Talk:Tea Party movement

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ron Paul and other recent edits

I've seen recent edit summaries that present some interesting claims:

• Ron Paul is not part of the Tea Party...

Is this true? The article presently states, "The Tea Party movement's membership includes notable Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, ... has become the 'intellectual godfather' of the movement as many now agree with his long-held beliefs." Our article also displays a prominent image of Paul, and states that Ron Paul was a runner-up (behind Herman Cain) in the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit poll. There appears to be a conflict here.

• giving [Paul] the first paragraph in this section gives him far too much WP:WEIGHT

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why, and where you think the proper positioning in that section should be — but did you intend to delete the content completely?

• Far too much WP:WEIGHT given to commentary criticism by political opponents, particularly the anti-smoking lobby. Moved it to the end of the section...

You also re-named the section from 'Commentary' to 'Criticism'; that is inaccurate, as not all the commentary in that section is critical. You also added verbiage that asserts HuffPo was "publicizing" something, when the sources indicate only a report on a news story. Can we get an explanation for that? (It was previously reported here.)

• appropriately identified their political motives...

Who's "political motives", what are they, and from what source did you derive these political motives? They appear to be unsourced at present. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The poll I'm reading shows Sarah Palin with more than twice as much support as Ron Paul from within the Tea Party. If anyone deserves such a prominently placed and lengthy statement defining the Tea Party's position on foreign policy, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's Sarah Palin. Find an equivalent statement by Sarah Palin and I would be more than happy to support placing it in such a prominent position with so much WP:WEIGHT. In the alternative, I would support a statement by Herman Cain in that space, although more recently he has receded from his former position of prominence. On this topic, both Palin and Cain are in sharp disagreement with Ron Paul, who represents a tiny but vocal and very well-organized minority. If a similar poll were taken today, I suspect the leaders would be Ted Cruz, Palin, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, in that order.
• If such adjectives as "liberal" for Juan Williams and "left-wing" for the Huffington Post really need to be sourced, perhaps you haven't read their stuff or the Wikipedia articles about them. These are well-known as liberal and left-wing sources. If you'd like to substitute the word "reported" for "publicized," I have no problem with that. But the fact is that most people hadn't heard of the study when it was published by "Tobacco Control," and most people still hadn't heard of it when it was mentioned on the UCSF website, but HuffPo was what gave the story "legs." After that, a lot of people had heard about it.
• If you want to split the section into one titled "Criticism" and another entitled "Commentary," be my guest. Most of it is criticism, and any other label for criticism is inaccurate; and all of it comes from liberal or left-wing sources, so let's identify their political leanings and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about motives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Would that poll in relation to Palin be the one from 2010? That hardly seems very current for a current events related topic. It seems to me an effort to homogenize the party line by eliminating the statements by Paul, which date from the same period, apparently.--Ubikwit 　連絡 ・ 見学/迷惑 09:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to the three bullet-points above: (1) I don't see a problem with adding a statement from Palin or Cain on foreign policy. (2) I acknowledge your opinions that Juan Williams is a "liberal", or that HuffPo "gave the story legs", but such opinions shouldn't be conveyed as fact by our article -- and wouldn't be relevant even had they been factual. (3) I didn't say that I wanted to split the section. The reporting in that section is not "all from liberal or left-wing sources", but thank you for admitting your intent is to leave readers with the impression that there is some secret "motive" behind the reporting of facts. That appears to me to go contrary to our WP:NPOV policies. If you have concerns about the information conveyed by the cited sources, why not bring forth additional reliable sources that would help illustrate those concerns, so that we can discuss them? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In a subsequent edit, I removed a non-RS cite to a blog (supporting an unnecessary identifier) -- you cited a characterization of a living person to theprogressiveprofessor.com?! There was an unexplained change of sourced wording on immigration, a weird unexplained insertion of a link to 'Social Democrats'(?) in addition to the above listed edits.

I looked at your addition of the interview with Palin about Foreign Policy; are you very sure you want that specific source, rather than one that is a little more ...um... polished and substantive? I noticed that source never mentions the Tea Party, unlike each of the other sources in that section, but she is one of the TP darlings. Do you feel the opinions she expressed are in line with those of Tea Partiers in general? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 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)

• There are 4 sources and at least 2 have the exact phrase in it. Look closer.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 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)

• You put it forward for the generalized statement of anti-immigration. Thus you misused the study in your example. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 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 ----Snowded ^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)

• oppose no actual tp group uses the term immigration without the qualifier illegal Darkstar1st (talk) 09:32, 2 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

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 oder 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)

• By "overwealming" you mean "overwhelmingly tea party" don't you? No. Scroll up to where the indents stop and you see the boldface word, Sources. I mean the New York Times,[18] the Washington Post,[19] USA Today,[20] ABC News,[21] and CBS News,[22] among many others. These are mainstream, third-party, reliable, professional news organizations.
• Also the elephant example is really silly. Xenophrenic is the one being silly. I'm just providing the illustrations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:28, 15 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

• http://www.policymic.com/articles/26559/how-the-tea-party-is-influencing-republicans-on-immigration-reform
• http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/Nov/STEM-bill.asp

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)

Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus

While fixing deadlinks, I noticed that Bachmann has scrubbed all mention of the Tea Party Caucus from her website (the original source of the "membership" of this caucus). The "Official Website" for the caucus is rather sparse, and doesn't seem to list who the present members of the caucus are ... can someone find a source? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the Tea Party Caucus never existed. [34] But according to Slate it will get a reboot April 15. [35]. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging up that info, Malke. April 15 is just around the corner, so I'll keep an eye on it to see what happens. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

pro gay marriage

perhaps we can find room for this in the article, [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 March 2013

Not a reliable source, not a significant story. TFD (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

here is a better source. how did you determine this is insignificant? [37] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a "dog bites man" story and you need to demonstrate that it has received widespread coverage, that it is important. We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage. They should have run with the headline "Tea Party Boycotts Coffee". TFD (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin

Xenophrenic has uncovered an excellent source [38] concerning the origins of the TP. the NYT journalist covering conservatives since 2003. Kate Zernike directly contradicts the current article which reads, the tobacco industry and the Tea Party could be traced to a 1971 memo, with The tea party started out organized by young libertarian-leaning activists who were concerned about the stimulus and the bailouts. i suggest we rewrite the commentaries on origin section removing weasely text like, Others have argued, were connected with, provided funding for, an extension of. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The weasely text in regard the tobacco industry is in the source. We could argue that the source is unreliable, but I am not sure as to the relative reliability of Tobacco Control and Kate Zernike. Perhaps both statements should be included, noting the contradictions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit, but I didn't "uncover" that source. I mentioned it above (along with several others) and asked what other editors think about its reliability (or lack thereof). It was recently "uncovered" by ThargorOrlando (see archive 20), and before that by some IPs. I'm not sure those two sources contradict each other as much as they cover two different but related aspects. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

2 different aspects, plz explain? one claims a tobacco lawyer invented the tp to manipulate tobacco tax, the other claims young libertarians did 40 years later in response to big bank bailouts. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- the tobacco lawyer used the term -- as did hundreds or thousands of non-tobacco people over a great many years. This whole thing has become ludicrous indeed! [39] (American Patriotism, American Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties By Simon Hall; University of Pennsylvania Press, Jun 6, 2011, 224 pages, pp 109-110) lists a bunch of totally independent usages - dating back to 1965 at least. And not related in any way to tobacco. I decline to believe in tachyons, so suggest 1965 was actually temporally before the 1970s. YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece on the whole tobacco 'connection' and one that seems most plausible. [40]. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting, because what it basically does is add more material for the exegesis of corporate sponsoring of a pseudo grass roots movement (AstroTurf) to present a false front of popular advocacy for corporate interests and agendas. Enron is a particularly interesting entry on the list.

But the fact is, CSE wasn't just funded by big tobacco. Like all these groups, they were funded by a whole host of big, right wing corporations. Here's just a partial list of CSE's corporate clients/supporters:

Archer Daniels Midland

DaimlerChrysler Enron General Electric Koch Industries F.M. Kirby Foundation Philip Morris U.S. West ExxonMobil Exxon Hertz Microsoft

U.S. Sugar Corp

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have proof that all of those companies are Right-Wing companies? Becuase GE does not fit the bill, and most companies care are relatively apolitical. Arzel (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is the article I'm quoting there, directly. The article is fairly long and actually puts its focus on toxic mortgage bailouts for Wall St., though I believe that argument would be difficult to sustain. A protest on income tax day and anti-Wall St. protesting are not equivocal. In fact, perhaps the quotes from Santelli are most representative of the "capitalists" sector that he was advocating for against the "losers".

The article may be correct in the following asertions

One, it was meant to put pressure on legislators, including moderate Republicans, to defeat the Democrats mortgage relief plan, and any future measures the Democrats might try to pass to appease the country's rising populist sentiments.

And two, it was a preemptive strike against a rising protest movement against the Wall Street.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So your answer is "no" and since the Daily Kos is probably one of the least reliable sources (if not the least reliable) from the left we can pretty much disregard it completely as little more than rhetoric. Arzel (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GE is a huge defense contractor, and there have been issues General_electric#Legal_issues.

The also sponsored Ronald Reagan's TV career, if you read the subsequent section.

Any company that connected to the defenses industry would be hard to characterize as "liberal", even if they have supported some liberal causes from time to time. They are a household name, but their days as a producer of consumer electronics are long gone. But you may have a point that such activities don't necessarily equate them with the right wing.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, would you object to adding a few words from the Kate Zernike source to the origin section? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a reliable source, but I don't have a copy or the time to read it at the moment.

As a metaphor the "tea party" would resonate with many Americans, and I'm sure that there were many unaware of the corporate sponsoring behind some of the affiliated groups.

I quickly looked at a review, and it seems that some of the accounts she details may offer up a good comparison with the anti-corporate welfare stance of the Occupy movement. There may be people in the TPm whose reason for participating overlaps that of some of the people that participated in Occupy. That would all make for interesting reading...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And Simon Hall's tracing it back to 1965 at least? Collect (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the RS you mention is only representing the fact that the "tea party" event in American history resonates with Americans, and has been raised in the past in relation to perceptions of unfair taxation, which is normal. Note that the 1960's case relates to property taxes, and the 1970's mentions occur around the time of the 200th anniversary of the namesake.

On the other hand, I don't think that there is a direct connection between those occurrences of the recourse to evoking the "tea party" and the present movement, whereas there are RS that demonstrate attempts by corporations to misappropriate that populist theme to serve their own narrow interests, unlike the property tax protesters of the 1960's.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting list of 'big right wing corporations.' Have you reviewed the public records of corporate giving to political parties? Have you ever heard of this fellow? You might want to read about him before you commit General Electric to the 'big right wing corporations' list. Archer Daniels Midland? Reagan's Justice Department started the investigation into the lysine-citric acid price-fixing conspiracy by ADM. United States v. Microsoft began in 1991. I believe it was this fellow's Justice Department that got that ball rolling. You might want to reexamine that list. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I seem to recall something about GE paying zero corporate taxes, which is, of course, ludicrous.

Microsoft has also been involved in the past in lobbying for the huge tax break on profits repatriated from abroad.

Both of those are forms of corporate welfare that promote a sort of corporate hegemony over the global economy and place the burden for funding the government on citizens.

Whether such activities are a legitimate basis for characterizing those corporations as "right wing" is questionable, but I should point out that it was you that provided that source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is left-wing politics, not right-wing. GE is a huge backer of the Obama administration. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE was selected by Obama to run his jobs council. GE is the poster child for crony capitalism, a decidedly leftist approach to the market. Arzel (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Crony capitalism? Hardly an apt characterization under the circumstances. GE is not ENRON, at any rate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Enron was fraud. A manipulation of the market through trading schemes. GE is crony capitalism. Enron has nothing to do with this. Arzel (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

proposal

i suggest we add Kate's piece contradicting the assertion the tp originated in a tobacco lawyers office. (please state oppose or support at the beginning of your response, other comments will be moved to a comment section. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: You're talking about Kate Zernike? I think it would be okay to just add it in. I don't think anyone would object to her as a RS. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think that there is a definitive source or a unipolar origin of the TPm, so of course her source could be included in the discussion of 'origins', but that wouldn't prejudice the inclusion of any of the material in the tobacco control article in any way.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• support i think Ubikwit meant to add that to the beginning of his comment above, plz clarify if i am mistaken.

additional proposal

a second source [41] directly contradicts the big tobacco claim. i suggest we add it as well, or remove the disputed tobacco reference entirely. please respond with "support/add Kos, support/remove Tobacco, or oppose, then explain. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Under almost no circumstance would I accept a DK source for any claim of fact. That article is just as stupid as the Tobacco study. Assume that either of the two are true. That Big Tobacco or some other group has been trying to start a Tea Party movement for the past 30-40 years. It sill ignores that there had to be some catalyst which actually started the movement. Santelli made a statement on CNBC which galvanized millions of Americans into exploding with the TPM. The only reason why this is simply not accepted by the left, is that they cannot accept the fact that people on the right can create a grassroot-movement. Arzel (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

I'd like to correct the grammar after the current version of the article, but it would undoubtably be a revert, and correcting unreadable grammar is not an exception to 1RR or 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking we should rewrite the agenda section with three subheadings, 1) fiscal 2) Immigration reform and 3) Obamacare. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of consensus on how to mention immigration

There is clearly no consensus and surveys aren't a good replacement for an RfC in any case, so why not do something more official? And I don't know if it's relevant, but [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/changing-american-opinions-on-gay-marriage-and-immigration.html?mbid=nl_Daily%20%28212%29 this recent New Yorker article} says "On immigration, during the years between 2006 and 2011, Gallup found that more Americans wanted to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to the U.S. than find a way to legalize the status of those who were already here. Last year, the balance shifted the other way, and last month, in a Pew poll, more than two-thirds of Americans expressed support for legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country, while barely a quarter wanted them to be sent home." Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Poll questions are always troublesome. They don't provide a very good historical view of anything, they can be influenced by single events and cause big jumps in results in a very short period of time. However, here is an article that pretty well illustrates the fear of Amnesty (which is really what this is all about), in that it won't solve the underlying problem. Arzel (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I think the New Yorker article you reference answers your question. The issue is illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. There is nothing there about 'anti-immigration.' An RfC will not provide RS to support 'anti-immigration.' Also, there does seem to be consensus not to include 'anti-immigration.' Malke 2010 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And either way certainly no consensus to say "anti-immigration". North8000 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See the second bullet point under WP:NOCONSENSUS. When there is no consensus about contentious material regarding living persons, the material is removed. It's a "default setting," and this prohibition is even more broad than WP:BLP, since (A) it doesn't require that the material must be negative, and (B) it applies equally well to material about large groups of living persons. WP:NOCONSENSUS is policy, not a guideline or essay. Our course of action is clear if there is no consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still arguing that this is a BLP issue despite being told by others that it isn't. That section refers to our BLP policy, not to 'large groups of living persons'. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No Doug, you're mistaken. The WP:NOCONSENSUS section, which is part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy does not mention WP:BLP at all. It does contain a link to WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content, but that's all. It stands on its own two feet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. WP:NOCONSENSUS is part of the policy WP:CONSENSUS, but the sentence P&W is quoting says "often", rather than "should", "shall", "will", or some definite word. Although I tend to think it should apply, it's not part of existing policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. I agree with P&W that this relates to living people. Whether or not "commonly" is more definitive than "often", neither represents a mandate. Other policies and guidelines need to be applied to determine what should be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I noticed that you left out the Wikilink to WP:BLP from that exemption you just copied here. The BLP exemption is not applicable to an amorphous movement of nameless thousands. That was made clear at WP:BLPN. That was made clear at WP:ANI. That was made clear on the Talk page of the editor repeatedly misapplying that exemption. The WP:NOCONSENSUS exception due to the BLP exemption does not apply here. (Look at why that sentence was added to the WP:Consensus policy in the first place.) There is no "commonly" or "often" or "mandate" question here, as that BLP exception doesn't apply. So could you clarify, Arthur, what it is you are agreeing with in your comment there, because I'm going to be quoting you. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is mentioned in that section, but not in that paragraph. It's not at all obvious that the "living people" there are the same as specific "living people" in WP:BLP. I'd have to check the history to see if that was the intent. I agree that WP:BLP does not apply to that section, although it may apply elsewhere in the article where specific people are mentioned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

After checking, I agree that WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't apply at all; either to suggest that the status quo ante should be retained, nor that contraversial material should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to rewrite the Agenda section

The issue of anti-immigration versus anti-illegal immigration has highlighted the need to rewrite the 'Agenda' section. As it is now, it doesn't really reflect the tea party. It has old comments from Ned Ryan and Albert Brooks that do not speak to any agenda and only confuse the reader. The agenda section should list the top tea party goals which seem to be:

• 1) Fiscal --which needs to include defeating Obamacare
• 2) Immigration reform --that includes amnesty and secure borders to prevent this problem happening in the future.
• 3) Get out the vote--which should mention the rift between the tea party and 'mainstream Republicans' like Karl Rove.
• 4) U.N.'s Agenda 21 - the Tea Party Patriots have spoken out against this. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No article is static, or engraved in stone -- and articles should be kept up-to-date, of course. That being said, I can't comment further until I see actual proposed wording, and the sources to which they are cited. I would be interested in seeing if we're discussing a change in goals, positions and values, or simply a re-prioritizing of their focus and energies. At the start, the stimulus and bailouts were the top concern. Then as time passed and the Democrats moved on to health care reform, that became the top concern. Today, immigration is the top concern. Perhaps we can simplify the 'Agenda' section to read: "...whatever the Democrats and Obama are working on at the moment."? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a constructive suggestion to offer, please post it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I think that that is more of a sarcastic note regarding the TPM rather than an effort to cover "it's" agenda. (the quote marks are to note that "it" is not an entity as implied by "it"). We really need to really sort this out here. I think that some folks keep going off on a tangent regarding this. A close look at wp:ver indicates that what has been used here for arguments here is a divergence from what it actually says. The two general areas regarding this are:

1. wp:ver/wp:nor says that ability to be sourced per a source which meets wp:rs criteria is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. Folks here have been indicating otherwise on the latter.
2. wp:rs criteria specifies a "floor" for the purposes of #1. It does not say that sources meeting that "floor" are actually reliable. Other factors indicating actual reliability (e.g. objectiveness and expertise with respect to the item which cited it) are important, and generally utilized at the wp:rs noticeboard.

Sources meeting the "floor" of wp:rs are often un-objective and often lack expertise regarding the topic at hand, so you can generally find some that state things of a cherry-picker's choice on either side of an issue. Contrary to what folks have been implying, meeting that "floor" is requirement for inclusion, not a force/reason for inclusion, and doubly so not a force for inclusion of their assertions as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. So, again, we really need to discuss and sort this out here, without making or relying on that above-described unsound arguments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

North, the last sentence of that comment was indeed sarcasm, but only the very last sentence. re: Editing policy, I've never operated under an assumption that just because particular content can be reliably sourced it must be included, nor have I ever operated under the assumption that just because particular content appears in a source meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements that it must therefore be unquestionably reliable. You are welcome to discuss those concerns with the "some folks" that have been. Sources that don't merely convey content, but also examine, analyze and explain that content, tend to be superior in many cases. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts. But IMHO your argument here has essentially been that the fact that if a source or sources meeting the "floor" of wp:rs criteria said it, that such is a sufficient force to have a controversial statement go into the article, and in the voice of Wikipedia, over the objections of others. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Where have I made that argument? I have certainly argued over the quality of these "objections of others" (It's a BLP violation! If it doesn't come from a border-state source, it's invalid! The source didn't say that! If you can't quote it from a TPer, it ain't true! ... you get the idea), but never have I argued that if a source meets Wikipedia's RS requirements that it then becomes unquestionable. Please point out where I have done so. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The TPm is not a political party that announces an official platform at regular periodic intervals, so the course of change in relevant stances that can be attributed in some meaningful manner to the TPm has to be described in the article.

The "agenda" described in the article cannot simply reflect the line adopted in an opportunistic manner by TPm associated politicos in response to current events. That would probably fall under the rubric of "recentism", for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The tea party doesn't need to be a political party to support and help elect state and federal representatives. And according to these national tea party leaders they don't have immigration in their agendas but they support Ron Paul's decision and they support immigration reform and they support amnesty with secure borders. This article confirms that they have fiscal goals and not social goals, but they are willing to support this important national issue. [42] The article says in part:

Sal Russo, founder of the Tea Party Express, called Paul a "favorite of the group," and despite the movement's focus on the national debt, spending and economic issues he praised Paul's "willingness to stand up and take a principled stand" on immigration. [43] The Tea Party has largely opposed legalizing undocumented aliens or granting them citizenship, but Russo applauds Paul's immigration proposal. "People are in this country a long time and they are not legal. We have to get them legal in some way in a process that gets people legal that are here…We should do it because it's the right thing. We need to reform immigration because we need a system that works," Russo said. [44]

Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of Tea Party ally FreedomWorks, said he does not think Paul's immigration announcement hurt his potential 2016 presidential aspirations...Kibbe said immigration is not an issue FreedomWorks champions and said proposing citizenship for undocumented aliens is a "calculated risk," and would be "risky water for anyone," but said Paul's proposal is in the "framework of our principals."

"We believe in the rule of law," Kibbe said. "Treat everyone just like everybody else, but we believe if you want to come to this country and work the government has a responsibility to make the process as efficient as possible."

Jenny Beth Martin, the head of the Tea Party Patriots, also noted that immigration is outside of their wheelhouse, but said they were "aligned" with Paul on the issue of border security, which is the first step in his own proposal he laid out Tuesday. "The way we've approached immigration is the borders need to be secure," Martin said. "Real action needs to be taken to secure the border and then once that happens we will talk about other immigration policies." Martin added that Paul has "championed our values and principals, for constitutionally limited government and for that he has gained the Tea Party's respect."

It doesn't appear to me to be a problem with WP:RECENT. Any movement is dynamic. Change is inevitable. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As for change, the TP is definitely getting more involved in immigration than it has in the past, but that could be just a reaction to what ever is presently on the political front-burner. Today, it's immigration. Some TP-backed politicians are indeed forging new (and unexpected) paths through the debate, but other TPers oppose them: TPers split. The dividing line seems to be what's more important; appealing to a large voting block (Hispanics, in particular), or strengthing the country's anti-immigration laws. The former strong stance on laws may take a backseat to political expediency, after political observers have blamed recent election losses on absence of Hispanic voter support. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. We need to go with what the tea party leaders have actually said and done as reported by reliable sources. Not, "Xenophrenic says this could just be "whatever is presently on the political front-burner. . .etc." Also, Xen, the United States does not have 'anti-immigration laws.' Malke 2010 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What, exactly, is my interpretation? The "whatever is presently on the front-burner" assessment is from reliable sources, not me. And the link I provided is a reliable source of what tea party leaders have said and done. Reflexive disagreement for the sake of disagreement? And of course, Mal, the U.S. doesn't have "anti-immigration laws" (*wink* *wink*)... it makes no laws regulating immigration, or restricting immigration, or prohibiting immigration ... nothing but open borders. I must have been thinking about some other country. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What source is that quote from? That might be useful in the explication of what seems to be a strain of recentism that threatens to co-opt the article to present only the 'recent' utterances from TPm affiliated politicos as some reflection of age-old principles from the TP golden age, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another disingenuous and sarcastic comment. Every nation has laws that regulate immigration, and restrict legal immigration to a certain number of people per year. Such laws are not "anti-immigration," any more than the Democratic Party's proposals to regulate capitalism are "anti-capitalist." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for another disingenuous and sarcastic comment. All immigration is legal, until it defies an anti-immigration law (one that restricts, prohibits or otherwise regulates immigration); only then does the immigration become illegal. Laws aren't passed against "illegal immigration". Thanks for your opinion, P&W. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[Big sigh ... rolls eyes.] WP:WEIGHT is policy, part of WP:NPOV. It requires us to give the greatest weight to majority opinion, as it's represented by the majority of reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources state that the Tea Party movement is opposed to illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants; recent developments, such as Rand Paul's speech, suggest that even this may go too far. Claiming that the Tea Party is "anti-immigration" is clearly a minority opinion, and deserves much less weight than the first section of the article. It should be added to the section that addresses claims of racism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do indicate the TP is opposed to "illegal immigration" and "amnesty". I don't think anyone (except Malke, briefly) is disagreeing with that. But it sounds like you are presenting that as proof that somehow TPers are not, as the majority of reliable sources indicate, anti-immigration. As for your desire to add stuff to the racism section, that's another discussion entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... the majority of reliable sources indicate [TPm is] anti-immigration. This isn't just deceptive language. This is a false statement. Please stop. The majority of the reliable sources indicate that the Tea Party movement is opposed to illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, P&W. The majority of reliable sources describe the movement as anti-immigration. The reliable sources describing the movement's position specifically about the "illegal" kind are part of that majority. Let me know if you are still confused on the terminology. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, can you back that up? List reliable sources that make the distinction - and remember that does not include tea party sources ----Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As a sidebar, a group furthers their agenda by specifying it. So this is one area where self-description tends to be accurate.....not out of being high minded, but out of pursuit of the agenda. Not so for a writer who doesn't like the TPM. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you apply that general statement to the specific matter at hand, and cite specific examples? The comments I'm reading above appear to assert that since reliable sources say that the movement is "anti-illegal-immigration", that therefore disproves reliable sources describing the movement as "anti-immigration", when it actually proves it. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of terminology here. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• [ec] Snowded, try reading WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, ... so long as:

1. "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. "the article is not based primarily on such sources." (WP:SELFSOURCE, emphasis added.)

• Snowded, WP:SELFSOURCE is a section of WP:RS, one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy. It goes on to state that even social networking posts by the subject of a Wikipedia article, on such sites as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, are considered reliable sources for this limited purpose. All five of the numbered conditions are satisfied. Please acknowledge that for this article, authentic statements of agenda or principle by Tea Party sources are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind supplying the specific material under discussion, and the specific source citation it references, so we can review it? Or are you just speaking in general, with no specific content being considered? Snowded, above, requested specific citations to support a specific claim of yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Xenophrenic, would you mind acknowledging that for this article, authentic statements of agenda or principle by Tea Party sources are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see all these sources that show anti-immigration that Snowed and Xenophrenic keep referring to, but don't post. I've posted reliable sources to show that the issue is immigration reform. And as for using the mission statements by the Tea Party groups, there shouldn't be a problem with that. It's a simple edit. "Tea Party Patriots states on it's website that it's mission is: xyz," with a cite to the mission statement. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

On the word "Generally"

The word Generally is defined as 1.In most cases; usually. 2.In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions. Regardless of the "anti-immigration" belief, it can in no way be considered "generally" from the available sources. Furthermore it is clearly a WP:WEASEL word when it is used in this manner. Arzel (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Generally" and also "tend to" are used by the reliable sources, and they very accurately convey what the sources convey. Those words are used in exactly the same manner as in the sources. So what is the objection? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources that state that the TPM is "Generally anti-immigration". Arzel (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does that not surprise me one bit? Yet you delete the word, claiming it is unsourced. Word-search "generally", perhaps? It's discussed all over this Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was un-sourced and it is a weasel word. I am not sure I understand where you are going with your third and fourth sentences. Arzel (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How did you determine that it was "un-sourced"? And how is it a weasel word when that is the word that reliable sources use? (one example: ...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector...)? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sources that have made that statement. As for your other statement, the "generally" is simply not needed and seems to be put into place to support your POV. The Tea Party was started because of tax issues and government intervention in the private sector. It is like saying "Water is generally wet". It is a pointless and not necessary. With regards to immigration, the statement does not hold true. The TPM is against illegal immigration and we have an overwhelming number of sources which make this quite clear. We also have many Tea Party politicians that are clearly not anti-immigration. Why do you feel it necessary to belabor the point? Arzel (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked; it's still there. In the very first sentence. As mentioned above several times. Sorry you having trouble reading it. Saying it isn't there won't make it disappear. I'm not arguing whether it is "needed" or not; in fact, my preferred edit was more succinct and simply conveyed the "anti-immigration" fact, but the "generally" was added from the source as well, as a concession to editors who wanted to emphasize that it didn't mean 100% of the TP was universally anti-immigration. I don't doubt that there are TPers who are not anti-immigration, but that observation can be made of any position the movement takes, including taxes, spending, government involvement, etc. "The TPM is against illegal immigration and we have an overwhelming number of sources which make this quite clear." -- exactly; that can be said for large percentages of non-TPers, too. Anti-immigration is not "fringe" by any stretch. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to what you are talking about. If you are referring to the lede, I removed the weasel from there and simply WP:SAID the statement. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I already have. The links are already cited at the end of the sentence we are discussing, in the article. I've also already re-linked one of those several sources on this Talk page (see my edit of 02:08, 3 April 2013 above). And no, I'm not referring to the lede; we're still discussing the content in the first 2 paragraphs in the 'Agenda' section, correct? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Post an link to it HERE. I am not going to go searching through sources to find that comment. It is not that difficult for you to post a link to the source that supports your argument. Arzel (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not difficult at all. But I'm not going to post "a link to the source that supports my argument" for a 3rd or 4th time. Rather tired of repeatedly jumping through that hoop (which isn't entirely your fault, as it was other editors that keep requesting the same damn link over and over again), so I'm sure you can click on the link provided above if you are interested in actually reading the reliable source. Or click the same link following the content you edited. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I am going to disregard what you have to say on this issue completely. I searched for your link in the talk pages, and don't know what source you are referring. Arzel (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are going to disregard what I have to say on the issue? And I suppose you think this is news? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is definitely a minority opinion per WP:FRINGE which does not deal solely with fringe opinions. WP:FRINGE instructs us how to present minority opinions. WP:WEIGHT a section of WP:NPOV, gives us even better guidance. Please stop pretending that "TPm is anti-immigration" is the majority opinion. The majority opinion, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, is that TPm is opposed to illegal immigration. Presenting this minority opinion so early in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, gives it far too much WP:WEIGHT. It should be restricted to the much later section dealing with allegations of racism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that the description of the TP movement as generally anti-immigration is "fringe" is inaccurate. The view is broadly supported by scholarship in its field. You apparently misunderstand the WP:FRINGE guideline, "anti-immigration" or both. Your assertion that the "generally anti-immigration" description is given too much weight is likewise inaccurate. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't "broadly supported." It's very narrowly supported. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources indicates that the Tea Party opposes illegal immigration, or amnesty for illegal immigrants. And recent events, such as the Rand Paul speech, suggest that even this may go too far. Claims that the Tea Party is "anti-immigration" are a tiny minority opinion. WP:WEIGHT says that we should give such opinions space in proportion to the size of the minority. This tiny minority opinion does not belong in the first section of the article. That gives it too much weight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources do indicate the TP is opposed to "illegal immigration" and "amnesty". I don't think anyone (except Malke, briefly) is disagreeing with that. But it sounds like you are presenting that as proof that somehow TPers are not, as the majority of reliable sources indicate, anti-immigration. You do realize that opposition to immigration of any kind, including just "the illegal kind" is still a subset of anti-immigration, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some interesting statistical sources: [45][46] 82% see illegal immigration as a serious problem which is more than average Americans and other Republicans.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the poll: For the purposes of the poll, those who have attended a rally or donated to a group have been deemed Tea Party "activists." Four percent of Americans fall into this category. Makes a big difference when they ask actual tea party members. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If there were actually a definition of "member", that would make it easy. But since there is no membership, the poll separates the self-identified Tea Party Supporter respondents (18% of Americans) from the rest, and 1/5 of those TPers are further categorized as TP Activists (4% of Americans) if they attend rallies and donate money to the movement. Tea Party "activists," defined as those who have attended a rally or donated money to the movement, make up a small portion of the group, but they are even more pessimistic about the direction of the country, and more negative about President Obama, than Tea Partiers overall. What "big difference" do you see, besides the fact that the views diverge even more? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The poll is problematic because the composition of the TPm is problematic.

The poll states that the people identifying as "supporters" were

...better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than $50,000 per year.

but that doesn't seem to jibe with the slogans on the placards or the people shown in the photos of the rallies (not only those in the reference piece). The religion angle seems to jibe with the TPm overall, but the number identifying a Republicans seems low. At any rate, these relate to the problem of accurately polling a "movement" comprising various groups and backed by various organizations, including multinational conglomerates.

The people actually participating in the TPm seem to be composed more of disenfranchised low-income, low-education people with a time on their hands because they are out of work. The fact that they blame Obama for the economy is immediately suspect. Obama has pushed for programs supporting the middle class against the wealthy, lowering the post Bush-Cheney-financial crisis unemployment rate substantially, so the reasons for opposition to Obama by people in a bracket his programs would seem to be helping can only be ideological. So that turns my focus back to corporate sponsored AstroTurf pseudo grassroots activism, and how the participants were organized to attend the TPm rallies in the first place.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything in that last paragraph, other than possibly the first sentence, and conceivably the last sentence, is unfalsafiable opinion.

Referring to many of the comments; it would be interesting if a single poll distinguished between those who have attended rallies (who would be expected to be unemployed, and, if the rally is away from home, either recently employed or paid to attend the rally) and those who have donated, and compared those who have attended TPm rallies with those who have attended Occupy movement rallies/events. It could tend to disconfirm the "astroturf" allegations, as no-one (that I have ever met or read) thinks that the occupy movement is "astroturf", although some think that they are just vandals.

There is some confusion, at least in the statements above, whether the poll reported at CBS defined activists as those who have attended rallies and donated, or those who have attended rallies or donated.

Referring to ...political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector...; the scope of both "generally" and "excessive" is sufficiently ambiguous that, except in a direct quote, it only supports "generally opposing excessive taxation", which also is pretty much a nullity. Is there anyone supporting excessive taxation? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The POV I'e expressed is indeed partly based on personal observation and partly in relation to contradictions relating to the poll.

First of all, I think that the very premise of conducting a telephone poll in relation to a decentralized, poorly defined movement is itself dubious. If they want to conduct a poll, they have to poll the attendees of the rallies.

Many of the respondents to the questions in the poll were responding off-the-cuff based on some perceived emotional proclivity and being largely misinformed about the TPm. They certainly weren't registered members of a political party...

Secondly, you should not that the Occupy movement you point to was international in scope, and arose in response to the economic conditions brought about by the Bush-Cheney financial crisis (more precisely, started by Reagan deregulation and continued under Clinton by Summers and Rubin, all connected to Wall St.).

So one might question why the TPm didn't arise during the Bush-Cheney administration, when the national debt sky-rocketed because of the military/defense industry expenditures they caused the USA to incur? One might ask why the TPm didn't become an international movement?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is really not very interesting to field our personal critiques of the poll technique. Find a better poll that shows a different result or a source that critiques this poll then we have an argument. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, opinion polls have the potential to be controversial even when the targeted sample group is more clearly delimited, as in the case of registered members of a political party. Here are some general points Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy.

In the case of the poll in question, the pollsters face some of the same obstacles that we as editors have been dealing with in relation to this WP article on the TPm. Because the poll is purely an opinion poll relating to a "hard to define" movement (statement from the lead) with no delimitation of the targeted sample group whatsoever, the methodology is questionable, to say the least. It is published by RS, but I would imagine that the content of the article relating to the poll would probably become the subject of a post at RS/N, depending on how someone wanted to use it. Since it is an "opinion" poll, maybe it would only be citable as an "opinion".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect, they did not target the poll as you suggest, and the poll clearly uses the best way to target a loosely organized movement. They polled random voters asking if they identified as Tea Party supporters or activists, they then over sampled those who did identify as such. This is clearly the best way to identify the viewpoints of the base of a loosely defined movement. And yes, it is opinion, but it is the opinion of 850 voters who identify as Teaparty supporters - not just a bunch of random voters.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to using the source, provided that the scope is put in focus. There is some good information in it. You may be right that the methodology used was the best that could be devised, under the circumstances, but the paucity of such polls is a testimony to the inherent difficulty of such polling. A book published by an academic press is due out in May, and that may have some more survey data gathered at the so-called Tea Parties from people actually attending them.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Poll data can be informative, but interpretation of polling information can produce a lot of variance. Wider and more frequent polling would produce more reliable information, of course, but some academics and experts have delved further into the matter by going back to those polled and examining the actual reasoning behind their questionnaire responses. One such source was mentioned above, "...she went beyond national polling data when researching for the book and spoke to members of the Tea Party, which provided her unusual insight into the group’s political motivations and interests." Perhaps the academic book you mentioned does the same? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Amazon blurb

Providing a range of original evidence and rich portraits of party sympathizers as well as activists, Christopher Parker and Matt Barreto show that what actually pushes Tea Party supporters is not simple ideology or racism, but fear that the country is being stolen from "real Americans"

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the pollsters did define 'member.' They said people who contributed money and attended meetings were labelled as 'activists' and not 'supporters,' which is merely the general public. So yes, 4 percent means exactly what they said it does. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-immigration and racism

Can we deal with this issue? Phoenix and Winslow claims that to say something is ant-immigration is to accuse said thing of being racist. A similar claim was made on the BLP notice board. I can find no evidence that these words are synonyms. Are there any third party references that say the meaning of the words has recently shifted in the US? If so I can have some sympathy, if not then that argument can be dismissed ----Snowded ^TALK 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-immigration is opposition "to movement of people from one nation-state to another, where they are not citizens." That includes opposition to the legal, quasi-legal and illegal forms of immigration, or any combination thereof, and in varying degrees. Anti-immigration does not equal racism, nor are the meanings of the two phrases in any way similar. The confusion probably stems from the charge that people with racist views have sometimes manifested that racism in the form of anti-immigration sentiment (directed against immigration of people of a particular race). In reality, particularily in the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is more the result of national-identity or cultural-identity (including religious identity), and not race. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the common meaning of "Anti-illegal immigration" in the US is to be OK with the limited immigration the that is currently legal, against illegal immigration, and often against anything that would legalize currently-illegal immigration. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec, not considering North's comment) There are few interpretations of "anti-immigration" from which one could even infer racism. However, being against illegal immigration, or being in favor of reducing legal immigration, does not mean one is "anti-immigration" as a whole. And there is a significant difference between being "anti-immigrant" (which could be, but is not always, racism) and being "anti-immigration". One of the sources said the TPm was (generally) "anti-immigrant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean that if tomorrow NAFTA opened its internal borders the same way the EU has, that the Tea Party would support unlimited Mexican immigration, because now it would be legal? Does it mean that liberals want unlimited immmigration from Mexico, so long as it remains illegal? Surely the dispute is not about whether immigration laws should be followed, but what the laws should be. And the Tea Party supports the current laws not because they are laws but because they place severe restrictions on immigration.

Some writers believe that the Tea Party's opposition to immigration is based on racism. They also believe that their opposition to same sex marriage is based on homophobia. That does not mean that if someone says the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage that they are calling them homophobic.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't edit based on what might happen in the future. In any case, if something like that were to happen, it wouldn't be the tea partiers by themselves complaining. Also, please note that young tea partiers support gay marriage. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it means that if that happened tomorrow, the Tea Party would oppose immigration as it is then implemented. Opposing immigration as it is implemented is not the same thing as opposing immigration. That's like saying that if you think that the government shouldn't be allowed to wiretap everyone you "oppose the government". Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ken makes a good point. What the real problem seems to be is the way congress is managing illegal immigration. Americans have been down this road before, notably in 1986 when Reagan gave blanket amnesty without providing for fixing the problems that lead to the illegal immigration, which is really corporate greed. Reagan was serving the needs of the chicken sellers in Arkansas and the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. He didn't care about the average guy who gets his taxes bumped year after year because these same corporate types are handing out directions to the welfare office so these workers can get signed up for Medi-Care and foodstamps. Because the employer pays substandard wages and doesn't provide benefits. They also illegally do not provide workmen's compensation which all the politicians ignore. And he certainly didn't care about the workers getting shamelessly ripped off by these 'employers' for decades. They pay them low wages, house them in substandard housing, charge exhorbitant prices at the company store, where the workers are forced to go because they don't have cars to go to the local Vons where a gallon of milk is $3 and not $12. Americans are fed up, but they're not fed up with the workers. They're fed up with a system that serves only the politicians and harms everybody else. Same rip off, different day. Welcome to America. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform is the real tea party issue

The Tea Party was the force behind getting the senators and congressmen elected who now embrace immigration reform which includes amnesty.[47] [48] Not even Obama is onboard with amnesty.[49] You know there's been a sea change in conservative politics when Sean Hannity is getting on board [50]. Ted Cruz is the only hold-out but likely not for long. [51]. Raul Labrador, the Idaho congressman and a former immigration attorney who helped undocumented immigrants in the courts, and is clearly an expert on the issue, has said this: [52]. There are no reliable sources that show the tea party groups endorse any anti-immigration which is often called nativism. Nor does it seem nativism is on the rise in America among the general population. [53]. Rand Paul’s plan does include amnesty. [54]. National tea party leaders including Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, have said they don't have immigration as part of their agenda, but they support Rand Paul's call for immigration reform so long as it includes securing the borders. The Tea Party Express and Freedomworks supports this. These are reliable sources that are current. Whereas the CBS News poll is only a poll, and one that is 3 years old. It does not appear to be a more reliable source than the ones I've listed here. [55].

Anti-immigration is a European problem, not an American problem. Anti-immigration was not a 2012 campaign issue which it would have been had that been an issue for Americans, especially the tea party since they worked to get out the vote for their candidates. Illegal immigration was the issue.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Boiling Mad" by Kate Zernike, page 60: "And younger tea partiers, indeed, were less like to see illegal immigration as a serious threat and more likely to support the rights of gays to marry." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• No political movement is in favor or against illegal immigration. Everyone making a sensible political opposes everything illegal by definition. The question is whether more immigration should be legalized or less. It is a question of restricting or laxing immigration legislation, not of being for or against illegal or legal immigration. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely related to the American situation. Illegal immigration has actually been institutionalized by both Democrats and Republicans because the corporations that own the farms and processing plants feed money to both parties. Not providing border security, allowing illegal immigrants to receive public benefits, these are all 'stand down' policies that allow employers to continue to abuse workers by paying them substandard wages, forcing them into emergency rooms without workmen's compensation when they are injured which means the hospital complains to the state and says, "Hey, we want to get paid. We're not a charity!" So the state enables Medi-Cal to pay the bill. What is really happening is both political parties are allowing the abuse of the most vulnerable people here. Amnesty is the only way to go right now, but then secure the borders, hold employers responsible for fair wages, health care benefits. If the employers don't like it, they can pluck their own chickens and pick their own lettuce. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to show me one American politician who will say he or she is in favor of illegal immigration. Or anything else that is illegal. Being in favor of documenting undocumented immigrants is not being in favor of illegal immigration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did. Look at their actions or rather their in-action. They allow illegal immigration by their in-action. It's tantamount to modern day slavery and the government subsidizes it by giving out public benefits to undocumented workers instead of enforcing the labor laws that require all workers, legal or otherwise, to be treated the same. That means providing workmen's compensation and paying the legal minimum wage. Show me a politician who has come out in favor of that and I'll show you a politician who's never been inside a corporate jet and can't raise a dime to get reelected. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

That is a tendentious argument if I ever saw one. By the same token I could call the republican party anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-children...by their actions. That is not how we argue in wikipedia. We use reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'd agree with you about the Republican Party. I call them all those things, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But that is not how wikipedia works, nor how it should work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly helpful: "Illegal"

Probably not as helpful: "Illegal" Myths

Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps more helpful still[56]. Which shows that this is not a useful way of describing policy anymore, if it ever was.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reagan set up an unofficial policy of illegal immigration, with social expenses paid for by the taxpayer, in contrast to Canada that set up a guestworker program with costs paid by employers. U.S. businesses now find that the Reagan policy is more expensive. Both the Tea Party and labor unions oppose both these approaches, but for different reasons. The TPM does not want these people in the country, while unions want foreign workers to have residency status. TFD (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we all get that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion

I made a comment on the ArbCom case that I would be happy to moderate a discussion. I would be looking to draw people together on the broader issues that concern contributors. One of the concerns I have noted is regarding the amount of material in the article, and I think that might be a useful starting point. However, the first stage would be to ensure that nobody has an objection to a moderated discussion, or to me being the person to hold it. I'd like to wait a day or two for responses or queries to my offer of doing this before getting fully stuck into a content discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• support and thanks Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• support We need it. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support even though I do not qualify as active here really. Collect (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. per comment on ArbCom talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I reviewed a few ArbCom pages and can see why, in comparison to other cases, the TPM is not on the front burner, so I see no reason to delay until this case is settled. Also, I read again Silk Tork's comments on ArbCom and feel he is very insightful and likely to help sort the situation here to everyone's satisfaction. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Moderation by a previously uninvolved person with some authority is badly needed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ----Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Of course, after the Arbcom case is closed. Mediation could be integrated into the remedial measures forthcoming there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• No objection. I understand Malke's point of view, but I think SilkTork could do something to ameliorate her (Malke's) concerns. As she is a major contributor to the talk page, I think that her concerns need to be dealt with to the extent possible. (Redacted comment about specific edits by Xenophrenic, as not appropriate in this thread, although no one in their right mind would consider it a personal attack.) I would like to support, as it may provide a way out of this mess, but Malke's concerns need to be met so that she can freely participate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I asked you to substantiate the personal attack, or if you could not, redact it. Thank you for redacting it. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Would the editor who made the redactions kindly so identify themselves? Referring to edits is generally not cnsidered a "personal attack" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a reasonable request, Collect. Accusations on behavior without providing specific evidence is against WP:NPA. I've left a note for Arthur to provide the specifics. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

<Collect please undo your post, so I can revert Xenophrenic's redaction of Arthur Rubin's comment. Your edit is in the way. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I reverted it manually. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has redacted Arthur's comment three times now and that seems WP:Disrupt to me. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic reverts/redactions [57] and again [58] and again [59]. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's too late to formally add Xenophrenic to the RfAr, as it's already past the workshop stage. And, if someone would point me to an appropriate forum to comment on WP:TE by editors not already named in the RfAr, I would do it there instead of here, for the most part. However, it's also a potential reason why I might object to this proposal, so it's not completely out of line to mention it here, even if Xenophrenic thinks it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of WP:TE behavior without accompanying evidence in any forum are clearly defined as personal attacks that are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Redaction was wrong but so was your one sided accusation. P&G would also be a candidate and you're not an innocent. I suggest you try and reduce the temperature rather than provoking others ----Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur didn't make a one-sided accusation. He's simply pointing out Xenophrenic's behavior in an accurate, measured, well-written comment that is not at all a personal attack. Xenophrenic has also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. It's disruptive to keep redacting another editor's comments without bringing it up on the talk page. Why not post an explanation here for other editors to see and comment, too? That gives the editor the chance to redact his own comments. It's also disruptive for Xenophrenic to imply that sources he's using are sanctioned by "ArbCom" because Silk Tork suggested them on the Workshop talk page. And his incivility and refusal to strike through his comments are worrisome. Xenophrenic is quick to demand that other editor's redact their comments about him, but he won't extend the same courtesy when they object to what he's said about them. In fact, he argues more vigorously that's he right and the editor is wrong. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, you should refrain from making false accusations, too. The redaction was indeed brought up on his Talk page, contrary to what you say. He has had plenty of opportunity to redact his comments, or substantiate them — and he has declined. Why not conduct that personal discussion here? Because article Talk pages are for discussion of article improvement, not for discussion of unsupported personal attacks and related matters concerning editors. I've not been uncivil to you, nor have I been disruptive, and while I do "demand" that editors address their unsubstantiated attacks or gross incivilities, never once have I refused to do the same, contrary to what you say. (Example: "...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.") As for your false accusation that I implied "that sources [I'm] using are sanctioned by 'ArbCom' because Silk Tork suggested them", I did not. Ever. If you'd like to discuss any of these matters in more detail, just say so on your Talk page (I'll see it) or mine. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke's concerns are that editors "must be extra careful in what they say", and that an editor has used something from one of the sources I noted. The sources I mentioned were The Guardian, Britannica, The Independent, and infoplease.

I'd rather people were extra careful. I'd always rather people were extra careful - all the time, on every page, not just ones that are being watched. Having said that, I understand frustration when editing contentious subjects, and expect tempers to fray now and again. However, when moderating content discussions I encourage focus on content not contributor, and let people know I will hat discussions that are off-topic and distracting. As regards concerns about any sanctions coming from the ArbCom case. I cannot speak for the other Committee members, but I don't see sufficient poor behaviour in those editing this article to justify sanctions. This is a highly contentious and polarising topic, and - if anything - I have been impressed by how you folks have held it together for so long. What I am interested in is not sanctioning anyone, but in helping you folks improve the article and reach a compromise that satisfies the main contributors, and so results in a fair, honest and balanced article that will be helpful to the general reader. I don't think it will be easy, nor will it be quick, but if everyone is willing to have a positive attitude toward this attempt, then I think it will work.

I'm not clear on the problem as regards the sources. I suspect, Malke, what you saying is not that you have an issue with the sources, but that suggestions I make may be used to justify actions that may not be helpful. My aim as a moderator, is to assist you folks reach the decisions and actions yourself, rather than me make the decisions for you folks to follow. But, yes, at times I may be pushing for a decision, and if things are deadlocked I will offer suggestions.

As Malke is the main contributor to the article, I think working with an objection would be difficult, so will wait for further comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I have been in some correspondence with Malke off-Wiki, I would like to ask here on-Wiki, whether Malke's objection is that edits based on sources mentioned by SilkTork might be perceived to have a "stamp of approval", and not be as subject to critical review. If so, if SilkTork could give what asssurances that he honestly can, it might be adequate for Malke. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not given my approval for any edits. And that is not the role I would envisage taking. I am not here as a member of ArbCom, but as a fellow editor. My role would be to moderate discussions, assist with keeping them on task, and look for agreement and consensus on how to move the article toward a balanced and acceptable position. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Britannica is a problematic source at best - it is tertiary by definition, and solicits proposed edits from readers (one step from a Wiki). In short, we would best be advised not to use it as a source here. IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Yes, Britannica is a reliable, non-problematic source used in a broad summary paragraph as suggested by WP:Tertiary: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As Malke still appears to have an objection I will withdraw my offer of assistance. I do urge folks here to get someone in to moderate a discussion to look at the bigger issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Malke, I'm waiting to hear your response to ST's withdrawal of his offer to moderate based on a perception that you have some objection to that.

Since your objection seems irrational to me, and as I do not particularly share your opinion regarding EdJohnson's qualifications, I would be categorically opposed to him being the moderator.

If you are intent on cherry-picking a moderator, perhaps mandatory mediation with Arbcom appointed mediators would be the proper way to proceed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While my opinion was opposite to Malke's, I think that they expressed sincere considerations, and a sincere attempt at making a good suggestion. I think it is not warranted and not very nice to call that "cherry-picking" a moderator, which implies several other things. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke has been in touch - User_talk:SilkTork#Moderator. We can start. I suggest we create a subpage in which to hold the discussions. It can be linked and/or transcluded on this page. I know there has been friction and frustration, but in order to move the discussions forward there should be no personal comments. Allow me to hat any personal comments that creep in. It would be better if I, or another uninvolved person, did that; and if, while waiting for the comment to be hatted, people did not respond, even if the comment sits there for a while. Something I have found useful, is when annoyed, type out what you want to say - but don't post it; edit it down to something polite, then discard it. It gets it out of your system, but doesn't upset anyone.

If there's no objections I will start a subpage sometime tomorrow, and on that we can briefly discuss and lay out the main issues, and consider if the article needs trimming, and if so, the best way of doing that. There was a suggestion recently of creating split-off articles. We could also consider that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the underlying cause here is conflicting goals, not personal chemistry. (Although good chemistry would make a lot of other things go better). I think that it must also be acknowledged that if an article has been pulled to one "side" that the objectives on that one "side" are to maintain the status quo, while the immediate objectives of the other "side" are to pull it towards neutral. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like a clarification about the "personal comments" restriction. In some cases, a particular edit may strike me as absurd (in some cases, to the point where I do not see how any competent person could see it as appropriate), regardless of the identity of the editor. Since we will be talking about the future of the article, rather than the past edits, this shouldn't come up, but, I'd like clarification. I would avoid commenting that a particular editor is taking inappropriate actions, but it may be necessary to indicate a particular edit is absurd. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything judgemental not factual is probably a mistake here. I would say why you thought it was absurd, avoiding sarcasm and irony. Ive had irony taken as consent for absurdity before now. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay. I had hoped to start this yesterday. I am creating a subpage: /Moderated discussion so it's easier to keep the discussion and threads in one place, and to keep track of it. I will copy and paste the above comments to that page for background. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution

The lead contained a weasely description of the TPm stance on the constitution, and when I decided to check the source cited in relation to that phrasing, of course that was not what it said. As per the source, I modified it with a reference to originalism

So, here are some pertinent ovverlooked passages from the text of that source, as well as a good additional valuable study pdf referred to in the NYT article.

“The Tea Party movement is interesting in that there is a combination of localism, nativism and populism that we've seen at various points in America,” said Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Columbia and an editor of “Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy.”

A new study from Professor Persily and two colleagues, Jamal Greene and Stephen Ansolabehere, explored the political and cultural values of those who identified themselves as originalists. Such people “appear more likely than non-originalists to be white, male, older, less educated, Southern and religious,” the study found. “They are less likely to favor abortion rights, affirmative action and marriage rights for same-sex couples, and more likely to favor torture and military detention of terrorism suspects and the death penalty. They are more likely to express morally traditionalist, hierarchical and libertarian cultural values.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Strict adherence to the Constitution" says it neutrally and thoroughly. Negative spin words are not needed and certainly not better. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course that is not neutral or informative. Just like saying "strict adherence to the Bible" is not neutral or informative. They advocate strict adherence to a particular and quite literalist interpretation of the constitution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an unsubstantiable opinion, as the phrasing you quote can be meaningfully interpreted (and appropriated) in a manner to support at least one other school of thought (i.e., literalism) other than the "version of originalism" (direct quote from the source, and I left out the negative modifying phrase "ill-informed" that precedes it) advocated by the TPm.

What "negative spin words"? Surely you are not referring to "originalism", which has a substantial Wikipedia article. If not, then what?

And what "huge mediation project" are you talking about?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This article was in a large mediation project, and the first sentences of the lead were one of the few things that were settled. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When? How about a link to that discussion?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is an even more recent study in a legal journal on the TPm and the constitution Popular Originalism?. It seems to be a notable topic receiving a fair amount of attention.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Malke The only portion of that edit that could marginally be construed as wp:or would be the paragraph on Graham, otherwise the quotes all directly relate to TPm actiists and their philosophy and positions on the constitution.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what specifically is wp:or?

As has been discussed above, primary sources from TPM activists are only citable in certain contexts. The use of secondary sources that discuss the primary sources is the norm--and policy(wp:rs)--on Wikipedia.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Malke, I'm going to ask you again for the policy-based rationale for your seemingly arbitrary blanket reverts of my edits. What is WP:OR, and what redundant, and how do you claim WP:DUE applies? If you disagree with portions of the edit, then I would appreciate it if you would address only those portions in your reverting/revising. I do intent to call attention to your reverts with Arbcom.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Arzel What specifically do you maintain amounts to "unbelievable POV pushing" in the edit?

I would imagine that you'd agree that the Elizabeth Price paragraph is completely bereft of anything controversial. Do you find my presentation of the explication in the Zietlow material to be somehow other than neutral? Wikipedia readers come here for information, and the analysis by Zietlow is thought provoking with respect to the stances proclaimed by TP activists on the constitution, but I fail to see what you are accusing me of with respect to POV pushing. Are you accusing her of POV pushing? She is, of course, allowed to have a POV, but I don't see anything in her analysis that could even be deemed political or ideological. It is an exegesis in relation to the prevailing discourse in legal scholarship.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There are the folks who want to strictly follow the constitution, as it is in 2013. The POV word used by their opponents is "originalist" to try to give the impression that these folks are following some old way of thinking rather than strictly following the document as it is in 2013. So we have the usual here.....huge efforts to try to use every wiki-maneuver possible get negative rather than neutral words into the article when describing the TPM or "its" agenda. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That would seem to be an ill-informed opinion, as the term originalism refers to a school of thought on interpreting the constitution that, I repeat, has a substantial Wikipedia article and was not developed recently in response to the TPm by 'their opponents'.

Your attempt to dismiss the source by asserting your WP:OR version of the TPm stance on the constitution in its current form circa 2013 in relation to your misunderstanding of the term 'originalism' demonstrates that you have read neither the Wikpedia article or the Zietlow paper.

Moreover, your assertion, "the folks who want to strictly follow the constitution, as it is in 2013" is patently proven false by the TPm leaders and activists advocating the repealing of current constitutional amendments and the addition of a new amendment.

I would ask you read the sources before making such comments.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement "there are folks who X" is not disproven by the statement "there are other folks who Y". It is however clearly not the case that most of the Tea Party considers the current constitution, nor currently predominant interpretations of it to be desirable. This can be showed with sources references prominent supporters claims to the contrary. Their views however do not however need to be described as the views of the Tea Party, simply attribute it to the specific prominent voices in the movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it is disproven, because "the folks who X" described by North are the TPm activists, whom he opposes to "their opponents", which are equated with the authors of the sources. Read the following passage, please.

Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment). Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011

Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, each time you write you explicitly or impliciity say several incorrect negative things about other editors. Maybe you are depending on the fact that nobody has the time to to correct or argue all of those. I'm starting to get weary of those insults. Why don't you just quit that and write in a straightforward manner about the issue being debated? Sincerely, 17:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the one leveling undue accusations. What exactly are you complaining about? If you've grown weary and don't have time, remember, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I put my post in the wrong place. To start with I'll move it and your response. (done) If moving yours is not OK with you let me know although I don't have a better idea. I'll wait and see if that changes anything. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break for readability

That last sentence has such an obvious oxymoron blunder (morally traditionalist, hierarchical libertarian) that IMO it has no credibility. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Strict adherence to the constitution" is defining the TPM in their own words. Natural rights proponents also support strict adherence to the constitution, just disagree on whether the rights protected were those supported by legislation written before the Bill of Rights was enacted or whether they refer to universal values. And yes libertarianism can support hierarchy since its principles lead to some people having more money and influence than other people. TFD (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian morally traditionalist (in a governmental context) is an obvious blunder / oxymoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 April 2013

Belief systems do not need to be internally consistent. TFD (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence in the second paragraph can be read to express separate types of beliefs that are commonly found among TPm participants and sympathizers. The subject od the sentence is "They" and the object is "values". Each of the type of values mentioned does not necessarily have to be taken to represent an all-encompassing belief system, and the sentence meaning that TPm individuals embrace all three comprehensively and simultaneously. I believe that North has misread the sentence, and taken it out of context, particularly when using one noun from the list as an adjective to modify another noun on from the list.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, unless the beliefs are commonly held by "tea party meners" as part of their "tea party beliefs" the group of detritus should depart this article. If a survey showed TPM members to be 50 pounds overweight on average, we still could not say that the TPM believes in overeating <g>. Collect (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with a problem that exists in may places in this article. A movement is defined by it's agenda. It's completely faulty to say or imply that the preferences or agendas of the movement's supporters are the agenda of the movement. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense. Of course there is a correspondence between the views of the supporters and the views of the movement. It is not a direct correspondence, and not every statement of opinion made by a member or supporter represent all the other members. But that is no different from any other movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The movement (e.g. a phenomena) has and is defined by an agenda or agendas, it does not have a "view" outside of that. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I argue doesnt make sense, because there is a relation between the agenda and the views of the supporters who contribute to making the agenda. There is internal plurality in any movement and agendas are nto set in stone, and do not always reflect the current majority views of the movement. Agendas are also generally formulated as the "least radical common denominator", leaving out the more radical views that may be shared by most members of the movement but to which they are not willing to commit publicly on paper. We also cant describe the policies of the Republican or democratic parties solely by referring to official documents that are frequently interpreted in very different ways by different members of the respective parties. A movement or a party must be described by its actions and the concrete policies endorsed by prominent members or subgroups of its membership.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than some possibilities covered by the broad statement "because there is a relation between the agenda and the views of the supporters who contribute to making the agenda" I agree with you and also say that those are good observations. But one possibility covered by the above general statement has been very problematic in this article. That is that views of supporters which have nothing to do with the agenda are not the agenda and not views of the movement. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues ?

I would humbly suggest starting with a major decision - what is the "tea party". Is it a homogeneous thing where we can readily find general truths about it as a whole? Is it, by its very nature, an intrinsically ill-defined bunch of disparate elements which make it intrinsically undefinable by any source or group of sources? In such a case, would the "generalisations" be problematic in any case? (just presenting this as a possible starting point, of course) Collect (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. I would venture to say that it is indeed a bunch of disparate elements. That makes it hard to define. I am not sure it is therefore impossible to define. Might there not be some common core elements? Of course the increasing problem is that as time passes since the start of this movement the disparate groups are spinning into different directions. Some are focusing on local issues, some trying to elect candidates, some are taking over state parties. As time goes by it will likely be harder and harder to define. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting and useful point and a good idea. My answer is that it is a vague combination of many things. And the best and most useful noun to characterize it would be a "phenomena" which would force a lot of clarity into confusing discussions.North8000 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Grassroots

Editors are now editwaring to include a definition of the Party as a grassroots movement based on a tendentious reading based on a handful of news-paper sources, that do not in fact support that view but contradict it. This is of course a problem. There can be a discusion of whether it is a grassroots movement in the article, but based on such flimsy sources it can never be part of the definition. I urge Arzel to selfrevert, because the recent edit is both disruptive and tendentious and in violation of the basic policy (and indeed commensense principle) according to which material based on contested sources stays out of the article untill there is a consensus to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Failing to respect WP:BRD and tag teaming. Hopefully Arbcom will deal with this sort of nonsense. The references just say it has a grass roots, not that it originated or grew in that way. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There were two sources provided, not just one. Please don't pretend that the other one wasn't provided, or that it didn't say very clearly that TPm is a grass-roots organization. Also, all TPm sources state that they are a grass-roots organization and they can be used in this article, for this limited purpose, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Is it really necessary to cite them all? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources, they just say that the tea party has grass roots, so do all political parties. You need a source which proves that as formation, and you need to wait for agreement before you start up one of your slow edit wars ----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Certain parts of the tea party movement are grassroots. Tea Party Patriots was grassroots. But Freedomworks was not. But it was the grassroots groups that had the largest impact and made it a movement at the beginning. They used social media to connect with others all over the country. There are reliable sources that note the difference. They will still be in the article's history. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That is incorrect for two reasons.

1. You have conveniently ignored all RS that demonstrate the TPm is funded by multinational corporations and their major shareholders.
2. This is included in wp:selfsource: 1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim

It is clearly a self-serving claim aimed at deceiving the public with respect to the nature of the movement insofar as the movement is AstroTurf; therefore, the modifier "unduly" applies, and the "sourced" material is doubly inadmissible.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at it objectively, Ubikwit. Yes, it does receive money from deep pockets, but so does Organizing for America, and it's still being allowed to define itself on Wikipedia as a grass-roots organization. The grass-roots origins of TPm — Keli Carender, Rick Santelli, and the spontaneous movement that grew up around their feet — are well documented in reliable, neutral sources such as the New York Times[60] and CBS News.[61] Yes, there are a few sources claiming that it's Astroturf but those are a distinct minority per WP:WEIGHT. Choose your battles more carefully Ubikwit. You're going to lose this one, just like you've lost the one about "anti-immigration," and for the same good reason: it's a tiny minority opinion, advanced by political opponents, and the opposite majority opinion is represented by an enormous number of reliable, neutral sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not battling, just calling attention to what I perceive to be examples of faulty reasoning.

No one has opposed describing the TPm's grassroots dimension, but that is not an exclusive characterization bought by the exclusion of other reliable sources that point to the various funding issues. Here, it is the contradictions perceived in policies advanced by the TPm--which seem to serve corporate interests as much or more than individual citizens--and the attempt to portray the movement as a ground-swell populist movement aimed at combating abuses by the powers that be.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur and P&W as you should know by now the anti-immigration issues is unresolved and your use of references there was as faulty in both source and interpretation as you are now. All parties have a grass roots, its the origination and support that count for the lede and you need something more substantive there. If anyone is showing a battle ground mentality its you with slow edit wars and forum shopping ----Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For interested editors, take note there was a mediation on the "grass roots" issue back in 2010. You'll find it here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. Would you please share with us the result of that mediation as you understand it? As far as I can tell, it was unproductive. Looking forward to a productive discussion with SilkTork. If you'll pardon the expression, similar to a Gun Free Zone I want this to become a Bullshit Free Zone. My use of the sources and interpretation of those sources has been quite sound. NPR even though the article was about big money flowing into TPm was quite explicit about it being a grass-roots organization. Objective review of the NYT and CBS sources I linked above confirm its grass-roots origins. There are plenty of other sources if you want them.

I've also posted a list of six reliable sources at the end of the "Survey" section above regarding the "anti-immigration" claim. I haven't seen anyone trying to discredit those sources or my interpretation. Again, there are plenty of other sources if you want them. For all practical purposes the "anti-immigration" discussion is over, and you lost. The majority opinions in both cases are that TPm is a grass-roots organization and that it is opposed to illegal immigration. Per WP:WEIGHT, these majority opinions should be presented near the beginning of the article and get more weight. The minority opinions that advance "anti-immigration" and Astroturf claims belong at the end of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• For all practical purposes the "anti-immigration" discussion is over, and you lost.

You are welcome to rejoin the discussion at any time, of course. Saying "you lost" (and likewise in another comment, "Choose your battles more carefully") in regard to content discussions indicates to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. The only winners and losers in such discussions are the readers of Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason we were asking for mediation is because we were dealing with Dylan Flaherty who was a sock, although at the time we didn't know he was a sock. [62]. He also socked as an IP.[63] As to what happened with the mediation, I think it ended because the mediator was a student and had to abandon it. Arthur Rubin might have a better recall of events. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, it seems to me that your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is skewed. The relevance of weight does not necessarily correspond to placement in the article; rather, it can correspond to the manner of description anywhere in the article.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to sources, TPM is about as grass roots as is realistically possible for a movement of that size. Yes, I'm sure that a few of the hundreds of TPM organizations got money or jump starts from others but that does not change that. It's about as spontaneous and decentralized as anything can get. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no reason to characterize the movement as any particular kind of movement, particularly not a characterization that is contested. It is the same with the immigration stuff, instead of adding labels that always carry positive or negative connotations, we should focus on describing the concrete and sourceable facts. Who characterize it as a grassroots movement? Who argue that it is not? We can find reliable sources applying all kinds of labels - but each such characterization is a view not a fact. We should include all notable views but not privilege some as definitions unless they are in the vast majority both inside and outside of the movement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the correct approach rhetorically: limit the use of adjectives and attribute contested characterizations in context.

Any ideas about the organization of the article?Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since a powerful majority of the reliable sources describe it as a grass-roots movement, or provide a wealth of details about its origins which support the "grass-roots" descriptor, I think we have a duty to describe the movement that way. The small minority of sources that make the Astroturf claim can be set forth later in the article. The best description appears to be from the NPR article I've cited: that it really is a genuine grass-roots movement, but certain elements and organizations that form parts of the movement have received money from "deep pocket" donors, much like such progressive organizations as Organizing for America and Organizing for Action, which Wikipedia doesn't hesitate to describe as "grass-roots organizations." Of course it's a complex description. Most organizations with millions of supporters have fairly complex descriptions and sources of funding. Complex descriptions don't belong in the lede, so we should boil that description down to the term "grass-roots" for purposes of the lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets not. It is a really bad idea because there are lots of other adjectives that could be attributed to a "powerful majority", for example with the same reasoning we might just as well describe it as a "far right movement" or similar. Complex descriptions don't belong in the lead and neither do those that are currently contested in the literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but obviously "grassroots" is reserved for the left. I love how Organizing for America (Obama's old PAC) is called a community orginization (ie grassroots) even though it is clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not discussing how that article should be written here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If we leave out descriptive terms, aren't we abdicating our responsibility as editors of an encyclopedia? We have a duty to provide a summary style version of all the descriptive terms out there, obeying WP:WEIGHT. The vast majority of sources describe the TPm as either conservative, or partly conservative and partly libertarian. "Far right" has negative connotations, since the term is often associated with neo-Nazis and militia groups. The term has been used on occasion to describe TPm, but those using it are generally publications or entities that can reasonably be construed to be politically opposed to TPm. After all, if we allow politicians and political organizations to be defined by their opponents, there would be a certain biography starting with the words, "Barack Obama is a socialist born in Kenya ..." that's not a place where we want this encyclopedia to go. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that we shouldn't put "grass roots" into the lede of the TPm article speaking in Wikipedia's voice as the definitive description; it's a contested issue between it's advocates and it's detractors, which is discussed in the body of the article. As a side note, the Wikipedia articles on Organizing for America and Organizing for Action do not say they are "grass roots" either. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a false statement. Organizing for Action is described by Wikipedia as follows: "OFA executive director Jon Carson and Messina both said OFA is a non-partisan, grassroots issue advocacy group." [64] Despite the group's practice of offering direct access to the president for a $500,000 fee, the word "Astroturf" does not appear in the article, even though there's some very notable criticism that uses the term.[65] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote and put it in the proper context; I'm talking about the ledes, as well as the use of Wikipedia's voice. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that in addition to people within the organization, neutral and reliable third party sources are also describing TPm as a grass-roots movement. The New York Times[66] is the gold standard of reliable sources at Wikipedia. And why is "Astroturf" criticism mentioned at great length in one article but not mentioned at all in the other, when the word "Astroturf" is being used by reliable sources to criticize both organizations? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that the TPm funding is related to promoting the advocacy of policies aimed at protecting the interests of the corporations that are funding the movement, whereas with the other organizations you mention, that is not the case. Therefore, it is not even controversial that President Obama will meet with a donor that offers to donate $500,000 to the group, because they are not advocating for policies that are designed by corporations and go against the public interest.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is getting pretty deep in here. Arzel (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Remember when I said that I want this to be a Bullshit Free Zone? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Do you honestly believe that? "Against the public interest" is completely subjective, Ubikwit. But as for the rest of it, do you really believe that? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, take second-hand smoke, for example. That is a public health (i.e., public interest) issue that has now been addressed such that there are laws that protect people from second-hand smoke. This is probably the most important point of the tobacco control article. That article is addressing public health issues connected to the tobacco industry and uncovered the fact that they had started funding "smokers rights'" groups to combat actual grassroots movements working to have a smoke-free environment in restaurants, etc. There is nothing like that in the groups connected to the Obama campaign, as they are up front about the issues for which they advocate in the name of the public.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The connection between "smokers rights" groups and TPm is a real stretch, Ubikwit. There's a good reason why this story hasn't gained traction in any mainstream news sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are people saying that the TPm is grass-roots, and there are people who say the opposite; both sides of the issue are covered in reliable third party sources. When it comes to the lede, we probably shouldn't be saying in Wikipedia's voice (asserting as factual) that it's grass-roots any more than we should be saying it's astroturf. As an aside in response to your question P&W, if you want to explore adding "astroturf" criticism to the OFA article, you can certainly do so. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, no. I categorically ignore the "go and edit some other article" defense. I find it much more productive to use other articles, especially Good Articles and Featured Articles, as guideposts when editing this article. Take a look at Barack Obama, for example. It's a Featured Article. Show me where the criticism starts, or the "commentary" by a conservative equivalent of the Huffington Post. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats alright, I categorically deny the "other shit exists" argument. So where does that leave us? Last time I checked the Tea pArty wasn't President of the United States of America, so I think your analogy fails (a better analogy would be to the article on the Green party). Plus we are arguing about whether to let the movement define itself as grassroots or not, not about whether there should be a criticism section. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You were implying that because the OFA article doesn't currently contain any criticism about allegations of astroturf, similar reliably sourced material doesn't belong here on the TPm article. I think most editors here will find that argument unpersuasive (anyone else care to comment?), but feel free to pursue it. In so far as looking at the Barack Obama BLP, I'd say we were in the same category of guideposts and GA/FA examples to work with if this were, say, the George Bush BLP. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Using scholarly sources: [67] In the US this awakened a grassroots movement that became known as the Tea Party movement. [68] Newsweek (the notorious right wing source) In that regard, Palin reflects the abiding unease that many conservatives, especially the grassroots activists associated with the Tea Party movement, still feel about Romney. [69] But if the tea-party protests produced their share of histrionics from the right, they also brought out the worst in progressive elites. As the grassroots movement was gaining traction across America, liberal columnists and commentators ridiculed the new political movement as a collection of racists, reactionaries, and uneducated buffoons. Instead of recognizing these nationwide protests for what they were--a potent sign of public discontent--too many liberals became more contemptuous as the tea-party movement grew. What actually counts of course is how its supporters view it - and it is quite clear that its supporters do indeed call it "grassroots" and it is fitting that we, as a minimum, say "Its supporters call it a grassroots movement." Collect (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should definitely state that there is a grassroots element in the movement and its emergence, and that it still considers itself to be that. But that is not the same as adopting that as the definition (which none of the sources you here produce do either).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is also a false statement. I have already cited this reliable source in support of the word "grass-roots" in the article mainspace: [70] There is also this one: [71] In both articles, NPR admits that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, but they're concerned about the deep pockets money that some organizations under the TPm umbrella are receiving. Here's Harvard Magazine: [72]

Then there's the New York Times article I've already linked, regarding Keli Carender and the origins of the TPm. While the NYT doesn't actually use the word "grass-roots," the circumstances that are very, very reliably described are loudly screaming "grass-roots." In addition to the three sources Collect has posted above, all of which either describe TPm, or Tea Party activists, as "grass-roots." One of the three sources is Newsweek, which in recent years has moved farther to the left than The Nation. If anybody had a motive to deny that the TPm is a genuine grass-roots movement, it would be Newsweek.

Now, maybe you should try looking up the definition of Astroturfing. A genuine Astroturfing operation conceals the source of the money. One political operative pretends to be several people at once — and the people he's pretending to be have no connection to the source of the money. Is there any evidence of anything like that going on here? TPm is a grass-roots movement that's getting money from deep pockets. The deep pockets aren't a secret. Nobody's pretending to be several people. This is very different from an actual Astroturfing operation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is a non-argument, we could produce any number of reliable sources using different characterizations, there is no reason whatsoever that the "grassroots" adjective should be considered more definitional than any of those - Right wing organization, radical wing, funamentalist movement etc. They are characterizations that can be made, one does not define the topic more than the others. The definition sentence in the lead defines something, it doesn't elevate one particular view among many to the status of fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Right wing organization, radical wing, funamentalist movement etc. Those terms are not being used by reliable, NEUTRAL sources. Those terms are being used by persons and publications that are aligned on the left. I imagine that you could find whatever loaded terms you want to find at left-leaning publications that are perfectly reliable, such as Rolling Stone, Slate or Salon. I repeat, if we allow political figures and organizations to be defined by their opponents, there would be a certain biography starting with the words, "Barack Obama is a socialist born in Kenya ..." Here at Wikipedia we start with the reliable, NEUTRAL sources. All the reliable, neutral sources that weigh in on the subject say "grass-roots." Or they provide a strong set of facts supporting the word "grass-roots." None of the reliable, neutral sources say "Astroturf." Then we go to whatever the subject of the article is saying about itself per WP:SELFSOURCE. And wonder of wonders, they're saying exactly what the reliable, neutral sources say: "grass-roots." Yeah, yeah, it's self-serving. But it's not unduly self-serving because it's confirmed by the reliable, neutral sources. That is why Wikipedia policy supports using the term "grass-roots" in the lede. WP:SELFSOURCE is a section of WP:RS, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia policy. WP:WEIGHT is a section of WP:NPOV, another of Wikipedia's three pillars. WP:WEIGHT says that we go with what the majority of the reliable sources say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-sequitur arguments generally dont advance the discussion. No-one is suggesting that the movement should be defined by its opponents, but that it should be defined neither by its proponents nor its opponents. You are rejecting sources that disagree with your favored definition because they are non-neutral, and the evidence you offer is that they disagree. The evidence you offer for a source's neutrality is that it agrees with you. That is tough to argue meaningfully against. And harder still to find a compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... but that it should be defined neither by its proponents nor its opponents. Now that part you've got correct. Neutral sources such as the New York Times and Harvard Magazine. For this moment, you made me think you're moving in the right direction.
• You are rejecting sources that disagree with your favored definition because they are non-neutral, and the evidence you offer is that they disagree. No, the evidence that I offer is that they are politically opposed to TPm. As you said, "No-one is suggesting that the movement should be defined by its opponents[.]"
• The evidence you offer for a source's neutrality is that it agrees with you. No, the evidence that I offer is that they are genuinely neutral. The New York Times is the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Other major dailies such as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, and major networks such as CBS News, ABC News and National Public Radio, also carefully preserve their reputation for unbiased, accurate reporting.
• And harder still to find a compromise. Well, Wikipedia policy is uncompromising on this point. We don't allow the minority opinion to be presented as the majority opinion, nor do we allow it to obscure the majority opinion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Astroturfing

The term 'astroturfing' contradicts the concept of grassroots organization. The above argument has gone this way and that on the matter, but there are more sources to consider. The first three listed below are already used in the article. The others are fine new sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Krugman, Paul (April 12, 2009). "Tea Parties Forever". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
• Hannity, Sean (March 2, 2010). "Pelosi Backpedals on Tea Partiers". Hannity's America. FOX News Network.
• Powers, Ryan (April 15, 2009). "Pelosi: Tea parties are part of an 'astroturf' campaign by 'some of the wealthiest people in America.'". ThinkProgress. Center for American Progress Action Fund.
• Monbiot, George (October 25, 2010). "The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires: By funding numerous rightwing organisations, the mega-rich Koch brothers have duped millions into supporting big business". The Guardian. London.
• Good, Chris (April 13, 2009). "The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?". The Atlantic.
• "Pelosi Claims Tea Party Hijacked by GOP". Fox News. February 28, 2010.
• Ducat, Stephen (October 15, 2010). "Tea Party Rage, Part Two: Grass Roots Movement or AstroTurf Tool of Corporate Power?". Huffington Post.
• Formisano, Ronald P. (2012). The Tea Party: A Brief History. JHU Press. pp. 5–14, 34, 70–71, 86–87, 94, 97, 100, 110, 117. ISBN 1421405962. Ronald P. Formisano, PhD, is an American History professor at the University of Kentucky. On page 71 he names the Institute for Liberty as one element of the Tea Party that is engaging in "blatant astroturfing".

This is a false statement. Please stop misrepresenting the sources immediately. Formisano very clearly identifies Institute for Liberty (IFL) as a group that is trying to co-opt the Tea Party from outside: "... business lobbyists, claiming to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, appropriate the label and engage in blatant astroturfing on behalf of corporate clients." Let's try to end the practice of misrepresenting what the sources say. Formisano never described IFL as "one element of the Tea Party." I checked the book out from the library this morning. Don't try this bullshit again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party, even though they are engaging in blatant astroturfing. Formisano says there is not really just one Tea Party, there is instead a plurality: "Tea Parties" (page 7). Formisano says "the main debate about the Tea Party, however, has to do with authenticity. To what extent has it emanated from the grassroots, from ordinary people, especially from those not previously involved in politics, or to what extent has it been created by corporations, billionaires, and right-wing media seeking to further their own agendas?" The field is so large that it includes all of the above. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party ... Not according to my reading, and I've been reading this book all freakin day. My impression so far is that Formisano agrees the ORIGINS of the movement in 2009 were genuine grass-roots, and that it is still a principally grass-roots organization; but both the Republican Party, and certain Super PACs created for the purpose, have been trying to co-opt it. Please identify the chapter and page where "Formisano includes such business lobbyists within the larger definition of Tea Party" and I'll check this claim. Thank you.
• "... to what extent has it been created by corporations, billionaires, and right-wing media seeking to further their own agendas?" I notice that Formisano doesn't actually claim, in response to his own question, that the TPm was CREATED to any extent at all by such entities. Instead, he reports that such entities are trying to co-opt the movement "to further their own agendas." If your understanding is different from mine, please cite the chapter[s] and page number[s] where you're getting this. Formisano, in my opinion, defines such entities as outsiders trying to get in and take over, like carpetbaggers. From the WP article, "Carpetbagger": "It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano says in "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism", p. 8, "The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few--the corporate lobbyists from above--but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." That seems to be the consensus in serious writing about them. TFD (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So it's your opinion that The New York Times and NPR isn't "serious writing"? Paul Krugman is a left-wing opinion columnist who's defending Obama. And George Monbiot is a left-wing opinion columnist writing in a left-wing newspaper, The Guardian. Most of the rest are quoting Nancy Pelosi, and Pelosi and the TPm clearly hate each other's guts. Please read my earlier exchange about not allowing political figures and movements to be defined by their opponents. Have we allowed Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Andrew McCarthy to define the Occupy movement? Have we allowed John Boehner, as quoted by any reliable source, to define the Occupy movement? No, of course not. Nor should we allow Monbiot, Krugman or Pelosi to define TPm — or obscure the honest, unbiased, NPOV definition of TPm that is found in the majority of reliable sources.

Formisano, and the book due to be released next month by Parker and Barreto, present the risk of editors cherry-picking small bits of it to support their version of what the article should be, and declining to tell us about all the other bits of the same writing that undercut their position. We've already experienced that sort of editing on this page, and it's still here, not in the archives yet. Please don't do that. If you're going to use books like Formisano's, there needs to be an overview of what the entire book says on the matter. This morning I went to the library and checked out Formisano's book. I'll be reading it as we go along. My impression so far is that he agrees the ORIGINS of the movement in 2009 were genuine grass-roots, and that it is still a principally grass-roots organization. but both the Republican Party, and certain Super PACs created for the purpose, have been trying to co-opt it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Formisano is correctly quoted by TFD from page 8. Formisano is not trying to say right there that the Tea Party early beginnings were from right-wing groups; he is just saying that the current "Tea Parties" (ca. 2010–2012) are made up of both the astroturfing think tanks and the grassroots activists, not just one or the other, and that the 2010 election successes could be traced to the big spending campaigns from above. This despite the dogged independence voiced by those at the grassroots level. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formisano ... is just saying that the current "Tea Parties" (ca. 2010–2012) are made up of both the astroturfing think tanks and the grassroots activists, not just one or the other ... Really? Where does Formisano describe any part of the TPm as "Astroturfing"? You throw around the word "Astroturf" like a Frisbee at a family reunion. But the only point I've been able to find where Formisano describes facts that would support use of that word, is the one point on page 71 where he identifies the Institute for Liberty (IFL) as "business lobbyists, claiming to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, appropriate the label and engage in blatant astroturfing on behalf of corporate clients." Formisano is clearly describing IFL as an outside organization trying to exploit the TPm. That's not part of the TPm. And the language used by Formisano clearly means what I've said. Nothing about what Formisano has said indicates that any part of the TPm is Astroturf. Yeah, yeah, it gets money from deep pockets. Yeah, yeah, there are Astroturfing organizations outside the TPm that are trying to exploit the TPm. But it's just not the same thing as saying that the TPm, or any organization that is actually part of it, is Astroturfing. We can indicate in the lede that some TPm organizations get money from deep pocket donors. But we should also indicate that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. Nothing Formisano has written compromises that definition. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both types of populism, in part by the few—the corporate lobbyists from above—but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism." This Formisano tidbit from page 11 is in contradiction to your viewpoint that the Tea Party is only a grass roots movement. Formisano says that it is both, that the moneyed interests are part of it, not outside of it. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Put that out-of-context remark back into its context and Formisano's real meaning becomes clear. Believe it or not, deep-pocket money or "moneyed interests" by themselves do not invalidate a movement's grass-roots nature unless they're actually using that money to conduct actual Astroturfing activities. If the money is just being used to provide websites, buses, hotel rooms, and even training for activists and events that are otherwise 100% grass-roots, how does that invalidate their grass-roots nature?

This isn't the slam dunk reliable source in your favor that you had originally described, Binksternet. IFL wasn't described as an "element" of TPM. No person or organization that's actually part of TPm was described as "Astroturfing." Formisano's statement is that non-grassroots creation of TPm is only "in part" the work of corporate lobbyists, and he doesn't cite any evidence to support even that claim. The evidence cited here is that of IFL, which Formisano clearly described as an outside influence trying to exploit TPm for its own gain. But even if we assume that his "in part" conclusion is valid based on this evidence, he does acknowledge "the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism."

I've read Formisano's book cover to cover today. It's just not helping you. And I suspect that Parker and Barreto's book, when it's released next month, will turn out to be more of the same: one or two remarks, easily taken out of context and even distorted but, when placed back into their context and when the whole book is carefully and dispassionately read, the claims certain Wikipedia editors are trying to make just don't get the support they need from the cited source. The abundant reliable, neutral sources that unambiguously define TPm as a grass-roots movement are still the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Have a good evening. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What does "both type of populism" mean in that sentence? Top-down is not the same as grass-roots, so there seems to be something of a contradiction there. If astroturf is characterized as a form of populism, it still needs to be distinguished from a grassroots movement. As s/he seems to be saying simply that "Tea Parties", by which I gather s/he means rallies, have been organized by both, then the movement still needs to be described in terms of both, though individual rallies could be described for illustrating the respective "types of populism".Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Both types of populism" means both the populism of corporate lobbyists and grassroots populism. TFD (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice that neither type of populism involves concealing the source of the money, or one political operative pretending to be several people — two essential elements of Astroturfing. Also, which came first: the "populism of corporate lobbyists," or the grass-roots populism? The latter, obviously. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Here's a definition from the article populism

an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".

The distinction relating to grassroots movements is important, and the tobacco study is a good reference for this. The grassroots anti-smoke movement challenged the tobacco industry by petitioning the government, and won new controls against second-hand smoke, etc. In conjunction with some of the other references above relating to corporate power, etc. the combination is effective for illustrating the distinction between astroturf and grassroots, without necessarily addressing populism. Or should the anti-smoke movement be considered populist instead of simply citizen based, or something like that?

I guess I'm not sure that the discussion of populism fits with the distinction between astroturf and grassroots. On the other hand, because the focus of most grassroots movements is more cause specific (anti-war, occupy Wall St., etc.) than the TPm with its "contract for america" quasi-political party ethos, since both the corporate backed parties and grassroots parties are both manifestations of "populism", there is definitely a need to discuss populism, perhaps in relation to grassroots.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The "tobacco study" is way, way out in left field, Ubikwit. I've told you before that there's a very good reason why it hasn't gained any traction in the mainstream press. This is the sort of thing that investigative reporters at The New York Times and The Washington Post would be eager to write about — if there were any real substance to it. Unfortunately, there isn't. It's a lot of guilt by association, innuendo, and smoke and mirrors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that any editor who wants the highest level article will somehow get hold of a copy of Formisano's book. The scholarly viewpoint he offers will settle more than a few arguments here. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seem like an excellent source to me, but I for one will have to rely on those of you who have it for relevant passages. I'd like to make it through more of the legal scholarship pdf sources related to the constitution.

It certainly seem that there is material in the Formisano book applicable with regard to astroturf and populism, but pulling out quotes and fleshing out the context seems to be in order. I think that there may be material in some of the "corporate power" related sources listed above that could be correlated in an illustrative and supporting manner.

There seems to be a fair amount of anachronistic information in the article, which I've been editing to reflect current status as I make my way through it. It would be desirable to integrate high-level analysis from academic sources with the corresponding events related passages.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think it should be characterized as grassroots or astroturfing or some combination of the two. Rather, we should just detail what sources say about the movement's or origins and then note the dispute over its exact nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have been saying for awhile now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For highly contested vague terms perhaps you are right. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 12 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:[73][74] and here [75] 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)

Full protection

This article has been fully-protected due to an ongoing content dispute which is resulting in a slow moving edit war. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators - and only by consensus. The protection has taken over the existing semi-protection which is scheduled to end in August this year, but the full protection will only be in place until issues surrounding the dispute are sorted. Modifications can be proposed on this talk page for discussion. In addition, a moderated discussion page has been set up here, to discuss the broader issues. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

content dispute / slow moving edit war

I would like to propose a collective evaluation of the constitution related text that has been the subject of contention over the past few days, with blanket revisions even after I modify, expand and incorporate new material, the last edit including new material from a source first introduced by Malke. As can be seen above under the sub-setion "Consitution", I have requested input and clarification from Malke and Arzel in relation to the policy claims made in the editing summaries of their blanket reverts, and received no response. The version of the page in question is here, and the first section I would like to request input on is the following paragraph from the Schmidt source [76], quoted in the opening of the Agenda section. Note that it was actually Malke, I believe, that first introduced this valuable source into the discussion when reverting other text related to the constitution that I'd posted. As can be seen, however, from the current version of the opening of the agenda section, she relegates the content of this source to a single sentence paraphrase. Please look at the paragraph in context and comment on its relevance, whether it is well-integrated into the flow of the opening of that section, etc. If a consensus is reached to include this passage in the above-linked version of the opening of the Agenda section, then the proposed section on the Constitution can be scrutinized. There is substantially more material available than what I've posted there, incidentally. We can take it one paragraph at a time or so, as appropriate.

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.

Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have responded on Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion that we should concentrate on one issue at a time and deal with what is agreed first before moving to a new topic. Discussing several issues at once, and in different venues, takes away impetus and reduces the likelihood of success. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agenda

"The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments." While this may make sense in the present, years from now this may not be understood. we should clarify and cite exactly what bailouts and stimulus packages are being being referred to.--Asher196 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Kommentar Yes, good point. The level of detail related to important topical matter is so poor it's ludiculous, basically. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments? What are those?Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Very easy solution — transform each term that may be unclear in the future into a Wikilink to the corresponding article. "The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts and stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments." I wish all the problems with this article were solved so easily ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a solution at all.

Obviously there should be wikilinks to TARP and the 16th and 17th Amendments. There should also, however, be a level of analysis vis-a-vis the TPm agenda, particularly with respect to the constitution and Amendments that is in accordance with what is found in RS, particularly high-level academic RS such as the sources by legal scholars, the content of which has been repeatedly reverted in a blanket manner without justification.

It is probably the case that the opposition to TARP is related to taxation/government spending, for example, and to which Amendment would taxation relate? I believe that there is also a constitutional rationale for attacking universal health care. A great deal--if not the entirety--of the agenda of the TPm can be explicated with respect to the corresponding positions on the constitution, and that is why there are a number of high-level studies of that issue in particular.

Why is it that you and other editors are intent on keeping detailed analysis of the TPm agenda off the article page?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that you want inaccurate reports of the TPm agenda on the article page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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 ... To Reinvigorate Production, Alaska Grants a Tax Break to Oil Companies April 15, 2013 New York Times 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)

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)

• Question Does she mention the 14th Amendment? As per the following (an edit on the agenda vis-a-vis the constitution that was reverted)

  In relation to immigration reform, Lindsey Graham, a Republican United States Senator from South Carolina whose bipartisanism sometimes finds him aligned with the Tea Party and sometimes opposed, suggested in July 2010 that U.S. citizenship as an automatic birthright guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be amended, and that any child born of immigrants in the United States illegally should themselves be considered illegal immigrants.

  Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:43, 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[77] 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)

I don't write policy, Maunus. I just try to follow it. Who knows what resources are used by the news organizations' fact checkers? Maybe they have access to peer-reviewed journal articles that we haven't found yet. Or maybe they have a political science professor on retainer for occasional questions like this. Trying to figure out why peer-reviewed scholarly publications are treated the same as news organizations, for purposes of reliability at Wikipedia, is above my pay grade.

• In this case P&W is arguing that a book ... is less reliable than a handful of news media sources ... Ummm, no. Please don't distort what I've said. I said that according to Wikipedia policy, one peer-reviewed journal or book and one major new organization are equally reliable. And when we have lots more of them saying "grass-roots" than the ones that say something else, we call that the "majority opinion" per WP:WEIGHT and treat it accordingly. There are a lot more that a "handful" by the way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur I am sorry but I think you are being evasive. The many sources referenced by P&W only support the idea that the Tea Party has a grass roots. I suspect you know that but are creating a smoke screen around a clearly reliable source to avoid having to deal with the issue. OK P&W has a naive believe in volume as a determinate of truth but you do know better. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no; what we do with such sources in contradiction is tell the reader the various positions held by various sources, attributing them per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The contradiction is so deep that we can never say with finality that the Tea Party is a grassroots group, or that the Tea Party is an astroturfing group. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it is probably the case that Formisano talks about Tea parties partly because the movement is comprised of sometimes disparate groups sponsoring rallies, so he avoids the pitfall of an all encompassing generalization. It is a somewhat complex topic.

Clearly his work is not denigrated or refuted by news media pieces, and should carry more weight overall than such sources severally and probably in combination, too, because of the high-level of analysis it provides. If there are other academic sources that claim the TPm is exclusively grassroots, then such POV should be presented in a manner that academic sources per se are in parity as hih-level analysis, with news media below, more basic informational sources.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK P&W has a naive believe in volume as a determinate of truth ... What I have a "naive belief" in is Wikipedia policy.
• The contradiction is so deep that we can never say with finality that the Tea Party is a grassroots group ... Yes, we can. The number of sources supporting majority opinion is very large. The number of sources claiming that external groups that are Astroturfing are actually a part of TPm, or that genuine TPm groups (such as Tea Party Nation) are Astroturfing, is very small. In an analogous situation with a large majority and a small minority, the editors at Waterboarding did not hesitate to start the article saying that "Waterboarding is a form of torture" in Wikipedia's voice.
• Clearly his work is not denigrated or refuted by news media pieces, and should carry more weight overall ... That's your opinion. Wikipedia policy differs from your opinion. The fact that we can't find any news pieces denigrating Formisano doesn't mean anything. We can't find any news pieces validating Formisano either.
• If there are other academic sources that claim the TPm is exclusively grassroots ... Like Elizabeth Foley, for example?
• ... then such POV should be presented in a manner that academic sources per se are in parity as hih-level analysis, with news media below ... Again, that's your opinion. Wikipedia policy differs from your opinion. Here's a link to an op-ed column by Formisano: [78] Here's another: [79] Formisano clearly likes Barack Obama very, very much, and speaks from a progressive perspective. TPm does not. Remember what I've said about not allowing a political figure or group to be defined by its opponents. Arthur knows more about academic sources and practices than I do, and has explained (based on his knowledge) how bias can creep in. It's possible that Formisano has a pro-Obama bias, and that it has crept into his analysis of the validity of TPm's grass-roots status. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And its possible that you have a pro-TPM bias that has crept into your ability to interpret wikipedia policy. An opinion column is not an academically published source and academics are allowed to have political viewpoints - but when they publish academically their work is reviewed for its empirical and argumentational validity. That is the entire point of peer review. Again you are arguing against an argument noone has made when you say the movement shouldnt be defined by its opponents, noone has said we should define it as astroturf. We have maintained all along that we cannot simply accept the movements own definition when it is hotly contested whether that is an accurate definition. Following wikipedia policy what we do is that we do not adopt any of the opposing views, and that we then describe the views attributed to those who hold them and with weight according to their prominence in the relevant literature. That, my friend, is wikipedia policy. We are not a propaganda platform for TPM or any other movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• And its possible that you have a pro-TPM bias ... LOL. I voted for Barack Obama three times. I'm a Democrat living in Illinois, so I was able to vote for him for the Senate in 2004. "Pro-TPm bias"????? LMFAO. Fortunately I'm able to restrain my anti-TPm bias for the purpose of editing this article, and insist that Wikipedia's NPOV policy must be followed.
• We have maintained all along that we cannot simply accept the movements own definition ... That's why we start out by looking at the reliable neutral sources, such as the New York Times and CBS News. These reliable sources have confirmed the movement's self-definition.
• Following wikipedia policy what we do is that we do not adopt any of the opposing views ... Following Wikipedia policy, we adopt the strong majority opinion and state it as a fact in the first 10% of the article, in Wikipedia's voice. Then we explore the majority opinions on various aspects of TPm in greater detail in the heart of the article. Minority opinions can be explored in the final 25% of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They have not confirmed the selfdefinition, they have repeated it. Confirmation comes from scholarly analysis, not from news media repeating a label over and over. Your political leanings are as irrelevant as those of Formisano, which was what I meant by turning your idle speculation back at yourself. There is no strong majority opinion about whether TPM is or isnt a grassroots movement. Reliable sources says there isnt. Even Foley says there is no such consensus, although she does adopt the position that it is a true grassroots movement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review for opinion is little more than grammer checking. Peer review for mathmatical equations and hard facts is much more rigorous. I done quite a bit of peer reivew and it entails checking math and making sure that what they are saying makes sense, not whether it is correct factaully. If anything books like these are the worst reliable of all. Each chapter has only a few eyes checking it for factual mistakes. Newspapers, at least, have thousands of eyes double checking the final product for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, perhaps you should stick to math, because you seem to not know much about social sciences research. You are deliberately attempting to denigrate academic sources (from outside your field, apparently) by dismissing them as mere "opinion". The information contained in the academic sources is of a higher order than that in new media. Your condescending attitude toward the social sciences is perhaps somewhat problematic.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

BS, I am not denigrating social sciences just pointing out the differences. Math and other science are based off hard science where new information must be backed by hard facts which follow specific rules. Social sciences, like this, are based off opinion, granted it may be an informed opinion, but it is still opinion. When evaluating math based research, you can only evaluate the mathmatical analysis with the interpretation of the results left up to the author. This research also includes opinion, but it is easier to question the opinion because it is still based on a set of mathmatical rules. Some social sciences try to incorporate mathmatical models into their research in the form of structural equation modeling in which links are constructed between people or groups of people, unfortunately the linkage between them is not easily placed into a statistical framework. Then you have other research where the research presents their educated guess (opinion) of something. If most other researchers agree with this idea, then it is accepted as the prevailing point of view. However, this opinion is not questioned within the peer review process only the logic (ie math) being used to present the theory. Books are by far the worst because they contain so much information. All the reivewer does is check the grammer and the prose. This is especially true for self-published books. Papers are less problematic since they are shorter and go through a more rigorous review process. Perhaps you just don't understand how the system works. Arzel (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That is ignorant bullshit, you clearly dont know the first thing about peer review or social sciences. You are trying reconfigure what every social science academic knows to be the hierarchy of authority and veracity within the field which is Book > article > news media. Books are a huge investment for a publisher and detailed scrutiny of data and argumentation from fellow experts is the norm, just as it is for articles. If you honestly think that tenured professors will agree to edit the prose of their competitors you are truly misguided - I think it is more likely that you are in fact just pushing a POV. You are redefining the world to fit an antiscientific viewpoint where journalists seeking a scoop are more knowledgeable and dependable than experts who spend their life studying a topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someday you will publish something or be a reviewer and see how the game is played within the academic world. I have no time for childish behavior. Arzel (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• They have not confirmed the selfdefinition, they have repeated it. No, I think that reputable, well-established news organizations like the New York Times would check into the details supporting the "grass-roots" claims by TPm groups, before they publish something like their detailed examination of the start-up of a TPm group by Keli Carender in early 2009. Arzel and Arthur know a lot about peer-reviewed academic publishing. My knowledge is more in the area of news publishing. I happen to know a couple of things that cut the legs out from under your argument, Maunus.
• First, newspapers and broadcast news networks do a lot of fact-checking. Even smaller, local daily newspapers and network affiliates will usually have at least one fact-checker on the staff, even if it's just an intern. Larger, more established organizations have entire departments of fact-checkers. Any reporter who simply repeated the self-serving self-definition of some political organization, without checking it out, would be committing career suicide.
• Second, there's a phenomenon called investigative journalism. Every college journalism major dreams of becoming the next Bob Woodward, uncovering lies and corruption. Due to the way TPm is organized ("disorganized" would be a better word), it would be fairly easy for them to go undercover and dig up a lot of dirt about TPm if there was any dirt for them to dig up. When they go looking for targets, they like big, juicy ones. TPm is a big, juicy target.
• This is how I'm so certain that there's no real substance to the Tobacco Control story. If there was any substance there, investigative reporters from the big news organizations would have been crawling all over it. Instead it's just the Huffington Post, a progressive-biased, glorified blog that was founded as a liberal alternative to the Drudge Report. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, that screed seems to be purely speculative; moreover, you continue to ignore RS aside from the Tobacco Control article that characterize the TPm as including astroturfing.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ignored them, Ubikwit. I've accurately identified them as the minority opinion. And there's nothing speculative about investigative journalism, or news organization fact checkers. They exist, and they would have made mincemeat out of the Tea Party movement if any significant part of it wasbuilt with Astroturfing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how the TPm could be characterized as a ripe target for investigative journalism, so your statement that "it would be fairly easy for them to go undercover and dig up a lot of dirt" is a diversion from the fact that the Tobacco Control journal article incorporated elements of investigative journalism that succeeded in exposing connections that the affiliated groups (e.g., "Citizens for a Sound Economy" and "FreedomWorks") would rather not have been made public.

Corporate funded astroturfing is only one aspect of the TPm subject to study. Most of the researchers published by academic presses have actually attended rallies and interviewed activists in carrying out their research in the field, first hand, supplemented with other materials. The rallies that represent the "movement" aspect of the TPm are open to the public, I believe, so researches don't need to go undercover to ask people what is on their minds.Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, here's a rather harsh analysis [80] of that Tobacco Control study. The harsh analysis is published by the left-leaning Huffington Post. And in their grant proposal [81] to obtain public funding from NIH, the authors of the study basically admitted that they had a political agenda in seeking this funding: the anti-smoking lobby "requires understanding [of] how the tobacco industry maintains a favorable social and policy environment[.]" As the contributor at Huffington Post sarcastically observed, it's hard to tell the difference between this stated objective, and political opposition research. Also, here's an examination of the chief author of the study, Stanton Glantz, and his research: [82] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "harsh analysis" by a PR guy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (anti-regulation of Tobacco advocate) isn't of the study; in fact, he doesn't make a case refuting a single finding of the study. He goes to great lengths, however, to try to impune the motives behind the study and the researchers involved in the study. No surprise there. He also links to a blog where one of the researchers is criticised by a Smoker's Rights writer, and you linked to it as well. Still no refutation of the findings of the peer-reviewed study. What was the point of this "by the way" comment? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• As Arthur and Arzel have pointed out, bias can find its way into peer-reviewed publications. It's funny how Glantz did some early work on "false positives" where poorly designed research finds a relationship between A and B that isn't really there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Every one has a bias. But in a peer reviewed publication conclusions are supported by evidence, and it is possible to detect poor arguments and the influence of bias. You cannot honestly believe that commercial news media are more reliable than experts who study the topic for their entire lives. That really is unbeliavably ridiculous. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias in peer reviewed material can be even more prevalent, especially for those that require publications for promotions or tenure. People don't like to rock the boat and research tends to have a self-fulfilling aspect. On top of that you have researchers that have a pre-determined belief in the outcome and instead of actual research simply manipulate the data until it presents the story they wish to tell. I have seen first hand research which was stopped and not published because the result was contrary to the prevailing belief. Not all is bad, but you would be ignorant to blindly believe that these experts do not sometimes push a predetermined belief. Arzel (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop distorting what I've said. I did not say that "commercial news media are more reliable than experts who study the topic for their entire lives." I said that according to Wikipedia policy, one article published by a news organization and one peer-reviewed scholarly publication have equal levels of reliability. And when we have a lot of them saying "A," and a few of them saying "B," we treat "A" as the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is some new interpretation of WP:WEIGHT? You have a set of newspaper reports which use the 'grassroots' word and the sheer volume of such casual references outweighs a scholarly article? How many one wonders? Are 50 news paper reports the equivalent of one reviewed paper? Is their some weighting factor based on the quality of the newspaper? Sorry P&W but that is a nonsense. If you really believe its the case <irony>take it to the reliable sources notice board</irony>. Your argument is the sourcing equivalent of mob rule ----Snowded ^TALK 04:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed article is a more reliable source than a newspaper article because it is reviewed by many experts who have months to review the facts rather than say 35 minutes. And it also has the advantage that the author must explain what the mainstream and other views are, rather than just his own, must footnote claims made and if the topic is notable, then subsequent writers will comment on any inaccuracies. Certainly someone writing a serious entry for an encyclopedia article about physics, life sciences, earth sciences, or engineering is better advised to use academic sources than the science section in his local newspaper. Also, we do not determine which opinions are of greater significance by conducting google searches or other original research but by looking for sources that explicitly explain the weight provided in informed sources. TFD (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On matters of current events, generally newspaper articles represent how the public perceives those events -- there are no scholarly sources on such which are superior to the newspapers for public perception. This silliness about using "peer-reviewed sources" is not worthwhile when the events and groups are still current. Maybe in ten years or so we will have real scholarship on such, but we ain't there yet. "Onstant scholarship" tends to be "instantly worthless." Collect (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)