Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Significance?

I'm not sure how significant or widespread these protests really are, but they do seem to have been mentioned fairly widely, if briefly, in the mainstream press such as The Guardian and The Economist. Possibly related to Rick Santelli's odd performance on CNBC, and I'm picking up a lot of chatter about them on Twitter (see for instance #tcot and #teaparty on search.twitter.com). Conservative politics is a closed book to me, but this does look interesting. --TS 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there are a lot of libertarians involved too. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The protest are becoming more common as the government spends more of the taxpayers money, also there was one in Oklahoma City in late feb, early March, i didnt see it on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.245 (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I rename this article?

I want to change it to Tea party (protest). Do I have to create a new article and then redirect this page there, ect, ect. Sorry for my ignorance :) Thanks, --Tom 15:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just use the "Move" link and type in a new name. In the default skin, the "move" link is in a tab near the top of the page. You need to be registered for a few days before you can perform moves. I think your suggested name is fine. --TS 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try it at some point. I hate "screwing" things up around here even though this project is hard to "break", but learning a new "tool" is always helpful. I actually did a AFD the other day correctly on the first try, go figure :) Cheers! Tom 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How about 2009 TEA Party protests (written like that) since TEA is the official name?

I'm not comfortable with the present title (2009 "tea party" protests), either. It reeks of POV from a user whose only contribution to this page was to move it. Specifically, the fact that the name "tea party" is in quotation marks fails Wikipedia:NC#Avoid_non-alphanumeric_characters_used_only_for_emphasis. I'm going to move the page to 2009 Tea Party protests. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea party images

(copied from my user talk page --TS 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Some other free ones from Flickr that you could use, if desired:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324190043/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3325026156/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324189285/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/skye820/3324189073/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/34536315@N04/3317043350/
• I think any thing in http://www.flickr.com/photos/e53/sets/72157614438575147/

I don't know if any of them are good, but they are free to use. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

External links question

What kind of external links would be good for this article? Would a link to a local website organizing a tea party work? For instance: the Cincinnati tea party website. Or would more national (coordinating) websites work? For instance: the Tax Day tea party website. If we list the local ones, would we simply have too many links (linkfarm)? Are any of them "official" enough to qualify for inclusion? As it stands, there are no "external links", so I was curious. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, a good place for sources: http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22tea+party%22 --Ali'i 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has made a google map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112875499027114938790.0004647d9f61bab744fd4&ll=38.272689,-96.679687&spn=27.495109,57.128906&z=4&source=embed htom (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was the External Links section removed? If it was merely a formatting problem ought it not have been fixed rather than axed? Would very much like to see it returned. --King ravana (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The external links section was removed because it was basically a link farm for tea party protest websites, and these do not satisfy WP:EL. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess my reading of the WP:EL must be different than yours. "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." The Tea Party Patriots site that I added to the External Links section is the Official Website of the movement. That seems to imply "meaningful, relevant content". I can understand not wanting links from all the local groups, such as the other link I posted. --King ravana (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says it is the "official website of the movement" exactly? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The coalition of groups that came together to form the rallies have stated such...that was some of the information to be found on the web link that was removed. Check it out at http://www.teapartypatriots.org I've been on the conference calls at the state level and everyone seems to concur that this is the national level folks. --King ravana (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Two sections removed

I've removed a section called "Responses" because the only reference was to a separate initiative by Barack Obama dating from early February, before the protests.

I've removed a section called "Momentum" because it only referred to partisan sources. --TS 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a similarly sourced section, "Capstones", containing a single poorly sourced statement. Statements about the size of a protest should be sourced reliably. Police estimates are often all that can be relied on because organizers themselves do not have experience in counting the crowd. --TS 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed an entry from events that read as follows:

February 27 / Nationwide / The Tea Party had 30,000 protesters in 50 cities nationwide.

The sources given were a video made by Glenn Reynolds and hosted on Pajamas TV, a website for the Oregon Tea Party, and a website called "Speak Now America". These are not reliable sources for the figures claimed. --TS 16:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin?

RON PAUL

The tea parties began on December 16th, 2007 (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party) as a fund raising/protest initiative started by Libertarian leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. This was the second and larger of two major fund raising days for Ron Paul from 2007. The first one was on November 5, 2007. They were both huge sucesses the first raising 4.2 million dollars in one day and the second raising 6.6 million.

There is a strong liklihood that the 2009 tea party protests were influenced or inspired by Ron Paul 2007 tea party and the movement that grew out of the Ron Paul candidacy.

It's not just a strong likelihood. The Tea Party events were started by Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty supporters, and both the left and the right wing partisans are trying to pretend otherwise, for differing reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can prove a direct connection but this should be at least mentioned in the primary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.250.65 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

see this wiki article for more info: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Moneybomb

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.73.99 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not acceptable as a reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is just like any other part of the internet - you have to judge any information gained from it on its merits. In this case the video clearly shows that certain things happened, and when they happened (before date of posting) --PeterR (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just put back my paragraph about the Ron Paul campaign rallies that were billed with the "tea party" name. It's misleading to pretend that this just started in February of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed again. Please read WP:V and WP:OR. The Squicks (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced, with the link to the USA Today article that references the Boston Tea Party anniversary. No, will you knock it off if you don't have anything to contribute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed once more. That source does not say that the money bomb is any way connected to the tea parties.

The article can only mention things that reliable sources say are in some way connected to the protests. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the article I linked. I quote: "It was timed for the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, a day meant to resonant with the Libertarian sensibilities of his supporters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. It said absolutely nothing about those people thinking that they were going to protest in Spring 2009. The Squicks (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see that the facts don't fit your agenda, so you'll just keep deleting what I wrote. Have it your way; wikipedia isn't the only place people can learn about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the facts do not fit your agenda. Either find reliable sources that support your claim that Ron Paul's supporters a year ago planned the protests going on right now, or stop adding that material. The Squicks (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to link to more "evidence" that the Ron Paul folk were having Tea Parties back in 2007: [2] Nobody can prove that this is what led to the 2009 Tea Parties or that it didn't, but the influence is pretty likely, the same people are still involved (though to a lesser extent since the media took over), and so this should definitely be mentioned in the article. No edit wars for me, but someone should add this in. 173.79.164.219 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "the squicks" has decided that he won't tolerate any mention of facts that he doesn't like. Yes, the tea parties started in the Ron Paul movement, but that doesn't fit the spin that the right- and left-wingers want to put on the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The Tea Parties did not "start" with Ron Paul. Ron Paul simply commemorated the Boston Tea Party; the rally that his supporters and Ron Paul took part in were not in response to the wasteful spending by the U.S. government. If that were the case, then quite possibly the protests did start with Ron Paul. I haven't found a single source that mentions his rally was anything more than just a "Support Ron Paul campaign," which is ironically the only time Ron Paul held his commemorative celebration of the Boston Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So why is this information now given as background for the 2009 Tea Party Protests? Sigh.--Happysomeone (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul shouldn't be in the article simply because he held a commemorative campaign-promotional "rally" to celebrate the Boston Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As an active member of the Tea Party movement I have heard next to nothing about Ron Paul, and having spoken with a great many people in the movement, both locally and nationally, I this article is the first I've come across such assertions. This is SUPPOSED to by an encylopedia, and, as such, steer clear of speculation on the part of posters AND the media, who have their own agenda in their negative portrayal of the movement. I find it highly telling that those arguing for including the Ron Paul material never seem to sign their postings. I for one would like to see the Paul material removed from the article until such time as there is more demonstrable evidence of his influence...as proven by PRIMARY sources, not secondary. --King ravana (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting approach. But Wikipedia relies on SECONDARY sources not primary. Please read over WP:V and WP:SECONDARY. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The origin of tea parties as a protest against the federal government overreaching its constitutional boundaries began with Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency. This fact needs to remain in the article. (A brief mention of the Boston Tea Party is also required.) JLMadrigal (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm leaning toward editing this out, as those "tea parties" were directly related to the candidacy of Ron Paul for President of the United States. In 2008, once he had ended his candidacy, the protests did not recur, as far as I know. I think a more persuasive argument could be made that these to events are not directly related. It may belong elsewhere in the article, but I think the link is tenuous.

So how about that temporal gap, then, what say you JLMadrigal?--Happysomeone (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No gap. The Ron Paul revolution lives on as the "Campaign for Liberty." Furthermore, other than top down GOP milking of the movement, a strong driving force in terms of motivation and grassroots organization behind the tea parties comes from Ron Paul supporters. 72.155.0.7 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still stuck on tangential relationship here, and there is a clear temporal gap. The Campaign for Liberty? Is that a Tea Party protest? I'm not seeing it. So far this is WP:UNDUE for me.--Happysomeone (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While any relationship between the Ron Paul Revolution or GOP involvement in modern tea party protests is noteworthy - "tangential" or heirarchical -, both the origin of modern tea parties in the spontaneous grass-roots Ron Paul revolution and the continued official involvement of C4L are very significant. Furthermore, if "temporal gap" were a criterium for relationship in this case, then the Boston Tea Party itself would have no notewothy significance for modern tea party protests. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So may I assume that this is the real reason you moved and redirected the page from the 2009 Tea Party Protests, which is what the item was originally about - a significant alteration - so you could expand this into an article on the libertarian anti-tax agenda generally? They're definitely related philosophically, I agree, but not in the strict sense of the event itself - which was the 2009 Tea Party Protests until you changed that. There is another way of doing this of course - by adding Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, Liberty Caucus or Libertarian Party at the bottom in "Related Links". Otherwise, the inclusion of this in the "History" segment appears to be on the verge of WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. As to your second point, this is a strawman argument. The original point is that the purpose of the 2007 Ron Paul events were directly related to fundraising. The Boston Tea Party event they held was part of those activities. There were several other themes to prompt the "Money Bombs"-style viral fundraising events - such as November 5 or Guy Fawkes Day (and no doubt drawing on the popular film V fo Vendetta) - coming a month prior to the "Boston Tea Party" event. See Wikipedia's moneybomb entry, or the Money Bomb section of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 for this. Once his campaign ended, there was no follow-on event the next year. Come now, JLMadrigal. Let's try to transparent here. I'd also recommend at this point moving the page back to its original title.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

In relation to the origins of these protests, it seems to me that protests happened the day before the signing of the bill, but they were not called anything remotely named 'tea party'. They had another name, 'Porkilous'. But they are cited as the source and origin of what are called 'tea parties'. This is in conflict and something is not true about the situation. The name clearly came from a broadcast on Feb 17th, and not from what is cited in the article as a blogger in Seattle. This should be redone to reflect the source of the actual protests that have used the name 'tea party', since Feb 17th as the broadcast on CNBC. There is no indication of any other protests called 'Porkilous' since the day before the signing of the bill. The only 'Porkilous' protest documented should be cited as a footnote to indicate that protests of the bill started the day before the signing of the bill, but not as the origin of the protests documented, and named by the organizers, and the press, as 'tea parties'. Godfollower4ever (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the dates of the posts and that the video was posted. The name was in use as the name of a political organization, even if small. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqWHqXBZIlA http://www.bostontea.us/debtrepudiationrelease011009 htom (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There may be more roots to this than the CNBC broadcast, but it wasn't viral enough to energize a mass gathering like these protests have become. The turning point appears to be the passage, by Congress, of legislation that brought the remark.. the now infamous rant.. broadcast on CNBC on Feb 17th.. it was brewing before this, but it hadn't started to boil until that broadcast.. therefore it seems, for the purposes of this article, that the origin of the name and movement to protest point both forward to and backwards to the CNBC broadcast 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godfollower4ever (talk • contribs)

I removed the references to "derision" of the protests by liberal commentators becuase I couldn't find any reference in the Barack Obama article about him being derided by conservative commentators (which he, of course, has been). Just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofthepeopl (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I readded it. Since, after all, critical things about Obama are in his articles, notably Public image of Barack Obama.

I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more fair and balanced. The Squicks (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're doing nothing of the kind. You're deleting material you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. A couple of extremely brief mentions of his inexperience? I don't see how that adequately covers everything that has been said about him.

Whatever though, I can't be bothered, I'll let you have your way and leave you to your little masturbatory, hagiographic gay Obama fanfics. Have fun. Voiceofthepeopl (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another bigoted homophobic personal attack like that and it's time for a 'Request for comment' on your editing account.

Happy easter, BTW. Last time I checked, the Savior of humanity said to 'love thy neighbor', not 'God hates fags'. Try to keep that in mind. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change to the present version, which I reference below in "History Error". Sorry I didn't initially see the discussion here. Duh.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

HuffPo citing Maddow citing HuffPo?

Nice circular referencing here: [3] and here: [4].

I'm really not seeing any legitimate reason to include the mention of Maddow and the reference, especially in light of this. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculing of the "teabagging" name is widespread in legitimate media sources. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Such as...? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster have all made "teabagging" jokes on their programs, and I suppose they're legitimate media sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The MSM does this kind of stuff all the time. It's how they work.

What exactly is your point? The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If a low-rated conservative commentator riding on the coattails of another low-rated conservative commentator picked up a phony meme from an extremist blog, regurgitated it while tittering like a 10-year-old boy hearing a dirty joke for the first time, and then the blog reported on that, do you really think it would worthy to be on Wikipedia? 67.135.49.198 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace the word "conservative" with "liberal" in that last comment

Does that change make a difference in your or anyone else's mind? If so, then something is wrong. The Squicks (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on missing the point entirely and not addressing the question. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't have time to fully discuss but the bias is starting to stand out. Removing labels from Liberals while labeling conservatives. Linking to unrelated links to give the impression that this is a false event. Over hyping FNC and trying to make some supportive link where one does not exist. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the label "liberals" from a list that includes Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Reagan and for Bush 41, and who wrote a book criticizing Bush 43 for not being conservative enough. That list also includes Andrew Sullivan, who supported Ron Paul in the 2008 primaries. It would clearly be POV to call these men liberals so as to serve the right-wing view that only liberals have criticized these protests. I'd certainly agree that some of the critics (e.g., Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman) are liberals, but if you want to try to characterize the ideology of the critics, it has to be more nuanced than just calling them all liberals.

As for Fox News, we have one sentence reporting the channel's publicizing of the events, and one sentence reporting that four of its well-known hosts will cover tea parties live. Is that overhyping? Given the importance of Fox News in making the public aware of these protests, and in increasing the attendance, I'd say it's underhyping. As for a "supportive link where one does not exist", the cited source states: "Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with 'tea party' protests across the country...." There is certainly support there. If you think that the description of what Fox has broadcast is factually inaccurate, you should be able to find a source contradicting it. JamesMLane t c 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, and with the current state of the article, it doesn't matter who's calling who a conservative/liberal or what the sources are saying. The overall cadence of the article, the language and structure that are used, and the sources that are cited leave an overall tone that wreaks of multiple, competing authors. The fact that it's got a structure "liberals would says this" followed by "conservatives would say this" suggests that the principal maintainers of the text thus far are too emotionally involved with either side to really give a dispassionate treatment to the body of work that's available. The fact that the neutrality of this article is disputed is quite appropriate. The only solution I can think of is for the people who have any stake in this (for or against) to not edit the article, but I suspect that's impractical to execute at this point.

Bottom line is this: keep doing what you're doing with an awareness that you are creating a schizophrenic article that will have to be cleaned up some day further down the road.Imaginos (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What you dislike as schizophrenic is fully in accord with Wikipedia policy and should not be "cleaned up". Here's the relevant language from the NPOV policy:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

So, yeah, that pretty much dictates presenting a controversial subject in the form of "liberals say this and conservatives say that". What do you mean by a "dispassionate treatment"? that all the editors who have an opinion should leave, after which those remaining decide whether the liberals or the conservatives are right, and tailor the article to announce that position as true? If so, that's ruled out by the policy. JamesMLane t c 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane, can you please post a link to the citation about FNC supporting these protests? TIA, Tom (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's this story about the coverage in Politico, which summarizes the point, including this passage:

:::::Nobody’s covering the tea parties quite like Fox — and that’s prompting critics and cable news competitors to say that the network is blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.

“Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism.

For further support, the principal report from Media Matters has multiple links and screen caps. The people who love to denounce Media Matters as biased could make their case by showing that even one of those links or screen caps is false. In my experience, though, that won't happen. Media Matters is an accurate and reliable source, so the right-wingers who dislike it are reduced to name-calling rather than addressing the substance of its reports. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? Last time I checked, this story is cited in the article, and the allegation by Media Matters are fairly mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that that material was deleted. I readded it. The Squicks (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job folks

I won't weigh in about NPOV, but I did want to stop by and thank all the contributors for creating such a decent article so quickly about a fairly controversial subject. Sure, there is room to improve but their always is. The whole "conservative and liberal" thing is important to consider and my presence is to minimize both sides and just concentrate on the events themselves. But it doesn't seem glaringly biased one way or the other. On a first read nothing stands out as being a big problem. I had in mind to start an article on the subject today, with all the new coverage, and what do you know, not only does it exist but it is very informative, well written, and thoroughly sourced. So thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically I feel that the article is largely insufficient. I wish someone would publish turnout numbers. Also, the media bias in the US is now more apparent than ever. I know it is touched on, but Fox spent a good amount of time covering it, with several hosts seemingly supporting the protests and claiming them to be highly successful. CNN and MSNBC paid almost 0 attention to them, often portraying the tea parties as highly unsuccessful. -Lib

I think the article's pretty good, too. People can draw the obvious conclusion why some networks downplayed and others supported the protests, and I think it's an appropriate length.  EJNOGARB  16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say you guys both views on why their was the protest and the both the counter views and support on it. Kudos to Wikipedia.--66.229.26.39 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I see that this was readded with the edit summary "rvv"? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Events

I'm using this section of the talk page to list reports of events (not planned events) that have taken place, from newspapers or other reliable sources. --TS 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• New Jersey, AP
• Livonia and Plymouth, The Detroit News
• Des Moines, Radio Iowa
• New Orleans, WDSU
• Salem, The Oregonian

Cleaning up Responses section

"Responses" doesn't include any responses. The "responses" given were 1) someone saying that this isn't a real tea party because those who are pushing the taxation without representation are elected; and 2) & 3) two more comments about how taxes aren't necessarily bad. I think NPR got it right by saying it's fallacious to say this is a revolt about taxes--it's not, it's a revolt about deficit spending. Anyway, I deleted #2 & 3 because they are simply unrelated to the article.--Mrcolj (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is turning into garbage, but that was to be expected I guess. I see that Ron Paul now invented the tea parties? Anyways, I would be all for including less "material" and keeping the article as "focused" and well sourced as possible, trying to keep out as much extraneous material and opinions as possible. --Tom (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Readded. Those criticisms were all completely valid. 2 and 3 both directly commented on the protests and expressed disagreement with them. Just because you happen to personally disagree with those statements does not matter. The Squicks (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who that response was directed at, but I am trying to remove material that is not sourced, is not notable or relevant, sourced to blogs or not covered by reliable 3rd parties without attribution. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added Obama's response. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't at all object to including his response, but I believe that it should be in the section that is about the April 15 events since his statement was made on April 15. The Squicks (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added a follow up response from Obama, on April 20 he proposed to cut $100 million from the budget. Tycoon24 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Total attendance...

111,899? thats a bit low considering there was "at least 2000" rallies... are you trying to tell me that the average is less than 100 at each rally? considering Atlanta had 15-20,000 people last night I think this number is very low... I was estimating 500,000+ thinking possibly upwards of a million. Obviously until we get a more accurate source this cannot be posted.

It looks like 700-750 rallies is the "number" being tossed around.--Tom (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Silver did not count Atlanta or San Antionio (among others). His estimation is not based on any statistical analysis, only a count of what he could find. By those means it is hardly a reliable estimate of anything other than his guess (which is what he called it). Silver is also an Obama supporter, and is hardly an unbiased source. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to cite Silver as long as the article mentions that it is him, a pro-Obama political activist, making the estimate. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Fairly note both sides. The Squicks (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Consiedring that the liberal media is trying to manipulate the whole event to fit the left wing adgenda, getting a good source may be difficult.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and since Fox "News" wants to try and manipulate attendance as well, it looks like NOBODY will be truly correct in the numbers.

Fox tells the WHOLE story, thats something that the left wing nut jobs can't handle.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief. It would do everyone a whole lot of good to completely avoid using Fox as a news source. It is possible, you know - there are newspapers of all stripes in these places and I'd say if the protests were of any significance at all in those communities there'd be something on that paper's Web site - for example: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/wnt/news/43069877.html--Happysomeone (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to include Neil Cavuto's comments about the Sacramento attendence being ~5000 when he thought he was off the air, only to state that the attendence was 10-15,000 after the cameras 'started rolling'. This gives additional insight on the motives of Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.44.74 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like about 700,000 people attended. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rally organizers typically severely over count heads at their own rallies. Not reliable. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Million Mom March says, "Supporters claimed that 750,000 people gathered on the National Mall. Supporters of the event also claimed 150,000 to 200,000 people across the country held sympathy marches." So why can't this article make a similar kind of claim from the supporers? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think we're basically at that point with the Pajamas TV numbers. They say the numbers are from their supporters (although I take significant pause with some of those, i.e. NYC numbers from AP: 2,000/NYC numbers for PJTV: 11,000) and add a disclaimer at the end saying they won't vouch for the reports. The two examples cited are one of a liberal-leaning math geek who spent his spare time compiling 350+ news report links vs. an conservative activist Web site claiming their affiliates said x and we won't "vouch" for it. And you're complaining?--Happysomeone (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible picture

How does this one look? The signs that were being displayed at these demonstrations weren't all tax-related, you know.

[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.98 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This happens when you tolerate people who are "off message". Given the choice of free speech or controlled speech, I'll take the former. The photo is non-typical and should not be used. htom (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I display photos of people who claim "Jews = Zionist Terrorists" on pages about anti-Iraq war protests? The Squicks (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Preferably not, in my opinion. Warning, it looks like we might agree on something! htom (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Teabagging

Several liberal (e.g. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, David Shuster) and centrist (e.g. Anderson Cooper) talk show hosts have made jokes about the sexual practice of teabagging. This has elicited responses from Fox News and national organizer FreedomWorks. I have tried to present both sides (the jokes and the responses) neutrally. If anyone has issues with the section, please bring them up here and I will try to resolve them. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper is a liberal, not a centrist. Anyways, the left has been pushing and shoving down this homoerotic meme really, really, really hard* and for really long, so, sadly, I think that it is notable enough to be mentioned. The Squicks (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I am aware of the possible pun there.

Edit: Wesley Pruden, a conservative, also refers to the protesters as "teabaggers."[6] JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whomever wrote up the teabagging section with the hyperlinks to the various plays on words. I must say it is quite funny. However, it does appear to require a great deal of OR to make all of those connections. In reading it I can see how they were made, but the question is was that the real intention behind Shuster and Olbermann? I won't delete them right now, but they probably need some third party reporting to make the causal links. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to remove the hyperlinks, feel free to do so. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, because it distracts from the flow of the article and isn't nessecary or needed. The decription given, and quoted from a news source, I believe, is a sufficient definition for this article. Godfollower4ever (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media to make fun of the protests. The term "teabag the White House" came from one of the promoters, though.[7] (Yes, I know it's the Daily Show, but they have the video clip that spawned the whole teabag joke there.) The media just ran with the joke after that faux pas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The media just ran with the joke. Another problem is that the section tries to spin this as a creation of the liberal media.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Either this was something made into a big deal by and promoted by the media, or it was made into a big deal by and promoted by the protesters themselves. Both cannot be true. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, you're conflating two different things here. The term did not original with the media, they simply pointed out its absurdity. From there, it snowballed into a joke. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But it was the media that made it into the centerpoint idea/image/ethos/whatever of the protests.

There were people at the anti-Iraq protests in the US that were smoking pot, that were having open public displays of nudity, that were making blatant anti-Semitic remarks, and so on. Those people did not become the central image of those protests. The Squicks (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, do we really need as big a mention as we have now. I think readers get the point after one or two double entendres. By my count we mention 6 distinct examples. Is that necessary? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In a verbal orgy like this, you're expected to climax several times. The Squicks (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I first remember the term entering the "mainstream" with the 1998 film Pecker.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. But as JoshuaZ points out, this is a serious article. We don't need to have more than a paragraph on this unfunny joke. Nevard (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed the section considerably, trying to stick to the more noteworthy significant issues and removing many of the direct quotes, and statement of context about exactly when and where people used the word. It's still way too long in my opinion and does not rest on very reliable sources. Hunting for uses of the term then citing them isn't very encyclopedic, nor is an analysis of which partisans hurled which insults at each other. This kind of thing really ought to be sourced to a reliable, neutral, secondary source (e.g. salon, fox, etc.). The exception might be the organizer, who should probably have their say over what they think of the term. Wikidemon (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is way too small now and I have tagged it as such until consensus on an appropriate size can be reached here. Prior to your edits, the section had already been cut down from 7,609 bytes to 5,486 byes.

I think we should have at least a few direct quotes from the political commentators who used the term so readers can know what the fuss was about. The term was also used extensively by Rachel Maddow, so I think that her name, at least, should be mentioned. Could you please justify your removal of the responses by Media Research Center, NewsBusters, and Joe Scarborough? JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider: The "Astroturfing" section is currently 5,126 byes (which I think is an appropriate size) and the "Teabagging" section is currently 5,486 bytes. However, Google News turns up 77 hits on "astroturfing" and 1,336 hits on "teabagging". JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

I don't see a problem with including Nate Silver's estimate of the turnout as long as we note that he is a liberal [8] and include any reliable conservative sources (and note that they in turn are conservative). If any reliable source has criticized Nate Silver's estimate, please include that in the article too. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, for one I don't appreciate the threat you posted on my talk page. You hadn't participated in any discussion so don't come threatening me for no reason. Two, this is a blog source, and a self-published source at that. It is equal to OR and is not a reliable source. If you want to provide specific references to a specific place that is a different story, but to use a blogger who did nothing more than add up sources he could find is not a very reliable way of presenting information. The fact that he is an Obama supporter only reduces the quality of his presentation in this manner. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source from the tea party webpage is also not reliable. The remaining source would also not be reliable if MSBNC had not reported it. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening you. I was warning you because you have repeatedly removed content without a valid reason.

According to WP:RS, Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable. This specific blog is already used by many other articles. Why is it not acceptable here?

Nate Silver is not an expert in crowd estimation. Show me some place where he has been cited as an expert or even used in this capacity. Now I don't know about all of his citations here, but some of them are sepecifically related to polling aggregation and baseball analysis, for which he has been used as an expert. This is not the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He is an expert on statistics. If you want to narrow it to experts on crowd estimation, you should remove the entire section as it includes no estimates from such a narrow group. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, I am an expert on statistics as I have been published several times. I really think you fail to understand reliable sources and self-published material. Arzel (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You fail to understand WP:RS by making the mistaken assumption that all blogs are not RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Read up. [9]

Use of statistical data

Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.

Arzel (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, all conservative attendance estimates should also be removed. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had read you would have seen that I removed the conservative estimate as well and stated that I didn't think the other estimate should remain either. The Grover estimate was reported by MSNBC though, so that is a different issue. FYI I reported your bad faith second warning. If you want to discuss, discuss here, don't go threatening people on their talk page when you hadn't even taken part in the talk here.

Nate Silver has a new post up: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-party-nonpartisan-attendance.html ;

... Here are the new and revised listings; followed by a complete list from top to bottom. The new listings bring the cumulative estimate of attendance to 311,460 between 346 cities. The same caveats apply as before: although I've included any estimates I've found that seem even reasonably nonpartisan and credible, there were many protests in which reliable crowd estimates were not readily available or where there wasn't even any press coverage at all. However, essentially all major cities and state capitals should now be accounted for. ...

Since one of the complaints before the party was about lack of coverage, is the lack of estimates in the usual RS news or fact? htom (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver is not an expert in crowd estimation. The guidelines for WP:RS show that he fails as a reliable source. Now if you want to repeat the entire list of paper estimation go ahead, but simply adding them up and saying that is the estimation is OR. Silver self-published his addition, which makes no difference in interpretation. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver's estimate has been reported by the conservative National Review Online [10][11] and The Denver Post [12]. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Denver Post is conservative? They seem pretty evenhanded to me.

Regardless, I support including Silver's count so long as he as identified as who he is. The Squicks (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the National Review Online is conservative. The Denver Post is centrist. Sure, I don't have a problem with him being identified as a liberal statistician who voted for and supports President Obama (as long as conservative estimators are also identified). JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the widespread quotation of his number, his give experience as an accomplished statistican and given the discussion of his estimate in reliable sources it should be mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still a poor use of statistics, but I'll concede that it has been somewhat reported by a third party and no longer falls under self-published. I still think a better report is that from the specific cities, or a few of the major cities. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Teabagging Wikilinks

There are several wikilinks in the teabagging section which are not only superfluous, but violate WP:SYNTHESIS; they link words like full-throated to fellatio. First of all, such links aren't constructive, and second, because the sources don't specifically say that full-throated means fellatio (and so forth), it's WP:SYNTHESIS to link the two. Unless the majority opposes it, I will remove the links.  EJNOGARB  —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm tempted to request that you leave them, to demonstrate the pettiness of the coverage but I'll copy them here for the record: well, no I won't, someone has already cleaned up most of them. People can look in the history and find them. htom (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:

On April 10, MSNBC's David Shuster said that the protests were "fluffed repeatedly by FOX News" and that "limp or not ... more of these things are supposedly unfolding on or near Tax Day, April the 15th." He continued, "We see the video of them holding up the tea bags and—I suppose the symbolism of that can be read a lot of different ways." On April 13 he offered "details of who is stimulating the movement and where the money is blowing in from" and described the movement as "short on outrage and long on Republican manufacturing." He said that the right wing is "going nuts for it" and that "thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend." He continued, saying that "the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals" and "want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." He then spoke about the source of the protests, saying "the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists, as well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped." He then addressed Fox News, saying "Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday." He concluded by saying, "If you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you‘re going to need a Dick Armey."

On April 13, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow offered "a double entendre palooza." Her guest, Ana Marie Cox, said "Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging." On April 14, she admitted that her approach to the protests was "to laugh at it, even while trying to report on it, which is the prurient, juvenile approach." On April 15, she said "the turnout today can probably best be characterized as a mixed bag" and mentioned an "offbeat path tea party." She said that protesters had "joy and the enthusiasm to teabag." Her guest, Ana Marie Cox, said "These people who turned out were truly dedicated to teabagging. And they really, they put a lot of muscle into it, but, hopefully, not too much. But I think that they were very, very excited to be there."

On April 14, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said "FOX has whipped up excitement for the parties, recruiting viewers to come out, guaranteeing huge outdoor gatherings, spilling into the streets, choking off traffic with all their teabagging." and "Nor is FOX alone. Republican talking-heads like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging—down the throats of teabaggers." He spoke about the source of the protests, saying "Dick Armey [is] at the head of it" and that "right-wing money bags... have blown lots of cash to make the movement look as if it's coming from the bottom-up and not the top-down." One the possibility of counter-protests, he said "if enough counter-protesters rear their head tomorrow, if things get too testy, teabagging might jut blow up in FOX‘s face."He suggested that the protests might have "had the news programs on FOX News going off half-cocked." On April 15, he said "After all the anticipation and buildup, the teabagging exploded all across America." and that "it is hard to change position right in the middle of a teabagging." On the origin of the protests, he said "In Washington, it climaxed at that grassroots organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, founded by “Mr. Grassroots” himself, Richard Mellon Scaife, funded by him anyway." He continued, saying "But this Dick Armey revolution only came out in dribs and drabs. At some spots outside the beltway, in crowds that numbered at least one dip, teabaggers hoping to get at least two dip, got some help from FOX News, sending its big guns all over the country." On the motivations of the protesters, he said "oddly, teabaggers oppose stimulus, even the stimulus package. Dick Armey hates inflation." and "these teabaggers claim high taxes have brought them to their knees."

JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. What is the point?--Happysomeone (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It helps readers who aren't up on American English slang to see how their commentary is either hilarious or juvenile (likely depending on the readers' political persuasions). JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

John Waters is probably going to go in the seventh layer of hell for this. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

--Happysomeone (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)== History Errors ==

There appears to be an error in the "History" segment. For all concerned, please review Liberty Belle's blog here, where the protest is clearly referenced as a "Porculus" protest. The "Tea" meme did not begin with this event. I can see, however, how this is related to the Tea Protests that were held on April 15. But it is factually incorrect to label this a "Tea" protest. That event should be labelled correctly and in the near future I intend to make the appropriate chages to reflect that. Please see here, Liberty Belle's blog on this: http://redistributingknowledge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-02-15T15%3A36%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7--Happysomeone (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between a "Tea Party protest" and a protest against wasteful spending? If there is a difference, then you are correct. Otherwise, the blog you reference is in fact the first movement toward anti-wasteful spending, which is what the Tea Party protests on April 15, 2009 were all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.78 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See my note above, in the 'Origin?' section Godfollower4ever (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Godfollower4ever. I'm also very irritated that someone edited out the link to Liberty Belle's blog and is using a derivative source (Malkin) instead of the direct, primary one. Very bad form. Very unWikipedian. --Happysomeone (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that a "Porkulus" protest is not the same as the "Tea" meme - because "Tea" (Taxed Enough Already) is the result of the "Pork" or "Earmarks" added to the bill by Congress. The "Porkulus" bill is using debt to fund pork-projects (using taxpayer money or debt borrowed from China or by simply printing more money), in turn increasing taxes for everyone and eventually causing inflation. This is a theme to the Tea Party. Government wasteful spending is a theme. Pork or earmarks are a theme. Government bailouts are a theme. Anything that involves the government taking on more debt to "prevent" bankruptcy or to bailout whomever, it is a theme. All of this spending results in increases in taxes for everyone - which is why some bipartisan protesters will rant about the debt that both Bush and Obama are incurring for our children. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you are making this jump. You cannot show that those in the past did the same, can you? In addition, you still haven't addressed my discussion on Earmarks=pork.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying that earmarks=pork. However, I'll clarify it for you. Here are both definitions:

Citizens Against Government Waste outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":

1. Requested by only one chamber of Congress;

2. Not specifically authorized;

3. Not competitively awarded;

4. Not requested by the President;

5. Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;

6. Not the subject of congressional hearings; or

7. Serves only a local or special interest.

For earmarks, here's the definition and here is another link explaining what is an earmark? So you tell me, what's the difference between the two if there is one? Tycoon24 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Astroturf

When reviewing this article I notice the fringe theory about protests not being grassroots. Thus far no credible evidence has come up showing this other than 1 or 2 politic activitists/politians stating their fringe theories about it and suggest in the removal of this section under the fringe theories section of Wikipedia.Jason 21:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

• The section is called "Allegations of astroturfing" and the allegations are well sourced and high profile. Black Kite 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, and Paul Krugman have all leveled accusations of astroturfing. They are all admittedly liberals, but I don't think they're on the fringe... JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's not only not fringe, it's the widespread mainstream expert opinion of what happened -- and, seriously, for anybody who has ever studied politics in this country, damned obvious to boot. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the aforemention theorists have actually proposed anything another than claiming it was astroturfing without anything to back it up. This is a prime example of partisan / fringe matter which is not part of the non-partisan mainstream media. If you can site any specific source with factual information it should be included otherwise its opinions and that is not what Wikipedia was designed for. Jason 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested to other editors, if you can achieve consensus on the articles for Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, and Paul Krugman that they are "fringe" or "conspiracy theorists", then you can make a case for removing their comments here. Additionally, Wikipedia is not supposed to be devoid of opinion. It is supposed to neutrally and fairly present mainstream opinions. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

PJTV

An editor is repeatedly inserting the Pajamas TV estimate of ~600,000 people attending into the article. I've reverted twice and explained why on his talkpage, so I'll bring it here - should such a partisan and involved (they promoted the event) party be quoted as such, not quoted at all, or quoted with caveats? Black Kite 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've made a compromise edit on this section. Black Kite 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm firmly opposed to this edit. Pajamas TV, admittedly a conservative advocacy source, openly states that it "does not vouch for the legitimacy of these events" at the bottom of the Web page cited. Silver, who perhaps more subtly displays a liberal bias, provides links to verifiable sources for ALL his numbers (but appears to leave out a number of smaller municipalities). How are the two equal in standing, apart from bias? Please remove the Pajamas TV number, as it is an unverified piece of information IN THEIR OWN WORDS.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - feel free to remove it - I am not going to revert again on this article. Black Kite 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two options here. (1)Avoid openly partisan sources, which means both Pajamas TV and Silver are gone. (2)Include all sides.

I personally favor (2). (1) is justifiable and reasonable. But employing an ideological double standard either way is simply unacceptable. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks, please share your thoughts on my query, "How are the two equal in standing, apart from bias?" re: Silver vs PJTV. It is hard to argue that the Silver article, which provides verifiable links to every source he cites, is openly biased. I would again observe, however, that his list appears incomplete compared to the unsourced lists the Tea Party proponents are providing. Methinks the truth lies somewhere in between. Thoughts?--Happysomeone (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of (1), I think that Norquist should go too because he's the head of a conservative lobbying group. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Include both (labeled "liberal critic") Silver and (labeled "conservative supporter") PJTV. htom (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside Black Kite's opinion, what legitimate concern is there for the use of Pajamas Media as a source for attendance data? It seems like Citizen Reporters who post attendance data on the PJTV website are more legitimate than other news media who did not cover the events but "estimate" their own numbers - I favor (2) and believe all sides should be included. Holding a double standard is not appropriate in my opinion. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What proof must be made in order to reach a "consensus" allowing the use of PJTV as a source for attendance data? Obviously not everyone will post their opinion in the Talk Page here, but I'd be willing to bet over 600,000 thousand people (the ones who attended the events nationwide) would say it's allowable. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PJTV as a source is laughable at best. It lacks any credibility what so ever. Bipartisan185 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for the other source, it's just as "laughable" and unreliable as PJTV. My vote goes for using both or none at all. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say this discussion has been somewhat underwhelming thus far. I still can't get over the hurdle that PJTV does "not vouch for" the information posted there and the clear differences between numbers posted there vs a verifiable source such as the AP (see my numerous references to the NYC number disparity, made elsewhere). I'm just not getting there, Tycoon24.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, I'm just confused how one media source can be reliable while another is not. Other than estimated numbers by local media, how are those estimations any different than the estimations by PJTV? No matter what name it's given, an estimation is an estimation. There are no "reliable estimates" versus "unreliable estimates" when both estimators are held to the same level of accountability. If all editors were this picky, CNN, MSNBC and HuffPost all would have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. Tycoon24 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's late, but Tycoon24 is seriously testing my patience and WP:AGF, in my opinion. Added weight should be given to the aggregated links where we can see ALL of the sources, and all that I have seen are from verifiable sources.Sigh.--Happysomeone (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Janeane Garofalo

I added another source and some more background. If you still think she's non-notable, feel free to remove her. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that her quote is non-notable, but I am not inclined to remove, as long as its sourced, which it looks like it is.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton, I agree with you that she's notable, but we can't include a quotation from every notable person who's commented pro or con on the tea parties. Would you elaborate on why you think this particular quotation should be included? JamesMLane t c 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the magnitude of the response from the right about her comments? JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Although her comments are abusive and innapropriate, her opinion is just that, her opinion. We can't add every opinion by every person, especially has-beens.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the quote. I thought it was interesting that she's implying that Republicans wouldn't hate Hillary Clinton because she's white! What a ridiculous idea! Of course Republicans hate Hilary Clinton! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your bias. I don't know any Republicans who hate Hillary, although I also know none who think she's right about...anything, and some actually fear her, but none, afaik, actually hate her (or Obama, for that matter :-p)... Tomer^talk 07:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more [13][14] right wing responses to Garofalo's comments (in case they are ever added back to the article). JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Political labels

Will interested parties please vote on/discuss what to do with political labels? JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Label everyone as liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc. If this option is chosen, we'll have to reach consensus on who is liberal/conservative, etc. For some (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc) it should be easy.

2) Label no one.

3) Something else. However, I think labeling only conservatives or only liberals might violate WP:NPOV.

Almost every Wikipedia page that I've seen does (3)Label conservatives and leave liberals unlabeled. I personally vote for (1), but (3) is destined to occur and is as inevitable as the setting sun and will be enacted at some point in the future [maybe a year]. The Squicks (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My vote goes for (2), because the tea party protests are a non-partisan movement against wasteful spending. Taxation without representation, to be more specific. Both democrats and republicans attended the events, thus, it seems irrelevant and unnecessary to feel a need to 'label' liberals/conservatives mentioned in the article. Labeling people only creates a "us versus them" type of situation, which isn't necessary or required in this article. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to not label since this was an overty politial event. However, some of the current labeling is a bit clumsy.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidents

I created a new section called incidents after finding this line: A protest by several hundred people outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over its fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people placed in the turnout section. It was rather awkward in the turnout section and is worthy of it's own section. I have a feeling that there are other incidents that happened during these protests that can also be included in that section. Brothejr (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, I do not believe a section should be created based on one incident. Unless there are others, I believe this information can be put elsewhere without the section. Showtime2009 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Then might I ask where? I first thought of adding it to another section. However, it would also be awkward in the other sections just like the section it had been put in. Plus, it is an incident during the protest, so it should be reported as such. Brothejr (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the incident was covered by national media. And it also served as a bit of a reminder that even in the Obama era the White House is still a bit antsy about security. I think it's fair game to include. 68.146.86.244 (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

Just for the record. Nate Silver did not perform any statistical analysis on the turnout estimations. He simply added up all of the reported estimates he was able to find and used that number for his total. Please do not try to convey in that section that what he did was statistical in nature. Satistics can be easily manipulated, and it is best to simply report was reported. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted. I think most readers will be able to understand that and in fact Silver does appear to be providing a useful service here in compiling the 300+ links to all the numbers. That's more links than in this article. He does appear to partake in some manipulation, however, with verifiable sources reporting different numbers for the same place. But we can see how that is done as well since he provides links to that as well. Seems pretty transparent to me, apart from leaving out a number of municipalities - which he explained elsewhere that he couldn't find a news source for.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So I note that you're altering Silver's attribution from "statistician" to "political-poll aggregator." That doesn't square with the first sentence of his Wikipedia bio and runs the risk of violating WP:BLP and WP:RS. You might want to take more care with that.--Happysomeone (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Brothejr, edits look good, apart from cutting out the fact that Silver culled the number from 346 cities and towns. Didn't see any harm in showing that number. Thanks for jumping in.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what his Bio says, he is not technically a Statistician. He does not have a degree in statistics, or a related field. Statistician is a professional title usually requiring a Masters or PhD in Statistics or a closely related field like Mathmatics or Operations Research. A little bit of searching does have him often being referred to as a Baseball Statistician (which is an entirely different occupation). Additionally, I did find sources which call him a political polster. If you want to call him a baseball statistician or a political pollster, or polling aggregator (same thing) that is fine, but to call him a Statistician is similar to calling someone a Doctor or Engineer or other profession which requires a specific education or certification. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about amateur statistician? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. Basically put, we must follow the WP:BLP policy in this matter. Simply, we cannot call him what the sources do not call him. If there is a source that calls him an amateur statistician then we can. Also before I forget, the source (and all sources for that matter) needs to also conform to the WP:RS and WP:V policies too. Brothejr (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton2052

I am really fed up with how this user somehow has the authority to write anything he wants, while generally using unreliable sources. Anytime I try reverting any information that I feel is biased, He suggest that I'm vandalizing the article by blanking and I get warned for it. Then add the constant labeling of people who support the tea party as "conservative" or "libertarian" and those who oppose it as "liberal" is not only repetitive but unfitting for some. Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal. I wish something could be done about him. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please share the unreliable sources you believe I'm using so that I may address that.

You removed 8k of content without first sharing your concerns on the talk page. I agree that the "Teabagging" section was too long so I have left that.

I added the labels because other editors were complaining that it's NPOV to not label them. If you'll look up a bit, you'll see a section I created where I tried to find consensus about whether labels should be used or not. Please feel free to add your input there so that consensus can be reached. Personally, I don't think it's fair to only label conservatives or only label liberals (as some editors were doing in days past).

I don't see how you can argue that Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative or Keith Olbermann is not a liberal. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As JCDenton2052 does not seem to want to discuss before re-adding anything and does not understand, I have started an AN/I case for admin attention. The case can be found here: [15] Brothejr (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to discuss shortening the article. I just think that consensus should be reached on the talk page before removing good faith additions to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santelli have never considered themselves conservative and Keith Olbermann has never described himself as liberal." is really rather pointless. We should label commentators based upon which political stripe they follow -- and in fact hiding it is equivalent to trying to hide pertinent information about bias in sources -- and those descriptions of liberal vs. conservative are obvious and uncontroversial. To even suggest, for example, that there's any doubt that O'Reilly is conservative, or that the teabaggers are predominantly right-wing, is just ludicrous. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wiki has become 1984's RecDep were histroy is rewritten. Somehow this article has more information about the Boston Tea Party in the overview than the actual event itself and talks about a scant counter-protest as if anyone even noticed the two guys on the other block holding a Barack Rocks sign.GoreBullWarming (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This brings up a good point. Everyone should read through the article again, if by the end you're still confused what exactly the Tea Parties were all about but seem to have a strong idea of all the allegations and criticism instead - this is a problem. Unfortunately, the anti-Tea Party editors have done their best to keep the page "consensus locked" and refuse to clean up messy sections. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fed up with this user as well. Not only does he write anything he wants, but if you write something he dislikes, he will pretend that he's an admin an post a warning message on your Talk Page. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can (and should) warn another editor about edit warring; the warning is legitimate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if the editor trying to warn others is in fact edit warring himself then he/she should be warned too. Tycoon24 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and warn them if you think its is needed to prevent edit warring. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit once and have tried to reach consensus on the talk page. That's hardly edit warring. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Turnout

I don't know why people keep removing important parts (N) of the reported numbers, but perhaps a little example will help.

It was reported yesterday that 25 students at Central High cheated on their SAT tests.

Now ask yourself does the 25 mean anything? Is it 25 out of 25? or 25 out of 5,000? The second number (N) is needed to present the statistic in context. Can we please have an agreement that if turnout is to be reported then it include N so that the base number is presented in the proper context. The Nate Silver calculation should not be reported. That is my professional opinion of 12+ years in the statistical and related fields. If it is to be reported it has to be listed as a simple ennumeration and that it was based on a summation of only a partial representation. That said I am going to add the (N) numbers back (the 750 total is important as well, plus that is already cited earlier). Arzel (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "346 towns and cities" should be added back in, as it appears there may have been more protests than news reports (such as a gathering in Redmond, WA of 25 people).--Happysomeone (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about something like "Liberal blogger and President Obama supporter Nate Silver has summed up crowd estimates and claims that n protestors attended m rallies. However, according to x source, there were actually m + p rallies." ? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to stick to what the sources call him and not try to invent labels for him. If the sources call him a liberal, then we can, if not, then we cannot as per the WP:BLP policy. Brothejr (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor called him a "statistics blogger." The New York Times called him a "boy genius." The Denver Post called him "invaluable." The National Review Online mentioned him twice but gave no title. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then out of those you got to choose what to call him, unless you can find another title that another reliable source calls him. We are not allowed to make up titles that the sources don't use or support. Brothejr (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you cannot find a appropriate title for him, then you can simply drop the title all together. Brothejr (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the original problem was that since he's not a PhD Statistician who specializes in crowd estimation, readers might ascribe more authority to Silver than he is due. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to use a title from an older article about him (e.g. during the 2008 elections when there were lots) or does it have to be one specifically about the protests? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we need to present the number in context. So should present the number as "Nate Silver reported cumulative crowd size for 346 cities from various newspapers to be around 311,460 out of a total population of xxx,xxx,xxx?" Are we talking the population of just the cities, or their metro areas too? That would probably amount to a population of well over 200,000,000 people, or roughly a 0.15% attendance rate at the events. Or we could report it as 1 out of every 1,000 people in America showed up. Or maybe we could compare the number to weekly NFL attendance, where on average 1,020,054 people pay money to show up to just 15 NFL games each Sunday in the fall. Maybe we could compare the attendance numbers to the 500,000 people who showed up at Grant Park to celebrate Obama's victory on election night or the 1.8 million people who showed up in DC to watch his inauguration, or the 38,000,000 people worldwide who showed up in 800 cities at the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest . Context is a tricky thing you see, or are you suggesting a context that paints it as your POV? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The context in this situation was the number reported. There were N number of cities with protests. If you present the total estimation but withhold that your total estimation was based off of X out of N then you lose the correct context. The statistic reported by Silver was ~300,000 from 346 cities with the earlier caveat that there were at least 750 protests nationwide and Silver himself stated this limitation to the statistic. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a better or reliable source at this time. What's otherwise being reported now in the article cannot be verified. Other than the Silver number with the caveats, the other numbers should go because we can't see how they got there.--Happysomeone (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)