Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Stance on fossil fuels subsides?

Off-topic quote by blocked editor; however, the topic might have constructive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since "The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions ..." does the Movement have an free-market stance on Energy subsidies? example ...

Background: Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 18#Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 108.73.112.187 (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-illegal immigration only vs broader Anti-immigration

WARNING: Claiming that the Tea Party, which is composed of living persons, is "anti-immigration" is a not so subtle way to call them racists. That is derogatory, and it is unsourced. The next source cited in the mainspace (NY Times) doesn't even mention immigration at all. I have removed this unsourced, derogatory information twice in the past few hours due to the obvious WP:BLP violation and Jimbo Wales would do the same thing. Please exercise greater caution when writing about living persons. We have a genuine love for the truth here at Wikipedia. Claiming that the Tea Party is racist is untrue and defamatory. It is accurate to state that they are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. I hope you understand the distinction since it is a very important one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Reposting this warning on the talk pages of User:Xenophrenic and User:AzureCitizen. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party in general has been accused of racism through its views on immigration. Matt Kibbe has even responded to such accusations. In April 2010, The Daily Beast printed an article pointing to a poll by the University of Washington which shows that "supporters of the Tea Party appear racially intolerant." Very recently, NBC Latino pointed to a new survey by the Brookings Institute and the Public Religion Research Institute. The new survey is analyzed by NBC Latino as showing "that Americans who identify with the Tea Party are far more likely than other Republicans to oppose comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship". I see no reason to try and bat away any hint of the Tea Party being anti-immigrant. Rather, I think the nuances of the various Tea Party positions on immigration could be discussed. As well, Tea Party and racism can be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The first 2 sources refer to the non-randomly sampled WISER poll. The WISER poll took a non-random sample of states. Any information from that poll cannot be extrapolated to the entire Tea Party movement. The WISER poll has been misused many times within this article in the past. It is distressing to see it be still being misused. The second 2 sources refer to the PRRI poll which is clearly discussing illegal immigration and a pathway for illegal immigrants. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Misused" would be if I had used it as you describe. I have only suggested it as a source, a purpose for which it is still useful. It can be used to describe the viewpoints of those who were surveyed. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I shouldn't be forced to search for it. Put the reference citation immediately after the word "anti-immigrant" or I will continue to delete it the second I see it. WP:BLP is chiseled in granite. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
We're not here for your convenience so no, the citations stay at the end as it's common practice.TMCk (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You are misapplying the BLP guideline, which cannot be stretched so far as to apply to the whole Tea Party movement. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is owned by Newsweek, which in turn is owned by the husband of former Democratic Rep. Jane Harmon. It has a very liberal, pro-Obama slant. The Tea Party has a very conservative, anti-Obama slant. "Oppose comprehensive immigration reform" is not the same as "anti-immigration" and I hope you understand the distinction. It means that they're opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. "The Tea Party and racism" is already discussed in detail later in the article. And no, I'm not misapplying the BLP policy (it's not merely a guideline). Read it. It refers to groups as well as individuals. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to assume good faith here, but there was quite a bit more to Phoenix and Winslow's repeated reverts than just changing "anti-immigration" to "opposed to illegal immigration". Have a look at the rest of the content of the revert, which involved changing the article back to Phoenix and Winslow's preferred new version again, against the objections of other editors here in this Talk Page section. Responsible editors know that they shouldn't be trying to stretch a BLP revert exemption into getting around the Tea Party Movement article's 1RR restriction. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not here for your convenience either. The very first line that had been changed in that edit said "anti-immigration," so I just reverted it. I am not going to waste my valuable time going through a detailed edit line by line, trying to determine what is a BLP violation and what isn't, when the very first line that's been changed is a BLP violation. I suggest that the three of you read WP:BLP very thoroughly and proceed with greater caution. I also suggest that responsible editors shouldn't be tag teaming to get around the 1RR restriction. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
No need to "caution" editors here to read WP:BLP as there was never a BLP violation to begin with (consider the point that Binksternet and TMCk understand WP:BLP much better than you think). Suggesting that we're trying to get around 1RR as a "team" is disingenuous given your reverts exceeded the article's restriction. Maybe you should try returning to engage the issues that were being discussed above? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the already existing reliable sources for the description of the Tea Party movement as "anti-immigration" or "opposed to immigration", I've added a couple more (recommended by an Arbitrator at the present TPm-related ArbCom). Please read Anti-immigration; it already includes as a subset opposition to "Illegal immigration", but also covers the TPers nativism and notable opposition to reform, amnesty, "birthright citizenship" (see Anchor baby), and immigration in general (54% of TPers polled feel that immigration is changing the culture in the U.S. for the worse).
I've reverted recent edits which appear to be made in bad faith. Broad reverts of several legitimate edits were implemented based on a misapplication of WP:BLP, with the excuse by the editor, "I am not going to waste my valuable time going through a detailed edit...". He apparently prefers to waste everyone else's valuable time instead. The editor misdescribed WP:BLP as somehow applicable to a reliable sourced description of a movement, not a living person. The editor misdescribed "anti-immigration" as derogatory, when it is no more derogatory than "anti-tax", "anti-spending", etc. The editor demands, "I shouldn't be forced to search for it. Put the reference citation immediately after the word", but then fails to do so himself with his addition of "illegal immigration". The editor cites supposed concern for WP:BLP to justify his edit, yet in that same edit he reinstates a non-RS previously removed due to BLP concerns, suggesting a different motivation. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Reference citations have been provided immediately after the words "illegal immigration." There are literally thousands of sources confirming that the TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. There are two sources (one of them a partisan left-wing source, The Independent) claiming that the TPM is opposed to ALL immigration. This defines the latter as WP:FRINGE. Couple that fact with the WP:BLP implications of smearing an entire group of people, no matter how large, as racists when using Wikipedia's voice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You have miscounted, and misdescribed what sources say, and mischaracterized the editing concerns — all at the same time. The Tea Party movement is generally anti-immigration, according to reliable sources, and your "literally thousands of sources", if they are reliable, are just a portion of them. No one said the 4 sources cited in our article are the only ones that convey this fact. And once again, there are no "BLP implications" with this content. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There are no BLP implications, but nothing else you've said in that section is correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to be more specific, Arthur, or you can fall silent as you have frequently done in the past, and leave your comment in a state where it is unproductive, meaningless and doesn't advance the discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ten minutes after I made this exquisitely-sourced edit, User:Snowded reverted me. The tag team protecting this WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE violation is running like a Swiss watch tonight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see agreement here to your changes or to your view of sources. "Exquisite" seems a misuse of the English language to me ----gSnowded TALK 06:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

illegal immigration is the correct term based on the weight of sources. several tp groups have made this clarification prior to the articles claiming otherwise. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
From reading the thread above that is not agreed ----Snowded TALK 08:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why this article has been such a flashpoint. The TPM is not against legal immigration, they are against ILLEGAL immigration, as the vast majority of sources state. This however, does not fit the narrative that the left has been trying to make against the movement since the beginning. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a divide between TPMers on that issue; they disagree on what to do with those illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Some are in favor of reform measures leading to citizenship, others are not. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
indeed, however there is no tea party group against legal immigration, only unfounded accusations, perhaps a result of poor journalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. The reasoning behind the TPm's anti-immigrant sentiment has been thoroughly researched by scholars in that field. TPers have anxieties about immigration and America's changing links to the larger world beyond the nation's borders. Tea Partiers see immigrants as harbingers of cultural decline. They feel that immigration is a "threat to our culture," and perceive that today's immigrants are unwilling to integrate as previous generations did. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Putnam article from the NYT referred to in the article is discussed on this conservative newsite here, which quotes it as saying

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

It seems that there are sources that describe a xenophobic dimension as opposed to simply opposition to illegal immigration. Here's a very recent article on a book by an academic including an interview [1], and another [2], but it is pay-walled.
On the other hand, in light of the pending immigrant reform policy, maybe you will find something more current from someone associated with the TPM to counter that argument.--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
low regard is not anti-immigration, additionally they make the distinction between those who believe such and the leaders of the movement. one could find people with low regard in any group for any other group. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I took the time to watch the msnbc Hardball interview with two African Americans, one of whom is the author of the book that is being published in May by Princeton University Press Amazon and the other a pro-TPM author.
The author of the book is a political science professor at the University of Washington, and the book is being published by a prominent academic publisher, so there is no question that it is RS.
What arguments would there be against this source?--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
could you provide the edit you wish to include from the source and the page number? since it is yet to be published, perhaps we should wait? would you like to instead include the interview as a rs, if so, would you provide the transcript supporting your edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an advance copy of the source and don't intend to make any edits based on the source--as I don't intend to buy it and read it. It was just something that I happened upon after deciding to see what sources were mentioned on the Web, but it is undoubtedly RS, so I thought introducing it might refocus the discussion in a more productive direction, oriented toward incorporating all of the viewpoints in RS.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
So far, we have reliably sourced descriptions describing the movement as "anti-immigration" and also specifically "anti-illegal immigration". I haven't seen any reliable sources that refute either of those. Editor P&W did provide sources that also show one TP-favorite politician (Rand Paul) going contrary to some TPers in his support for Immigration Reform, and sources showing that some TP groups refuse to discuss Immigration (FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity), while the head of the TP Patriots has said "illegal immigration is not an issue". So once again, the movement has shown that it can be all over the board as far as its stance on specific issues.
Looking closer at the sources suggested by P&W, I see one that does indicate some TPers are against "illegal" immigration, but also notes that TPers have trouble justifying their "often intolerant hailing done by anti-immigration activists" with the notion of America as a nation of immigrants. I also see that another of his sources doesn't say TPers are against "illegal immigration", but instead only says that the TPers "should be" against it, and this comes from an immigration-reduction advocate for the Center for Immigration Studies. Maybe these were oversights by P&W. Like the citing of an opinion piece in Forbes, that was followed by a Forbes disclaimer that it was only opinion and not backed by Forbes? Of "thousands" of sources, we should be able to find quality ones. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
So far, we have two or three (count them, two or three) sources describing the movement as "anti-immigration." A lot of the alleged sourcing for this claim amounts to WP:SYNTH — for example, holding immigrants in low regard is not the same thing as being anti-immigration. And in the survey by the University of Washington professor, sympathy with the goals of TPm is not the same thing as being a member of TPm. So that professor is guilty of WP:SYNTH — a fact which is being carefully glossed over here.
All of this pales in comparison, however, to the enormous multitude of reliable sources — New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Salon, Huffington Post, National Journal, Christian Science Monitor, you name it — that identify TPm as being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. I posted eight of them. That edit lasted exactly ten minutes. So far,. Xeno has tried to poke holes in two or three of them. I can post many, many, MANY more. This defines the "Tea Party is anti-immigration" claim as WP:FRINGE. When you have two or three sources on one side, and literally thousands of sources on the other, it's WP:FRINGE and the "anti-immigration" claim doesn't even deserve to be mentioned here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That appears incorrect. I haven't "tried to poke holes in" any of them; the ones I mentioned poked holes in themselves (by being non-RS), or conveyed more than what you claimed they did. Your counting also appears faulty. We have thousands of sources (using your standards) supporting the anti-immigration description, and thousands of sources supporting the anti-illegal immigration subset of that -- and none of the reliable sources (indicated thus far) refute those descriptions. You've mischaracterized the anti-immigration description as a fringe theory. Have you raised your opinion at the fringe theory noticeboard for broader input? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
As a side note P&W, that edit which lasted for ten minutes changed considerably more again than just changing "anti-immigration" to "opposed to illegal immigration". You would do well to help yourself out here by switching to individual edits rather than grouping everything into one mass edit/revert which is likely to draw fire within minutes. Perhaps start with fixing the carriage return spacings and wikilinks that are non-contentious, then work your way up. Secondly, the more contentious changes are moves away from the established state of the text and have drawn reverts with corresponding comments from opposition editors posting their reasoning here on the Talk Page. When that happens, you should work towards consensus here instead of discussing while also re-reverting your changes into the article every 24+ hours or so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, could we all please keep this discussion on an intelligent level and refrain from mistating Wikipedia policies? (i.e., "WP:BLP applies to movements like the TP" -- no, it doesn't; "WP:SYNTH applies to reliable sources like Newspapers, Professors, etc." -- no, it doesn't, it applies to Wikipedia editors only.) While we should strive to adhere to Wikipedia policy, misrepresenting policy to advance an argument doesn't serve a useful purpose, and is actually disruptive. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a general consensus on the reliability of the following sources for assertion of fact?

  • Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America by Christopher S. Parker and Matt A. Barreto
  • The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism by Theda Skocpol, Vanessa Williamson
  • Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party by Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Trost
  • Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America by Kate Zernike

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

that last source especially, now we can finally remove the part about the Kochs organizing it and it was about tobacco laws. The tea party started out organized by young libertarian-leaning activists who were concerned about the stimulus and the bailouts. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
and What brought most people out for the tea party was real concern about the economy, about the [national] debt. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Returning to immigration: none of the sources provided, reliable or not, have said the TPm was anti-immigration. Some have said it was perceived as anti-immigration. Some of the reliable sources have said the TPm was/were xenophobic, which might rationally be construed as being against immigrants, but not against immigration. Please restore "against illegal immigration", or remove references to immigration entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the dispute over sources I don't see that qualification being applied to other political party articles here, the 'illegal' label seems to be an attempt at imposing a Tea Party approved linguistic form. Neither do I see a resolution to the issue here as yet so making the change is disruptive. ----Snowded TALK 04:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Remove it entirely, then. No source which actually says a significant part of the TPm is "anti-immigration" has been provided. Under those circumstances, it is disruptive to attempt to include the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thats your opinion, other editors are disputing that. Your making the change before its resolved on the talk page is an issue and you really should self-revert (using a tag or similar if needed) pending resolution. The use of "significant" is worrying as well, if a statement is sourced and the contradictions are just those from the Tea Party its a dubious statement. ----Snowded TALK 04:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
So statements from TPM groups are to be considered dubious while opinions about the movement (largely from those which dislike the movement) should be accepted as fact? Not sure I can accept that argument, especially since the sourcing for anti-legal immigration is very lacking, while sourcing for anti-ILLEGAL immigration is easily found. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That is the policy. For example we do not consider statements by the North Korean government to be on the same level as news reports in the New York Times. If you oppose the policy then discuss it at the policy pages, not here. TFD (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
the source says low regard for immigrants, not anti-immigrant, so indeed wp:syn would apply here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The burden of establishing consensus is on the persons seeking to insert or keep the material in the article. There is no consensus to continue calling TPm "anti-immigration." Currently it's roughly a 50/50 split. However we do have consensus that TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
i find this claim dubious as if it were such an important component of the TP why do all the groups go out of their way to make it clear illegal immigration. perhaps part of the problem is many consider the term a misnomer, and all immigrants hold the same status, after all did everyone on the Mayflower have a green card? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
P&W, those sources are as far as I can see not reliable ones (see TFD comment) and I repeat the normal phrase on all other political articles I know is anti-immigration without any qualification. What we seem to have here is a form a phrasing which is part of Tea Party propaganda and an attempt to impose it. Neither of you should be editing the article until there is agreement ----Snowded TALK 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, your statement above

...that professor is guilty of WP:SYNTH — a fact which is being carefully glossed over here.

would seem to indicate that you need to review several policies relating to sources.

First, professors and other researches perform what amounts to WP:Synth as a normal part of their activity, that is why their work are published by academic presses. Editors on Wikipedia are not permitted to combine the statements of more than RS into a synthetic statement as that violates WP:OR.

Second, you seem to have missed the discussions on primary sources vs secondary sources, of which an example is described above by TFD.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And equally important, we are neutral as to the reliable souces (ideally third party) not neutral as to the subject ----Snowded TALK 06:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with Ubikit in principle; we prefer reliable secondary sources, and the source being guilty of "synthesis" is only relevant if it is not reliable. However, no source has said "anti-immigration", although enough reliable sources have said "xenophobic" that it should be included in the article; and published sources, even in peer-reviewed journals, can be unreliable if contradicted by other secondary sources. For the moment, "against illegal immigration" should clearly be in the article, and "against immigration" (or anti-immigration) should be also included if in a reliable source. None has yet been provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. One of the sources found to be reliable despite evidence to the contrary, has stated that the TPm is "anti-immigration". Most sources that mention "anti-immigration" only imply that the TPm is "anti-immigration", because it's associated with another movement which is "anti-immigration, and other sources clearly say the TPm is against "excessive" and/or "illegal" immigration. Still, the sentence should probably note separately that the TPm is generally against "immigration" and against illegal immigration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
For anyone still numerically-challenged or prone to frequent mistakes, the fact that the TP movement is anti-immigration is supported by at least 4 reliable sources presently cited in our article (regardless of how you try to play with semantics):
...Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration.
...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector.
...it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics.
...within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates
And that is from a pool of thousands, without trying -- even more if you want to lower the bar to include non-RS opinion pieces and non-RS blogs as another editor has recently done. Saying the movement is against immigration "and" illegal immigration sounds redundant, like saying "I'm against smoking marijuana and illegal marijuana". Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
i think the analogy could be better stated as "i am against smoking legal tobacco and crack which is illegal" Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to use "crack" in the analogy, then: Saying the movement is against immigration "and" illegal immigration sounds redundant, like saying "I'm against smoking crack and illegal crack". Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary page break

Once again, this seems to be another case in which all of the above-described positions are accounted for in the RS, so it is a question of presenting them in accordance with WP:DUE. P&W, if you include the book that is to be published in May, there are more than one example of sources for each characterization of the TPM (or an affiliated group thereof) as "anti-illegal immigration", "xenophobic", and "anti-immigration". Since you seem to think that describing the TPM as "anti-immigration" is a libelous statement, maybe a proposed text integrating those sources and their content should be worked out on the Talk page, in advance. Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 11:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A common tactic by opponents of opponents of illegal immigration is to mis-state their "anti-illegal-immigration" stance as being "anti-immigration". The fact that the TPM has 1 or 4 opponent-writers who have said this does not make the opponent-writers claim something to be stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could just note that TPM opponents are claiming this. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
In addition, refs 2 and 4 of the list do not directly support the assertion that the TPM is against immigration;
2. "... generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector." There are many different ways to parse that, none of support the statement that the TPm is anti-immigration. It might support the statement htat the TPm is generally opposed to immigration, but even that requires further research.
4. "... Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates". Doesn't say at all that the TPm is anti-immigration, any more than it says that the TPm is a militia group.
Unfortunately, North8000's statement, although logical and obvious, is not comptable with Wikipedia policies. Hence, it doesn't seem helpful. I think "xenophobic" is probably the best-sourced of the three, if someone wants to avoid duplication, such as the apparent duplication between the sourced statements that the TPm is generally anti-immigration and almost completely anti-illegal-immigration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see Arthur Rubins' comments when I reverted P&W and tried to make it clear that the TP is anti-illegal immigration and has been described as anti-immigration. There is no violation of our BLP policy or fringe guidelines, and giving editors final warnings or any warnings for vandalism is not a good idea. Xenophobic - I like that. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that all three should be mentioned, because it is of course possible and not illogical or immoral to be against illegal immigration and not be against immigration. The factions of the TPM that are against immigration could be described as xenophobic, but that does not necessarily apply to people in general that are opposed to illegal immigration.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 13:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The accurate Wikipedia way to say this is to use Wikipedia's voice early in the article, when describing the TPM's agenda in general terms, to describe that agenda as "opposed to illegal immigration." Much later in the article, when discussing the allegations of racism, we can carefully attribute the "Tea Party is anti-immigration" argument to the left-wing partisans (and the pair of university professors of unknown, but fairly predictable politics) who are making it, without providing Wikipedia's voice to support the claim. "Xenophobic" is another way of saying "anti-immigration." Let's be very careful about WP:WEIGHT, avoid giving this minority/fringe opinion any more weight than it deserves, and avoid using Wikipedia's voice to lend credibility to the smear campaign by a tiny handful of partisans who are claiming that the Tea Party is racist. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
But what tea party would that be? Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the "tea party." When I looked into Tea Party Patriots, they don't have any agenda other than fiscal and beating any candidate Karl Rove supports. I did come across a tea party group in Florida that includes immigration as an agenda item. I don't see any RS claiming that the entire, so-called 'movement' is anti-immigration. And is there really any such thing as a movement? If so, which group or groups speak for the movement? Who is their leader? Or is it really that anti-immigration sentiment is being attributed to the 'tea party movement?' Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
A "movement" is really a phenomena, not an entity. For the TPM, it's really a slogan, a feeling, hundreds of independent organizations (a few of which are national and can speak about the agenda a bit more than others) a series of events, a metaphor and a theme for action, and little things done in support by millions of different people (voted a certain way, showed up at a rally, siad that they are a TP'er). Politically it's a mix of conservatives and libertarians, and any real worked-out agenda ends up being the overlap between the two. Prioritizing smaller government, smaller taxes, smaller deficit. And avoiding areas where conservatives and libertarians conflict. So you can't characterize the movement as an entity, and it is defined by it's agenda, which means that it's agenda is it's defined agenda, where such has been done of elucidated on a larger scale. It may be that a review of participants in the civil rights movement shows that the vast majority of them like potatoes, and one could find published stories of some of them kicking dogs. But that does not mean that "promoting potatoes" was a part of the agenda of the civil right movement, and nor is the dog kicking story useful for a civil rights movement story, even if a hostile newspaper sought to imply a connection. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I remember some Tea Party immigration rallies in Florida, back in 2009, and in Arizona and California in subsequent years (they are more frequent in border states). You say you haven't found a reliable source claiming the "entire" movement is anti-immigrant, and I doubt that you will, and that's why our article doesn't convey that. The "entire" movement isn't "entirely" anything (and sometimes the positions of one segment of the movement will completely contradict the positions of another segment), so our article makes clear that the movement can and does "adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue" but "not uniformly so" and that the movement "tends to be", but isn't 100% "entirely" anything. While some factions of the movement try to avoid issues like immigration (as you noted with TP Patriots), most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance. This source, after detailing very strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the Tea Party as it relates specifically to "illegals" or "undocumented immigrants", goes on to describe the TPer's anti-immigrant sentiment toward legal immigration as well:

Such fears are, of course, wrapped up with anxieties about immigration and America's changing links to the larger world beyond the nation's borders. Telling us about her revelation that America had somehow changed, Bonnie plaintively asks, "What's happening in this country? What's happening with immigration?" Tea Partiers see immigrants and young people as harbingers of cultural decline. Even Stanley, whose views on immigration were among the most moderate of any Tea Partier we interviewed, felt that immigration is a "threat to our culture." Though rates of immigration have been high in recent decades, sociologists looking at typical measures of immigrant incorporation--educational attainment, language assimilation, and intermarriage--find that the most recent generations of immigrants from Asia and Latin America are "being successfully incorporated into American society," just as European immigrants were in the past. But this is not believable to many Tea Partiers, who perceive that today's immigrants are unwilling to integrate as previous generations did.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
And also from the exact same source: while some of them are socially conservative on family issues and immigration matters, others are actually fairly secular libertarians ... (page 36), a whopping 82% of Tea Party supporters said that illegal immigration is a 'very serious' problem, compared to 60% of Americans overall IOW, not even remotely unanimous in the movement, and not all that far from the general populace.(page 57). In short, your nice use of a single snippet is belied by the rest of the book you wish to cite. Unfortunately, Wikipedia uses the entire source, not snippets <g>. The fact is that only about 4 out of 5 TPM adherents view "illegal immigration" as "very serious" and no value at all is given for any number opposing all immigration. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You should read my post again, Collect. You just restated exactly what I did. Long day? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
You appeared to assert most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance which is not only not supported by the source given, but appears actually antithetical to it. Nor does the source assert in any way that the movement qua movement takes any position on general immigration. Did I misread the wprds I copied from your post? Collect (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, Collect. You should stop fiddling with what I actually say to make me "appear to assert" something else. What I actually said is, While some factions of the movement try to avoid issues like immigration (as you noted with TP Patriots), most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance. Now if you'd like to inflate my "most" characterization to a full 82% based on your additional research, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend it. Also from the source, They reserve their hostility for programs that fund the 'undeserving,' which puts the movement squarely in line with the long tradition of postwar American conservatism. Perhaps most interestingly, they have found that the movement resents illegal immigration more than any other social or economic phenomenon--even in places like Massachusetts, which is not a gateway for undocumented aliens. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh? I quoted you exactly. And the source does not support that claim. Now if you believe you can use a source to say what it does not say, then we are in Monty Python territory and not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has this really weird rule that using a source to say what it does not say is actually a teensy bit iffy. Find a source which says the TPM qua TPM is "anti-immigration". I sincerely doubt you can find such a source. As for saying I "fiddled" with what you precisely wrote - that is the path of Dali. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What is qua? The fact that the TP movement is anti-immigration is supported by at least 4 reliable sources presently cited in our article (regardless of how you try to play with semantics):
...Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration.
...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector.
...it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics.
...within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates
And that is from a pool of thousands, without trying -- even more if you want to lower the bar to include non-RS opinion pieces and non-RS blogs as another editor has recently done. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about the sources selected. The three which are easily readable are clearly in regards to Illegal Immigration. Arzel (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see sources that claim anti-immigration rallies were held by tea party groups. But even if then, the tea parties came about because of the fiscal crisis. This isn't a "anti-immigration movement." And is it really about being anti-immigration, or is it really about being pro legal immigration? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Which three sources would those be, Arzel? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Your sources above. Florida - "Tea Partiers took to the streets Saturday to protest President Obama’s promised immigration reforms, which would offer some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship". California - "An Arizona-like law to combat illegal immigration has a snowball’s chance in Phoenix of passing the California Legislature" Arizona - "'Tea party' groups plan Arizona rally against illegal immigration". Arzel (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes? I don't see any disagreement, so what am I missing? I provided those links to anti-immigration protests by TPers in response to Malke's request: Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the "tea party." Xenophrenic (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I missunderstood what you were doing. Arzel (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are not RS. Not a single "tea party" is identified. The story writer has merely claimed 'tea party' and the WashPost "writer" even put "tea party" in quotes. Sorry, this is clearly WP:SYNTH. Not a single tea party is identified. There are no quotes from any 'tea party members.' These so-called rallies have nothing to do with the tea party. Wikipedia policy states that the editors decide on reliable sources and these are not reliable. For anything to be in this article it must name a tea party group and it must quote a tea party member. There must be clear evidence that these rallies were SPONSORED by a tea party group, either a local group or a national group. I see none of that in these so-called 'sources.' Malke 2010 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search and found this group in Arizona: [3]. I then checked "Tea Party Patriots" the national org, and did not find this group listed among their members. The national org TTP lists Arizona as having a state group. Didn't have time to see if they are at all related. It would be interesting to find articles in RS that have comments from this group. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an interesting Op-Ed from the Los Angeles Times. [4]. What is needed here are articles from border state newspapers. If there is 'tea party' involvement, the local news peeps are going to know about it. And certainly, a group would make itself known, especially if it is sponsoring an event. It would announce such a rally. Otherwise, Xenophrenic's examples from California, Arizona, and Florida look to be political events sponsored by the local politician. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this source [5] is that the authors claim to have interviewed "tea partiers." What groups do these 'tea partiers' speak for? Are they national groups, local groups? How did the authors find these 'tea partiers' in the first place? Did they meet them at a rally? This doesn't seem at all reliable. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the authors of the above source [6] have invented a new phrase, "Tea Party participants." They are careful not to claim that the people they've "interviewed" are from actual tea party groups. Check out the book on Amazon. Click on "look inside" and go to the table of contents. The first chapter really says it all. [7] Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any contextual basis that justifies your questioning the research methods used by the authors of the book, which is published by an academic press (Oxford) in order to claim that the source is not reliable.
One of the authors is a professor at Harvard Theda Skocpol and the other is probably her protege Vanessa Williamson.Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 19:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There is every reason to question their "methods." That they are purportedly from Harvard means nothing. That doesn't excuse their obvious bias and total lack of investigative reporting. Kate Zernike's book has credibility, the Skocpol/Williamson book does not. The authors might have academic credentials but academic credentials do not confer credibility to a book. Investigative reporting techniques do that. And Oxford University Press is a publishing house like any other. It is not a 'peer reviewed for accuracy' journal. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, Malke, what are you arguing with all of the above? Is your argument that TPers don't have protests, rallies, marches or even views on immigration? Really? The references linked above (The Washington Post; the San Francisco Chronical; The Christian Science Monitor) are reliable. The Oxford-published book you linked as also a reliable source. If you disagree, please raise your concerns at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. But I must warn you, claiming "For anything to be in this article it must name a tea party group and it must quote a tea party member" is not likely to be taken seriously. All that being said, and because you've spent some time looking up sources for me in the past, and because I enjoy a challenge (even when I think the pretense is ludicrous), I found this source that quotes TPers, names TP groups, proves that immigration is important to them, shows that they march and protest, and it's even from FOX News: The influx of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border has become a growing point of contention between Arizona residents and state and federal lawmakers -- and an issue the Tea Party movement says could well determine the outcome of the Aug. 24 primary. ... At Sunday's Tea Parties in Phoenix and Flagstaff, dozens of local organizers expressed anger over border security, but few offered viable solutions -- underscoring the complexities and hurdles of securing the 2,000-mile stretch of land along the U.S. southern border. "There's not a single Tea Party member who doesn't feel immigration is our most important issue in Arizona right now," said Carol MacDonald, a member of the West Side Avondale Party, one of several Tea Party factions within the state. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On my way home this afternoon, I picked up a copy of the Skocpol book from my local library. The first problem I see is that Skocpol is making such sweeping generalizations. But that's no surprise because that's what sociologists do. On page 71, she roots illegal immigration comments in a South Dakota poll of Tea Party supporters. It sounds like a push poll.

Here is a quote from page 71-72: "Concern about immigration is certainly not limited to Arizona. Tea Party particpants across the United States are very worried about the receipt of public assistance or use of government services by unauthorized immigrants." Skocpol then interviews two people from Virgina. Well, it is 'across the United States,' if you're starting out in Arizona. Here's another interesting asseration, "The belief that illegal immigrants are stiffing the American taxpayer while abusing public assistance is widely held." (I imagine that is probably true for almost all American taxpayers.) Skocpol goes on for a bit about crowded emergency rooms, and then cuts in the line, "One Tea Party activist in Arizona protested immigration by holding up a sign reading, "Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do." She also uses Tea Party blogs, which she fails to mention can be accessed by anybody, not just tea party "members." On Wikipedia, we call that synthesis.

And as far as tea party rallies in Phoenix and Flagstaff, I said earlier that if you want to associate the 'movement' with immigration concerns, you need to look at local newspapers in the border states. I provided a link to a tea party group in Phoenix. There are local concerns about illegal immigration. As far as Carol MacDonald's quote, she presumably is speaking about the members of her local tea party. Her comment cannot in any way be construed as speaking for all tea party groups across the country. And illegal immigration is important to everybody. Not just "tea partiers," "tea party participants," "tea party supporters," "people who once walked by a tea party rally," et al. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, please see these comments made yesterday above [8][9] Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 23:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration and falsely inferring that that reflects on the debate at hand which is whether or not to insert statements that the TPM is against (legal) immigration. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be that anti-immigration is getting confused with illegal immigration, or perhaps anti-immigration is being used because there is a desire to claim the tea party movement is full of 'nativists.' The left uses that term alot, usually incorrectly by interchanging it with 'nationalistic,' which is not the same thing at all. Either way, as I said before, if you want to show tea parties against illegal immigration, you need to look at the local papers in the border states. These could be counted as reliable sources that probably everyone will agree on. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
and the lines will get even muddier now that Latino groups have pressured the AP wire service, which lives by subscription to news outlets, to stop using the term illegal immigrant. [10]. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here. The discussion about anti-legal-immigration is down below, after the "survey". This discussion here is where Malke says we can't mention the TP's anti-illegal-immigration stance in our article either. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, Xenophrenic. I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources. You presented samples from California, Arizona and Florida and the professors book. I suggested instead, that you look at RS from border states where these anti-illegal immigrations rallies have taken place. And I also pointed you to a tea party in Arizona that calls itself "Greater Phoenix Legal Immigration Tea Party Patriots." I've not come out and said anything about not using anti-illegal immigration. I'm simply saying, if you're going to add it, use a reliable source, and not a WashPost blog that uses "Tea party" in quotes because there's no evidence of a tea party connection. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Goal Post 1: Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the "tea party." --Malke
I provided 3 reliable sources; WaPo, CSM and S.F. Chronicle.
Goal Post 2: "For anything to be in this article it must name a tea party group and it must quote a tea party member" --Malke
I provided a FOX News article.
Goal Post 3: if you want to show tea parties against illegal immigration, you need to look at the local papers in the border states. --Malke
Naww, I'm going to sit on the bench for a few. Every time I take a shot at the goal, it moves. I think I was pretty accurate when I said, "This discussion here is where Malke says we can't mention the TP's anti-illegal-immigration stance in our article either." I'll stand by that. You do know that you are the only editor here holding that opinion, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Where do I say you can't use the anti-illegal immigration? I find fault with your RS. I suggested you use local sources from the border states, like the Los Angeles Times and Arizonacentral.com rather than the questionable sources you've provided. So please show me where I say you can't put anti-illegal immigration in the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You've mixed the terms up again. I said: "This discussion here is where Malke says we can't mention the TP's anti-illegal-immigration stance in our article either." Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I see what you did there. You just tweaked the wording in your 04:14, 3 April post above, slipping in the word "illegal", to make it appear that I misread and am confused. Here is your actual edit that I responded to. Play those game elsewhere, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't do any such thing. I meant to say "anti-illegal immigration" so I corrected my edit and then I added the next comment w/explanation: No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Simple as that. If there is any confusion, it's because anti-immigration is not a tea party issue. So it's easy to mix the two up. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you did, Malke. You edited your comment after I responded to it, and without indicating that you had edited it. That is what caused the confusion. Per WP:REDACT, please refrain from doing that. And yes, anti-immigration is indeed a TP issue, as the sources you've provided show. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I think what we need is a more precise measurement of consensus. How many editors support the continued use of the term "anti-immigration" (or any weaselly derivation thereof, such as "opposed to immigration") to describe TPm in the "Agenda" section of the article?

  • Strongly oppose (A) Extremely weak sourcing compared to the number of reliable sources stating that TPm is opposed to "illegal immigration"; (B) WP:SYNTH and guilt by association employed by some editors to fluff the number and quality of these sources, creating a serious WP:WEIGHT problem; (C) although I'm told it isn't a WP:BLP or WP:FRINGE problem, it's definitely a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT and doesn't deserve anywhere near this much weight. Accusations of racism against TPm are discussed much later in the article, that's where this minority opinion belongs if it belongs in the article at all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These so-called 'sources' do not identify a single tea party nor do they quote a tea party member. These are rallies against illegal immigration in border states where this issue has it's biggest impact. The writers of these pieces are merely adding in 'tea party.' They offer no evidence to back up their use of the 'tea party', therefore they are not reliable sources. This is purely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. When a reliable source like the New York Times does an article and names tea party groups and quotes tea party members, and shows the rally was sponsored by the tea party group, then it can go into the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
added: Immigration reform (see subthread below [11] is more relevant, not anti illegal immigration or anti-immigration. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

*Weak support. Some reliable sources use the term "anti-immigration" referring to the TP. I agree that they are purely opinion, as they do not refer to any actual TP member or group, but that opinion may be reliable. Most of the sources that have been used to support the inclusion do not so support the inclusion, but some do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: sorry, someone's 'opinion' is simply a way to avoid admitting there are no facts to support a claim. The WashPost 'writer' obviously had to use quotation marks for "tea party" in his/her claim because no doubt the fact checkers at the WashPost insisted on it since the 'writer' had absolutely no evidence of tea party involvement. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, there's plenty of discussion space for these opinions later in the article. The word "anti-immigration," if it belongs in this article at all, does not belong in the first 10% of the article. Please review WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. At best, it is a minority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I still say it should be in the article, but as "commonly perceived to be anti-immigration", rather than even "generally considered to be anti-immigration". What the "liberal cabal" wants to include is "generally anti-immigration", which is not supported by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Change to Oppose, as my !vote is being used to support "anti-immigration" appearing without caveats, and I think it could only reasonably appear with caveats. The question, as improperly presented, said "any weaselly derivative", and "commonly perceived to be anti-immigration" is such a weaselly derivative which I think might be in the "agenda" section. However, certain tendentious editors are intentionally,think might be in the "agenda" section. However, certain tendentious editors are intentionally , or with willfull disregard of the facts, misconstruing my !vote, so I have to rewrite it to something they might not be able to misconstrue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote -- Arthur Rubin, Administrator[failed verification]
This has piqued my curiousity greatly. Please indicate where. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask again, Arthur: Please indicate where an editor has "misconstrued your !vote". I regret that I must continue to insist that you substantiate your very serious allegation. For all I know, you could be talking about Xerographica or Goethean or Mickey Mouse, or making up the charge out of thin air again, but we won't know until you specifically cite the "intentional misconstruing". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That question makes sense, but I'm not entirely sure which editor it was, I think it was you, but I can't find any specific text before your summary of April 15. I supported including "anti-immigration" with caveats, as it seemed that some reliable sources did say that, but some contradicted it. I was in favor of including something like "sometimes considered anti-immigration", "sometimes called anti-immigration", or "considered 'anti-immigration' by some". The pro-"anti-immigration" editors construed that as supporting "anti-immigration" without cavaet in the first sentence of "Agenda". Anyone with knowledge of basic English who actually read what I wrote should have known I did not approve of that; so, anyone who reported that I did fails either WP:COMPETENCE or WP:TE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
First you claim "certain tendentious editors are misconstruing your !vote". Now you claim you are "not entirely sure which editor it was, but I think it was you". Wow. Backpeddle much? There is only one person I know, a crazy distant uncle of mine with dementia, that I let get away with that kind of shenannigans. You've tried this dance with me before, Arthur. For the record, I've never commented on your !vote, and certainly never misconstrued it. Malke commented. P&W commented. Not me. As for your nuanced thought processes that lead to your !vote, I really don't care ... for the purposes of this specific issue, anyway. You say, "...I did not approve of that; so, anyone who reported that I did fails either WP:COMPETENCE or WP:TE" —— yet you won't cite who "reported that". Arthur ... please ... QUIT MAKING STUPID CRAP UP OUT OF THIN AIR. It's not productive in the Talk page discussions here, and additionally, it's unbecoming of your Admin status. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not in any of the TPM platforms, agendas or initiatives. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not associated by any source with the TPM as a movement, and the major source specifically attributes even "anti illegal immigration" as an opinion of only 82%, thus not an opinion of the entire group right from the start. Collect (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The qualification that the TPM is against immigration in general is simply not supported by the vast majority of sources. In addition, there are several recent immigrants (Cruz for example) which are TPM favorites. They are clearly against illegal-immigration. On a side note, this "survey" is probably not going to be viewed as binding for any future decision. A regular RfC would be a better avenue. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in part. The TP is w/o doubt against illegal immigration; No argument here. But at least in part they are also against immigration in general and the article should reflect this in a proper manner. RS's that describe the TP as "anti-immigration" can't be just ignored. The TP is composed of a variety of fractions incl. those opposed to immigration in general. The article has to reflect all reliable sources and thus there is no way around it.TMCk (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    One more thing: The TP is a splattered group of people from different backgrounds and political agendas and has no clear program (like a political party) set in "stone" or even in "one manifest that they adhere to". So no wonder that there are different and opposing agendas. RS's reflect that discrepancy and so should we. The last time I checked the article today it did reflect those differences which should be treated like this or similar. It's just a matter of neutral wording the known reported facts.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
TMCk, Please show the RS. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Britannica - very first sentence. This reference was produced by Arbitrator SilkTork at the presently ongoing arbitration concerning this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be better to rely on a source that is more specific and has examples like a source from a border state, like the Los Angeles Times, Arizonacentral.com, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
One very major problem: Not only is Britannica a tertiary source, it is one which solicites edits from the Internet community. And it uses the word "immigration" precisely once in the entire article - providing no trace of reasoning for its inclusion in the first sentence. Sorry - not a remotely usable source here. Collect (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and it is a usable source. Yes, Britannica now solicits input from the Internet community, just as it has solicited through trade journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. Welcome to the 21st century, Collect. We commission work from people who know their subjects--scholars, world leaders, expert writers—even Nobel laureates. Then we edit their articles thoroughly and verify the facts before you see them. The result: information you can trust. The article mentions many words "precisely once" (grassroots...taxation...), without extensive reasoning for inclusion, but that doesn't mean they are not applicable or fact-checked. Also, Britannica is only one of many reliable sources, but if you'd like to argue the reliability, I don't need to tell you where WP:RSN is, as I see you have advanced this argument before. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There are or where sources provided in the article for the "anti-immigration' part and more were provided in the discussion so no need to repeat those. Please work yourself thru the discussions and check the article's history. Regarding the sources should come from a border state, that's not our interpretation of reliable sources. Sources from that region might even be more biased and less reliable than those coming from the rest of the US since they're less likely to write to please their client's bias to get good sales. We don't pick sources from a specific geographical area for a state wide decentralized organization.TMCk (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
My point in suggesting the major newspapers in the border states is that they will have more detailed coverage of rallies and more likely to have quoted tea party members. This will eliminate sources that simply put the 'tea party' label on an article without any evidence of participation by any tea party group.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per TMCk, also this is (apologies) a storm in a teacup. Anti-immigration is used for many political parties in Europe without any question about legal or otherwise. In some cases they want to impose more strict laws, or have stricter enforcement. Few people support illegal immigration, although the amnesty question is separate. The attempt to qualify a perfectly normal terms looks to an outsider like an attempt to impose a Tea Party PoV on the article - evidenced by the sources used by those who want the qualification ----Snowded TALK 04:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Anti-legal and anti-illegal are all still "anti-immigration" policies in the U.S., too, and our bland, neutral textbooks simply use the common term (Example: The new conservative legislators, who were most comfortable with many Tea Party preferences—smaller government, anti-immigration policies and so on—provided the votes and the caucus power for the consideration of and passage of a Tea Party-like agenda... Pg. 51). Many reliable scholarly sources about the Tea Party, however, specifically point out the individual facets of the Tea Party movement's anti-immigration position (Example: opposition to illegal immigration, support for limiting legal immigration, ...Pg. 131). I don't understand certain editor's desire to conceal some anti-immigration positions of the Tea Party, but not others, like the support for reduction of legal immigration — support for which is almost mirrored by the American populace as a whole. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a question of deceptive terminology. Calling "anti-illegal-immigration" "anti-immigration" is deceptive at best. Saying that one is a subset of the other does not mean that broadening it to statemetn about the general case is correct. That's like saying that the fact that Joe hates liver justifies saying that "Joe hates food", because liver is food. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no "deceptive" terminology; perhaps you meant "less specific"? And your analogy misdescribes the debate, which is: "Joe hates food"; and since Joe has been additionally vocal specifically about one type of food (liver), we should only describe Joe as disliking liver. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that my analogy is appropriate. And it shows that it is that it faulty (rather then just less specific) to state that whatever is true for the narrower case is true for the broader case. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
...but no one is stating that; no one arguing from that perspective. The broader case is true, as supported by reliable sources, and it is faulty to state only the narrow case ("illegal"/"liver"). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is deceptive terminology. Give up. Move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Advice on terminology from an editor who has misinterpreted the wording of no fewer than 4 Wikipedia policies in as many days? I'll pass, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As per above.Ubikwit 連絡 ・迷惑 02:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support some mention of stances on immigration issues attributing views to reliably sourced statements by prominent tea party supporters and to any existing polls of general views held among members/supporters of the tea party.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It simply is not factually true that the Tea Party is anti-immigration rather than anti-illegal-immigration. Only a tiny minority of groups in the US really are anti-immigration. Most of the time that phrase is used by their opponents in an attempt to blur the distinction between being against illegal immigration and being against immigration. And it's foolish to describe a group using terms only ever used by their opponents.
PS: "Anti-immigration is used for many political parties in Europe" is absurd. Europe isn't the world. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You are Opposing based on a non-existant pretext. I don't see where anyone has suggested that "the Tea Party is anti-immigration rather than anti-illegal-immigration", so calling that factually not true seems meaningless. Reliable sources describe the movement as generally anti-immigration, and no one is refuting the "anti-illegal" part of that. (And your assertion that only a tiny minority of Americans are anti-immigration is wrong, as recent polling has shown.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources Following is a partial list of reliable sources supporting the statement that "TPm is opposed to illegal immigration." I suggest this is the majority opinion. I oppose presentation of "TPm is anti-immigration" as the majority opinion.
  • New York Times: "Six years ago, the intensity of that kind of sentiment was enough to scuttle immigration overhaul efforts ... Republicans are betting that [this year] opposition from Tea Party activists and the party’s most conservative supporters will have less impact ..." [12]
  • Washington Post: "... Rubio is sincere in his calls for comprehensive immigration reform, but he doesn’t want to alienate Tea Party conservatives who are hostile to the idea." [13]
  • USA Today: "Tea Party Republicans overwhelmingly reject allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens, calling it amnesty." [14]
  • ABC News: "The Tea Party has largely opposed legalizing undocumented aliens or granting them citizenship ..." [15]
  • CBS News: "Tea Party supporters ... are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent) ..." [16]
  • Fox News: "The Tea Party is pushing back against what it sees as a campaign by Obama supporters and the media to grant amnesty to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. ..."[17]
Note that this is only a partial list. I consider opposition to amnesty (which legalizes illegal immigrants) and opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform" or an "immigration overhaul" (which would include amnesty) to be synonymous with "opposed to illegal immigration." Statements of principle, agenda documents etc. that have been published by the Tea Party organizations themselves are uniformly opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty, not immigration as a whole. Such sources are considered reliable for this limited purpose per WP:SELFSOURCE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Those are fine sources to support the assertion of fact that TPers generally oppose "illegal immigration". I don't think anyone disagrees with that fact. But that is not the issue you raised with this survey. This survey asks whether "anti-immigration" should be used to describe the Tea Party movement. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. The fact that TPers are opposed to "illegal" immigration in no way negates the fact that the movement is generally anti-immigration. In fact, an argument can and has been made, and not refuted, that opposition to any kind of immigration is still anti-immigration. The six sources you've provided above do not convey that the Tea Party movement is not anti-immigration. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As shown in earlier discussions, reliable sources describe the TPm as generally anti-immigration. Some sources base that description on polling data of TPers, which indicate they believe legal immigration is detrimental to "American culture" and way of life. When asked to choose between increasing, decreasing or maintaining present levels of legal immigration, more TPers preferred to decrease immigration. Other reliable sources raised during these discussions delved deeper into the reasoning behind the anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by TPers, and have not been refuted. Do any of the above six sources explicitely say that the Tea Party movement is not anti-immigrant? I didn't see it when I checked them. A couple of those sources indicate that certain politicians are showing more acceptance of immigration reform measures, but those same sources also convey that it is a politically motivated response to losing elections due to lack of Latino voter support, and not because they have suddenly become "pro-immigrant". Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Repeating your same claims over and over and over does not make them either true or accurate. The majority here seems to disagree with your assertions, and you likely should look at this as a very dead horse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Collect is correct that it isn't the repetition of these factual claims that makes them true and accurate; it's the reliable sourcing that conveyed them that makes them true and accurate. I already consider disagreements with me to be a dead horse; but I'm still pressing for reasonable disagreements with what reliable sources convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Xeno. Your horse is very, very dead. Please stop beating it. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources had intended to indicate that TPm is "anti-immigration," they would have said so. Instead they said "opposed to illegal immigration," or "opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants," or "opposed to comprehensive immigration reform," all of which mean essentially the same thing: "opposed to illegal immigration." What you're saying, in effect is that in addition to stating what the subject IS, all sources must also state what the subject IS NOT. For example, in the Elephant article, where reliable sources identify the elephant as an animal, you expect the sources to also state that the elephant is not a plant. Otherwise, if you can find one or two sources stating that elephants are plants — possibly a typographical error when they meant to identify the elephant ear — you feel free to define elephants as plants throughout the entire article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Still incorrect, P&W. Reliable sources convey that the TP movement is generally anti-immigration. You can cite sources that convey they are also against illegal immigration, or taxes, or spending.... until your face turns blue, but that doesn't refute the reliably sourced (and researched and explained) fact that the movement is generally anti-immigration. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No facts there, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep telling yourself that, Arthur. Perhaps try clicking your heels at the same time? Even your MPs are starting to disagree with you, although they would now prefer that the facts be characterized as opinion, and attributed as such. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
By "overwealming" you mean "overwhelmingly tea party" don't you? Also the elephant example is really silly. Given that the tea party sources stress anti-illegal immigration and its a hot political topic you would expect something in third party reliable sources if your position was correct. It and the straw poll (pro-Tea Party editors voting one way, others the other) are dead issues anyway - article frozen move it into the mediation section ----Snowded TALK 04:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
If by "mediation section" you mean SilkTork's moderated discussion page, no -- won't be moving the "anti-immigration" discussion there. P&W already tried to raise the "anti-immigration" and "grassroots" discussions there, and SilkTork immediately hatted the discussion, saying "Let's work on the broad issues. We may well find that the smaller issues are taken care of as part of the broader actions." It's not a major issue, so we should be able to resolve it here. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Xeno, I believe that ST simply wants to work through the issues from the Macro toward the Micro, putting the big picture in order and then filling out the details. He has said on his Talk page, too, that immigration is an issue to which that the discussion on the moderation page will eventually turn.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 14:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to SilkTork's Talk page, where he did indeed indicate that "anti-immigration" might eventually be addressed. I hadn't seen that. But I also note that SilkTork said, "I would hope, however, at this stage, that we would be considering broad issues, and getting consensus for actions rather than dealing with individual edits or smaller points. Once the broad issues are agreed, folks here can deal with the fine tuning, and I would think at that stage my role would be over." That indicates to me that ST only intends to stay until the broad issues are worked out, then he's outta here, leaving issues like immigration to us. Maybe I should have him clarify. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that one of the points at present is where issues such as immigration are going to be addressed in the article. Perhaps there will be a Criticism section established, and the issue would be under that insofar as it doesn't seem to merit inclusion under Agenda based on straightforward proclamations or the like as in the case of taxation, etc.
At any rate, if you have any thoughts regarding the structure and layout of the article, further input and broader participation in the moderated discussion is being sought.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 04:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And those sources report opposition to amnesty and are news items so its not surprising they use the "illegal" word. You need sources which relate to overall policy to to individual campaign responses. This is 101 wikipedia really. You are trying to use wikipedia's voice to reflect specific Tea Party campaigns rather than to look at their policy overall. Rather than creating far fetched and fanciful metaphors you might want to spend some time on reading up on policy ----Snowded TALK 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Dead horse. Give up. Move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Your interest in horses and elephants aside, there is still the matter of describing the TP movement as generally anti-immigration to resolve. However, no one is forcing you to participate, P&W. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It isn't generally described as generally anti-immigration. One of your sources said "anti-immigrant", which is not the same, may be adequately sourced, and may quite possibly be accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It is described as generally anti-immigration. None of my sources said "anti-immigrant" (they are still there in the article - feel free to check again; the last 4 of the 6 citations, to be specific). I can't discuss with you whether "anti-immigrant" is the same or not, as I'd have to see the context in which it is used, but I have no idea what source you are getting that from. May I ask you to specifiy the source, or are you making that up, too? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Movements further their agenda by defining, stating and promoting it. So, for pragmatic reasons, what they say is is a reliable indicator of the agenda. So Snowded, you are saying that what their opponents are saying is what their real agenda is? So then in order to promote that "secret" agenda, they TPM leaders would need to say to supporters "don't listen the TPM leadership to find out what the TPM wants to promote, listen to Nancy Peolosi or the New York Times and do what they say because they are saying what our real agenda is and follow that."  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening RfC regarding the Tea Party Movement article

Should the term "anti-immigration" or "anti-illegal immigration" be used to describe the Tea Party Movement in the "Agenda" section of the article? (See above discussion for various arguments.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No. It should describe the actual immigration policies supported by members of the party. Tighter border control, Arizona-style deportationlaws, increased use of deportation, stricter legislation against people who employ undocumented workers, etc. IN this way we also do not need to describe any particular view as being characteristic of the entire movement but can simply attribute the view to a particular politician or activist associated with the movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you brought that up tomorrow on the discussion subpage and bring sources if you have them. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Quest for Knowledge: You should ask the other editors here if this is something they agree with. We're just now starting a moderated discussion with Silk Tork, an ArbCom admin. This is something that is going to be discussed. As I recall the policy for RfC is to discuss on the talk page first. So I'm removing the tag/notice until this can be brought up at the moderated discussion that starts tomorrow. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
See here [23] for more info. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This clearly has already been discussed unfruitfully, and it is never required to have a consensus for requesting outside input, and the policy you link to does not suggest that it is. It strikes me as unproductive to argue on procedural grounds. Please replace the RfC tag.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The policy says to discuss whether or not to have an RfC with the editors here first. This article is on probation and is under ArbCom review. The editors here are trying to work out a solution for content disputes that includes the question of immigration. Please allow that process to proceed. And feel free to join in at the subpage. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I find your attitude to collaboration and outside input, as well as your and misrepresentation of policy to be unfortunate. I will proceed to request outside input to the discussion through other means.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I lean toward "anti-illegal-immigration" if there is to be a choice, but I think a proper investigation of the sources would produce a more accurate phrase. I don't consider this RfC to be against policy, but merely unhelpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the survey

Comment Currently the count is 6-4 OPPOSED to the inclusion of the word "anti-immigration," or any weaselly derivation thereof, in the "Agenda" section of the article mainspace. Accordingly, I am removing it. In the future, after you have proven that you have consensus, you can return that word to the "Agenda" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Update April 8 — The raw vote is now 8-3 OPPOSED. All I want to do is move the "anti-immigration" claim to the section discussing allegations of racism, and carefully attribute that claim to the handful of persons making the claim. In my opinion, arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines support this move even more strongly than the raw vote per WP:WEIGHT, which is a section of one of our "pillar" policies, WP:NPOV. The number of reliable sources stating that TPm is opposed to illegal immigration, or to amnesty for illegal immigrants — essentially the same thing, since amnesty would legitimize the presence of illegal immigrants — is an overwhelming majority. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, which is a section of another of our "pillar" policies, WP:RS, published statements about the article subject BY the article subject are reliable sources for this limited purpose. Some other sources have been misconstrued by certain tendentious editors, who claim that the sources say "TPm is anti-immigration" when in fact they say something else. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Update April 15 — 8 of the 18 editors in the "anti-immigration" discussion OPPOSE seeing that factual description used in relation to the Tea Party movement. The number of !votes is irrelevant to determining consensus; it is the arguments behind the votes that must be considered. Of the intelligible arguments presented, some oppose because the wording is "not in the TPM agenda"; irrelevant because the wording is only background description (like "anti-compromise politics"), and not intended to be an agenda item. Some oppose because the wording is "Not associated by any source with the TPM as a movement", which is demonstrably false. Some oppose the wording because they claim it "is simply not supported by the vast majority of sources" - also false, as the vast majority of reliable sources that cover the subject of anti-immigration sentiment in the TP movement do indeed use that wording. Some have opposed, wrongly claiming that since many sources use the phrase "anti-illegal immigration", that an either-or situation exists when it does not. Some wrongly claim that it is only opinion, and not fact, that the TP movement is generally anti-immigration -- but have failed to provide substantiation for this assertion. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you redact that section (and my comment, if you do so), as it is a clear example of your tendentious editing, ignoring the actual facts of the matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
And I've suggested to you that you stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks on editors. I ignore nothing, but you are making it very tempting for me to start. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not unsubstantiated, nor a "personal attack". In fact, unless you have redacted or otherwise edited your comment above, it should be quite clear to all that the criticism of your edits and comments is justified. I wasn't going to go into it further, but you've continued to bring up both your unsubstantiated accusations, and your misstatements as to the content of sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to substantiate it, Administrator Arthur? WP:NPA says (paraphrased): When Arthur Rubin comments on another editor's behavior or motivations without providing a shred of evidence, that is a Personal Attack. Calling you out on your fabrications is not "tendentious editing", Arthur, nor is disagreeing with your opinions. Arthur, cite the "misstatement as to the content of sources"; cite where I've "ignored the actual facts of the matter". What result do you hope to achieve by continuing to make baseless insults upon other editors? Do you just assume they will get so frustrated with you that they will leave? How's that working out for you in this case, Arthur? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy and a 6-4 vote with active discussion is not a concensus to change. Now before you leave more aggressive comments on my talk page I suggest you leave it or ask a NEUTRAL admin to close it. You are too engaged to make the decision. Apologies for using roll back. Editing on iPad---Snowded TALK 21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you get your feelings hurt? I'm sorry. Here at Wikipedia, consensus requires a strong majority. It also requires consistency with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I find WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS to be very instructive here. The claim that TPm is "anti-immigration" is a minority opinion, bordering on fringe opinion. I reach that conclusion simply by measuring the quantity and quality of sources. When some editors claim that a source says "The Tea Party movement is anti-immigration," the source needs to say exactly that. Or something else that means exactly that. Guilt by association doesn't satisfy this requirement. Until you have proven that you have consensus, supported by reliable sources that really say what you're desperately trying to smear the Tea Party with, I think the word "anti-immigration" or any weaselly derivation thereof should stay out of the "Agenda" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for too many years to allow an editor who doesn't understand process to hurt my feelings. Try and understand that when you are an active and belligerent protagonist, you should not take it on yourself to determine consensus. ----Snowded TALK 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I would second the notion that after what happened here, it would be better to let an uninvolved admin tally where consensus lies (if the discussion is over). I also think many of the editors expressing a "support" or "oppose" for this survey are long term participants with potentially hardened feelings on the subject (no offense intended to any or all). As a result, it might be worth considering doing an RfC, to bring in a sizable number of outside participants who provide fresh perspectives or least expand the pool of !votes that are being emphasized here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe either of you understands consensus. Also, I don't believe either of you is reading anything of what I'm writing, except what you choose to see. I said very clearly that in addition to a raw vote count, I rely on "consistency with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines," and I'll clarify that I'm using what all participants in the survey are saying about those policies and guidelines, in addition to my own understanding of them. I specifically cited "WP:FRINGE, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS to be very instructive here." Even if "TPm is anti-immigration" doesn't quite qualify as fringe theory, it absolutely, definitely qualifies as a minority opinion. WP:FRINGE provides very clear and mandatory guidelines about how to deal with majority vs. minority opinion when considering WP:WEIGHT. Putting the word "anti-immigration," or any weaselly derivation thereof, in the Agenda section at the start of the article gives that tiny minority opinion far too much weight.
Wikipedia is not a democracy and a 6-4 vote with active discussion is not a concensus to change. This remark clearly demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how consensus works. We do not need a "consensus to change." You, as proponents of keeping certain material in a particular, heavy WP:WEIGHT location in this article, need to demonstrate that you have consensus to KEEP the material. The burden of not only having consensus, but proving that you have it, is on you. And we don't need to wait until this discussion has concluded to remove material at any time you haven't demonstrated consensus, particularly since it's derogatory and it's about living persons. Currently the raw vote is still 6-4 after three full days of discussion. Your arguments based on policy and guidelines are far from compelling and they rely on guilt by association, WP:SYNTH and somehow failing to tell the whole truth about what the sources you're relying on actually say in their entirety. Our arguments based on policy and guidelines, in contrast to yours, are rock solid. And at this point, we're not discussing the article any more. We haven't actually discussed the article for over 48 hours. We're discussing your misunderstanding of how consensus works, your cherry-picking of what I've said, and Xenophrenic's deceptive terminology. Please stop Wikilawyering and using delaying tactics. You do not have consensus, and it took a survey like this to clearly prove that you don't have consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Here on the Tea Party article, you've argued that saying the TPM is generally "anti-immigration" is racist and a WP:BLP violation, a WP:WEIGHT problem, and WP:FRINGE problem. This same week, you've also been arguing that criticism should be added into the lede of the Obama BLP, specifically that it should mention extrajudicial killings of American citizens with drone aircraft, his failure to close Guantanamo Bay, a 6 trillion increase in the national debt, crony capitalism tying him to Solyndra, the changing story regarding the origin of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack, and Obama's failure to respond (I noticed on that latter issue, you also caught flack from other editors about saying Obama had been "shucking and jiving"). Isn't that a little contradictory with regard to interpreting WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
P&W, you make a series of strong assertions above. When you made similar assertions on my talk page and at ANI other senior editors basically told you that you did not understand policy. I suggest that you stop the attacks and go back and review the pillars. It sounds from the other comment above that this pattern of editing is not confined to one article and you seem to be on a mission. Please pull back and bit and have a think ----Snowded TALK 16:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We're still not discussing the article. You still haven't improved your weak arguments based on policies and guidelines. And the raw vote is still 6-4. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention please. When you have asserted your views of policy and guidelines on other pages you have not had the support of other editors, they have told you that you are wrong. You have also been told raw votes don't count. So any weakness I am afraid is in your understanding ----Snowded TALK 18:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the "weakness" of my understanding probably explains why the raw vote is 6-4 against you. You don't have consensus. Stop behaving as though you do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
For starters the word "Generally" implies it is not just a couple of people but a reflection of the group as a whole. The sources presented thus far simply do not support the statement that the TPM is anti-immigration, generally or not. The sources supplied only clearly state that the movement is against Illegal-immigration. Hell, some of the most popular political members are immigrants. Ted Cruz, for example, is an immigrant from Canada and his dad is a Cuban immigrant. Nikki Haley is the daughter of Indian immigrants. Bobby Jindal is the son of Indian Immigrants who moved here a couple of months before he was born. Marco Rubio is the son of Cuban Immigrants. Raul Labrador was born in Puerto Rico. Now it doesn't make much sense to insist on this wording of "generally" anti-immigration when several TPM stars are very much the face of immigration for the TPM. Added to this is the fact that sourcing for "anti-immigration" is very poor while sourcing for "anti-illegal-immigration" is so very strong. I am not even sure why some are making such a big push for such a poorly sourced claim. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not even sure why some are making such a big push for such a poorly sourced claim. I have a pretty good idea why they're making such a big push. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Arzel, you do realize there is an ongoing discussion about the content you deleted from the article, right? I've returned part of the reliably sourced content. I'll see if I can come up with a replacement word for the word "strongly" you deleted. ("generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector..." -- "generally" is supported; are you claiming it is 100% across the movement?) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I do realize there is a discussion, but thus far the weak evidence to support the statement has not been improved upon. While, the evidence against the statement has been made stronger. There comes a time when you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. As for the use of the weasel word "Strongly" it is without merit. The statement of opposing excessive taxation is not a general statement (strongly or otherwise), but a universal statement of fact. It is like saying, I am against drunk driving, versus I am strongly against drunk driving. If you make an absolute statement, there is no need for a modifier to clunk it up. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The agenda section needs to be rewritten. There should be three sections under agenda 1) fiscal 2) Immigration reform and 3) Obamacare. And no weasel words like 'strongly.' That's really just WP:OR. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read all of the above several times, and I get more confused each time. This is a "survey" of what, exactly? I saw the word "consensus", but it was immediately followed by the words "How many editors", so the above exercise has nothing to do with consensus. I saw WP:SYNTH linked multiple times, but each time the editor failed to identify the required 2 sources that were combined to convey an unsourced statement, so the above has nothing to do with synthesis. It appears the argument is whether notable anti-immigration rallies were held (and even organized) by Tea Partiers, or whether they were incorrectly identified as Tea Partiers with "no evidence to back up their use of the 'tea party'". Another editor refers to "the major source" but refers to information not conveyed by any of the cited sources. What is the above discussion about? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence in this section defined that. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"I think what we need is a more precise measurement of consensus." Got it. I'll watchlist the WP:CONSENSUS Talk page and keep an eye on it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Xen makes a good point about this 'survey.' But it does seem like P&W is asking for consensus. Perhaps P&W could simply clarify what he was asking when he posted in the first place. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks simple to me. They are asking people to weigh in (for and against) on use of "anti-immigration" (and synonyms) to describe the TPM agenda. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree; he's asking for a head count, not a consensus process. Perhaps its another misunderstanding of policy, like we've recently seen with WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:VANDALISM. If you are changing the question to should we use: "anti-immigration" (and synonyms) to describe the TPM agenda. -- my answer would be "no", because that doesn't describe the TPm agenda. If you are asking if we should use: While not uniformly so, the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, pro-Constitution, anti-tax, nationalistic, generally anti-immigration and strongly against illegal immigration, and against compromise politics. -- my answer would be "absolutely", because it is fully and reliably sourced, and more importantly, because equally reliably sourced refutation of the factual information has not been produced. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem with what Xenophrenic is suggesting begins with, "While not uniformly so, the Tea Party movement tends to be. . ." First, if it's not "uniformly so," it doesn't belong in the article. The other parts are unfortunately terribly "loaded" phrases. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that the TP is not a single party but a "movement" with in part different agendas. We can't just ignore what might look bad for some TP fractions even if they're not holding a certain view.TMCk (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
But it's apparently ignoring everything else except the claims of racism, anti-immigration, etc. There's scant mention of the tea party groups, virtually no quotes from actual tea party members or tea party group organizers, etc. To start off a sentence with, "While not uniformly so. . ." seems to guarantee that what follows is going to be WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not ignoring "everything else" if it's phrased right. Quotes from single member are just phrases from single members who don't represent the TP in whole but only their fraction (if they're in one.) Opinions of some of them can be included (if there is proper weight and notability) but they don't decide the TP's agenda in whole as those are just personal opinions tainted by their own personal believes and goals. Such opinions are in part included in proper sections but are not representative for the TP in general and we can't take their face value opinion as a fact compared to independent and more professional interpretations.TMCk (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't "phrased right" and, due to the weakness of the sourcing and the malice inherent in the accusation, there's really no way to phrase it right. Treat it as a minority opinion per WP:FRINGE. Not a fringe opinion. A minority opinion. Attribute the "anti-immigration" charge to the handful of sources that are actually making that accusation. Place it in the section that addresses the charge of racism. Back away from the smear campaign and be done with it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"Weakness of the sourcing"? It's actually redundantly sourced, with high-quality sources. On what are you basing your opinion that it is "minority opinion"? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, you do not have "high-quality sources." You appear to simply go to Google books and type in anti-legal immigration or "limit legal immigration." That's how you came up with The Rise of The Tea Party. I just read the entire chapter that includes page 131 and it is talking about a survey of tea party "supporters," and the general public regarding overlap between people who support the tea party and the general public. They weren't surveying actual tea party members. So essentially they only surveyed the general public who seemed to favor "limiting legal immigration." That does not stand up as RS in the face of the Rand Paul comments, the Tea Party Express comments the Tea Party Patriots comments about immigration reform. Not one of them mentions legal immigration at all. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No, Malke, there is a reason I listed several book titles and authors last month (see above), and asked for input on whether they should be considered reliable sources of information on the Tea Party. I actually have those books and others, including this one on The Rise of the Tea Party in front of me, and a few more on the way. You are welcome to your personal opinions about other editors, and your theories about their research methods, but it is inappropriate and unproductive to interject them into article Talk page discussions. About this specific source, your assertion that "they weren't surveying actual Tea Party members" is inaccurate. Those polls were of the whole American voting public, and included questions of the respondents that allowed categorization of them based on their self-identification, including "Strong Supporters of the Tea Party". So your conclusion that "they only surveyed the general public who seemed to favor 'limiting legal immigration'" is wrong. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Tendentious editing, using deceptive language and other weasel words, using guilt by association, and misrepresenting what the sources actually say are all explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Such tactics become even more problematic when they are used to add, or preserve, poorly sourced negative information about living persons. WP:NOCONSENSUS applies here, even if WP:BLP does not. Remedial measures are available to us, and the article is already under probation and the subject of a pending Arbcom proceeding. Consider very carefully what you say and do from this point forward. Just stop it. Back away from the smear campaign, let it go, and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform is more relevant

The argument between anti-immigration and illegal immigration is rapidly becoming moot. The Tea Party endorsed senators and congressmen are embracing immigration reform. [24] [25] Even Sean Hannity is getting on board [26] and [27]. And another GOP rep has said this [28]. There are no reliable sources that show the tea party groups endorse any nativism nor does it seem nativism is on the rise in America among the general population. [29]. I don't see any reason to construct a narrative that labels the tea party movement as anti-immigration, which is another way of saying 'nativist.' Nor do I see a need to hold on to sources from 2009 and 2010 that no longer reflect current events. The thinking on immigration is rapidly evolving. While amnesty is still an issue even for the president [30], Rand Paul’s plan does include amnesty, so it appears that too will be resolved. [31]. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to add this one. The Tea Party supports Paul's position and offers their own view: [32]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Kudos for thinking outside the box, but I don't think the recent immigration debates make our discussion moot. The Tea Party does not universally endorse the specific positions put forth by individual players on this issue. In fact, I'm seeing quite a bit of disagreement. For example; another Tea Party endorsed favorite, Ted Cruz, appears to be bucking the trend you just cited. The trend you are observing is probably based on the realization of where public sentiment stands. And not to change the subject, but did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know. Since I caught you "outside of the box" of the above discussions, what do you think about the analysis and opinions expressed by this immigration expert? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not thinking outside the box. I'm simply following Wikipedia policy and looking at the issue and what is happening with it and providing reliable sources. We've just had a national election in November. These congressmen and senators represent the tea party. If you're seeing disagreement, I'm sure there are reliable sources beyond an old WashPost article where the writer has simply applied the label "tea party" in quotes without any reference to any tea party activity. And since we've just had a national election, there should be plenty of new sources out there. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've already offered the opinion of an immigration expert above. He is someone who has actually represented immigrants in the courts, and he now represents them and the people of his state in Washington, D.C. [33]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You lost me. I haven't cited an old WashPost article in regards to the disagreement between TP-endorsed lawmakers. It was FOX News (Latino). I also didn't ask you to offer an opinion of an immigration expert; I was asking for your opinion on the piece I linked to from an immigration expert. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The Cruz piece is in the context of Illegal Immigration which is seperate from the general anti-immigration issue. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that's not nice/right. But what Arzel was saying appeared clear to me.....that the Cruz item supports an anti-illegal-immigration statement, and not an anti-immigration statement. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
What's not "nice/right"? I asked Malke specifically for her take on the USA Today piece from an immigration expert, but Arzel chimed in instead (hence my "impersonating Malke" comment) with a nonsequitur. I'm still waiting for Malke's response. As for "what Arzel was saying": It's clear to me, too, what he was saying, and I never indicated otherwise. What I asked him was, "And that has what to do with this?" "This" being the discussion about whether TPers are supportive/against/split regarding the present immigration reform proposals. The discussion about what sources support what statement wording is above. As in before this new section created by Malke. With a new header. Indicating possibly taking a new direction in the broader discussion of "immigration". Does that make it more clear for you, North? Let me know if you are still confused. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. There's no evidence of anti-immigration. The Tea Party involvement is about illegal immigration and securing the border to prevent this happening again. Some don't want to see amnesty but that's going to happen anyway. There's nothing else to be done in that regard. The tea party has finally come around to that, which is why they insist on secure borders in any immigration reform bill. Most Americans agree with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Please make up your mind. Which is it? Are you claiming the TP is not anti-immigration, or are you claiming it is only anti the "illegal" kind? You said both. (And yes, there is evidence -- in fact, you said you picked up some of it at the library.) Also, Malke, I would still like to know your feelings about the opinions expressed in the piece I linked above. And finally, back to the subject of the current Immigration Reform measures and proposals in Washington D.C., you have heard that "Ted Cruz Vows To Oppose Any Path To Legalization for Undocumented Immigrants" in those measures, right? Did he not get the memo? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That last item is a third topic, which is legalizing residency that is currently illegal. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No, North. That last item is about the subject of THIS Talk page section topic, which Malke defined as: The argument between anti-immigration and illegal immigration is rapidly becoming moot. The Tea Party endorsed senators and congressmen are embracing immigration reform. I mentioned Cruz only to illustrate that not all Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers are "embracing" the immigration reform measures advanced by other TP-affiliated lawmakers. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, please read my first post here again: I said, "The argument between anti-immigration and illegal immigration is rapidly becoming moot." I'm speaking about your argument that the TPM is both anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. It's not. Just looking at the comments from the tea party leaders proves that. I'm also saying that given that the Tea Party senators and congressmen have embraced immigration reform your argument is moot. It's past tense. We've just had a national election. This is 2013, not 2009. Things change. Things move forward. As far as Cruz is concerned, he's not against compromise, and his recalcitrance does not change the enormity of the tea party elected congressmen rallying around Rand Paul's call for reform and amnesty for millions of immigrants living in the shadows. Not even Obama is on board with amnesty. If ever something needed to be in this article, this is it.

As far as your repeated demands that I comment on the opinion piece you've posted, I don't respond to incivility. Comments to me such as ". . .did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know," are offensive and assume I don't look at all sources. And to Arzel, "And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do?" Arzel did nothing to prompt a comment like that. I don't know the source of your apparent intolerance to well-sourced counterpoints to your arguments, but it is your intolerance and therefore your responsibility to regain your civility and, as a courtesy, strike through those comments before you can ask other editors to engage you on this talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, after reading your post again, I find that it still says the same thing it said when I read it the first time. And just so we're clear, I don't have an argument in this discussion; I've conveyed the argument of reliable sources. If you are asserting that the reliable sources are wrong, and "looking at the comments from the tea party leaders proves that", then by all means, please share that specific proof with us. I would be interested in seeing these specific comments, and knowing who these leaders are. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this: As far as your repeated demands that I comment on the opinion piece you've posted, I don't respond to incivility. Comments to me such as ". . .did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know," are offensive and assume I don't look at all sources. And to Arzel, "And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do?" Arzel did nothing to prompt a comment like that. I don't know the source of your apparent intolerance to well-sourced counterpoints to your arguments, but it is your intolerance and therefore your responsibility to regain your civility and, as a courtesy, strike through those comments before you can ask other editors to engage you on this talk page. --Malke 01:07, 5 April 2013
As for that mess of a misunderstanding: I've never demanded that you comment on something. I made a polite request, and you are certainly not required to respond. When I asked, "what do you think about the analysis and opinions expressed by this immigration expert?", I thought that was perfectly civil. And I still do. I felt your comments on that would give me additional perspective on your position in this matter.
As for my joke: "did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know." -- if you aren't just yanking my chain here, and you seriously didn't catch the sarcasm and instead took offense at the humor for some reason, then of course I'll refactor or reword what I wrote, as offense was certainly not what I intended. (Note that I said "refactor or reword", and not "strike through", as that is reserved for something I should not have said ... and not for something that was merely misunderstood by the reader.) My comment certainly did not assume you "don't look at all sources", don't be silly; in fact I know you from experience to be a Wikipedia editor that usually goes the extra mile when it comes to sourcing stuff (picking up material from libraries; emailing newspaper editors for clarifications, etc.). My comment was only an attempt at good-natured humor after you linked to (and spoke positively about) a DailyKos(!!!) piece, after recently saying that what some dimwit from the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant -- your words, not mine. I apologize if that wasn't clear. As for my quip to Arzel, he left a misplaced response to a discussion from a completely different section of this Talk page, so I asked him what his comment had to do with our discussion -- he left a comment for me, so he deserved a response. It's common courtesy. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree you have not made an argument. Nor is there anything to support your position of removing the statement that the Tea Party is against illegal immigration. I was in favor of adding the statement that it is perceived as being against immigration, but now, I think even that is outdated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Then please change your vote in the survey above, Arthur. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, when you say "I quite agree you have not made an argument", with whom do you agree? Me? I didn't say there isn't an argument, I said "I don't have an argument in this discussion; I've conveyed the argument of reliable sources." Also, it is not my position to remove the statement that the Tea Party is against illegal immigration. Please see my last edit to the article. Notice it's still there? It's redundant, of course, but some editors felt that it should be extra-stressed that TP is also very anti-illegal immigration, so there it is. The fact is that the TP is generally anti-immigration (reliable sources say so; majority of TPers polled say legal immigration is ruining American culture; reliable sources convey that TPers prefer a reduction in legal immigration, not just illegal). Please indicate, Arthur, the reliable source (or sources) that now say that general view is "outdated". I'm very interested in that. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In addition, Arthur, it bears repeating that anti-immigration views (even the 'illegal' part) are not universal and uniform among TPers; I've already shown sources that indicate those views vary widely, and even that one faction of the TPers would prefer to not take a stance on the matter at all. What Malke pointed out above as possibly indicative of changing perceptions among TPers on immigration matters is interesting, but it remains to be seen if that equates to a sea-change applicable to the TP movement in general. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, please review WP:BATTLE. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Malke, I've read that before. Has it changed? How about you tell me what I should be looking for there? (Sorry, very busy...) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, polls of supporters does not constitute an agenda for the movement. To use a whimsical but useful analogy, if a poll of supporters shows that the majority dislike eating liver, that does not lead to saying that the TPM is an "anti-liver-eating" movement. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
North, I agree that poll results ≠ agenda, but that isn't what I said. What I said is that reliable sources describe the movement as generally anti-immigration. I have also noted relevant polling information. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Then why haven't you shown us these reliable sources? The sources I've provided show that it is a question of illegal immigration and amnesty. Anti-immigration is a problem in Europe and especially the U.K. where EU agreements allow 'benefits tourists' who are swamping the boat. Legal immigration into the United States has always been stable. I don't see any protests against legal immigration anywhere in the U.S., let alone among tea party members. Where are these protests? What tea party groups are doing this? Show us the RS that shows that. And not Encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry, that's not a legitimate source. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Then why haven't I shown you these reliable sources? Huh? They are still there, where they have always been. I'm not sure if you are jesting or serious with that one. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You might consider naming one, then. Personally, I don't deny that the sources exist, but I do believe that they represent a small minority view, and that some of them fail to distinguish between being against immigration, being against illegal immigration, and being against legalization of more immigration. Three different concepts, and the TPm seems to be strongly in the second, and weakly in the third, but not in the first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's take a step back for a second. "And not Encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry, that's not a legitimate source." On what do you base that, Malke? And I'm not touching the straw-man question "where are the protests against legal immigration" with a ten foot pole; our article doesn't say they have protests against legal immigration. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I find Malke's comments inappropriate, myself. Encyclopedia Britannica may be a reliable source, but it's tertiary, and should rarely be used unless reliable secondary sources don't say quite the same thing. However, "anti-immigration" is a minority view, unless confused with one of the other terms I mentioned above. I also don't agree that it's racist or a BLP violation, just incorrect (which is irrelevant to Wikipedia) and a minority view (which is relevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
...which is why I outlined several above, at 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Several more have been produced in the course of these discussions, including an academic study delving into the "why" behind the TP-held sentiments regarding immigration issues. I disagree that anti-immigration is minority, as polls of TPers have shown a majority of them to consider immigration detrimental to American way of life. (Yeah, my jaw dropped, too ... until I saw parallel sentiments coming from a strong segment of non-TPer Americans also polled -- TPers aren't too far from mainstream in their views on this.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
And I just noticed that you edited out reliably sourced wording that is presently under discussion, with what I consider a misleading edit summary. Please let me know if there is any reason I shouldn't raise this issue immediately at an administrator's noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not reliably sourced. I'm not sure where WP:BRD would fall on the issue, or what the status quo ante would be. That being said, I know I'm involved, so this is not an administrative issue. After I get back from taking my wife home (no comment, please), I'll look at your sources and see whether they support your statement. The sources in the article do not.
As for TP-ers and the general public being anti-immigration; it seems to me that we should only list statements about the TPm which differ from the general public. For what it's worth, I know a person who I consider ultra-left, who takes the position that the 14th Amendment should be amended to remove citizenship for those born in the country to illegal aliens. Would that be an "anti-immigration" position? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic please tell us what is the difference between legal immigration and anti-immigration? Somewhere in one of these threads you specfically referred to anti-immigration as being anti-legal immigration. And Arthur, I don't see what is "inappropriate" about my comment. Unless you're referring to Britannica. If there isn't another source for something, just Britannica, I don't see how that could be seen as reliable. I'd rather have a news source like ABC News, WashPost or NYTimes or L.A. Times, over Britannica.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference? "legal immigration" is the process of becoming a legally recognized and lawfully recorded resident, whereas "anti-immigration" is opposition sentiment toward aspects of the movement of non-native people into a country. I have not referred to anti-immigration as being anti-legal-immigration; you are mistaken. I have noted, however, that opposition to legal immigration and opposition to illegal immigration are both under the umbrella of "anti-immigration". re: Britannica; of course it's not the only source. There are several more with it at the end of that sentence, and many more have been raised here on this Talk page during this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is part of Xenophrenic's comment from above, Good point. Anti-legal and anti-illegal are all still "anti-immigration" policies in the U.S., too, and our bland, neutral textbooks simply use the common term (Example: The new conservative legislators, who were most comfortable with many Tea Party preferences—smaller government, anti-immigration policies and so on—provided the votes and the caucus power for the consideration of and passage of a Tea Party-like agenda... Pg. 51). Many reliable scholarly sources about the Tea Party, however, specifically point out the individual facets of the Tea Party movement's anti-immigration position (Example: opposition to illegal immigration, support for limiting legal immigration, ...Pg. 131).. . .Xenophrenic (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I haven't found a single source yet that claims the Tea Party want to limit legal immigration. I can't find any anti-immigration in the Tea Party. Just anti-illegal immigration and opposition to amnesty if it does not include securing the borders. That seems to be the sentiment across America anyway, not just the tea party. And I found a very specific source that says there is no rise in 'nativism' and certainly there's nothing to support nativism in the tea party movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You haven't found a single source yet that claims the Tea Party wants to limit legal immigration? Malke, you just cut & pasted one! Click the link and read. support for limiting legal immigration, ... Pg. 131 Did you read page 131? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Page 131 in what book? Are you talking about the Skocpol book? Malke 2010 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I just read the entire chapter in The Rise of the Chapter that includes "page 131." There's only one mention of 'limit legal immigration' and it's from an old April 2010 survey of people who identify as supporting the tea party, which means they surveyed the general public. Given the age of the survey, three years old, and the fact that the Tea Party supports immigration reform, as I said before, your argument is moot. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Message to the supporters of the word "anti-immigration," or any weaselly derivation thereof: we already have limits on legal immigration. All countries have limits on legal immigration. If the poll question had asked whether they want to "terminate legal immigration," then you would have something to support your "anti-immigration" claim. But it didn't. So you don't. Give up. Move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


PROPOSAL

This is getting silly. Anti-immigration parties often campaign to change the law, they may also campaign to enforce the law more vigorous or to provide different legal resolutions. To be antti-immigration does not mean you are racists per se. I suggest that the forum shopping and attempt to break policy by arguing a vote is a consensus stops and instead we draft a simple statement of the issue, with a list of THIRD PARTY sources then raise an RfC. Its important the RfC wording is at least agreed, maybe get a neutral admin to draft it?----Snowded TALK 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are your sources to support "Anti-immigration parties often campaign to change the law, they may also campaign to enforce the law more vigorous. . ." And why an RFC? We have consensus against using anti-immigration. I don't see any forum shopping. Anti-immigration is a European issue, not an American issue. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at the UKIP and BNP articles and you will find multiple sourced examples. Now as to your contention that its only a European issue, not an American one, that I would love to see a source on. ----Snowded TALK 05:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
We have consensus against using anti-immigration? And where is that consensus decision, please? (This should be very interesting.) "Silly" is an understatement. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
As for Snowded's proposal (which I believe has also been proposed by others in approximate form): I think it's a good idea. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course you do! It supports you. The consensus is against the use of 'anti-immigration.' Malke 2010 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. There is a strong consensus against using "anti-immigration" there. I was in favor of using it in a different context, but I see now that it would be misleading, although sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Arthur, I just finished reading one of Xen's sources, The Rise of the Tea Party and he refers to page 131. That's a survey of the general public and people who say they support the tea party ideas. There's mention of 'limit legal immigration.' That doesn't seem RS to me, especially considering the recent Rand Paul/Tea Party support for immigration reform. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Its a characteristic of many anti-immigration parties that they are pro immigration reform ----Snowded TALK 05:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
And what is your opinion as to the relationship between the immigration question and the sourced characterizations of the TPm as xenophobic? You are going to have to come up with an inclusive approach to discussing the POV set forth in those RS in an NPOV manner in accord with WP:DUE.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 08:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, we already have limits on legal immigration. All countries have limits on legal immigration. If the poll question had asked whether they want to "terminate legal immigration," then you would have something to support your "anti-immigration" claim. But it didn't. So you don't. Give up. Move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually you dpn't have a consensus you have a marginal majority on a straw poll. Its been pointed out on at least two of the forums that P&W has 'shopped' that a poll of that nature is simply not good enough - something I would have expected you to support Arthur, regardless of your opinions you are an admin and some coaching of your more polemical and (in terms of wikipedia process) ignorant colleagues such as P&W would be expected. In particular their refusal to abide by WP:BRD. I only hope who ever is drafting the arbcom ruling is taking note.

Whatever an RfC is the obvious way forward and opposing it seems strange. So lets move to that, and (unlike the poll which was drafted with partisan intent) I'd like to do this objectively. So would other editors please complete this - as a simple list only please. Once that is done I'll draft the RfC. We need other editors looking at this and they are not going to wade through the whole of the exchanges above ----Snowded TALK 05:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC) (Signature and dateline added as a courtesy by Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC) )

SOURCES FOR INCLUSION OF ANTI-IMMIGRATION

  • xxx

SOURCES AGINST INCLUSION

COMMENTS

That is quite inappropriate, and I think you have seen enough discussion to know it. If there is one (non-fringe) reliable source which says the TPm is not "anti-immigration", then it should only be included as a controversy. But, even if there isn't, a few sources which say it is "anti-immigration" (and I still haven't seen any; I've looked at 5 of the sources, and haven't seen it at all) would not be adequate to support inclusion, if the vast majority of sources do not. I admit I've used a contrary argument on other articles and inclusions, but a random sampling of google search, ignoring unreliable sources, did show that most of them supported the concept. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
The appropriate test is for the parties to agree on a relevant google search, (probably not including the word "immigration"), and see what the reliable sources say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it incredible that an admin is trying to avoid a RfC when there is controversy on a subject. Provide the sources then let's pull some other editors in, you can make the case then. ----Snowded TALK 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The RfC is reasonable. Your comment about finding "sources against inclusion" is not, and would only be helpful (and defeat your POV) if found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
So what heading would you suggest? ----Snowded TALK 09:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"Opposed to illegal immigration" is the term the Tea Party uses to describe what mainstream sources call anti-immigration. Obviously if the U.S. were to have an immigration policy that allowed immigrants legally to fill jobs that could not be filled internally, the Tea Party would oppose that too. Everyone opposes illegal immigration, the dipute is over what to do about it, whether to have pro-immigration or anti-immigration policies. TFD (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you come to the conclusion that TPM people would oppose legal immigration for jobs which can not be filled internally? We already bring in a lot of immigrants to fill positions in various sciences because there are not enough Americans that go into these fields. I did some searching and was not able to find anywhere that the TPM was protesting this. If anything it is Labor Unions that are protesting H1B visas while congressman Raúl Labrador (a tea party republican from Idaho) is in support of them! Arzel (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, so what we see here is an attempt to impose Tea Party language/propaganda on the article ----Snowded TALK 13:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, what we have here is an attempt to apply an uncommon meaning of the word "anti-immigration" without noting it. I was going to say "anti-Tea-Party" propaganda, but that would require a source, as it falls under WP:BLP, as we can identify those few people who have used the term applied to the Tea Party. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of anything better for the question than: "Should anti-immigration appear in the "Agenda" section? If so, with what caveats?" I would accept a statement that the TPm is often perceived to be anti-immigration, but whether that should be in the "Agenda", "Polling", or "Media" sections is unclear. We can mention that WP:NOCONSENSUS is contradictory on the issue, as it doesn't say "specific" or "identified" "living people", just "living people". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BLP isn't involved here. The "living people" wording you keep quoting is from the BLP exemption about living people, and doesn't apply to descriptions of the Tea Party movement. The actual question at the root of this discussion is: Should "anti-immigration" be included among the descriptions of the Tea Party movement? What section it appears in ('Agenda', 'Lead', etc.) can be determined once this elephant in the room has been addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Organizations further their agendas by stating them. Failure to state them is failure to promote them. That is why self-stated agendas are reasonably accurate. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

While looking at a comment made by TFD above I found out that Rual Labrodor (a tea party republican from Idaho) is actively trying to make it easier for H1B visa immigration. I put the link above. Arzel (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

H1-B is a "non-immigrant" temporary visa. Labrador is attempting to make it easier for foreign STEM masters and PhD graduates of American universities to obtain permanent residency, but that is a small segments of foreign workers in the U.S. Also, the fact that someone the Tea Party backs, once elected, takes a different stand on some issues than the Tea Party does not mean that the Tea Party has changed its belief system. TFD (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
H1B's are a pathway to legal immigration and there is no evidence that Labrador changed his mind. Also, H1-B do not have to come from American universities (although they often do). Apparently anything that goes against this belief that the TPM is anti-immigrations is to be ignored. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Starting an RfC doesn't need agreement here

First, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not policy. Secondly, what it says is "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page." It then lists alternatives to an RfC and the two types of RfC. In other words, if you are unhappy with an article, first discuss it on the article's talk page. Then if that doesn't work, there are several alternatives that can be pursued, one of them being an RfC. I hope this settles the matter. Any attempts to prevent an RfC here are not likely to be received favorably and may be seen as a violation of the ArbCom probation. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if the RfC were viewed as disruptive, it wouldn't be inappropriate or a violation of probation to kill it. If not outright absurd, it probably would still be subject to 1RR. I don't think it's disruptive, only not helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Those issues aside, I don't think a superficial RFC is likely to be helpful. It's going to turn into drive-by voting on whether someone does and doesn't like the TPM, and would like to see a negative characterization applied to the TPM stance on illegal immigration. Perhaps the process started by Silk Tork instead would help us rise above that. North8000 (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I've certainly encountered disruptive RfCs and ones with unacceptable wording, and I think I've killed at least one. I can see the concerns about drive-by voting but then any attempt to bring this to the attention of the wider community could have that problem, and it may be that disagreement about the TP here means that consensus can't be reached here. But I hadn't noticed the bit about Silk Tork, perhaps something useful will come of that. If it doesn't, I think the problems here need to be settled with input somehow from elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw an RfC opened by two editors who didn't even vote on the issue; on the talk page of an article under probation and ArbCom review; where the editors under ArbCom review have just agreed to a moderated discussion by an ArbCom admin. An RfC at this time would disrupt, and possibly be fatal to, that discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify and expand upon the specific ways in which an RfC would disrupt the moderated discussion between the editors under ArbCom review? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have pointed out above a couple of times that a book by two political scientists studying the TPm directly, including through activists themselves, i being published in May, and the issues of immigration and xenophobia are addressed in that book. When that becomes available, it may present evidence that contradicts any consensus achieved in the interim. There are few high-caliber (academic) RS that address these issues, so that source may be important.
At any rate, the importance of immigration vis-a-vis the overall agenda should be taken into account in an effort to re-frame the article in a manner that would more readily accommodate the introduction of relevant new material without requiring concomitant changes to other parts of the article. The article should be restructured, and there is little rhyme or reason to its organization.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 10:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that more higher level analysis is exactly what this article needs. And I think that the desire for such, occasionally expressed by some participants from both sides of the issues in one of the more promising areas for finding some common ground here. But that sure isn't what has been happening here lately. I'm just seeing huge debates trying to substitute the most non-neutral negative-sounding words possible when referring to the TPM and "its" agenda. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
At this stage, I consider the RfC to be borderline disruptive. It seeks to reopen a consensus discussion that is pretty much finished. The minority of course does not want to accept defeat, so they want it to continue and they pretend the discussion is still ongoing, but the fact of the matter is that all active editors on this page have moved on to other questions, such as use of the term "grass roots" in the lede. RfC, particularly on a hot button political topic like this one, invites drive by editing from people who hate the subject of the article. And any continuing lack of finality on this topic has been seen by at least one editor in the minority as an excuse for tendentious editing. Pardon my language, but that bullshit has been going on for nine days and RfC would ensure that the bullshit lasts for at least 30 more. The RfC was started by A Quest For Knowledge. I made him fully aware of these circumstances at WP:ANI, and he went ahead and started the RfC anyway, in a bit of a pointy fashion, which is what pushes my thinking of this toward a "disruptive" diagnosis. Furthermore, we're about to start moderated discussion with an arbitrator, SilkTork, as our moderator; and I look forward to getting something productive done in that process, in a relatively efficient manner. In nearly any other scenario I would welcome an RfC but not here, not now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You do not hae a consensus you have a limited participation straw poll. An RfC is the proper way forward and if anything is borderline disruptive its your refusal to listen when editors at ANI, BLP etc all tell you that your interpretation of policy is wrong. ----Snowded TALK 10:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that a case where a question was posed,, and open for 9 days, and where 13 people weighed in should carry significant weight. Not as much as an official RFC, but significant weight. Also (not talking about anybody in particular) when folks don't object while it is occurring, but object afterwards if it did not go they way that they preferred, that that is an indicator that they probably would have considered it to be legit if it did go the way that they preferred, which impacts on their argument that it is not legit. This is not speaking about anyone in particular. If I think that a process is flawed, I generally point it out immediately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is particularly true where nearly everyone who's active on this page has "voted," and has had plenty of opportunity to present their policy-based arguments for or against use of the term "anti-immigration" to describe the Tea Party so early in the article, where the word carried so much WP:WEIGHT. Even one or two editors who didn't "vote" have been very active in presenting such arguments. There's an overwhelming number of reliable sources which clearly indicate that the Tea Party is opposed to illegal immigration, or to amnesty for illegal immigrants, or to comprehensive immigration reform (three terms which are synonymous for all practical purposes). The Tea Party's own statements are reliable sources for this limited purpose per WP:SELFSOURCE.
Those in favor of using the word so early in the article have presented arguments that are not compelling. The only two sources which actually say what they're claiming are a book by a couple of professors (due to be released next month), and the Encyclopedia Britannica, a tertiary source which is arguably ambiguous on the point. These editors have cited other sources but in at least one case, they're using guilt by association, and in at least one other case, an editor has been misrepresenting what the source actually says. In the absence of the discovery of any additional sources which say "anti-immigration" unambiguously, it's clear (at least to me) that the discussion is over. We need to invest our time in discussing other matters. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"... an editor has been misrepresenting what the source actually says" requires a specific referent. I think I know who you mean, and I think you're correct, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well Arthur, per certain comments by SilkTork on his/her User Talk page, I'm trying to back away from specific accusations against any specific editors, at least in this venue. I think your own User Talk page describes this issue with the details you're seeking. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If you feel misrepresentation of a source has ocurred, simply show both the content from the source and the alleged misrepresentation of that content. Otherwise, it appears to a casual reader that the allegations are just more of the same smoke & mirror charges used above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That's already been done, Xeno. Try to keep up. And Arthur, North, Malke, Collect, Arzel and I aren't the ones using smoke and mirrors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Then surely you can point me to where it's "already been done". Just one diff, or a pointer to that discussion; I would like to see, first-hand, this exact source and the misrepresentation of it. I'm thinking I probably shouldn't hold my breath... Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, you can find that thread on your own. The real issue is immigration reform and that is well-sourced here:[34][35] and here [36] The Skocpol book you refer to does not say anti-immigration. I've got the book, I've read it. She devotes a page and a half to illegal immigration and makes a generalization based on conversations with people who aren't even members of tea party groups. And remember, it's her choice to pick the conversations she puts in her book. Skocpol's "scholarly" opinion does not carry more weight than ABC News. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Malke, I'm fairly certain that thread doesn't exist, otherwise you would have pointed it out. Of course immigration reform is a real issue, but it certainly isn't "The" real issue, and it isn't a replacement topic for our discussion about anti-immigrant sentiment in the Tea Party movement. I'll take you at your word that you have read the book, but your incorrect assertion that the study team "makes a generalization based on conversations with people who aren't even members of tea party groups" makes me question that. They interviewed many Tea Partiers, and attended many TP meetings, events and discussion groups. Another incorrect assertion is that "she" picks what goes into the book; you do realize the book you speak of is actually the book-form of an academic study by a reasearch team, right? Claiming that an academic study by Harvard researchers "does not carry more weight than ABC News" is nonsensical. Do you have such an ABC News source on the anti-immigration sentiments of the Tea Party (the one you linked above doesn't address that issue)? What, in your opinion, is being conveyed by pages 74-76 of the book? (Yes, I have the book, too, along with Zernike's "Boiling Mad", Formisano's "The Tea Party", Street & Dimaggio's "Crashing the Tea Party", ...) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Xen, Skocpol and Williamson didn't interview that many people. Also, they admitted they did more Internet 'research' than actual field research and only really visited meetings in the Boston area. And in the thread in question, you present a block quote from the good professor. Problem is, you preface it as an example of anti-immigration. Professor Skocpol does not even use the word anti-immigration anywhere in her 205 page book (245 pages if you count the notes and index). Her discussion of immigration is devoted exclusively to illegal immigration. You've taken the quote from her book out of context. And regarding her study, she admits that she used other studies she found on the Internet to supplement her 'research.' Malke 2010 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Malke, how is it that we have the same book, yet what I've read doesn't jibe at all with what you claim here? From the preface and acknowledgments (and even the book jacket synopsis), we learn that the research team was "Drawing on grassroots interviews and visits to local meetings in several regions", not just "the Boston area", as you claim. "Perhaps our greatest debt is to the Tea Party participants in Massachusetts, Virginia and Arizona who hosted our visits and were willing to meet with us for personal interviews and allow us to attend and observe local meetings. ... No other source of information we tapped for this project was anywhere nearly as important", which refutes your claim that they mostly relied on "Internet 'research'". You claim that the work is "based on conversations with people who aren't even members of tea party groups", yet the book says, "It has been fascinating for us, and very important, to hear directly from Tea Party people about why they got involved, how, and to what ends." You claim it's Skocpol's "choice" as to what interviews to use, and that the work is merely her "opinion", and doesn't carry more weight than a routine ABC News story — yet your claim is completely contradicted, as the study was accepted by the peer-review Perspectives on Politics journal, and involved dozens of academics, and "Many people have helped us develop arguments, complete the research, and produce the book." Are you sure you and I are referring to the same source?
Moving on to your claim that I quoted a passage from this source "out of context", and prefaced it "as an example of anti-immigration". Here is my actual preface, and the actual passage:
This source, after detailing very strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the Tea Party as it relates specifically to "illegals" or "undocumented immigrants", goes on to describe the TPer's anti-immigrant sentiment toward legal immigration as well:

Such fears are, of course, wrapped up with anxieties about immigration and America's changing links to the larger world beyond the nation's borders. Telling us about her revelation that America had somehow changed, Bonnie plaintively asks, "What's happening in this country? What's happening with immigration?" Tea Partiers see immigrants and young people as harbingers of cultural decline. Even Stanley, whose views on immigration were among the most moderate of any Tea Partier we interviewed, felt that immigration is a "threat to our culture." Though rates of immigration have been high in recent decades, sociologists looking at typical measures of immigrant incorporation--educational attainment, language assimilation, and intermarriage--find that the most recent generations of immigrants from Asia and Latin America are "being successfully incorporated into American society," just as European immigrants were in the past. But this is not believable to many Tea Partiers, who perceive that today's immigrants are unwilling to integrate as previous generations did.

Now please indicate how that is out of context? Your claim that the "discussion of immigration is devoted exclusively to illegal immigration" is flat-out wrong. Read it again. Nowhere in that passage does the word "illegal" appear; it's discussing immigration, and the broader context is the Tea Partier's fear that American society is changing, and "freeloaders" and "undeserving" are being enabled, and leeching off of hard-working Americans -- a context that is clear to anyone reading beyond a "page and a half" equivalent of a Google preview-snippet.

The Tea Party emphasis on the importance of work and earned benefits certainly meshes with widely held American values. Hard work is, after all, a cornerstone of the American Dream. Americans have long linked a person's deservingness to the effort he or she puts forth, and most tend to perceive poverty as a result of laziness rather than misfortune. But the current Tea Party distinction between freeloaders and hardworking taxpayers has ethnic, nativist, and generational undertones that distinguish it from a simple reiteration of the long-standing American creed. In Tea Party eyes, undeserving people are not simply defined by a tenuous attachment to the labor market or the receipt of unearned government handouts. For Tea Partiers, deservingness is a cultural category, closely tied to certain racially and ethnically tinged assumptions about American society in the early twenty-first century. Tea Party resistance to giving more to categories of people deemed undeserving is more than just an argument about taxes and spending. It is a heartfelt cry about where they fear "their country" may be headed. Tea Party worries about racial and ethnic minorities and overly entitled young people signal a larger fear about generational social change in America.

In my previous comment, I asked you for your take on what was being conveyed by paged 74-76 of this source. You didn't respond, and now after seeing your most recent comments about "context", I'm once again left wondering if you've even read that chapter. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Xen, you need to read the entire book and not just the Google book snippets. You also need to stop saying Skocpol is claiming 'anti-immigration.' She's not. The word is nowhere in the book. Not in any of the 205 pages, 249 if you count the notes and index. You need to read the book and not the Google snippets. And as you've said earlier, you mean nativism when you say 'anti-immigration,' and again, the Professor doesn't say that either. Being concerned about immigration is not the same as being 'anti-immigrant' or a nativist, in the same way that a horse is not a Zebra. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Malke, you need to actually get the book and read it, instead of just claiming to pick one up from a library. You also need to stop saying that Skocpol's team isn't talking about immigration. They are. The word is all through the book. You really should get the book and read it, rather than just claim to. And as you've said earlier, you mean illegal when you say zebra, and the book didn't say that either. In my previous two comments, I asked you for your take on what was being conveyed by paged 74-76 of this source. You didn't respond, and now I'm once again left wondering if you've even read that chapter. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The passages you've quoted don't say "anti-immigration." They don't even say, "anti-immigrant." One Tea Partier sees immigration as a "threat to our culture," but that's not the same thing. And of course, "Tea Partiers see immigrants ... as harbingers of cultural decline." But that's still not the same thing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that we very clearly need an RfC, at this point. Two peer reviewed academic sources identify immigration policy as a core concern of the TPM. One states that there is a hardline nativist element in the movement. The other which is apologetic for the movement spends half a chapter describing how TPM advocates stricter citizenship legislation and Arizona style legislation against illegal-immigrants. And yet you keep obfuscating. We need some outside views here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Sources

I have access to the following four books at my library. They seem relevant, I will answer specific questions about their contents.

  • Foley, Elizabeth Price. 2012. The Tea Party: Three Principles. Cambridge University Press.
  • Formisano, Ronald. 2012. The Tea Party: A Brief History. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Rosenthal, Lawrence & Christine Trost. 2012. Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party. California University Press.
  • Miller, William J. & Jeremy D. Walling (eds.) 2012. Tea Party Effects on the 2012 U.S. Senate Elections. Lexington Books. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Foley is professor of law and a self-professed libertarian, and her book is also admittedly very sympathetic to the movement. She describes it as "a vast, dispersed grasroots movement" (p. xiii). She argues that the movement is defined by a set of unified answers to questions about American exceptionalism and the role of the contitution. Its three dominant themes are limited government, U.S. Sovereignty and originalist constitutionalism. She argues that the focus on U.S. Sovereignty motivates a keen interest on the "issue of how to deal with illegal immigration" which she describes as "one of great concern to the Tea Party", she states that they are are in favor of ending birthright citizenship and for Arizona style immigration laws. She says that curbing illegal immigration is seen as a key aspect in defending US sovereignty and territorial integrity (pp. 143-165).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a section on ending birthright citizenship as one of the central ways in which the Tea Party focus on sovereignty. I will check later today if she specifically mentions Graham and the 14th amendment.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Foley also writes, "Some claim that the Tea Party is essentially indistinguishable from the Republican Party and is indeed the brainchild of clever conservative and/or libertarian organizations and thus is essentially captured by them. Although there are admittedly conservative and libertarian organizations that support and are sympathetic to the Tea Party movement, it would be unfair to characterize the Tea Party as a mere spin-off of such organizations or a puppet of them." (p. xiii) Essentially she is accepted the dual nature of the movement, although she places more emphasis on the grassroots nature. Remember two that she is explaining her own opinion, unlike Formiso, who is explaining how scholarship views it. As Formisano wrote, the debate is the] extent to which it is grassroots or astroturf. Also, Foley's book is about the principles of the movement, not its structure. BTW, a writer's stated position or primary area of expertise has no bearing on the reliability of the facts expressed in the book. TFD (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Formisano is professor of history. He argues that the main debate about the Tea Party is about whether it is a authentic grassroots movement or an example of successful astroturfing. He concludes that it has been created by both kinds of populism - i.e. it is neither or both. He argues that Tea Party members see illegal immigration as a serious problem mostly because of the perception that immigrants are freeloaders leeching of taxpayer funded government programs (p. 21). He also argues that Tea Parties have responded to immigrants with hardline nativism, but that the party has also been exploited by anti-immigrant activists whose presence in party ranks is largely tolerated (p. 113). In contrast to Foley, Formisano emphasises the ties to the Religious right, and the role of Biblical fundamentalism in informing the Tea Party brand of contitutional originalism. He also notes the ties with big business, and how sometimes corporate interest in the movement work to downtone the social issues that many of the grassroots activists see as most pressing - which means that the grassroots/astroturf issue can be seen as an important internal tension in the movement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
He argues that the main debate about the Tea Party is about whether it is a authentic grassroots movement or an example of successful astroturfing. Formisano does ask that question, but does not say "yes, it's Astroturfing." He doesn't even say, "yes, it's partially Astroturfing." I had the same conversation with Binksternet on the moderated discussion page, please review it. My impression of Formisano, having just read his book cover to cover, is that the only organization that Formisano mentions as "Astroturfing" is the Institute for Liberty (IFL). Formisano describes IFL as "blatantly Astroturfing" but does not describe it as part of TPm. Rather, he sees IFL as being external, and trying to exploit the success and popularity of TPm for its own purposes. Like other sources such as NPR, Formisano does raise concerns about the amount and sources of the money flowing into TPm, but does not indicate that it compromises or dilutes TPm's essentially grass-roots nature. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that I can find some quotes that contradict that interpretation of Formisanos conclusion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
On page 8 he writes: "So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: Astroturf or Grassroots populism?" The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few - corporate lobbyists form above - but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism" (my emphasis). Furthermore, Formisano states that it is the main question surrounding the Tea Party whether it is real grass roots activism - if that is the case that this is the main debate then obviously it is not possible for wikipedia to adopt one of those descriptions as a neutral definition. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Claiming that Formisano said "TPm is Astroturfing," or even "TPm is partially Astroturfing," is an example of WP:SYNTH. Please carefully review Formisano's question:

So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: Astroturf or Grassroots populism?"

That's the right question, Maunus. That's the question we want answered to determine whether the word "grass-roots" can be used in the lede, in Wikipedia's voice, to describe TPm. Now carefully review Formisano's answer to his own question:

The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few - corporate lobbyists form above - but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism.

Formisano does not say that the TPM has been "created by Astroturfing." He says that it's been created by two types of populism, and never claims that the corporate lobbyist type of populism is equivalent to Astroturfing. It would be a violation of WP:SYNTH to assume that's what he meant. Formisano had plenty of opportunities to say, "TPm is Astroturfing," or, "TPm is part Astroturf." And he never said it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry but that is ridiculous nonsense. In the preceding paragraph he defines astroturfing as a kind of populism and in the sentence he very clearly and extremely explicitly refers back to Astruturfing with the "two kinds of populism". This does not strike me as a reasonable reading at all and in fact I am a little dissapopointed that you would attempt such a tendentious reading of a very clear source. That does not bode well for being able to edit collaboratively towards a neutral article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The contemporary right-wing grassroots rebellion, however, differs strikingly from earlier mobilizations by enjoying a sometimes uneasy alliance with powerful astroturf groups and with Tea Party caususes in Congress and state legislatures. --pg 87
  • The Tea Partiers, finally, are routinely referred to in the media as conservatives. But their blend of astroturf and grassroots populism is more accurately labeled right-wing or reactionary populism. --pg 100
It's fairly clear that Formisano considers the movement to have both astroturf and grassroots characteristics. As for the assertion that "the only organization that Formisano mentions as 'Astroturfing' is the Institute for Liberty": no, he actually expounds quite a bit on the usual suspects, (AFP, FreedomWorks ...lots of Koch interaction, in fact), and even challenges the Tea Party Patriots claim to not having outside influence. I don't think anyone is arguing to have Wikipedia state that the TP movement is just an astroturf creation ... that would indeed be synthesis. We should convey what reliable sources convey, that it is both, and not wholly one or the other. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Even if the title of Formisano's book had been "The Tea Party Movement is Astroturf," and even if he had repeated that thesis statement several times in the text, it would still be part of a minority. The overwhelming majority of the reliable sources describe TPm as "grass-roots": including three major dailies, two major news networks, and the Tea Party organizations themselves. The Wikipedia article Waterboarding demonstrates how we describe a debate in which there's a majority opinion and a minority opinion. Waterboarding starts out defining the act as "torture" in the first five or six words of the article, in Wikipedia's voice, because that's the majority opinion — even though the minority opinion, that it is not torture but merely "enhanced interrogation," has several notable adherents such as Dick Cheney. In fact, the top of the article's Talk page has been templated[37] and it says pretty much exactly what I've said here: an overwhelming majority of sources define waterboarding as torture, so that's why we say it in the first six words of the article, in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly, we should define TPm as a grass-roots movement in the first few words of the article, in Wikipedia's voice, because that's the majority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That is a very interesting reaction to being confronted with academic peerreviewed sources that disagrees with ones own opinion. Not exactly a surprising reaction, but interesting nonetheless.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policy. It's called WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Weight is not a function of how many news paper articles you can amass in favor of any given viewpoint or using a particular phrase, but a function of how reliable sources written by experts analyze those - weight is determined by a qualified majority. First you misrepresented what the sources said, then when it was clear that that nobody was going to buy that, you went back to the argument from unqualified majority (also known as the argument from 5,000,000 Elvis fans), and the argument from red herring (water boarding).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If you could provide a link to the section of Wikipedia policy that says all that, I'd appreciate it. Newspapers and broadcast news networks have fact checkers. I'd be happy to cite the section of policy I'm relying on: WP:NEWSORG. Notice the similarity in the sentence, " 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ..." to the following sentence from WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." Both types of sources are considered to be reliable, Maunus. One is no better than the other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in the same way that a politician's personal opinion about global warming (or that of a newsmedia "factchecker" for that matter) is no better than the scientific community's. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like to agree with Maunus, as it would generally produce a better encyclopedia, but Wikipedia policy is WP:NPOV, not scientific point of view, WP:MEDRS notwithstanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I am also sure the folks working on keeping pseudoscience articles free from nonsense will be sad to hear that the fact that a stupidity is repeated in a large amount of news media outlets or proponent literature now overrides scientific consensus. NPOV does not mean that when the consensus among the relevant experts in the field, differs from consensus among much more numerous laypeople we choose the latter as the "neutral definition". At most it means that we choose neither. In this case it is especially important that we don't choose a side because it is a quesiton that is being actively debated both by experts and laypeople. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec / rewirte) Actually, I'd like to agree with Maunus, as it would generally produce a better encyclopedia, but Wikipedia policy is neutral point of view, not scientific point of view, WP:MEDRS notwithstanding. There are (at least) two problems with that being a potential guideline:
  1. Wikipedians would have to judge whether a reliable source is "qualified". Now, we all think we could do that, but we would undoubtably determine different degrees of reliablility.
  2. Determining whether a so-called "scholarly" journal is actually reliable is just barely within the sort of things non-expert Wikipedians could determine. Determining whether the journal is qualified is beyond the capablility of Wikipedians, and probably beyond that of experts, as experts in different fields would disagree.
As for the pseudoscience problem, there are no markers for pseudoscience in politics. Conclusions are almost always nuanced in such a way that the bias of the writers or editors shines through, regardless of "facts", even when the researchers are honest. (I decline comment as to whether researchers are usually, or even often, honest, as it borders on WP:BLP, and is not necessary.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We make such judgments all the time and we should make such judgments all the time. In this case P&W is arguing that a book published by one of the world's most respected academic presses by an author who is an expert on the topic is less reliable than a handful of news media sources that use the label "grassroots" as an off hand descriptor without even defining what they mean with that and in pieces that are not even about whether they are or are not "grassroots". I am really dumbstruck that I would find people arguing seriously that we should elevate news writers' labels to the level of wikipedias truth, in the face of expert opposition of the degree that calls it "the main debate about the tea party". Honestly its hard not to see this kind of argument as tendentious pov pushing, and I would not care to stick around here at the encyclopedia the day that your proposed interpretation of policy becomes the general one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. STOP violating WP:TALK by indenting 2-4 additional colons.
  2. "Academic" books can be problematic, even in the hard sciences. Too much of the author's personal opinions can get in, and I've ocassionally seen an outright error protected for some time even if it becomes obvious to experts before acceptance, not to mention before publication. Journal articles are better, but not perfect. as errors not caught in the proofing process are not detectible by people who aren't expert librarians. (You need to do a forward reference search, and see if anyone smells the south end of a north-facing male bovine.) Newspapers are theoretically worse, but are fact-checked to the point that detected errors are often corrected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This is complete and utter bollocks. You are arguing that news presses have better fact checking than academic presses. At that point there is really very little that can be reasonably discussed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Elyse Siegel (July 29, 2010). "Lindsey Graham: 'Birthright Citizenship Is A Mistake,' 'We Should Change Constitution'". The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_22&oldid=913247237"