Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party Patriots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hemiauchenia (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 21 August 2020 (→Merge Stella Immanuel here per WP:BLP1E). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

potential WSJ resource, regarding Mark Meckler

Tea-Party Leader Arrested on Gun Charge by Sean Gardiner And Sophia Hollander 16.December.2011, 3:17 P.M. ET 99.19.45.160 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

I have reverted this edit [1] because, while it added some information, it also screwed up the article formatting pretty badly. Some of the content might be worth adding back, though. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, is a word that should be used, as to her speading misinformation. The WHO and CDC as well as NIH have all been back pedaling the use of MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCE, as well as MECHANICAL INHALATION. We may find out that this wonderful immagrant was right in some of her claims. We also can't punish her for her freedom of expression. Imurmomsfavrit (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, a new stub related to this parent topic, was just created. I propose merging this stub into this smaller article to create a larger more thorough topic. Best practice is to merge two small articles about related topics. In this case, we have a PAC formed by the Tea Party Patriots. Is there any good reason this topic should not be handled in one article? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would apply if the comparison were invalid. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more explicit: Club for Growth should not have existed for 2.5 years in that state. The fact that it did exist does not mean that we must allow Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund to also exist instead of merging it. Huon (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point in showing you the Club for Growth history was that all Wikipedia articles start out as stubs and there isn't any rush to delete/merge them. Also, the PAC and the Tea Party Patriots are two separate entities and don't belong together. As for notability, this PAC is growing and it's going to have a significant impact on the 2014 election cycle which has already started. It's relevant, it's notable, and it's a growing article. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Oppose. Malke brought to my attention that the article has changed, and it now clearly has enough material for a separate article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Separate Has sources to meet wp:notability for a separate article. Regarding amount of content, article is only three days old and has already grown slightly beyond a stub. Scope and nature of topic is also indicative that much more coverage and content is available. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this discussion is almost a year old, and that consensus was not to merge the articles. I'm going to go ahead and remove the "suggested merge" tag from the top of the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

This is in the controversy section: "Liberal political opinions by Rolling Stone and Talking Points Memo have alleged that the organization is run with the help of FreedomWorks, a conservative nonprofit." Maybe it's just that I haven't slept in 40 hours, but exactly what is controversial about this? Could maybe use some clarification by someone who is familiar with this ― Padenton|✉   23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of COVID-19 misinformation

An editor removed content sourced to NBC News about how this group were behind a viral video pushing COVID-19 misinformation.[5] The editor "O.Goethe" who has only edited for a week (with the exception of one edit in 2018) removed it, citing UNDUE and NPOV. I struggle to understand how it's UNDUE or a violation of NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Stella Immanuel here per WP:BLP1E

Clear concensus not to merge Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge some of the contents from Stella Immanuel here, per WP:BLP1E. She isn't known outside of this controversial video and Trump's reaction to it, and should under our policies not have a separate article. Some information on her and her, um, unusual views can and should be included here though as useful background to the section, and some of the sources in the Immanuel article can of course be used for this. Fram (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There are several reliable sources which mainly discuss Immanuel and her very questionable views. ~ HAL333 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • All from just now, all caused by the video / Trump association. Of course such articles talk about her background, but that doesn't mean that she is notable outside the one event. If tomorrow Trump parades an unknown psychic "predicting" the end of the US when Biden becomes president, then newspapers, magazines, ... will discuss that psychic, including their background, youth, ... but that doesn't make such person notable outside of the event. Immanuel is basically the "anecdote of the day", which will be referenced in the future as one of the many stupidities by Trump, but not as someone notable by herself (unless she will build a media career upon this, in which case she will then become notable). Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it isn't necessarily "all from just now", even when it superficially appears to be that way. For instance, I googled her for articles before "just now", and google came up with,among many other items, a factcheck.org item about her from October 2018, but whose date has now changed to 28 July 2020, presumably due to recent updates resulting from the controversy:
Google Search Result, dated Oct 3, 2018:
Stella Immanuel Archives - FactCheck.orgwww.factcheck.org › person › stella-immanuel
Oct 3, 2018 - A widely shared video, featuring a doctor falsely claiming hydroxychloroquine is a “cure” for COVID-19, ignited an online storm that resulted in the video being ...
Item actually reached from above search, dated July 28, 2020:
https://www.factcheck.org/person/stella-immanuel/ Person: Stella Immanuel - In Viral Video, Doctor Falsely Touts Hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 ‘Cure’
July 28, 2020
Tlhslobus (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, are you claiming there exists a page from 2018 about a Covid-19 cure? That seems like a rather strong claim to make... Fram (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've already talked about this, back when she was just another fringe person. Getting quoted by Trump makes her more notable, not less. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HAL333 and Isaac Rabinovitch, and per my own experience. Many of the issues surrounding Stella Immanuel pre-date the present controversy and are not related to this video (except in the sense that they indirectly affect our ability to form judgments about this video), yet have now become notable enough to be reported in reliable sources (and some of them at least seem to have been reported before this controversy - see my above reply concerning dates). Most of these notable and usefully informative items are liable to get removed as allegedly irrelevant to the video if we merge her bio into an item about the video, and this removal is in practice probably made all the more likely by the fact that this video is now effectively part of the US presidential election. This creates the increased risk, if the proposed merger goes ahead, that reliably sourced information that can in practice be useful in protecting some people's health, will in practice get censored out of Wikipedia for political reasons, contrary to everything that Wikipedia is supposed to be about (such as WP:NOTCENSORED, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HAL and Isaac Rabinovitch. She will not disappear as an influential phenomenon; many reliable resources exist on her. Her status as a doctor will keep her profile high.Dogru144 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support per Fram. It would indeed be good for the world to know the background and views of the person the President of the United States is citing as a COVID expert, but I’m forced to agree that this falls in BLP1E territory, at least as things stand now. Perhaps a standalone America's Frontline Doctors article would be a better way to include the relevant material. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Immanuel received coverage in 1999 [6] and 2020 [7]. TJMSmith (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for actually proving my point. That 1999 source is a very local newspaper welcoming a new doctor, the kind of source we don't accept to establish notability (though it is acceptable as a source for the article). All sources that give her notability are from the last few days. Fram (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The relevant biographical info and background on her unusual views should be easily available somewhere IMO, and would only very awkwardly (or incompletely) be included here. RickMorais (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think TJMSmith and RickMorais have offered enough information and justification for Dr. Immanuel to be independently significant. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's obvious that Stella Immanuel is independently notable, particularly following the overwhelming media coverage she alone has received. Even President Trump has brought attention to her, which has caused her notability to skyrocket. She's currently in the news everywhere. It just seems like an obvious choice for her to have her own article. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and I suggest this merger suggestion is closed as snowball. There is plenty to say about her as a person that wouldn't fit in under the video. Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Conditions 2 and 3 of WP:BLP1E are not met. It's unlikely that the subject could be adequately covered in the merge target article. Even if she fades into obscurity, so much has already been written and broadcast about her that an independent article is warranted. - MrX 🖋 11:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Condition 2 is crystal balling at the moment whether it will remain this way, but at the moment can't be met yet. Condition 3 is the main basis of disagreement, but looking at the example given there: an assassination attempt on the president is significantly more impactful than being one of the doctors involved in the Trump incicent of the day (albeit the one getting the most attention). It's obvious that this merge is failed to doom, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years time people revisit this and shake their head in bewilderment on how this was considered significant enough for a separate article. Fram (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Satisfies WP:GNG independently. KidAd (💬💬) 00:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - She's the only one of the doctors who warranted her own page creation, even though she was center stage for the shortest amount of time of any of them. She's a colourful character, but the only reason that she got a page was because of this episode. Perhaps a standalone America's Frontline Doctors article would be a better way to include the relevant material. Drsruli (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge or create America's Frontline Doctors, as a couple others are getting coverage. I don't think a brief flurry of coverage because you were unusually nutty even among thirteen cranks the president retweeted makes you independently notable. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to me like America's Frontline Doctors satisfies WP:GNG all by itself and should, in fact, be a standalone article. RobP (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She's notable enough for a separate article. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's enough content with reliable sources to maintain an article of a representative figure. --Wildcursive (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BLP1E - every source in the article except one is from July 28 or 29, and is raising the subject only in relation to a single event. The one exception is a local paper, and looks to be an advertorial. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand on the above, in this case there are three conditions which it must pass to be an example of BLP1E. The first is that the subject must be covered in the context of the one event, and every article we have only discusses Immanuel in the context of the one video, looking at her past comments only to provide the context for the actual story. The second condition is that the person is likely to remain low profile - in this case, she hasn't had a significant profile before, and at this stage there's no reason to think that she will have a high profile in the future. And finally we need to consider if the event is significant or not: a single video, that will ultimately make little if any difference, doesn't seem significant, and six months down the track I don't imagine that we'll care. That said, if six months later it is significant, then an article will make sense - however, for a BLP I'd rather not base decisions on what might happen in the future. I'm happy to see it merged here, or into a standalone America's Frontline Doctors article, but per policy we can't have it as a standalone biography if it fails 1E. - Bilby (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_Patriots&oldid=974243777"