use Silver, it rightly needs to present both higher and lower estimates, both of which are presented in the Silver article used as a citation for the estimates here. Silver quotes the 15k estimate, and also notes the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's 7k estimate. Are we to presume that Silver was incorrect about the Journal-Constitution? If so, then he's not a reliable source and the whole shebang of estimates needs to be taken out per WP:V#Reliable_sources and WP:RS. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver is not a WP:RS for this information. Silver did not do any of the actual crowd estimation, he just compiled others work. Even if he did do the crowd estimations he still in not a relevant expert in the field of crowd estimation and should not be used. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Science Monitor numbers that this WP article quoted are based substantially upon Silver's compilation, so if Silver is unreliable, the fruit is poison. I've removed the speculation about attendance based on these sources, leaving intact the material cited to the NY Times. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If you are going to use either you need to use the primary source, not Silver. I am already on record that Silver should not be used for various reasons, but if he is to be used then he can only be used for his stated cumulative total. If the AJC estimate is to be used, then AJC needs to be the source. From what Silver has stated, AJC retracted their estimate of 7,000. Some initial searching of the AJC has turned up no articles that mention the total of 7,000. here is a google source with the 7,000 listed in the summary. here is that article when you click on the link. No mention of 7,000. The AJC updated their page and removed the estimate. Silver then used this as the source for 15,000. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Based on this, I'll self-revert to the last reasonable estimate based on the AJC and Silver, probably your (Arzel's) last version. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Having self-reverted to Loonymonkey's last version, I want to weigh in as agreeing with Arzel insofar as I think we shouldn't be leaning on speculative tallies quite so heavily. I would not oppose removing Silver's estimates and relying instead on mainstream media summaries such as the NY Times and AJC. Currently, at least the WP article properly notes the CSM article's observation about the difficulties involved in such tallies, thus helping put the estimates into perspective for the reader of the WP article. .. Kenosis (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust this edit is reasonable in light of the sourcing Arzel just presented. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Thanks. Arzel (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the old 15,000 in Atlanta thing. You see, that's not completely the end of the story. So one of the AJC's journalists took issue with "15,000" and figures reality is closer to 7,000. So which is it?--Happysomeone (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would make sense to say something like "between 7,000 and 15,000", cited to both the Journal-Constitution article and also their writer Jim Galloway's calculations ? ... Kenosis (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the name of this article be moved to "Tax Day Tea Party," so as to negate any confusion between previous protests to what this article is covering: the Tax Day Tea Party protests. Edit to add: You can find the discussion about it Here, under 16 May 2009. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. The article you created, Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is clearly a content fork of this article and will soon be deleted or merged as such. You can not save it with a backdoor maneuver attempting to remove the duplicate content from this article. You're going about it backwards. Summary Style says that we should discuss creating a daughter article here if a section of this article becomes far too long. This article is not nearly there yet (and is unlikely to be anytime soon, given the dearth of recent developments). Summary Style is not a loophole for you to try to save an article you created. In particular, you should read WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Please don't disrupt other articles in order to make a point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a loophole, it's Wikipedia policy. If you have any constructive comments on the issue, please feel free to mention them here. Otherwise, please do not disrupt other articles in order to make a point. Cheers. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were pretty constructive and actually quoted Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure if I could say the same for that response. You should really read WP:AVOIDSPLIT, although even that doesn't entirely apply as you're trying to retroactively split an article that doesn't need splitting in order to justify keeping a content fork that you created. Not terribly constructive. I look forward to the day very soon when we can drop the circular discussion and get back to actually editing these articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a related AfD[8] that looks like it's headed towards a merge. Tax Day Tea Party will only be an appropriate name if the merge does not take place, otherwise the article will be covering multiple tea party events. Mishlai (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This has much more to do with preserving the article you created (that is currently being considered for deletion) than with any adherence to summary style. You can't solve the problem of creating a content fork by gutting the original article. Further, this article is not nearly large enough to necessitate budding off daughter articles. This request seems more disruptive than helpful. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current article covers the subject of the teabagger movement in general. There seems little need to cover specific regional gatherings or parties, and no notability to justify it. Leave the article title and the content as-is. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The present title is good in that it covers the whole general "movement" (or whatever), as the article does. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As mentioned above, this move is meant more to protect the other article up for AFD then for any other real reason. The current title is fine and covers the entire so-called "grass roots" movement. Brothejr (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In accordance to the "Levels of desired WP:DETAIL," under WP:SUMMARY, here are many of the reasons I have suggested that some content from Tea Party protests be split into a separate article entitled Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, at the same time move the Tea Party protests article for a name change to Tax Day Tea Party:

Reason for Agree (full discussion at link):

1. A group called the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was formed February 20, 2009 by three grassroots organizations: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). These organization led the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties.

In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.

1. The "future rallies," the April 15 Tax Day tea parties were guided by Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Institute For Liberty, the alleged Fox News promoters, and others. Different organizers equal different events.
2. There are future rallies already scheduled. July 4, 2009 is the next date for tea party protests. The addition of these events, with addition of more and more sponsors and organizers, the currently titled article Tea Party protests will assuredly become too large to easily depict information on all of these events. This calls for sub-articles, which is an acceptable and desired method for resolving such events and articles about them.
3. The first instance of this is when the article Timeline of Tea Party protests was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
4. The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is essentially created to provide a background to the various protests and events that occurred and ultimately caused increase support from various organizations to jump-on-board to promote future events. Without this sub-article, those researching the February 27 "Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading Tea Party protests and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
5. There is a vital "bridge" of information to the Tea Party protests that must be made clear on how they were formed and what led to the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Nationwide Chicago Tea party puts a needed gap in this bridge to make the connection as to what events led to the more widely known Tax Day Tea Party. The Tax Day tea party article (or Tea Party protests) does not place this gap in the necessary bridge to provide full information on the historical events which led to more current events.

• ...I'm definitely not making the case that the Tea Party protests article discussion on the February 27 events should be expanded. If anything, the proposed article Tax Day Tea Party should be cleaned up and stick to only the most relevant information from the February 27 Tea Party that relates to the Tax Day April 15 Tea Party. Otherwise, let the main article for the Chicago Tea Party further detail the events on its sub-article.

• Here's the issues at hand: The two events had similar motivations (an argument for merging the two articles), but they were organized by different people (an argument that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article). If I'm not mistaken, it's the first argument that I am running into issues with for reasons against keeping the articles separated. The second argument, which is the issue that I'm trying point out, if the two articles are merged it must be made clear that the February 27 events were different in that they were organized by three grassroots organizations, and not the alleged "astroturfing" organizations. Unless any of such allegations against the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests have been written or are found, if from a reliable source, then allegations against the April 15 event organizers should not be merged or blended in with non-existent allegations against the February 27 protest organizers. If there were allegations, then it can be edited into a merged "main" article. So, from here, I argue that if the two articles are merged and the proposal is denied, it'll cause the currently titled article Tea Party protests to become very cluttered, with some information covering some organizations who protested in the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; all the while, at the same time, other sections will be cross-discussing other organizations that guided and promoted the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party. This is the problem that I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged.

1. From this great reference, here's a quote:

"Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians."

And this doesn't even have information on the February 16 protest. But it still clarifies the point of differences in events (hopefully) a little better than I have.

The Talk on when/who/why first "astroturf" allegations occurred -- most notable are "when" the first allegations occurred and against whom.

1. On the allegations against "astroturfing" -- a quote:

"People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous 'rant' on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."

end note: Sometimes, the simplest most obvious answer really is the truth, or at least what is widely perceived and accepted as truth. This isn't just me. Anyone or source who has reported on the February 27 protests (or the protests before it; i.e. the "root" of the "grass" not-yet dubbed "tea party" protests), all coverage and reliable references (which I pointed out in the linked main discussion page above) say the same thing. A few days prior to Rick Santelli's rant, at least two or three local "anti-spending" protests had already taken place (with no alleged astroturfing organizations involved). Even the Wikipedia article on "grassroots" clearly defines what the Wikipedia article on the Chicago Tea Parties reads as a grassroots formed protest. The Chicago Tea party is a different event sponsored and promoted by different organizations to the April 15 "Tax Day Tea Party." Both articles entitled Tax Day Tea Party and Nationwide Chicago Tea Party should be accessible from a disambiguation page. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a teal deer sighting. Anyways, skimming through this shows little is new. Tea Party protests covers the entire phenomenon well enough. Forking off content for perceived variations in events or organizations simply isn't going to happen until guidelines of notability are satisfied. Tarc (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP is not news. People want to get the general information, not every detail about every event. BTW I have some friends who took part and I can tell you that it was a genuine grassroots event, at least for them. I had to work that day, ironically for H&R Block. It's our busiest day of the year. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tycoons suggestion to the IP, would "2009 Tea Party protests" be better? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]