Talk:Tea Party protests

Adding Ron Paul Tea Parties

I had added a blurb about the Ron Paul Tea Parties in 2007 in the "History" section. The premise for the undoing of my edits for the individual who reverted my edits was that they're "not the same thing." I would like some clarification and a bit of public debate here on the discussion board. The Ron Paul Tea Parties are indeed an early example of tea parties (it almost seems ridiculous that I have to point out that a tea party is, in fact, a tea party). The ideology is the same (small government), even if the events themselves are not hosted by exactly the same individuals/groups. That's why I added the qualifier "An early example of...". -- 76.105.15.70 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a good start there, but my point remains the same. While this singular idea is somewhat shared between Ron Paul's '07-'08 campaign for US President and the "Tea Party" protesters, this did not grow wholly from the Paul campaign. Rather than an evolution, the link is IMHO tangential, at best. Your point about the shared idea is well taken. I think it should be included somehow, but if we were to use the inverted triangle method of presenting information, this should not be the first item to appear. Kind Regards. --Happysomeone (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So, more specifically, I'm reducing and moving the Ron Paul mention to conform with it's relevance to this article, as I describe above. I believe this is an improvement. However, I'll hold off for now until we hear back from the contributor - in the interest of promoting an open discussion and observing Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Kind Regards.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'm not waiting forever. I propose to make an edit over the next week, then.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, changed to bring the info more into line with known context. Also decided, as it is the history section, to follow the chronology rather than gravity, so kept the Paul mention up front. Think it transitions well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysomeone (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-I was going to say, the Ron Paul Tea Parties were going on in 2007 way before these Tea Parties came around in 2009. It sure didn't start with Rick Santelli; the vocabulary was already in use. There is a lot of overlap, but let's not miswrite history. - Steve N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.50.100 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the point remains that while the Paul Campaign co-opted the Boston Tea Party as part of his run for president as a Republican Party candidate, that doesn't make him the "founder" of the Tea Party Protest movement - nor even a "quite large" influence, as argued below. I maintain this is a tangential connection, and it is properly weighted in its current form in the article. For example, if Paul were such a major influence, why is he not the public spokesman and principal organizer of the Tea Party Protests? --Happysomeone (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the ron paul 2007 parties -- videos and numerous references are avail on goggle and youtube but saw no mention here - seems as one person said the tea party thing has evolved since 2007 to take on a different ideology from Ron Paul, but Im sad to hear that people have removed that part of the entry. Not disputing the "tea party" movement became more popular in 2009, but it started much earlier in say 2007 or so. references can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party#Influence http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/06/tea-party-purge-%E2%80%93-a-cause-without-a-rebel/ http://www.freedomrally12-16.org/ http://www.teaparty07.com http://freepoliticsdotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/will-ron-paul-supporters-shock-nation.html Strangesteve (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's influence is quite large, and I say this as a non-supporter of Paul. Article on 4/15/09 Protests: [1] "Organizer Eric Odom". Who is Eric Odom? A big Paul supporter: [2] [3]. How about Paul's statement taking credit for the Tea Parties: "The concept of the modern day Tea Party began on December 16, 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul's presidential campaign came together and raised over $6 million online in one day. The tremendous success of that event led activists in the freedom movement and members of the Campaign for Liberty to begin planning today's Tax Day Tea Parties." [4] This all needs to be addressed in the article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that his statement claiming that he started it is enough to verify that fact. At the very least, we would need a few reliable third-party sources for it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your pick: [5] [6] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Motives of Protests

I think this article could use a list of exactly what the protests are against (or for). I can't really get any specifics from this article. Quantumelfmage (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent point. Unfortunately, we have the self-stated motives of the protestors themselves (high taxes, smaller government, federalism), and then we have the motives ascribed to them by those that disagree with them (racism & ignorance). If we do this, expect a lot of edit warring, fringe, and vandalism Rapier1 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, there are a number of precise entries in this article that should give you the information you seek. Try the second, third and fourth sentences:

"The events are in protest of perceived big government, President Barack Obama, the federal budget and, more specifically, the stimulus package, which the protesters perceive as examples of wasteful government spending and unnecessary government growth. They oppose the increase in the national debt as well. The protesters also objected to possible future tax increases, specifically taxes on capital gains, estate taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes."

--Happysomeone (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't one of the biggest reasons from the get go that they are protesting is that they are all against government involvement in health care (regulations on the insurance industry, etc.)? I didn't notice this listed prominently as a preliminary reason in this article. It lists it twice later as if it were a later development or even a separate organization/event.Shanoman (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests are all about protesting whatever the Obama administration is presently focusing on, so the article will periodically change. Six months ago it was stimulus spending; now it's healthcare reform; six months from now it'll be immigration reform or climate or whatever they decide to push to the front burner. Sorry for the confusion, but it's a moving target. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a fixed target: big government. Obama gets dragged in because (a) he's president and (b) as such, he wants bigger government. 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. I'd be interested to see the evidence of what you state, that this administration's growth agenda is as overt as you suggest. Pres. Bush appeared to have the opposite intentions with respect to government expansion, but at the end of his two terms he presided over one of the largest expansions of the federal government in US history.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as motives are concerned - in the grand scheme of things the protests are less about the right or left paradigm and more about how neither party serves the people, it touts more libertarian ideals often weighing more on the conservative side. Many factions inside these movements describe themselves as 'libertarian' or 'conservative', often stating that "...over half of participants in the Tea Party are former GOP members." and that "The tea party movement really is a libertarian and RP'er* (sic) idea not a GOP idea." (* Note: “RP'er”, which refers to the adherents of 2008 GOP presidential nominee Ron Paul and his largely libertarian ideology.) Based on current happenings inside various factions of the movement, is that although some tea party members like that they are in the news, and the movement has grown, many original members have grown to loathe what certain media personalities have done to change the movement (which was more libertarian in nature back to more conservative leanings), with conservative media personalities often flaunting that they themselves created the Tea Party movement. Strangesteve (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Two suggestions on this article:

1.) The view of Americans toward the Tea Party movement (that is, the political popularity of it) is among the most important facts in this article, and maybe the most important. It warrants early citation in the lede.

2.) The amount of space dedicated to the pejorative "Tea bagging" is unwarranted. I believe the entire section should be removed. Any such organization or movement could include such a section. And that there is more space dedicated to this than the polling results is completely ill-balanced. TeaParty1 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As for #1, the lede is a summary of what is in the article. There isn't much information about this, so it's hard to call it "among the most important facts in this article." Are you basing this on anything more than that Rasmussen poll (which you kept misquoting in the article)? That poll wasn't even about the tea party movement, it was about a hypothetical political party which has yet to emerge from the movement. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There were two polls that I cited. The first showed that a majority of Americans (51 percent) viewed the Tea Party movement "favorably" or "very favorably." And the second showed that a hypothetical Tea Party candidate bested a Republican candidate in a three-way race--and the Tea Party and Republican together decimated the Democrat. Those two polls tell the biggest story of this movement: That is has quickly (justifiably or not) developed a huge following of political consequence. That belongs in the lede and the article. And the tea bag stuff is stupid. It would be like dedicating a section of the Bill Clinton biography to those who called him Bubba, how it originated, every citation of it, etc. It's understood that a few media personalities who oppose this movement made that joke and I suppose they thought it was funny, but it doesn't even have a connection with the real purpose of the movement and just gutter talk. It should be removed. TeaParty1 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the poll, which is important to the article but not the lead, I would add an edit along the lines of, "a conservative movement increasing in popularity and supporting several Congressional candidates in 2010" to the lead. Both are easily cited and summarized. The poll information could be added to a separate section along with a mention of the first annual Tea Party convention being held in Nashville in February. Palin's the keynote speaker. Scribner (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "increasing in popularity" is cited anywhere, (and it rings of peacock words to phrase it that way). Back to TeaParty's comments, I don't see how you can call those two polls "the biggest story of this movement." You might personally find it the most interesting aspect, but they're not intrinsically part of the story (the notability is marginal, you rarely see them mentioned in stories about this). I'm not really sure how significant at all the hypothetical poll is. I find it highly unlikely that they're going to form an actual political party and run third-party candidates. More likely, they'll just publish "voter guides" supporting various GOP candidates. But that's all WP:CRYSTAL, so there's no need to address it now. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not serious in your claim that the tea party movement hasn't increased in popularity and you doubt a cite exists proving that fact. Also, I agree TeaParty1, the teabagger section should be at least reduced in size to about one third it's current size. The lead of this article needs smoothing over to make it more readable. But, yes, I support your inclusion of "increasing in popularity" in the lead. Scribner (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your own belief that it has increased in popularity isn't verifiable or reliable. We need sources for that. Also, what is meant by "increased in popularity?" Increased since when? Since it's a movement that sprang up this year, obviously it has increased since a year ago. But is it more popular now than it was when these town hall protests were taking place in the summer? That has not been demonstrated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the growth in popularity is basically this: One year ago, there was no Tea Party movement, so no one viewed it "favorably" or "very favorably." Now, nine months later, half the country views it favorably or very favorably, and 1 in 4 voters would vote for a Tea Party candidate over a Democrat and Republican, two long-established powerful political parties. When a movement arises from nothing and over half the country views it favorably, that has political consequence, and it's really the biggest part of this story--bigger than individual protests, bigger than a gutter phrase used by its opponents, etc. It now holds major political influence, and that's cited both objectively in polls and subjectively in comments by political experts (both supportive and opposed to the movement). This section deserves broader attention, including in the lede. And, really, I'd vote for eliminating the tea bagger section; it's not encyclopedic, really. TeaParty1 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're heading into soapbox territory now. But if your argument is that the movement is more popular than it was when it didn't exist, well, yeah, but so what? We wouldn't use that language because it would be redundant and ridiculous (just as an article about the movie 2012 wouldn't mention that ticket sales are much higher now than they were a year ago, when the movie was still being made). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If Bill Clinton's nickname "Bubba" had controversial significance than it would probably have its own section. This is part of history and this section should either have it's own Wikipage or otherwise exist as-is. I don't think it is even too long and is actually quite interesting from a sociological point of view. In fact, I don't think that the "teabagging" aspect is insignificant or "stupid" (sources?) at all; it demonstrates not only an interesting historical tidbit but also the existance and exercise of disapproval by certain sections of the populace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.31 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

TeaParty1, I recommend finding some cites that say the Tea Party has increased or continues to increase in popularity instead of using the poll in the lead. Like I said, I'll support that inclusion. I'll see what I can find to help. Scribner (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I agree that the growth is self-evident. But I do believe the fact that about 1 in 4 voters now would choose a Tea Party candidate over a Republican and Democratic one, and that 51 percent of the nation views this movement "favorably" or "very favorably" belongs in the lede and, in fact, is the most consequential aspect of this entire movement. I do not agree that a handful of opponents using a gutter phrase to describe it--which doesn't even have any connectivity with the movement itself--is at all meaningful and, indeed, aside from fringe elements, mainstream media by and large has stopped using it after they were embarrassingly educated on its alternative meaning. Polls to the lede. Scrap the teabagging, or limit it to a sentence or two. As is, the article is clearly slanted in a way to depict the movement negatively, downplaying the most important aspect of the movement (its support and thus political clout) and overplaying some stupid word that doesn't even have any political relevance and is school yard name-calling. TeaParty1 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, overall, with the exception of putting the poll in the lead. One paragraph on the term teabagger is probably plenty. Also, omitted from the article is that tea partiers view themselves as fiscal conservatives, which should be included in the lead. I searched for links last night that state the movement has increased in popularity. I'm not finding much from msm stating the fact in exactly those terms. Scribner (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with these two suggestions. One poll does not a political movement make. In my opinion, Scribner the jury remains very much out on how popular this protest movement is. I'd be interested to learn more about that, but not on this page. This page describes the "Tea Party Protests". Once established as a political party or codified as a political plank (such as Contract for America), a Tea Party Wikipedia page should be established. This page shouldn't serve as a proxy for that.

I'd also oppose altering or reducing the 'Teabagging' section, at least for now. It's clear the term and it's affiliates possess some significance, such as recognized here by the Oxford-American Dictionary. Simply because you find it distasteful does not render it from discussion, as has been noted numerous times in this forum before.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick response: Why is this movement notable? It is notable because the movement is perceived to have political influence. What is the measure of that influence? Only two things: 1.) The fact that there have been a lot of generally well-attended rallies; and 2.) The two Rasmussen polls (and maybe others) that show that a majority of the nation views this movement "favorably" or "very favorably" and that a hypothetical Tea Party candidate is drawing the vote of one in four voters in a hypothetical race against a Democrat and Republican--and besting the Republican candidate. If you fail to reference that in the lede and then complete the article with all the trivial citations of "tea bagger," the article loses credibility and becomes (as it is now) quite obviously slanted against the movement. I don't think any of us want the article to be viewed that way, so those are my suggestions: 1.) Rasmussen polls (both) to the lede; and 2.) greatly tighten or remove the "tea bagger" put downs as generally inconsequential (which they are). TeaParty1 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I remain unpersuaded by your metrics. I agree that there is a perception of political influence, but 1) I challenge you to provide a basis for "generally well-attended rallies". Based on the attendance I see reported in the present article, I take that sort of statement with a healthy dose skepticism. As for polling info from a single marketing/opinion data company (Rasmussen), I think it's best that we hold off for now until we accumulate more data that is less prone to accusations of bias. The greater the data from a larger diversity of sources — that are presumably independent of the subject (see WP:GNG) — would bolster your argument for inclusion. However, I see you continue to press for a direct mention in the lede, which I think is inappropriate and unlikely, given the flexible and temporary nature of public opinion (see WP:NTEMP and WP:LEDE). Kind Regards. --Happysomeone (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New NBC/Wall Street Journal poll now shows Tea Party movement has better favorable/disfavorable support than either major political party: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2154426.aspx This and the two Rasmussen polls belong in the lede to capture most notable aspect of movement: its current political support. And I've reread that "Tea bagger" section. It's exhaustingly long, and it seems unencyclopedic. Fine to include quotes from opponents of the movement, but a section dedicated to name-calling by a few media outlets (some of which have apologized for using the word after they learned its alternative meaning) is juvenile and unencyclopedic. In fact, I think it's even demeaning and belittling to the movement's critics; surely they have more persuasive argument than the fact that some jackass somewhere came up with a sexually-oriented epithet that doesn't even make any sense as it relates to what the movement really is. TeaParty1 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I politely observe that you are focusing a bit too much on the least important (yet notable) part of the article? At some point, 'Tebagging' may indeed drop off the end of the story and be folded into the lede and moved & disambiguated, as Deep Throat is. But that time is not now. Frankly, in my opinion each section of article is bloated. You may not be aware, however, that the so called "news-style" is not the only article style found on Wikipedia (see WP:TONE). In particular, see WP:SS. Just as the film Deep Throat faded from popular memory, so, too may the term Teabagging. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, it would be presumptuous to declare it as such. Or at least until you can build/reach consensus. Which you haven't.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "teabagging" is a term used as a dismissive pajorative by those that disagree with the tea-party movement. It was used by commentators on a television network, and later its use was decried by that network as sophmoric frat house humor at its worst. Its continued use is only maintained by those that are steadfastly against whet the Tea Party movement stands for, so aside from a definative mention in a "critisism" section there is no point in including it in this article. Rapier1 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The continued resistance to this section of the article and the reasons given for removal only reinforces its relevance. IMHO, it's interesting an argument can be made that popularizing the sexual-association of the term with the so-called Tea Party movement was actually begun by the protesters themselves. If you could please review this discussion in its entirety (including the archived discussions), you might understand why it remains there, and probably will for some time to come. I'd say you have a much better case in the near term for at least reducing the scope of the 'Teabagging' section at the Tea Party movement page as events progress, rather than here where the term jumped from "frat-house humor" and the film Pecker and widely entered the modern lexicon. It depends on how culturally relevant the term remains, not on your personal scruples.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing information about organizing groups

The article seems to have nothing about organizations that helped organize the protests. These include Tea Party Patriots (TPP) and the Tea Party Express. These organizations obviously were (and are) important; why no discussion whatsoever in the article about how or when they started, their size, their funding, their leadership, etc.?

Some sources other than those mentioned in the article

• "Tea Party Patriots: Are they here to stay?". USA Today. December 4, 2009.

• Joe Garofoli (December 13, 2009). "Tea Party radicals gear up for 2010 elections". San Francisco Chronicle.

• Zachary Roth (November 12, 2009). "Party Foul! Tea Partiers Eat Their Own In Bitter Internal Feud". TPMMuckracker.

• Zachary Roth (December 28, 2009). "Majority Of Tea Party Group's Spending Went To GOP Firm That Created It". TPMMuckracker.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. In this regard, yesterday I added the following in the "Astroturf allegations" section:

Our Country Deserves Better (OCDB), the political action committee (PAC) behind the Tea Party Express, directed almost two thirds of all its funding to the Republican-affiliated political consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place. According to FEC filings, from July through November 2009, OCDB spent around $1.33 million, and of that sum, $857,122 went to a Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm named Russo, Marsh, and Associates, or people associated with it. Tea Party Patriots, a rival faction of conservative activists has denounced Tea Party Express as a creature of Republican political professionals that lacks grassroots authenticity, with one TPP member, who had examined the FEC filings asking: "What would the true grassroots people think if they knew their money is being spent in this manner?"

My contribution was deleted with the comment: "what is noteworthy about this blogger?" Talking Points Memo is a news organization and not just a "blog." According to its website (About section) It is:

one of the most innovative political news organizations in the country. Media watchers consider TPM the site to watch as the news business transforms from the old world of print to the online digital future. In March 2009 TPM topped TIME Magazine's list of 25 Best Blogs of 2009. "Talking Points," wrote Time's editors, "has become the prototype of what a successful Web-based news organization is likely to be in the future." And in September of 2009 The Atlantic listed founder Josh Marshall among the nation's 50 most influential commentators. Its combination of breaking news, investigative reporting and smart analysis have made it a must-read for DC insiders, the media who cover them and politically engaged people everywhere.

In addition, the report is alleging facts (e.g. the FEC filings showing spending by the Tea Party group; quote from a Tea Party group member) and is not primarily cited for any opinions of the "blogger." My contribution should be added back in short order unless there is a further objection of merit.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the TPM postings (in fact, I cited two of them as potential sources). I agree with you that this should be considered a reliable source - there are several paid employees, who (I believe) were hired away from newspapers.

But I'm not sure that it follows that this is astroturfing. What we don't know is where the money came from that the PAC sent (via TPE) to the consulting firm, and we also don't know the extent to which the consulting firm used the money to simply organize protesters. (In my mind, "astroturfing" is where paid professionals are generating letters and other indications of political involvement by citizens when in fact there is no such ground-level interest in the issue; that's not at all clear.)

In other words, rather than using the existing astroturfing section, I'm suggesting that there be a separate section on "Organizations", which could include the TMP information without the inflammatory quote. But someone is going to have to do the work of figuring out when these organizations came into being, and what they did, and (ideally) where their funding came from, and how their leadership got to be in leadership positions. (TPE seems easier than TPP in this regard.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

John, I have no objection to adding this in a separate (new) section.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of alleged astroturfing warrants its own second-level section, rather than the third-level section under Responses it has now. To that point, the allegations of astrotrufing are central to understanding the responses to the protests, not the other way around; covering the facts where it is now seems an afterthought. Any thoughts before I move it? Odd nature (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Russo, Marsh, and Associates is Move America Forward, BTW. Odd nature (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this information IMHO needs copyediting and appears redundant. The information added appears to suggest that yet another corporate-funded consultant shop, Move America Forward, is involved in supporting the "Tea Party Express". That's an interesting footnote, but we already have the guts of the assertion and it seems like this is getting into the weeds a bit. I'd suggest roping in this news story alongside the TPM story to make your point about the alternate factions of the Tea Party Protest--Happysomeone (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Removed incorrect election categories.

Those categories are for articles about actual elections, not subjects related to electoral politics (see the other items in the category for a better idea of what this is for). Also, per WP:CRYSTAL even if the categories were appropriate for this article, one can't predict that this article will have anything to do with the 2010 elections. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks' media reaction to the tea party movement

Re User:Brothejr's revert of my rather uncontroversial edit, let's discuss, per WP:BRD

• B for Bold (although I didn't think it a particularly BOLD edit at the time -- I thought it a rather uncontroversial edit that advanced the story in the article): I edited the article this morning to reflect a recent media reaction of a regular and serious public intellectual: New York Times columnist, David Brooks. I merely added to the media reaction section the following sentence, with citation:

In January 2010, New York Times columnist David Brooks, after reciting a number of opinion polls and other sources, suggested that the coming decade of 2010-2019 has the potential to become "The Tea Party Teens" in U.S. political history.

• R for Revert: User:Brothejr reverted, stating his/her reason: "Media responses: removed addition as it does not fit into the section and violates WP:CRYSTAL"

• D for Discuss:

1) I fail to see how a media reaction, by the regular and acclaimed New York Times columnist, stating that 2010-2019 has the "potential to shape the coming decade" does not fit in the section. The section is about "Media reaction" after all. This is media reaction, albeit not to the "tea party protests" (the name of the article) per se but rather about the tea party movement as a broader phenomena of US political history. So, number one, I believe that the NYT article reflects valid WP:V/verifiable information that should be subject to addition/improvement of this article.

2) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. WP:Crystal is about unverified speculation by Wikipedia editors. It is explicitly not about analysis done by serious sources in durably-archived media about what may happen in the future. If such a source asserts that so and so is possible, then a reference to that source, as was done in this case, meets the core WP policy of WP:V.

3) Are you concerned that this info from the NYT is not about the protests per se, but rather about the tea party folks (tea partiers???) as a movement? If so, then a separate discussion may be in order about whether this article is correctly named. Perhaps "Tea party movement" or "Tea party _______" might be better than the more limiting "Tea party protests." If this is a concern, let's start a new section to discuss.

What do other editors think? I would like to re-add the simple, verifiable sentence that I previously added and which User:Brothejr reverted. N2e (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask a simple question: does the addition talk/speculate about possible future events? If so, then WP:CRYSTAL applies. Brothejr (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, from WP:CRYSTAL: From point number 3: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Brothejr (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the more applicable policies in this situation are the ones concerning weight, fringe and relevance. The article section conveys significant media responses (not the response of one person in the media) to the protests that ranged from supportive to mocking/dismissive to highly critical - and several examples were given of each. Is there a significant segment of the media now expressing the view that tea party protests "have the potential to shape the coming decade", or is this one of many insignificant peripheral views held only by few? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic's WP:NOTE reasoning. This article should not be a repository for every instance that journalists decide to opine on this protest movement, just as we should not record every instance that a poll is conducted about the same. There are many, many, many Op-Ed articles that have been written about the Tea Party Protests — some more esteemed than Mr. Brooks — that do not appear here. IMHO, I somewhat dislike the so-called "Media Reaction" segment because it is so credulously derivative. But I understand it's relevance in the context of the political skirmishing and propaganda that ensued after these people gathered and made a statement. We do not need to breathlessly note each instance that a notable person pops up, however, and spouts off about it. Please don't add this information into the article.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL policy applies to a Wikipedia editor speculating about the future. Not only does it not include the speculation of experts, media, etc., but the policy even specifically references that such predictions are notable, worthy of inclusion and outside the parameters of this policy. It reads:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses.

I am reinserting it. Please do not continue reverting but feel free to discuss here. TeaParty1 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

TeaParty1 - I don't believe the WP:Crystal policy is the issue here; see above. You are inserting an opinion of an individual (and a poorly framed 'opinion' at that, as you meshed an article title with actual commentary, haphazardly) in a section devoted to "Media response". Is there really such a media response (provide multiple links, please), or just this individual's opinion? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a New York Times column on the prospective influence of this movement over the next decade needs to be inserted in a section dedicated to its media coverage, especially in an article containing half a dozen off-the-cuff quotes from B-list media personalities, just because they said the word "teabagger." TeaParty1 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an other crap exists, so why not this argument. While your disdain for the whole "teabagging" mockery is noted, there is a major difference: The mockery was significant; across several news networks, talk shows and comedy shows, print media and the blogosphere. In fact, it became so pervasive that the mockery itself became the focus of considerable criticism (I think I even heard some apologies issued). Now contrast that to a one-off opinion piece by one individual. All I'm asking is: Is this a rare minority opinion we're inserting, or is it truly a media-wide position? I really don't know - honestly, I haven't been following it as closely as of late. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While the mockery might be 'significant' -it is not significant enough to warrant more than a few sentences. This is an article about -the Tea Parties-, so one can assume readers are coming to this page for information on the tea parties, not for a page on sexual innuendo and mudslinging. Media reaction, however, is intrinsic to the Tea Party topic, because since the Tea Parties happening media reaction to the Tea Parties became a topic, even contention, of the Tea Parties. Amonite: Feb 2nd 2010

The NYT quote you removed is a broadly held (polls) and broadly cited (media/politicians) view: that the movement is very politically consequential. TeaParty1 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove a quote. What quote should we be looking at here? As for broadly held views, they generally have numerous citable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a grand total of two polls on the recent influence of a hypothetical "Tea Party". I see very little evidence at this point of a "broadly held and broadly cited view". As a frequent contributor, TeaParty1, I can understand how this must be irksome, but my feeling is your direction is a bid leading. Be patient. I have a feeling we'll see a whole lot more of this polling in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections and the media echo-chamber will do it's best to interpret it.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate seems remarkable, in that the original claim was not all that bold: a major media figure, in the New York Times no less, discusses the tea party movement and then closes by asserting that, while he is "not a fan of this movement[, he] can certainly see its potential to shape the coming decade." That's all. This definitely should be something that can be covered in the only extant WP article on the said movement: this one. Brooks and the New York Times are not the only media to be discussing the "tea party movement". See, for example, here, here, here, and here. These are sources I found, from across the political spectrum, in just five minutes of googling around. This expansion of the political phenomenon, from protests to movement, from short-term street action to medium-term organized political interest group, should not be excised from Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are these annual meme-style op-ed articles that discuss the Tea Party Protests really that notable? I'm not convinced.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding Ron Paul/HuffPo Tea Party 'political muscle' comments to Tea Party Protests

I suppose this is partly an attempt to reflect some of my WP:NOTE concerns with some of the information that has been in and out of this article over the last several months. So here we have Ron Paul, cited by several contributors here as a strong influence on the Tea Party Protests, weighing in on the Tea Party Protest movement. So, is this notable? Then, we have from the same story a Tea Party reference to an AP story about the resignation of Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer, which reads:

Greer said there was a vocal group within the party that would say or do anything to embarrass him. He said if he didn't resign, that group would try to "burn the house down and try and destroy the Republican Party." "These individuals who have turned their guns on fellow Republicans instead of focusing our efforts on defeating Democrats have done nothing to serve our party," Greer said.

Interesting that he didn't name who the group was, but it seems fairly clear this is the Tea Party. So, also notable? And if so, how should this be written? And if so, under which section should it go? Anyone want to take a stab at it? TeaParty1? Xenophrenic? Anyone else? --Happysomeone (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually would agree that both the Florida quote--and the original NYT quote--are worthy of inclusion because they reflect both public perception and a real political development. I do not feel too strongly about their placement, but I'd suggest the NYT quote belongs in media responses and the Florida reference in political responses. Just my two cents, for what it's worth (which I'm starting to learn isn't too much, apparently). TeaParty1 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-effacing comments aside, there's merit in your contributions, as I've noted before. It doesn't simply work by dint of your pure genius. You need to build consensus. On balance, what about the Ron Paul quotes?

I bring these items up because I object to the ever-widening scope of this article. See WP:SS. Please see the discussion below, "Title and scope of article" and editor John Broughton.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some good questions. Here is a big one too: I think increasingly this entire thing is being referred to as the Tea Party movement, not just protests. I think a change in the article name might be sensible, given its increasing involvement in political races, etc. I do continue to feel that NYT article is worthy of citation and that the Teabagging section is entirely too lengthy in proportion to its relevance. But like you said, I do not sense much consensus on my views on those issues, though I do note another supporting comment for inclusion of the NYT quote above. TeaParty1 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Title and scope of article

The article currently begins The Tea Party protests are a series of nationally coordinated protests across the United States in 2009.

Obviously the word "are" is wrong; 2009 is over with. Perhaps the word should be "were" - that at least would be technically correct. That raises the issue of scope - if there are protests in 2010, do they go in this article? In that case, the article would be about nationally coordinated protests that began in 2009, and would continue to grow for 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and ... protests? Or should we just cap the thing, by changing the article title to "2009 Tea Party protests", with another article like "Tea Party movement" covering 2010 and out, plus some background information from the current article?

Finally, since this article focuses on protests, where should Wikipedia cover other Tea Party-related things like the forthcoming Tea Party Nation convention in February - in this article (2009 protests??), or in another article, or not at all? Similarly, where should ongoing Tea Party-related groups be covered - in this article or elsewhere? I'm thinking specifically of the Tea Party Nation, the Tea Party Patriots, and the Tea Party Express, and of details such as when they were founded, their leadership, their size, their funding, and their goals. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bravo! I am in firm agreement with the suggestion this article should be "capped" and renamed "2009 Tea Party protests", while a new article should be created, called "Tea Party political movement" operating under the general parameters you describe. Clearly, this remains an active meme — though IMHO serious doubts remain over how relevant this political trend actually is. Will we actually see an organized political party emerge this year? I would be very interested to learn about the details of this at a "Tea Party political movement", but not from the "Tea Party Protests" article.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be renamed, rather than "Tea Party political movement", the common reference seems to be just Tea Party movement. Thoughts? Publicus 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that this article should be capped and much of it, the part that doesn't deal specifically with the protests, should be budded off to another article. Also, I agree with Publicus that it should simply be called "Tea Part movement" as this is how most mainstream RS's refer to it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this productive discussion in the next section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move to Tea Party movement

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved to Tea Party protests, 2009'  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

}

Tea Party protests → Tea Party movement — More common usage. Publicus 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the renaming/move to Tea Party movement. TeaParty1 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a variant of this; I think most of the article should move to 2009 Tea Party protests, which should be a daughter article to Tea Party movement, and that the main article should have much less of what is now in this article (focusing on the broader matters of organizations, participants, the upcoming February 2010 convention, etc, with a section summarizing and linking to the 2009 protests daughter article. Otherwise, some of the information in this article will need to be removed, because the article will get too long.'

I am suggesting that a separate (daughter) article on just the 2009 protests is merited because they were so unusual and well-covered by the media, and because protests in 2010 are going to be seen as part of the larger movement, not something interesting in and of itself. (I also note the existence of List of Tea Party protests, which I also suggest be renamed List of 2009 Tea Party protests. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think I like it for all the reasons given above. Regarding daughter articles I suggest one modification:

• Tea Party protests, 2009 instead of 2009 Tea Party protests
• List of Tea Party protests, 2009 instead of 2009 List of Tea Party protests

Sbowers3 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea John Broughton. I like the idea of "2009 Tea Party protests" holding all the protest info, with a broader "Tea Party movement" article covering ongoing development of the movement/issues/events. Publicus 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John Broughton and nomenclature mods suggested by Sbowers3, which appear to conform with similar Wikipedia articles.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposals by John Broughton and nomenclature mods suggested by Sbowers3. I think that clearly a political movement has arisen at this time that is being discussed by journalists in reliable and durably archived media. At the same time, the Tea Party protests of 2009 were also notable, as is witnessed by the existence of a well-sourced and fact-checked article on the protests. N2e (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton that the protests should encompass a unique daughter article and that it should be capped at 2009. I would add that such an article would be smaller than the one we have here as this article also deals significantly with the "movement" and such information should be moved to the proposed movement article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like consensus here, but I guess we should wait until the 17th. In the meantime, here's some information (from a recent NY Times Magazine article) that I found interesting: -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

“Tea Party” has become something of a catch-all term to describe an impassioned and empowered group of populist conservatives. They are largely antigovernment, a lot of them are self-described libertarians, and many say they are new to political activism. It is easy to think of them as a singular entity and a growing one. “There is a new sheriff in town in American politics, and that is the Tea Party people,” said Lloyd Marcus, a musician from Deltona, Fla., who performs his “American Tea Party Anthem” at the events.

But in fact, there are many Tea Party groups across the country that exist under a variety of umbrellas, with different agendas and aims (Tea Party Nation, TeaPartyExpress.org). Some are organized into formal political-action committees; others are little more than a ragtag of protesters. It is not clear whether these Tea Party amalgams will ever grow into a functional and cohesive political movement that can actually get candidates elected to office. Fred O’Neal, an Orlando lawyer, recently registered an official Tea Party with Florida’s Secretary of State. “We are not the placard-waving, funny-hat-wearing people,” said O’Neal, an election law specialist who says he was an “Ed Muskie Democrat” in his college days. “We are willing to do the political dirty work.”

What’s evident is that a lot of Tea Party participants feel no special allegiance to the Republican Party or its candidates. In a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a generic Tea Party candidate outpolled a generic Republican, 23 percent to 18 percent (the generic Democrat drew 36 percent, and another 22 percent were undecided). O’Neal says he plans to recruit candidates to run for office against both Democrats and Republicans. “Glenn Beck would be the ideal leader for our group,” O’Neal says, referring to the Fox host and — according to a sign at the tea party in Orlando — someone who should be president.

(outdenting) I suddenly reallized that I'm not certain exactly what is the consensus. So let me summarize two different proposals:

• move Tea Party protests to Tea Party protests, 2009
• write new Tea Party movement article

OR

• move Tea Party protests to Tea Party movement
• write new Tea Party protests, 2009 article

I think I prefer the first option and I think that's what John Broughton proposed at the top of this section.

In the meantime I am starting a new List of Tea Party protests, 2010 article and plan to move the current List of Tea Party protests to List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Agreed? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm in favor of the first option, John Broughton's description above captures more of the details I was worried about.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genealogy of the movement

I think it would be helpful to break down the different entities that make up this movement. Here are two segments from the Rachel Maddow Show that cover the different organizations, although the segments are probably too POV to use as sources. Below that is a list of the key groups we might include. Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34626539#34626539 (starting 2:45) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34815564#34815564 (starting 1:50)

• Libertarian anti-tax movement ~ Original pre-Obama activists
• Tea Party Patriots ~ Grassroots group with help from Freedomworks
• Tea Party Express ~ Bus tour run by consulting firm Russo Marsh and Associates
• Tea Party Nation ~ Holding a National Convention in February with Sarah Palin as a speaker. (Star Tribune news story)

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the last bullet point slightly, and added a source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The questions of "who" seem most relevant to the movement page so I copied this section over to Talk:Tea_Party_movement. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The move

I moved the portions dealing with the movement's history, political positions, and external reactions to Tea Party movement.

The remaining material in Tea Party protests, 2009 should be focused on specific events and their characteristics. (As a side note, I think cutting it off at 2010 is premature.)

Anyway, I'm sure the move thus far is imperfect; we will probably want to add a bit more protest info to the movement article and vice versa. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)