Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Archive 2

/Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party locked

Edit warring has occurred on the article so I have locked it for the moment. This is not encouraging. I'm not going to pick over why it happened - that's not going to get us anywhere. But it mustn't happen again. So before unlocking it I want a commitment from the editors involved that they will not revert again. If they have a disagreement with an edit, they bring the discussion here. And if the discussion is slow - so be it. We are part-time volunteers, and it can sometimes take a while to gather all viewpoints. That is the nature of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. It can be frustrating at times. If your personal mindset is such that you cannot deal with slow editing and gaining consensus, then do not edit a high profile and contentious topic. There are over four million other articles on Wikipedia that can be edited - not all of them attract attention, so it is possible to edit by oneself on a number of interesting topics, with no worries about getting agreement from someone else. On this topic, you should state now that you will pause and seek consensus, or agree that you are not suited to this topic, and you will edit elsewhere. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As we can already see being confirmed in the survey immediately above, I was pretty sure that I already had consensus. Comments on this Moderated Discussion page, and in edit summaries, strongly indicated this. Nevertheless, I took the bait and for that, I apologize. In the future, I will wait for a painfully obvious Gay Pride Parade of consensus before editing, even on a subpage that isn't out there in the mainspace yet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I want a commitment from the editors involved that they will not revert again. --SilkTork

Sure, I can commit to not WP:Revert, a small inconvenience since I don't do it that often. I also agree without hesitation to the rest of your stipulations about being patient, raising disagreements on the Talk page for discussion and seeking consensus — no inconvenience at all, as that is routine for me. For the benefit of other editors, you might also consider adding a stipulation about not falsely claiming consensus has been reached. Please be advised, however, I do fully intend to reinstate some previous edits of mine when the article is available for editing again. The edits won't "result in the page being restored to a previous version", but since some of the content previously existed, it can be broadly construed by some as a revert.

• I'm not going to pick over why it happened - that's not going to get us anywhere. --SilkTork

If by "pick over why it happened" you mean closely examine the situation, then I think you are missing a valuable opportunity to better understand the dynamics of the editing environment around this topic, and why there is so much turbulence. There is a big difference between what appears to be going on to the casual observer and what is actually going on. Remaining a casual observer is just going to ensure that the same problems continue.

My role here is to facilitate the discussion. The place for discussing behaviour issues is the ArbCom case. I don't wish to mix the two. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• All right Xeno, I've restored the missing refs etc. that you've complained about. --Phoenix and Winslow

To the casual observer, this appears to be an indication that one editor has addressed the concerns of another editor with an edit. That's a good thing, right? Closer examination, however, reveals the opposite to be the case. A simple comparison of P&W's latest edit (with an equally deceptive edit summary) with his version 3 days and 14 edits prior reveal that they are identical; he didn't restore the missing refs as he claimed, and he didn't restore the "etc." (many other article improvements) as he claimed.

• As we can already see being confirmed in the survey immediately above, I was pretty sure that I already had consensus. Comments on this Moderated Discussion page, and in edit summaries, strongly indicated this. --Phoenix and Winslow

To the casual observer, this appears to indicate that an editor was implementing changes based on consensus. That's a good thing, right? Closer examination, however, reveals that consensus did not exist, and furthermore, at the time of his first claim to having consensus (see edit summary), there had been zero comments on the talk page and in edit summaries indicating consensus for the shuffling of content and other edits, as he claimed.

Having observed the editing in this topic area for years, I fully expect some editors to reflexively chime-in with I Support! or I Agree! with little or no consideration about what edits they are supporting, as long as a previously sympathetic editor has proposed them. (See the most recent example above, where editors "support" an edit removing reference citations... Facepalm ) That may serve the goals of some editors, but it doesn't produce a better article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I shan't revert. Though I do not consider that my acts were an "edit war" on my part, moreover. My goal has been to reach compromises in each case - including my expcerience at Prem Rawat, Carmen Ortiz, Judaism and other contentious areas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit has agreed: [19]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

|}

Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party→/Perceptions of the Tea Party

The sub-article is unlocked and renamed. I have closed the above discussions. Please use this section to discuss significant edits. Minor or uncontroversial edits may be made directly to the article. Significant or major edits may be made after gaining consensus here. If in doubt, call my attention and wait. This will be a good test to see how close we are to being able to unlock the main article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I regard the two edits made directly after the unlocking to be a tad contentious IMHO, and made without any discussion at this point, and ask that they ve removed while we discuss them. If they gain consensus, then let us then restore them. If they lack consensus, I would ask that editor not to make any more such edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't seen ST's new editing rules before editing the article as soon as I noticed it was up with the disputed version that had been edit-warred to that non-consensus version from the original main-article version.

At any rate, I'll agree not to make other "major edits" without gaining consensus theretofore. :Note that the new subarticle does not contain any new material from the main article. It remains as only the bigotry and race related material, so the edit-warred version would seem to have clearly represented a version that contained disputed aspects that had been achieved without consensus.

Of course I'm open to picking up where we left off with some of those issues, such as "Alleged", which had been taken up, at any rate.

It does seem to me that without having first discussed what other material could have been moved to this particular or other subarticles in advance has caused something of a disjointed transition. I have raised the issue on ST's talk page, so it might be easier to check there than to rehash those here and clutter up this page any further.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit you need to undo your edits and affirm there is consensus for such edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have WP:NOINDEXed the draft page so it doesn't show up on search engines - this should alleviate concerns about what state the article is in at any time. As a working draft it is to be expected that it will go through rough and unbalanced phases. The idea is to work collaboratively toward a balanced and neutral article - if a version can be developed which is acceptable to most, then it is likely that an appropriate balance has been achieved. When folks feel the article is ready to move into mainspace, please alert me. I will ask for a show of hands, and if I assess there is appropriate consensus I will move it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Ubikwit, I started editing before noticing the new rules here. I'm not sure whether what I've done would qualify as a "minor edit" or a "major edit" so I'll leave it up. Kudos to Ubikwit for his good-faith self-reversions. I added the second paragraph in the lede section to illustrate the size and scope of the TPm. It has hundreds of thousands, if not millions of members. It was instrumental in turning the 2010 congressional election cycle into a crushing defeat for Obama and the Democrats. Among many other effects, this puts Robertson's 6,000 to 12,000 online members, as well as the tiny handful of people who told jokes in poor taste and hand-lettered questionable signage, into the proper perspective. If you really feel that strongly about it, go ahead and revert it. But I can find very solid, reliable sourcing for all of it very easily.

• Thoughts and comments, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest posting the proposed edit here first - so we can get some consensus thereon. This does not imply anything more than that we should try to follow ST's lead on this a bit and see where it goes to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Principal components of the movement include Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots, which are large organizations with hundreds of thousands of online members. Tea Party protests, such as the Taxpayer March on Washington in September 2009, have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants. The Tea Party movement was instrumental in the "shellacking" of Democratic Party candidates that Barack Obama described in the November 2010 congressional election.

This is the new second paragraph of the article in the sandbox. Do you like it? Do you hate it? Should we keep it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems hard to source as such - it is SYNTH if we simply name groups which we have found with large numbers of members unless a source makes the same list. How about "More than 75 separate 'tea party' gtoups applied for tax-exempt status and were singled out for special treatment by the IRS." Then naming some of those so singled out? At least most of that is pretty easily sourced right now. It probably makes more senst to show that the TPM has a large number of elements than it is to assert specific groups represent the movement as a whole in any way. The comment about the 2010 election clearly belongs in that particular sub-article, and seems a tad "opiniony" here. Collect (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source that makes the same list: "Transforming America: Barack Obama in the White House," by Steven E. Schier (ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1442201798. There used to be an article called "Taxonomy of the Tea Party" at Slate which I was planning to rely on, but they took it down recently. [20] regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That Slate article still exists, and is available at a cost through various periodical databases, or you can view it through archive.org as I am now. Were you intending to mention all 16 groups from that artcile? Some of them appear to be rather obscure. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems hard to source ... unless a source makes the same list.

The core of the movement is made up of six national organizational networks: Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Nation, 1776 Tea Party and Patriot Action Network, which are large organizations with more than 330,000 online members in all fifty states. Tea Party protests, such as the Taxpayer March on Washington in September 2009, have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants. The Tea Party movement was instrumental in the "shellacking" of Democratic Party candidates that Barack Obama described in the November 2010 congressional election.

Most of this proposed paragraph, however, appears to be out of scope for this sub-article. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It provides the necessary background and perspective for the discussion of the laundry list of trivia that follows. Trying to use Rosenthal's book to wedge Robertson into a faux position of prominence in this context is not helpful, since even Rosenthal's book admits that "the 1776 Tea Party is the smallest of the national Tea Party factions." (page 73.) We can see, however, that Rosenthal didn't even write the portion you've cited, Xeno, or the portion I've quoted. Rosenthal acted as a compiler and editor. "Steep" is a collection of essays and the writer of that particular essay is Devin Burghart, VP of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR). Tea Party Nation has also faded from prominence in the past two years; it's a "has been" and 1776 Tea Party is a "never was." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Directly relevant background information can be useful, but I tend to agree with SilkTork about this particular paragraph not being useful in this particular sub-article. Skipping past your comment on alleged motivations of editors, yes, the source does explain that the 1776 TP is the smallest of the six national organizations, but had doubled in size over the previous year (and has subsequently more than doubled yet again). These founding national organizations are cited in additional reliable sources as well. Thank you for your personal opinions about Tea Party Nation and 1776 Tea Party, but we should confine our discussion of proposed text to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to direct content, though I feel it's appropriate to make suggestions regarding structure and organisation now and again. The lead of an article is not really an introduction, it is a summary of the main points of an article - in essence, a brief version of the article.

You could work on the lead first, and use that as a guide to the body of the article - so what you say in the lead about "perceptions of the Tea Party" are then developed in detail in appropriate sections in the article: so you would find three paragraphs which appear to be a decent summary of what the perceptions are, and then work forward from there.

Or you could assemble the article first, creating sections in which perceptions are grouped. And when satisfied that you have all the perceptions and appropriate supporting discussion and sources, you create a summary of the main points of the article and use that as your lead.

Or you could work on both together - which is generally the muddled way that Wikipedia works!

In this situation, it might be helpful to work on the lead first, as you folks have started to do. It is your decision as to how much to preface the article with a description of the organisation or structure of the Tea Party, though as the article is about the perceptions rather than the structure, my feeling would be that a paragraph in the lead on the organisation or structure is not useful, though such a paragraph would be useful in the lead to an article on the structure of the Tea Party. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed (slight) re-reorganization

This was in the section that SilkTork hatted above and I think Ubikwit and I were reaching a compromise, so I've copied it below. (Several editors supported the "major" reorganization before the subpage was locked. This is a "slight" re-reorganization to accommodate Ubikwit's concerns.) Ubikwit is concerned that since "nine out of ten" of the alleged incidents have been proven, use of the section header "Alleged incidents" above the inventory of anecdotal evidence is inappropriate. I proposed a way to pull out the "one out of ten" that was unproven, and discuss it in a separate section so that the word "Alleged" can be removed:

In this case the "one out of ten" that's unproven (arising from the Obamacare protest at the Capitol, 3/20/2010) happened at the same event as another allegation (spitting on Cleaver) that's being discussed in a different section: the section on media coverage at the beginning of the article. We could gather all three allegations arising from the same event (spitting on Cleaver, racial epithets at two others, homophobic epithet at Frank) into the media coverage section. We could do it in a "these allegations are unproven, but this other one was caught on tape" format — not using those precise words of course — and cite the ombudsman's analysis as the source. At that point all remaining allegations in that inventory of anecdotal evidence would be proven, and I believe both Malke and I would accept an "Incidents" header without the word "Alleged." Does this proposed compromise work for you?

Thoughts and comments, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As an afterthought (sorry about that), it occurred to me that I should just write the paragraph and post it here, so that you can see for yourselves exactly what I'm suggesting. At the end of the "Media coverage" section, after the blockquote about Emanual Cleaver II, I suggest adding the following paragraph:

During the Capitol protest, two black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them, and Cleaver also said that he heard the slurs, but Alexander pointed out that no recording has emerged to support this allegation, despite widespread video recordings of the protest. Another allegation arising from the same protest was proven, according to Alexander: videos confirmed that Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".

By adding this paragraph to the "Media coverage" section at the top of the article, we can dispense with the entire bullet point about the March 2010 Capitol protest from the "Alleged incidents" section at the bottom of the article. Which means we can rename it as the "Incidents" section. Everyone is encouraged to post here what you think of this proposal, but Ubikwit, I'm especially interested in hearing from you. I'm offering it as a compromise to get rid of the word "Alleged" from the section header. The rest of the anecdotal evidence in the section has been proven. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could leave the following text:

During a protest rally in Washington, D.C., before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in March 2010, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon, although it is unclear if this was deliberate, and said he heard the slurs. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".

in the "Incidents" section at the top of the article. That would avoid the problems with your proposed text that misleads the reader into thinking Alexander said "despite widespread video recordings of the protest". Or that only "2" lawmakers heard the slurs. Or that Alexander only noted that recorded evidence had yet to emerge, without also noting that he expressed incredulity at the allegation that the lawmakers were lying, noting that they would have to be good actors. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there -- "... several black lawmakers claimed demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them"

You like? It's not as if these alleged acts weren't vigorously disputed. ;-) †TE†Talk 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason we use "said" instead of "claimed"; Wikipedia should not, in Wikipedia's voice, call the credibility of lawmaker's statements into question. Of related interest:

After the vote was announced, Representative Steve King rallied Tea Partiers outside the Capitol, "Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" he shouted. "Let's chase them down! There's going to be a reckoning!" And worse. Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the House's most visible hero of the civil rights movement, told reporters that he had been called "nigger" as he was leaving the Cannon House Office Building. Emanuel Cleaver, a black congressman from Maryland, said that he had been spat on by protesters as he walked behind Lewis. Another person called Barney Frank a "homo" as he walked between the House buildings. The Tea Partiers had been talking about their cause using the language of the civil rights movement, comparing themselves to the Freedom Riders. Now that lawmakers who were actual veterans of that movement were accusing them of such hatefulness, many Tea Partiers refused to believe it was true. Rather than explain it as a fringe of the movement, which they plausibly might have, they argued that the ugliness had never happened. Wasn't it suspicious, they asked, that there was no video of spitting or slurs, in an age when everyone's cell phone has a camera? It was difficult, if not disingenuous, for the Tea Party groups to try to disown the behavior. They had organized the rally, and under their model of self-policing, they were responsible for the behavior of people who were there. And after saying for months that anybody could be a Tea Party leader, they could not suddenly dismiss as faux Tea Partiers those protesters who made them look bad. To pretend that the sentiments did not exist was to ignore the most noxious signs that had been showing up at rallies for a year. --Boiling Mad, pgs. 138-9, Kate Zernike

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Off task

Not for nothing, Xeno -- But we both know much, if not all of the 'racial epithets' talk was fabricated. The stroll Carson and Lewis took was nothing as they claimed, at least not what video has shown. Funny thing is Emanuel Cleaver wasn't even with them. But, that's old news. Attacking Barney Frank over his sexual-orientation was abhorrent, plain and simple. No place for that in decent society. †TE†Talk 21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC) We both know? All I know is what reliable sources tell me, and that is apparently drastically different from what you know -- especially about racial epithets (which I consider just as abhorrent as anti-gay slurs). Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC) This has wandered into general political discussion. Such discussions are best held elsewhere as they may distract from the task in hand. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having allowed myself to get caught up in this discussion, but seeing too little in the way of corresponding results, and having otherwise rather enormous pressures at hand in real life, I have to for the most part withdraw from this discussion, but I'll respond to your request, P&W.

I think that I have provided a fairly coherent explication of the rationale behind the ordering of the subsections with respect to the organization of the subarticle overall. The question as to what a subarticle called /Perceptions would encompass was not adequately addressed by the participants before that change was actioned leaving only the bigotry material. That is still in limbo, so this may be something of an ephemeral exercise in futility, as the scope of the content directly affects the structure of an article. What we have now is an article with a title whose scope exceeds its content, and no discernible relationship to what is going to be included in the main article.

I believe that my proposed title for the incidents subsection of "Incidents related to allegations of xenophobia and bigotry" (Or maybe simply "bigotry", without mentioning "xeonphoia") facilitates inclusion of all the incidents. By simply covering that in the media coverage subsection, you are in effect excluding it from the category of incidents.

Again, I would suggest dealing with the subject matter chronologically, tracing the reactions of the TPm to such incidents.

Robertson (the obvious case study) was a big part of the hype surrounding the early TPm in its almost totally undefined stages. The fact that he was subsequently ostracized and that no one bought the domain name are a testament to that. On the other hand, numerous RS discuss him as a TPm leader, so it is not correct to ignore him or pretend that he never was what those sources clearly describe him as having been.

He doesn't need to be given a lot of coverage, as his status can be adequately described in terms of how the TPm as a whole responded to his actions, and how that response contributed to the further definition of the TPm, etc. Those concerned with maligning the TPm by associating him with it should be able to minimize any such undue association by focusing as much (or more) on the response his actions solicited more broadly. Any focus on organization with respect to the topic of the subarticle should probably be explicated along those lines.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

While for 1 or 2 of the incidents it's not known whether they really happened, whether or not they actually occurred is not the question. The weak link is implying that these are about the TPM, or are indicative of the TPM. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Xeno: any politician who makes it as far as the House of Representatives from either party is a damned fine actor. My proposed text doesn't mislead the reader. Perhaps you missed this part of Alexander's article: "With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conservative Web sites ..." And you probably also missed the part of Alexander's article about how Breitbart offered a $100,000 donation to the United Negro College Fund for recorded proof of the racial slurs, and how nobody has offered such proof yet. I've seen some of the many, many videos from that protest, and it appeared as though more than half the people in the crowd had cell phones, and were using them to record it. In addition, there must have been at least 1000 conventional camcorders within 200 feet of the Capitol steps, not to mention all the professional TV camera crewmen who were there, and were paid good money to spot and record such incidents when they happen. Notice also that there was no problem proving, from several different video angles, that Barney Frank was called a "faggot." Under these circumstances, the absence of recorded evidence of the racial slurs is very troubling. It's like claiming that the bank was robbed by armed gunmen, when all the surveillance cameras showed was an ordinary day of business at the bank. The bottom line is that Alexander pointed out there was no recorded proof to support these allegations, and it's appropriate to include that observation. We can just move the three source cites from "after the period" to "after the comma," and I have done so.
• @Ubikwit: I think the "vote" that SilkTork hatted (four editors in favor of the reorganization, and one opposed) demonstrates consensus for the reorganization. As SilkTork has asked you for a show of consensus before going back to your version, with the inventory of anecdotal evidence at the top of the article rather than the bottom, I think that ship has sailed. Sorry.
• @North8000: Yes, I couldn't agree more: the weak link is the inherent implication that these incidents, proven or not, are representative or typical of the TPm as a whole. Which is the impression that such partisans as Rachel Maddow, Huffington Post and Daily Kos would like to tattoo on the brains of all voters. That's why I consistently refer to this inventory of trivia as anecdotal evidence. It would be very easy to use similar anecdotal evidence to "prove" that the Gangster Disciples are representative of urban black culture, or that Jeffrey Dahmer and Edward Hartman are representative of gay men in America. Xeno and Ubikwit would be outraged at such an implication, and rightly so.Wikipedia isn't here to provide an attack vehicle for political smear campaigns, whether the target is urban blacks, gay men, or the Tea Party movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, P&W, I did not miss Alexander's remark about the video prevalent on YouTube and conservative websites ... the spitting video. And I didn't miss the part about Breitbart offering to give money to a black organization if a TPer would simply cough up self-incrimination video. Perhaps you don't realize this same discussion has been had time and again (see the archives). Your personal opinion on the matter is not at all new. Let's stick with what reliable sources say. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wandering into unnecessary personal comments now. Stay on task. If in doubt if mentioning another editor might be seen as unnecessary, then either reword - leaving out the mention of the other editor, or approach me for clarification. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if the "sources" (I'd actually call them participants in the subject at hand, not sources) were actually reliable (i.e. objective and knowledgeable on the topic, rather than just meeting the "floor" of wp:rs), even they do not say what the article here implies if it were to allow a cherry picked list put in to and described give a certain impression. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to question the RS status of cited sources, we can do that with each source that concerns you, in the proper venue. You raise a larger point, however, about this sub-article and what its scope and purpose is (or should be). SilkTork and Ubikwit both expressed similar concerns. I think we should nail that down first, then the issues of content shuffling and what we should say about individual incidents might be easier to resolve. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No I was questioning your error of saying/inferring/conflating that a source meeting the floor of the wp:RS criteria establishes that it is actually reliable on the topic. Those are two completely different things. The WP:RS "floor" has no criteria for objectivity or knowledge about the topic. North8000 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even if the "sources"... were actually reliable

That conveys to me that you question whether the sources are reliable, so I mentioned the proper venue for sorting that out.

• what the article here implies and give a certain impression

These are meta-concerns about what the article conveys (or the impression you say it gives due to the list of examples that you describe as 'trivia', regardless if they are reliably sourced or not), and I suggested that we focus on that.

• your error of saying/inferring/conflating that a source meeting the floor of the wp:RS criteria establishes that it is actually reliable

Never happened. Not implicitly, nor explicitly. We've both been editing Wikipedia how long now, North? I think we both have a handle on Wikipedia RS policy. Simply meeting Wikipedia's reliable source requirements doesn't guarantee that source is reliable, accurate, useful or even allowed. There are numerous inter-related policies that come into play to determine content for our article. Objectivity is great, but I'm not sure where you were going with "knowledge of the subject". So back to my comment, what do you see this sub-article covering? What "perceptions" exist. If we can agree upon a general "table of contents" of perceptions to cover, the task of ordering the article would be much easier. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I didn't miss the part about Breitbart offering to give money to a black organization if a TPer would simply cough up self-incrimination video. If such a video is "self-incriminating," how did multiple videos surface showing Barney Frank being called a "faggot" from multiple angles? There are too many internal inconsistencies, Xeno. The scope and purpose of the article is stated by the title of the article. See WP:PRECISION. It's policy. The title unambiguously defines the scope for us. If you would like an exception to the precision criterion, or if you would like a different title, you'd need consensus; and we have just completed the consensus discussion about the "Perceptions' title, so I don't imagine anyone would appreciate reopening it. Let's go with what we've got. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with "angles" and "videos" you are talking about. If you could direct me to the sources you are using, I'll be better able to answer your question. re: Your comments regarding scope, etc., - you've completely lost me. They don't appear to have any relation to my comment above. What is it you are trying to say? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Vote on proposed (slight) re-reorganization

It's been about 36 hours since the last comment in the discussion, and I think it's petered out. Accordingly, please indicate if you support or oppose the (slight) re-reorganization discussed above. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons I described above. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Time to move forward Each !vote has had pretty much the same results - it is time to make the changes or else let obstacles impede them for aeons. Collect (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'd rather get the trivia out of this article, but we also need a step forward in this area. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If there's no further objection, go ahead and action the edits. If someone does later have an objection, they should bring it to this talkpage rather than making any reverts. A show of hands after a discussion is a helpful process, and should not be confused with substituting discussion for voting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the second, more neutral version. The objections to the initial version have not been addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing the objections mentioned above, in case they've been lost in the discussion:

1) The initial proposed text introduces half a comment from the Ombudsman about an incident, while leaving out the second half of the comment, against WP:NPOV

2) It introduces the unsourced, POV text: "despite widespread video recordings of the protest"

3) The initial proposed wording says "but Alexander pointed out that no recording has emerged to support this allegation" when the source says (without the juxtaposing conjunction, or characterizing the slurs as merely an "allegation") simply, "If there is video or audio evidence of the racial slurs against Lewis and Carson, it has yet to emerge." That completely changes the tone conveyed by the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support as described by P&W. Let's get this ball rolling! †TE†Talk 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the next step

That edit has been actioned on the subpage. I think we're making progress at an accelerating pace now, and that's encouraging. I suggest the next step should be moving the subpage into mainspace (creating the article, Perceptions of the Tea Party; I'm not 100% sure about that title, but let's proceed with what we've got) and replacing the section entitled "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" in the main article with a paragraph and a hatnote leading to the new article we're creating. Proposed text for that replacement paragraph:

Since its inception, the Tea Party movement has struggled with charges of racism. A number of incidents have been cited as indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. Polls and surveys have been conducted to more closely examine Tea Party supporters' views on racial issues, and those were followed by studies and in-depth academic examinations of the movement, as well as examinations of news media coverage.

This is based on a paragraph text that was proposed by Xenophrenic several days ago, and I've added this phrase at the end: "... as well as examinations of news media coverage." This refers to the research by Emily Elkins and the WaPo ombudsman, Andrew Alexander. He also suggested a "This section requires expansion" template, but I think that defeats the purpose of creating the spin-off article in the first place. Thoughts and comments, please. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. It has not been struggling with racism since it's inception. That's original research. The movement is not motivated by bigotry and intolerance. The overwhelming evidence is that from it's inception the tea party movement has been about the fiscal issues. Tea party group leaders have spoken out against the fringe types. From the beginning, the media has attacked it and given undue weight to fringers who show up, and then promoted that as the focus of the tpm. But it has not been the focus of the tpm and the article needs to reflect that and it should quote tea party leaders on this. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Malke, the proposed text states that TPm "has struggled with charges of racism." Please note the two words that are boldfaced. Perhaps using the phrase "accusations of racism" would be better. And if you feel it's WP:OR, here are a few reliable sources.

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050405168.html
• http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/26/herman-cain-defends-tea-party-after-actor-morgan-freeman%25e2%2580%2599s-accusations-of-racism
• http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/15/nation/la-na-naacp-tea-party-20100715

Also, perhaps we should change the second sentence to read, "A number of incidents have been cited by critics and political opponents as indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance." This more clearly attributes that position to the people who espouse it. I don't believe we should quote Tea Party leaders here. This is just one paragraph with a link to the spin-off article, and the spin-off-article is where we should be quoting Tea Party leaders (as well as critics). regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Where's the struggle? Where's the RS for that? Where's the RS that the focus of the TPm is on promoting racism and now they're struggling with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the L.A. Times, the NAACP is talking about a specific comment from a specific tea party group leader. And they throw in something about a group in Iowa with an offensive billboard. I can show you a RS where the Tea Party Patriots and the NAACP linked up to defeat a local measure in Atlanta. These incidents are about individuals, yet that proposed edit would paint the whole movement with the same brush. Tea Party Patriots is a national org and claims a very large membership. They're part of the TPm, so does that mean they're struggling with racism, too? This is the problem with these sweeping statements that have no real RS. This is the very thing I thought we were going to change. And Morgan Freeman? That's his opinion. The WashPo is nothing but a trivia mention. That's another problem with the article. Too many sources with trivia mentions that are attached to sweeping statements which are essentially OR. Is there really racism in the tea party movement, or are fringers showing up at rallies because they know they'll get all the attention? Malke 2010 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, Malke. Why don't you rewrite that paragraph the way you want it, based on the sources, post it here with the usual {{ex| }} brackets, and we'll see whether we can get consensus for it. Just paraphrase what the sources say. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an RS about the Tea Party Patriots and the NAACP. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0801/How-tea-party-and-its-unlikely-allies-nixed-Atlanta-s-transit-tax. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The NAACP did work together with the TPm to stop the Atlanta transit tax from becoming law. However, this doesn't negate the fact that at a different point in their histories, the NAACP accused the Tea Party movement of having links to white supremacists. It's well sourced. Also there have been remarks by notable progressive advocates and celebrity opinions such as Morgan Freeman. Considering the number of times TPm leaders such as Matt Kibbe felt it necessary to respond to such charges, in one form of response (statement to the media) or another (amending published agenda statements on their websites, expelling someone like Dale Robertson from their organizations, etc.) this is reasonably described as a "struggle." In this paragraph, we're trying to summarize an article about perceptions of bigotry in the Tea Party. These are perceptions held by people like the NAACP and Morgan Freeman as well as the mainstream news media. In many cases, we have demonstrated that those accusations are false by using reliable secondary sources. In other cases, there's a grain of truth in there. /Perceptions of the Tea Party is very reliably sourced. We're trying to write a neutrally worded paragraph that summarizes this sub-article. I don't believe the cooperative effort in Atlanta is notable enough to mention in a single paragraph since the NAACP itself hasn't been mentioned. I would like to get this step finished during the next couple of days and move on. Please write that paragraph the way you feel it should be worded, and post it here with the {{ex| }} brackets. We'll discuss it, and see whether some version of it can go into the main article. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have something up by early tomorrow. Busy with RL at the moment. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The underlying problem is individuals and groups who've charged racism against the TEA Party, are in fact, politically opposed to the TEA Party. This will have to be addressed, IMO. †TE†Talk 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. When I was running those searches just now for Malke, the stuff that kept popping up was Daily Kos, Huffington Post and MSNBC. I deliberately passed them up to go for sources that were either neutral, or friendly to the Tea Party. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll include mention of that if I can find an RS that discusses it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has been beset by accusations of racism. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. Various polls and surveys have clouded the issue because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party ‘supporters’ and not actual members. [21] [22]

Penn Jillette on Larry King [23]

UPenn professor says charges of racism are false but are an effective political tool. [24]

CNN boiling point [25]

New York Times/Naacp/trying to change the subject [26]

WashPost Joe Biden says Tea Party not racist but some elements involved in the tea party expressed racist views. [27]

debunks Un of Washington Poll [28]

Malke 2010 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hmmm. Where it says "added to the problem," it appears that Wikipedia is taking sides. Try replacing those four words with "clouded the issue." If you do that, I could support your version. And I hasten to add that you've found some mighty fine sourcing, which should probably be explored in greater detail in the "Perceptions" spin-off article. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Malke 2010 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My comments on the above exchange:

• In this paragraph, we're trying to summarize an article about perceptions of bigotry in the Tea Party. --P&W

A pointer link to that sub-article should suffice. As I recommended above, that pointer should be located in a section in the main article that deals with race and racial attitudes. The sub-article can cover in more detail the "perceptions" portion of this subject matter. Since the focus of this Moderated Discussion isn't on expansion and new content, I recommended placing an (expand section) tag for now and moving on to other matters.

• He [Xeno] also suggested a "This section requires expansion" template, but I think that defeats the purpose of creating the spin-off article in the first place. --P&W

The specific purpose of creating a spin-off article was to "Trim" specific content from the main article. In this case, that specific content is the list of incidents as well as the lists of commentary (from black conservatives as well as media commentators). Please understand, the "expand section" tag is not an invitation to reintroduce that spun-off content back into the main article. That "list of examples"-style content has served as an unencyclopedic, poor placeholder for what should have been a properly written section a long time ago, but high-quality comprehensive sources have been lacking until recently.

• debunks Un of Washington Poll --Malke

A study was published back in 2010. Yes, some commentators then published criticisms about it, as noted in the sources listed above. We could stop there, and write our article content based on that, but our content would be obsolete. Those "debunkings" were themselves debunked [29], so we could stop there and write our article content, but we would still be stuck in last decade. The fact is, Polls and surveys have been conducted to more closely examine Tea Party supporters' views on racial issues, and those were followed by studies and indepth academic examinations of the movement, and it is the most recent, comprehensive, high-quality sourcing that we should be relying on.

• Various polls and surveys have clouded the issue because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party ‘supporters’ and not actual members. --Proposed text

That 2010 description of the limitation of some polls and studies has been acknowledged in, and superceded by, more recent studies and examinations which have shifted focus to the actual activists and participants. We shouldn't introduce outdated content from last decade. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about the debunking of those early polls is that one of them, complete with its inherent methodological flaws — polling self-identified Tea Party "supporters," for example, rather than Tea Party members themselves, and focusing on seven states that have a higher incidence of racism to begin with (rather than all 50 states, or a more representative cross section of states) — was conducted by Professor Christopher Parker of the University of Washington. The very same Parker of the in-depth, academic, peer-reviewed examination team of Parker and Barreto, whose new book, Change They Can't Believe In, is being repeatedly cited with great anticipation by one side in this content dispute as their new, favorite reliable source. Those early polls were badly skewed, Xeno, and public perception of the Tea Party has been skewed as a result. That effect has lingered for years. Let's not ignore it. Parker must bear part of the responsibility for skewing the data, and skewing public perception as a result. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

New poll shows the tea party isn't racist. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/14/study-media-significantly-exaggerate-racism-tea-party-rallies. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted debunking, by a conservative writer and blogger, as near as I can tell. I'd like to read up on these new concepts (to me): "inherent methodological flaws"; "states that have a higher incidence of racism"; "early polls were badly skewed"; "skewing the data, and skewing public perception as a result". It would be helpful if we were working from the same reliable sources, and I don't recall what sources the above assertions came from. Speaking of sources, I was not referring to Change They Can't Believe In when I said we should be using recent high-quality sources, but it looks like it may qualify. Are there others that you'd like to suggest? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempted debunking, by a conservative writer and blogger, as near as I can tell. Once again, you're not getting the whole picture. Please click on ALL the source links, and read them. The conservative writer, Cathy Young, debunked Parker's survey. Parker attempted to debunk the debunking, but did some cherry-picking in the process, and didn't even address the most serious portion of Cathy Young's debunking. But then, Parker was again debunked by a writer who is quite liberal, named John Judis, writing in a quite liberal publication, The New Republic. [30] At the end of his article, Judis described the Tea Party as a "terrible menace," and also had this to say:

If the Tea Party movement, with its fanatic libertarianism and selfish individualism, were to gain any measure of power, it would wreak havoc on the economy (imagine America without a Federal Reserve System), shred the social safety net, and undermine what exists of the great American community. [31]

Clearly, Judis is no friend of the Tea Party; but he ripped Parker a new ass. And this time, Parker didn't even try to defend himself. The profoundly flawed methodology of Parker's little survey has been cruelly exposed; the comments by the liberal readers of The New Republic, in which the name of this very faithfully liberal author was (perhaps deliberately) misspelled at least once as "Judas," literally say it all. Malke has done an excellent job of locating these sources, Xeno, and Parker has been completely eviscerated as a result. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I did click on ALL (both; there were two) the source links, and read them. Young's criticisms were indeed refuted. Can you please specify what "most serious portion" of Young's criticism wasn't addressed by Parker? Judis' commentary, which also mentioned the initial reports on the WISER study just as Young's did, and not Parker's subsequent responses, didn't focus on the WISER study. Parker certainly wasn't "debunked" by Judis' commentary; Judis was debunking those who claim the "Tea Party is racist", or "primarily motivated" by racism -- Parker asserts neither. Yes, Judis questions using "Supporters" instead of activists, and speculates that some states may have more racists than others, but otherwise concludes "Still, in the absence of any more accurate measure, these polls suggest that the people who “support” the Tea Party are more likely than the average American to harbor racial resentments." He then goes on to assert that the TPm isn't "racist" like the KKK or White Citizen Councils (something the WISER study never claims anyway). He eviscerates the 'Janeane Garafolos' of the world, not Parker or the WISER studies, which he actually agrees with several times in his commentary. Please re-read the piece again and note where the actual "ass-ripping" occurred. And once again, I remind you that you are citing commentary and sources from 2010, when the movement was barely a year old, and much subsequent study has been conducted that should be represented in our Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

IOW, it is improper for Wikipedia to ascribe "racism" to the TPM per the sources you cite. I suspect people who support the TPM are more likely to be obese than the average American [32] - but that scarcely can be used to imply the TPM supports obesity! In fact, the variables may be fairly orthogonal to each other. Just like we can not use the Democratic Underground as a source to say Republicans support obesity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

• To clarify for me what the current situation is:

1. the sub-article /Perceptions of the Tea Party is stable and ready to be moved into mainspace?
2. before moving into mainspace, discussion is now on the wording of the paragraph should be placed in the main article?
3. it has been agreed what material to be cut from the main article?

If the above can be confirmed for me, that would be helpful. And point me to the agreement regarding removing the material from the main article. As regards the discussion above on the paragraph to be placed in the main article - "received" is more neutral than "struggled with" or "been beset by", would it help to use that? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Four days seems to indicate stability, AFAICT. I favour a short summary only in the main article (per WP guidelines):

Since its inception, the Tea Party movement had perceptions of it being racist or extreme. Opponents cited some incidents as proof that a substantial contingent has demonstrated bigotry and intolerance. Supporters have said the incidents were isolated and not representative of the movement. Some media coverage has also been questioned as to its objectivity, including a report thereon by the Washington Post Ombudsman.

I think this is a reasonable precis of the new sub-article. Collect (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In TPM, it appears every incident that could possibly make TEA partiers look racist or intolerant has been given its undue place. Many BLP violations, no doubt. This public perception sub-article is a great place for certain people to fulfill their need to coatrack, and a small summary will go a long way to making TPM respectable. I can honestly say you're taking a step in the right direction. Although, just because the sandbox has been stable doesn't mean it will remain that way. †TE†Talk 12:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: The agreement regarding removing the material from the main article is here. Six "votes" in favor, and one opposed. In my opinion, the sub-article /Perceptions of the Tea Party is stable and ready to be moved into mainspace; the discussion is now on the wording of the paragraph that should replace the material removed from the main article.
• @TE: we really are doing our best regarding stability, and you're absolutely right about the coatrack part. The main article has been a coatrack for a long time and we're trying to fix that. Please help.
• @All: There have been some excellent suggestions regarding the wording of that replacement paragraph. I'd like to incorporate all of them and come up with a final draft within the hour, and post it here. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some tinkering on the perception article. Shouldn't be controversial unless certain users want another hateful behavior quote or think Cynthia Tucker's quote is too cordially worded. †TE†Talk 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to preserve most of the actual tinkering — detailed, small-scale rewording within the sections — but the rearrangement of the sections was done in a comprehensive consensus discussion that was just concluded within the past 48 hours. Regrettably, I'm forced to revert your changes to the sectional arrangement, since these are clearly against consensus. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No prob, maybe move polling stuff up to follow media coverage. Seems like they go hand in hand. †TE†Talk 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed final draft of replacement paragraph

Here's the proposed final draft:

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has been perceived by its critics as bigoted and intolerant. Opponents have cited certain incidents to support their allegation that the movement is motivated, at least in part, by extremism. Supporters have responded that the incidents were isolated, and the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that are not representative of the movement, and that the Tea Party movement has been unfairly maligned. Certain polls taken early in the movement's history have clouded the issue, because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party "supporters" and not actual members. These early polls have been followed by in-depth academic studies which more closely examine Tea Party members' views on racial issues. Some media coverage has also been questioned as to its objectivity, including a report thereon by the ombudsman of The Washington Post.

Of course this paragraph would be preceded by a hatnote linking to the new "main article" on the subject of perceptions of the Tea Party. This has been carefully worded to describe all of the negative incidents under the umbrella of "extremism," rather than just "racism" or "bigotry," and would include the so-called "gas grill incident" in Maryland. At this time I'd like to propose cutting the length of that incident's description in half and moving it, along with the Hitler/Obama/Lenin billboard by the North Iowa Tea Party (NITP), from the end of the main article to the bulleted list at the end of the sub-article. Thoughts and comments, please. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The word "inception" implies the movement was conceived with a racist slant. "From the beginning. . ." seems more neutral. The incidents were by "individuals" not by groups and the distinction is important. The subsequent studies you refer to don't point to any results regarding racism. I'm not comfortable singling out the WashPo Ombudsman. The issue is racism so call it that. Bigoted and intolerant alone doesn't define it. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems more neutral and has supporting cites:

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has been beset by accusations of racism. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. Various polls and surveys have clouded the issue because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party ‘supporters’ and not actual members. [33] [34]

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's best to stay away from legal language like "charged" and "allegations." They've been accused. Nobody's arrested them and charged them with crimes, etc. And regarding the incidents you want to cut, that's fine with me. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Legal terminology is generally very formal and respectful, and has served me fairly well over the years, which is why I prefer using it. Using the word "allegations," for example, preserves the fact that they're ONLY allegations and are unproven. I don't understand how the word "inception" carries the meaning you've ascribed, since the sentence limited bigotry and intolerance to being merely "perceived" by critics of the TPm. But I will concede the point, and have changed the first three words of my proposed final draft to "From the beginning." Removing those last two sentences of the paragraph would fail to accommodate the media misperceptions, as well as the fact that polling has been replaced by academic studies over the past few years, so I'd like to leave those in.
• The section on "Surveys" in the "Perceptions" sub-article (currently still on a sandbox page) needs some work in light of the Cathy Young and John Judis articles. I'd like to do that work, and get back to this discussion at the end of the day. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That section, as currently written, appears solely to be a construct of supporting statements on why the tea party is racist and bigoted. Whoever authored it should be ashamed. †TE†Talk 16:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it stinks. It uncritically cites and extensively quotes Parker's deeply flawed, repeatedly debunked University of Washington survey not once, not twice, but Three. Separate. Freaking. Times. I apologize to everyone working on this sandbox article under construction. It's been sitting there, stinking, in the center of an article that I've been working on for more than a week, and I just kept overlooking it. Shaking my head, unable to make eye contact with anyone at the moment ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. And I was worried almost instantly after hitting the save button, that I would get a dressing down for using such strong language. Glad you agree. It truly is an abomination. †TE†Talk 17:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Legal language carries undue weight. "Allegations" implies wrong doing with weight. "Accuse" implies your word against mine, no courts involved. "Charges" means there is enough evidence to put you in front of a judge. Everyday language employs "accuse." The academic studies need to mention what their outcomes were. And the incidents must mention these were done by "individuals," otherwise you are implying they were deliberately planned and carried out by the group sponsoring the rally. And include the media bias, but I'd leave off the particulars about the WashPo Ombudsman. Too specific. The para should be a generalization of the problems. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And the word "inception" sounds very much like "conception," and can be construed to mean the movement was "conceived" as a racist vehicle. Same problem with using legal language. It's what the word implies that is the problem. Also, in looking over the media coverage, it appears the critics haven't been "perceiving" as much as they've been "accusing." Malke 2010 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that Malke's statement that the accusations were made is better than P&L's "perceived by critics". We know what the critics said, not what they perceive. The two can be (an probably are) quite different. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ummmmm .... The proposed title of the sub-article is /Perceptions of the Tea Party, so I thought .... hmmm ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll write another paragraph that incorporates it all (the things I've suggested earlier) and get it posted today sometime. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the drapes don't have to match the sofa. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has been beset by accusations of racism. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. Various polls and surveys have contributed to the "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers" because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party 'supporters' and not actual members. These early polls have been followed by in-depth academic studies which more closely examine Tea Party members' views on racial issues. In addition, media coverage has focused on these incidents. Some media outlets and Democrats have gone so far as to suggest a Tea Party connection to multiple random acts of violence, where none was found to exist.

And I'll get the refs for the Brian Ross accusations from ABC's coverage of the Colorado shootings, and I think it was CNN/ABC who suggested a connection to the Newton massacre. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey on replacement paragraph

• Support. Let's get 'er done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Malke 2010 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on paragraph

There are a few problems with the above proposed text. Your "Various polls and surveys have clouded the issue" is not accurate. Two have studied "Supporters", while others looked at "participants" (it says so in the Judis piece you are citing), and the source doesn't say it "clouded" anything ... that part needs a source, too. The Judis source actually agrees with the survey assertions. The last 2 sources support that "A newscaster suggested a possible Tea Party connection to a shooting where no connection was found to exist", but not multiple incidents or outlets. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, was there any objection to the header name for the section and having the (expand section) tag added with the summary statement? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I objected to the "expand section" tag. No one objected to the section header. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to move this discussion along a little faster, I've rearranged the refcites in Malke's version of the replacement paragraph above.

1. The two cites about surveying Tea Party "supporters" rather than Tea Party members have been moved back where they belong.
2. Three refcites have been added about commentary from the left, seeking to link the Gabrielle Giffords shooting to the Tea Party. In addition to the existing two refcites, which describe attempts to link the Aurora, Colorado theater shootings to the Tea Party, the term "random acts of violence" (plural) is fully supported.
3. I have replaced the phrase "clouded the issue" with the quote-containing passage, "contributed to the 'hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers' " and I've immediately followed that with a refcite to the reliable source that was quoted.

Xeno, if there are any other concerns which you feel are sufficient to prevent this from being added to the article mainspace, please post your concerns within the next 24 hours. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are, and I will ... 24 hours should be enough time. I see that you have tried to address some of my previously expressed concerns; thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Among the most immediate concerns are 1) "Various polls" only covers two polls at the moment, and doesn't indicate they were early polls - that is delayed until the next sentence. 2) The way that sentence is crafted, it leaves the reader thinking that the "demonization" is because the polls surveyed "supporters" instead of "members", but that's not what she's saying. In fact, she doesn't make the Supporters vs Members claim, that's from a different source. 3) "media outlets" haven't connected the TPm to acts of violence; individuals have 4) We should drop the "Random", and just describe them as acts of violence, and every source on the Giffords shooting notes that the cause of speculation was the recent rhetoric about "reloading"/"targetting"/"crosshairs"/"eliminating"/ Democrat rivals, and specifically Giffords, by Palin and TP spokespeople - that should probably be conveyed. 5) You mentioned that you objected to the 'Expand Section' tag; may I ask what the objection is? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say it's not media outlets who've attempted to connect tea partiers to acts of violence, but individuals who work for these outlets. Some cases I'm certain that's true, but then you mention the crosshairs meme that was undoubtedly carried throughout most media outlets. How can it be individuals at media outlets, when there wasn't even a counter-argument presented by said media outlets? Also, these acts of violence were most certainly random, at least until motives are established. †TE†Talk 12:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a tendentious argument to insist they are acting as individuals, IMHO. Brian Ross, for example, does not act independently of ABC News. Chris Matthews the same with MSNBC. They are all news organization with producers, etc. And this is common knowledge and shouldn't even need to be mentioned here. And the "expand" tag is counter to what the goal is, which is to reduce the content. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And the polls were designed to demonize the Tea Party. Surveying "supporters" demonized the TPm. And they were random acts of violence because there was no organization, other than the news media and Democrats, connecting the acts. The guy in Arizona was not part of a plot associated with the guy in Connecticut or the Boston bombers. Random is accurate. The Giffords shooting was blamed on the tea party. And since none of the acts are mentioned by name, we don't need to "convey" the specifics of the individual random acts. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article with comments regarding the surveys of "sympathizers" that "shows the tea party is more racist." http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2011/12/are-tea-partiers-racists Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion on paragraph

Sources that support the 'Blame the Tea Party' narrative by media, Obama admin, et al: Given all the sources, I think it's safe to say the Tea Party has been blamed for multiple acts of random violence by now just the media but by the Obama admin, Democrats, and others.

• President Obama’s senior strategist David Axelrod explained why the President didn’t call the Boston bombings a “terrorist attack,” made a point of saying publicly that the Boston bombings occurred on “tax day” (the day often associated with tea parties, in the home city of the Boston Tea Party).
• Government official Stephanie Johnson picked up the theme and wrote: “I fear nutty logic goes like this … Patriots Day. April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let’s show ‘em”
• The Huffington Post’s Nida Kahn tweeted: “We don’t know anything yet of course, but it is tax day & my first thought was all these anti-gov groups.”
• CNN’s Peter Berger said the attackers “might be some other kind of right-wing extremists.”
• MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right.”
• Liberal activist Michael Moore tweeted, “Tax Day. Patriots Day.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/abc-news-invites-bias-claims-with-bogus-aurora-report/2012/07/20/gJQAJJWCyW_blog.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/21/tea-party-familiar-with-being-wrongly-blamed-after-horrific-tragedies/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/forbidden-table-talk/2013/may/4/boston-bombings-tea-party-media-and-hypocrisy/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/ said:

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/08/nation/la-na-giffords-shooting-media-20110109

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/12/dnc-chair-civility-blame-tea-party-giffords/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/09/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-sparks-blame-game-conservatives-push-back.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/matthews-speculates-about-far-right-anti-tax-anti-kennedy-terrorism-behind-boston-marathon-attacks/

tea party targeted by IRS http://www.mediaite.com/tv/matthews-speculates-about-far-right-anti-tax-anti-kennedy-terrorism-behind-boston-marathon-attacks/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/rob-portman-steve-chabot-irs_n_3356849.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-northern-virginia-tea-party-groups-suffered-at-hands-of-irs/2013/06/01/4bf213ec-ca4f-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

They been targeted by the IRS and that should be mentioned. And I'll work on the "clouded the issue." I'm sure there's a source. As for the actual "surveys, polls, studies," there was the CBS/NYT's poll and the Un Wash poll that were quoted routinely.

Reporter in St. Louis blames tea party for bombing of congressman’s office

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/08/27/reporter-who-smeared-tea-party-false-accusations-violence-has-no-reg

Tea party blamed for Colorado and Gabby Giffords’ shooting http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/23/media-must-stop-falsely-accusing-tea-party-every-time-tragegy-strikes/

Daily Mail IRS scandal http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334736/IRS-employee-congressional-interviews-tea-party-targeting-Washington-DC-wanted-cases---I-sent-seven.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

MSNBC Boston Bombing http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/04/16/msnbc-brings-guest-wonder-about-bombers-message-abortion-taxes-tea-p

Malke 2010 (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• The material about the 2013 IRS scandal belongs in that article. Please add the material there, as you'd like to see it in the article. We have a new section in the Tea Party movement mainspace regarding this scandal. The new section also has a hatnote that says "main article is 2013 IRS scandal." The additional sources you've found about the IRS scandal might be linked in that new section, and I'll ask Mr.Stradivarius about adding it, since he indicated a willingness to do some additional tweaking on the new section.
• However, the paragraph we're writing right now focuses on a summary of the "Perceptions" spin-off article. There is some tweaking to the wording, and we should also add all these additional sources, to satisfy all of Xenophrenic's concerns. I'll have another draft ready for review later today. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey on 'Surveys' section of sub-article

Well, that's two indications of support and zero indications of opposition. Let's make it official.

• Support. Well-sourced, and an enormous improvement over the excrement currently occupying that section. Apologizing again to all involved. One would think that with it right under my nose, in the middle of an article I was working on for more than a week, I would have noticed the stench before now. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per P&W, TE, Malke 2010 (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support to make it all official like. †TE†Talk 05:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, there were two "Supports" 24hours ago, and no "Opposes" at that time or since then, so I've actioned the edit. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of 'Surveys' section

TE has thoughtfully directed my attention to the very poorly written "Surveys" section at the center of the Perceptions sub-article. This is my proposal for a complete rewrite and substantial expansion of that section:

Polls, surveys and studies have been conducted to examine the Tea Party's views on racial issues, but some early polls have clouded these issues by surveying self identified Tea Party "supporters," rather than Tea Party members. In early 2010, the University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it". According to the poll, 46% of Tea Party supporters agree with the observation that "If blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites", 73% disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".

A seven-state study conducted from the university's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that Tea Party movement supporters studied were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents. Joan Walsh, editor of the progressive Salon, commented at length on the seven-state survey.

However, conservative writer Cathy Stout challenged the results of the seven-state survey, writing in Real Clear Politics,

The lead investigator [at the university], political science professor Christopher Parker, graciously provided me with the fuller data -- which strongly contradict the notion of the Tea Parties as a unique hotbed of racism. ... Thus, while only 35% of strong Tea Party supporters rated blacks as hardworking, only 49% described whites as such. While the gap is evident, these responses are close to those for all whites (blacks are rated as "hardworking" by 40%, whites by 52%). ... On "trustworthy," the gap is smaller in the pro-Tea Party group (41% vs. 49%) than in the anti-Tea Party group (57% vs. 72%). One could write headlines about the "racial paranoia" of white liberals who consider blacks less trustworthy than whites!

In other 2010 polls, a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States. However, Young noted that "only one in five self-identified Tea Party supporters" who responded to the CBS/NYT poll "reported actual involvement in Tea Party activities," thus criticizing that poll for again surveying self-identified Tea Party supporters, rather than actual Tea Party members.

Parker defended his work in a Salon op-ed column, but it was again criticized by liberal writer John Judis in The New Republic:

People who insist that racism is the driving force behind the Tea Party movement reduce these movements to their racial undertones. These theorists and commentators, who are primarily on the left, are wedded to a monocausal model of American conservatism—based on race rather than class. There are two obvious objections to such a model. First, there are many people in the Tea Party movement who don’t exhibit racial resentment. I can say that partly from interviewing and listening to members, and reading the numerous blogs, but it is also apparent in the New York Times/CBS poll. What do you say about the 65 percent that don’t think the administration favors blacks?

Secondly, even the opinions of people who might score high on the psychologists’ racial resentment indices are not necessarily dictated by their racial views. What about the 33 percent of respondents to the University of Washington survey who "strongly oppose the Tea Party" and also believe that "blacks would be as well off as whites if they just tried harder?" It’s probably fair to assume that this 33 percent includes a good number of liberals and people who voted for Obama in 2008, backed health care reform, and will probably vote for Obama if he seeks reelection in 2012.

In a third poll, an analysis by the Polling Unit of ABC News found that views on the extent of racism in America "are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement" because similar views are also found among the very conservative, and are more common among whites than non-whites.

Thoughts and comments, please. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Suggest we sort the paragraph issue in the last section today, and the survey bit as soon after. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! Can't wait to see it go live. †TE†Talk 00:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How close to actioning edits?

I'd like to move /Perceptions of the Tea Party into mainspace, trim the material from the main article, replacing it with an agreed paragraph and link to the new article, and then unlock the main article. I am pausing, though, as I see there is still an unresolved concern regarding the replacement paragraph for the material to be removed. My understanding is that the edits we are talking about are central to the dispute that has been dogging this article for years, so I would rather wait a little longer to get it right before unlocking the article.

I think you're probably all aware that the ArbCom case has been suspended to the end of the month to see if the dispute can be resolved through moderated editing. Discretionary sanctions have been put in place so that the article can be unlocked, and if there are personal attacks or edit warring, then blocks and/or topic bans will be given. It's important that folks agree before the article is unlocked, so nobody is tempted by frustration into inappropriate behaviour.

The most recent version of the paragraph that I can see is:

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has been beset by accusations of racism. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement.[60][61] Various polls and surveys have contributed to the "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers"[73] because they have surveyed people who self-identify as Tea Party 'supporters' and not actual members.[74] These early polls have been followed by in-depth academic studies which more closely examine Tea Party members' views on racial issues. In addition, media coverage has focused on these incidents. Some media outlets and Democrats have gone so far as to suggest a Tea Party connection to multiple random acts of violence, where none was found to exist.[75][76][77][78][79]

My own queries on this paragraph are:

1. Is "been beset by" the right phrase?
2. Is "motivated" the right word?
3. "A number of incidents by individuals have been cited" - by whom?
4. Is "unfairly" appropriate?
5. What is the difference between a "member" and a supporter" as regards the import of the statement? If this difference is important enough to mention, then it might be important enough to explain in the article.
6. What is the conclusion of the in-depth studies? It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the paragraph
7. Which incidents have the media focused on? Is it the incidents mentioned in the second sentence? If so, why is the media brought up separately from the unnamed "individuals", and after the polls and academic studies?
8. "gone so far" - who is speaking here?

I've not looked at the sources, as I don't want to get involved in the editing of this, but on a purely copy-edit basis, I am wondering how near the following is what the paragraph is aiming for (though I am filling in blanks, so it will be well off target):

From the beginning, the Tea Party movement has received accusations of racism. Incidents involving some individuals [a notable example would be useful] have been reported by the media in a manner to suggest that the movement includes aspects of bigotry and intolerance. Some media outlets and Democrats have speculated on a Tea Party connection to several acts of violence.[75][76][77][78][79] Supporters say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that do not reflect the core movement.[60][61] Various polls and survey of members of the public who support the [supposed "right wing"? views of the] Tea party have contributed to the "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers".[73][74] These early polls have been followed by academic studies which found that Tea Party members' views on racial issues [are moderate? liberal?].

I'll check in tomorrow to see what the position is on the paragraph, and if we can move forward. But I don't mind waiting a little longer to make sure you folks are comfortable, and that the paragraph is neutral, and does satisfy both significant sides of this dispute. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

- doesn't mention Tea Party
- Non-reliable source for assertion of fact; doesn't make a case re: Blitzer or Matthews
- doesn't accuse TP movement; says political message is lost ... taxes, anti-war
- doesn't mention Tea Party
- Non-RS opinion piece from a Tea Partier
- Non-RS; replaced with a slightly better Daily Caller piece

1) Can we get reliable sources for Matthews, Axelrod and instances of blaming the TP on the Boston bombings?
2) Skocpol is quoted, and cited to a Minnpost article ... but that article also covers the findings of another published professor on the Tea Party subject. Should that be covered for proper representation of the cited source?
3) My previous concern that all sources on the Giffords shooting say speculation was about Tea Party (and other right-wing) rhetoric as possibly inciting the shooting; that isn't conveyed in the above proposed text.
4) Cumbersome wording of the sentence beginning: Notable news media figures and Democrats... - makes it sound as if each of the named persons drew a connection between the TP and multiple acts of violence, when each individual only speculated on one incident.

Xenophrenic (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop sticking your comments and objections into the middle of my posts, leaving an unsigned fragment above yours, and please stop inserting your posts above any part of mine when you are responding to me. These are violations of WP:TALK, which is Wikipedia policy, and states very clearly that new Talk page posts should be added below the post being responded to, or at the bottom of the thread. I have moved your comment to the bottom of the thread to post this response.

1. See below.
2. No.
3. This is a summary paragraph, summarizing the content of the /Perceptions of the Tea Party spin-off article. We are not discussing "other right-wing rhetoric." The sources are being used to support a statement that prominent individuals in the news media and the Democratic Party blamed the Tea Party for these acts of violence without any proof at all. It was pure speculation, and turned out in the end to be 100% false.
4. Malke changed the wording in the middle of the sentence to "multiple, separate acts of violence"; I have changed it back to "various acts of violence" to convey the fact that none of these individuals has been confirmed by reliable sources to have blamed the Tea Party for ALL of these acts of violence. There are a total of 16 sources cited here. Matthews and Axelrod are quoted in there, and there are sources cited for blaming the TPm for the Boston bombings. I also added the word "implied" to accommodate the fact that Matthews and Axelrod didn't actually use the words "Tea Party," but their implication was very clear.

This is the second sporadic volley of objections from you regarding this proposed edit, and they have all been answered once again. Any further objections should be considered waived by you, and if you post more objections I will view them as a delaying tactic. You've had two opportunities to raise your objections, and they have all been addressed very thoroughly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The MinnPost article is a reliable source that Prof Skcopol during her talk there said she didn't find racism in the tea party.

The acts of violence were separate acts by individuals acting alone, not in any grassy knoll conspiracy, and that needs to be in the paragraph but I'll concede it.

I agree that Xeno's disrupting editors' comments is problematic and would like Silk Tork to address it.

The Boston Bombings were immediately attributed by the media to the demographic that polls identify as typical Tea Party membership: "White male Christian age 50 and over." ((Which curiously is the same demographic as the news commentators). And they emphasized "Tax Day." They also repeatedly used the phrase, "anti-government."

They were suggesting that members of the tea party had blown up runners at the Boston Marathon. On Patriots Day. In New England. That's as implausible an assertion as Prince William saying at his coronation, "No, forget the crown. Let's not bother with the monarchy. Let's have a republic. Much more tidy way of doing things, don't you agree?" Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support SilkTork's proposal I see no valid objections to it, and it seems to be as NPOV as is likely possible. Collect (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose. There are problems with that version. For starters: "Some media outlets and Democrats have speculated on a Tea Party connection to several acts of violence." The version P&W has sorted works best. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Vote on paragraph

This is the latest proposal, posted a few minutes before you did. It addresses Xenophrenic's most recently voiced objections:

From the beginning, accusations of racism have been made against the Tea Party movement. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. A pair of widely-reported early polls have contributed to the "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers." These early polls were also criticized because they surveyed people who self-identified as Tea Party 'supporters' and not actual members. A recent study by Theda Skocpol of Harvard, based on extensive interviews with Tea Party members found that Tea Partiers are generally not racists. [35]. Some media coverage has also been questioned as to its objectivity. Notable news media figures and Democrats, including Chris Matthews, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and David Axelrod, have suggested or implied a Tea Party connection to various acts of violence, where no connection was found to exist. These incidents included the 2011 Tucson shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings.

Thoughts and comments, please.

• Support. All of Xenophrenic's objections have been very thoroughly addressed. The paragraph is very thoroughly supported by citations of reliable sources. In the process, it also addressed much of SilkTork's bulleted list of concerns above. Let's get it approved and get it posted in the mainspace. In my opinion, SilkTork's other concerns should probably be addressed within the /Perceptions of the Tea Party article itself, rather then the two paragraph which will summarize that article in Tea Party movement — for example, the difference between "supporters" and "members." regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Silk Tork's suggestions have been incorporated. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support †TE†Talk 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Albeit the word "notable" is not needed, and I would catenate the multiple cites for the last sentence into one or two cites as they are not used in multiple locations in the article. Again - my only interest in this topic is that as near a reasonable compromise as makes sense is what we end up with. Collect (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Looks fine. Is that 34 refs for one paragraph?.Capitalismojo (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Since Silk Tork has introduced further points which seem to require fine tuning, at the very least, wouldn't that make this vote moot from the time he introduced those points?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/Answer No, it doesn't. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• The fine tuning should be considered (I've been drafting an alternative to address those concerns), but the glaring BLP sourcing violations in relation to the three named individuals make that proposed draft a non-starter. Also, it's been modified at least twice more since the first "Supports" were added. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Followup If the moderator introduces concerns specifying problematic points, and a majority of editors say that those concerns do not require attention, for whatever reason (e.g., reinventing the wheel, etc.), in what sense is the discussion being "moderated"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the process, the aim is to reach a WP:CONSENSUS without the vitriol present before which seemed to affect some editors. To that end, SilkTork is seeking to see where compromises may be made to reach such a consensus. ST is not an arbiter here - but an observer and such points as ST makes are intended not to take a position, but to see what other positions are held by editors. I trust ST in this process, as my goal has also been to find compromises to meet the key arguments made by editors, in accord with Wikipedia poloicies and guidelines. It is not my belief nor wish that personal attacks on editors or on any living persons take place here or in the article itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Well, which of the following concerns would you say has even been engaged in dialog?

...the usage of "unfairly maligned" and "motivated" is unclear. I also feel that a more nuanced summary of the racial attitudes of the Tea Party members might be helpful.

The comments I've made, minimal though they were, have basically not been taken up. Sources were linked and quoted, again, for naught, apparently. Those are the types of reasons that dissuade editors from participating in discussion, which would seem to be diametrically opposed to the aim of having a moderated discussion. When a moderator provides input, it requires (and deserves) a more thoroughgoing response.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to wait another 24 hours for Xenophrenic's draft of the paragraph. While I have concerns about the paragraph myself, the nature of Wikipedia is that it is not perfect, and it is to be understood that articles are works in progress which can and will be improved, so the paragraph does not have to be word perfect. What is more important is that the paragraph does not violate policies, does not mislead, and is acceptable enough that there will not be edit warring over it. What we are looking for is a paragraph that will do for now. Fine tuning can take place later (using this page to discuss significant changes first). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a problem with the last few sentences in particular. If we are going to say a person made false claims, than each claim should be attributed to a person and cites. These are living people and we need to ensure the text is accurate in dealing with each. Not a list of people and a list of events.Casprings (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Be careful what you wish for. See proposed new section below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find this confusing...

re: content about a TPer saying something racist, the response is: "the incidents must mention these were done by "individuals," otherwise you are implying they were deliberately planned and carried out by the group sponsoring the rally."

re: content about a media talking-head or politician speculating about right-wing extremism, the response is: "Seems like a tendentious argument to insist they are acting as individuals, IMHO. Brian Ross, for example, does not act independently of ABC News. Chris Matthews the same with MSNBC. They are all news organization with producers, etc."

I'm finding it difficult to believe that every utterance from Matthews is actually scripted beforehand by the "mainstream media". Or that Brian Ross' tidbit about a TPer with the same name local to the tragedy was actually intentionally "produced" by the network, rather than simply handed to him moments earlier by a careless newsroom researcher. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Supporters of the proposed paragraph moved on from that several days ago, by changing the wording to, "Notable news media figures and Democrats ..." However, even that wording has become obsolete since a similar innuendo by Michael Moore has turned up, and he's neither a Democrat nor a news media figure. Be careful what you wish for. Please see the proposed new section below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

About those remaining concerns

• ... the glaring BLP sourcing violations in relation to the three named individuals make that proposed draft a non-starter. They aren't "BLP violations." They are attributions of statements that previously did not have sourcing. Sourcing has now been provided, and the word "implied" has also been added. The Tea Party started out as a protest movement against high taxes and high deficits, so when Axelrod referred to "tax day," and Matthews referred to the "right wing," it was clear who they were talking about, and what they were implying. Wasserman Schultz spelled it out explicitly: she mentioned the Tea Party by name repeatedly.

• Also, it's been modified at least twice more since the first "Supports" were added. To add the sourcing that you demanded, Xenophrenic, and to add the word "implied." That's all.

Any further concerns about this paragraph should be dealt with by editing the /Perceptions of the Tea Party spin-off article, which has been unlocked. This paragraph is written in summary style, to summarize the spin-off article. We do not need to invest 500-1000 words spelling everything out in this paragraph. The paragraph has seven Support votes and clearly has consensus. Let's action the edit and move on, please. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Just a friendly reminder.

(A) Remove the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section from the main article.

(B) Replace it with the paragraph above in green that has seven Support votes.

(C) Move the /Perceptions of the Tea Party article to mainspace. Thank you. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Continued discussion

A claim has been made above that my objections have been addressed. That is incorrect. In fact, the cited problems have only been compounded. The latest proposed paragraph now makes controversial assertions about named living people without the high-quality sourcing required by WP:BLP. The present sources cited after Matthews and Axelrod do not mention the Tea Party or in any way support the sentence in which their names appear -- even with your original researched "implied" addition. Reliable sources regarding Shultz, while mentioning the Tea Party, convey one thing while our proposed sentence conveys something entirely different. (And if you are going to cite "newsbusters" for BLP-related content, can I quote Brit Hume on FOX News saying Shultz didn't blame the TP for the shooting, but instead for incivility?) Clearly non-reliable sources have also been reintroduced in the latest proposal. And finally, you never addressed the concern that you've taken a Skopcol quote from a source, while not taking a mitigating quote from that same source.

A claim has been made that the placement of my previous comment was disruptive; it immediately followed the content to which I was responding, and I left the "voting" at the very bottom where I assumed the tally would be updated as necessary. Not disruptive. After recent shuffling, however, my comments have been made to appear as if they are now a reply to SilkTork's comments. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MinnPost reporter also talked to a Prof Lavine who claims to be doing his own study using an online survey of 800 people. He did not survey actual tea party members. Professor Skocpol, on the other hand, says she talked to actual tea party members, not 'sympathizers' or 'supporters.' That type of survey of "supporters," "sympathizers" is already mentioned in the paragraph so we don't need to add in Prof. Lavine, especially since his study hasn't been fully published yet. The reporter then went back to Prof. Skocpol with Lavine's findings as follows:

After learning about Lavine’s research, I contacted Prof. Skocpol and told her about my follow-up piece. She confirmed that other surveys have also concluded that Tea Partiers are more likely than other conservatives to hold harsh stereotypes about minorities (although Tea Partiers also have relatively pessimistic views about people of all races).

But her book relied mostly on the interviews she and her co-author conducted, which she said gave the Tea Partiers a chance to explain their beliefs.“Remember, right-wing media spends a lot of airtime suggesting that minorities got extra help in improper ways,” she wrote me. “So it might be that sense about how a policy worked — based on slanted, inaccurate media coverage — rather than pure racial animus.”She added: “Racism' is such a global and loaded word, and not appropriate to apply to an entire social protest effort, in my view, unless the evidence is massive and unequivocal, which it certainly is not for Tea Partiers. I am not sure what is to be gained by going global in such characterizations.”

Regarding what Chris Matthews said, etc., the sources are there. I did a reflist and hatted it so anyone can check at a glance. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

" 'Racism' is such a global and loaded word, and not appropriate to apply to an entire social protest effort .... I am not sure what is to be gained by going global in such characterizations." — Theda Skocpol

I have a pretty good idea what's to be gained, and what people making those characterizations are hoping to gain. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting a little longer while the remaining concerns are further discussed. I would also ask again that the paragraph is copy-edited so that the meaning becomes clearer - the usage of "unfairly maligned" and "motivated" is unclear. I also feel that a more nuanced summary of the racial attitudes of the Tea Party members might be helpful. Looking at the sources (the Skocpol book published in 2012, and the 2011 study on which the book is based and Parker's study), the summaries appear to be saying that the members are not overtly racist, but that they are racially resentful, hold low opinions of people of different races, and have unrealistic expectations. News sources such as NewsWeek are also reporting on these nuanced studies. Quote from the 2011 Skocpol study:

Racial, Ethnic, and Generational Resentment

Many Americans link a person’s deservingness to the effort the person puts forth; hard work is, after all, a cornerstone of the American Dream. But the Tea Party dichotomy of the “freeloader” versus the “hardworking taxpayer” has racial undertones that distinguish it from a simple reiteration of the longstanding American creed. Racial resentment stokes Tea Party fears about generational societal change, and fuels the Tea Party’s strong opposition to President Obama. In this respect, it is telling that immigration worries Tea Party activists almost as much as the avowed flagship issue, deficits and spending. As Brader et al. have shown, fears of immigration are closely linked to the ethnic identity of the immigrants in question.

In interviews, Tea Partiers who talk about immigration control regularly mention the security of the US border with Mexico, suggesting that their primary concern is with Latino immigration. What is more, the younger people that many older Tea Partiers associate with undeservingness are a part of the US population steadily becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. Are Tea Partiers, therefore, simply racists? Only one national survey has attempted a careful measurement of racial resentment among Tea Partiers compared to politically similar Americans. Christopher Parker and his associates find that “support for the Tea Party remains a valid predictor of racial resentment,” even after accounting for ideology and partisanship.

That is to say, though many opponents of the social safety net tend to hold negative views of racial minorities, Tea Partiers espouse views more extreme than those offered by other conservative Republicans. For instance, Tea Partiers are more likely than other conservatives to agree with statements such as “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites,” and are more likely to disagree with statements like “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.” It is important, however, to note that we found strong opposition to explicit racism in the Greater Boston Tea Party. When avowedly racist messages suddenly appeared on the Boston Tea Party MeetUp site, Massachusetts Tea Party members let the newcomer know he was not welcome. Andrea posted: “This country is made up of people from all countries, that’s what made us what we are ....I wouldn’t want it any other way.” When it came to public events, moreover, Greater Boston Tea Party members expressed concern that outsiders might bring inappropriate or racist signs to protests, and wanted to ensure there was a plan to remove those people. No such signs were present at any Boston Tea Party event attended by the researchers. In short, explicitly racist appeals violate norms of equality held by Massachusetts Tea Partiers.

The vigilance of Massachusetts Tea Partiers against explicit racism may not be typical of Tea Partiers in all regions, however. At least some Tea Party activists outside Massachusetts have complained on their private web pages about “censorship” of their MeetUp page by MeetUp staff, who have disqualified Tea Party activists for inappropriate postings. Explicitly racist signs have appeared at Tea Party rallies nationally.

Rather than conscious, deliberate, and publicly expressed racism, these racial resentments form part of a nebulous fear about generational societal change—fears that are crystallized in Tea Party opposition to President Obama. As we’ve seen, many Tea Partiers are deeply concerned that the country they live in is not the country of their youth— and that they themselves are no longer represented by the US government. It is no coincidence that the Tea Party emerged only weeks into the new president’s term; in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner’s study, only five percent of Tea Party supporters report having voted for Obama in 2008.

The nation’s first black president, a man with a foreign father, Obama is so widely perceived as “other” that 42 percent of Americans and 59 percent of Tea Par- tiers doubt his nationality.

Moreover, Obama ran on an explicit platform of change, in a campaign that appealed to the young and reached out to racial and ethnic minorities. For Tea Partiers, as for many Americans, the election of Barack Obama symbolized the culmination of generations of societal change. For his supporters, this is a matter of hope and pride; for many Tea Partiers, the change Obama represents provokes deep anxiety. At public gatherings, Tea Party rhetoric seems to take a page from Hofstadter’s “paranoid style of American politics,” decrying the president as a threat to American demo racy, in ways that seem far out of proportion to any actual political or policy happenings.

Some Boston-area Tea Partiers describe Obama as a “socialist” or “Marxist,” while another declares simply that Obama “just does not like America.” Away from public protests, however, Tea Partiers can find themselves at a loss for words. After struggling to convey his views of the President, one man we spoke to paused and said with simple honesty, “I just can’t relate to him.” At a fundamental level, Obama’s policies and his person are not within the Tea Party conception of America, so his election seems like a threat to what they understand as their country.

I'll check back tomorrow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not reinvent the wheel here. The studies cover 'supporters' and 'sympathizers.' Skcopol looked at actual tea party members. The "resent" study by Lavine has the deck stacked. First, He's not surveying tea party members. He's back at using "supporters." That means essentially nothing. Second, you can manipulate any study to get the result you want. "Deserving and undeserving" does have racial undertones if you gin the study to bring them out. Deserving and undeserving also has class undertones which are being manipulated by Lavine to favor resentment against blacks. If you were to reverse the situation in the photos Lavine is using, and put the white man at the low-income house, and the black man at the upper-middle class house, you would likely get a very different response.

If you were to survey actual tea party members, you would get a very different response. That's the point of the sentences. Show that when the actual tea party members are polled, they aren't racist. It's exactly like Prof Skocpol says, "" 'Racism' is such a global and loaded word, and not appropriate to apply to an entire social protest effort .... I am not sure what is to be gained by going global in such characterizations." — Theda Skocpol."

The racism muck is meant to overshadow the true reason for the Tea Party movement which is to stop the government spending. It had its antecedents in the FedUP USA movement, in the Ron Paul rallies, all events the well preceeded the appearance of Barack Obama. But that's been sanitized from the article because it doesn't fit the leftist narrative that the TP only exists to protest a black president. For that to take root, they must have the creation date as post-inauguration, February 2009. The very demographic that is demonized is the very demographic that elected Obama in the first place. "White Christian 50 year old and over males." It is the Baby Boomer generation raised on civil rights. But you won't find that in the article because it's not allowed.

I support actioning the paragraph, and I also support something being done about Xenophrenic disrupting the comments of other editors. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the quoted article, but just noticed a glaring blunder in it. The context of the paragraph which discussed the following: "For instance, Tea Partiers are more likely than other conservatives to agree with statements such as “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites,” and are more likely to disagree with statements like “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.”" The questions are about availability / equality of opportunity, yet the trailing wording casts the opinion on them as reflecting on race/racism. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Example

With regard to the line about "to stop the government spending", what about the following passages from one of the above-linked sources (Newsweek)?

The Tea Partiers "feel a loss … like their status has been diminished," says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. "If you listen to [their] language, it's always about 'taking our country back.' But it's really not taking the country back as is. It's taking the country back"—as in time.

Bositis finds the movement's arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren't they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn't they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? "I don't like to be in a position where I'm characterizing people as being racially biased," says Bositis. "But when the shoe fits, what do you do?" Given modern societal norms, "they know they can't use any overtly racist language," he contends. "So they use coded language"—questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about "socialist" schemes to redistribute wealth.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

When federal spending is 25% of GDP, the deficit triples in one year, and you find arguments to cut federal spending "unpersuasive" -- You're as flippin' reeeesearch associate. Phew, almost let one slip.

†TE†Talk 18:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect that Silk Tork will be examining your conduct in relation to that personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

David Bositis has an account on Wikipedia? †TE†Talk 03:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When discussion wanders away from improving the article to general comments on the politics we are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, when it gets into unnecessary insults or derogatory comments of politicians, journalists, or commentators then a line has been crossed. Per WP:BLPTALK, previous warnings, and under DS, I am blocking ThinkEnemies for 24 hours. This is not the place to air our opinions of real people. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the attack on the good faith of others?Casprings (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest SilkTork attacked my good faith. †TE†Talk 05:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what happens when people ignore WP:TALK's requirements about where we're supposed to post our replies to an existing post on the page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That was meant to be a response to your strategy statement above. Placed in wrong place.Casprings(talk) 12:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the scope and title are important, and have discussed them previously above, I think that Silk Tork may be expecting an alternative draft of the above-supported summary paragraph(s), addressing the problems.

If you have the time, Xeno, perhaps you should compose that alternative version and post it. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[outdent] We are talking about ONE PARAGRAPH. Just one paragraph. We've been talking about it for two weeks. Clearly, the strategy [refactored] is to keep raising objections in a piecemeal fashion, time after time, until the people who want to improve the article give up and go away. And I must confess that it's working. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perceptions subarticle should cover perceptions

Problems with the "widely 'supported'" proposed summary text above are numerous. First, there are the still the unaddressed BLP violations. (If there is still disagreement on this point, we can raise the issue at BLP/N to provide satisfactory clarification.) Second, it's not a summary; the whole last half of the paragraph is new content not mentioned in the sub-article, nor does it properly lead into the sub-article. The above proposed text basically conveys this: Allegations of racism have been made --> incidents have been cited --> TP says those are fringe examples --> flawed polls demonize TPers --> Media (including these 3 specific personalities) demonize TPers --> now with that in mind, here's a link to an article of incidents, polls and media commentary.

The sub-article Perceptions of the Tea Party, as it is presently written, basically consists of content regarding racism, broadly construed, as it relates to the Tea Party. The title doesn't fit the content. (Incidents, polls/surveys, commentary.) Some of that content pertains to "Perception" of the TP, but a lot of it doesn't. You may recall that I previously asked: So back to my comment, what do you see this sub-article covering? What "perceptions" exist? If we can agree upon a general "table of contents" of perceptions to cover, the task of ordering the article would be much easier. Xenophrenic 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC) -- but I received a nonresponsive reply. Certainly some people hold the misperception of the Tea Party as comprised of old, uneducated, racist red-necks, and that can and should be covered in a sub-article on "perceptions", but there are several other perceptions and misperceptions besides that one. If this sub-article is to cover what its title says it covers, especially if it is going to be headed by a "Media coverage" section, then an appropriate main article pointer-paragraph should read something like:

Public perception of the Tea Party movement, which has been significantly influenced by public media, has undergone several major changes since the movement's inception in early 2009. Initially, while mainstream media gave some coverage of the public spectacle of the protests, it focused to a greater degree on the conservative media's extensive coverage of, and participation in, those protests. The general perception was that the Tea Party was a conservative anti-tax, anti-Obama segment of the Republican Party. By early 2010, media outlets considered the Tea Party significant enough to receive major coverage, and began conducting polls, surveys and field reports to better understand who the Tea Partiers were. The perception of the Tea Party as an independent movement, and possible third major political party began to grow. In early 2011, after wide exposure during the November 2010 elections, media coverage again shifted its focus, this time away from the grassroots activities and toward national elites — politicians and spokespersons who claimed to speak for the movement. As the earliest polls and surveys were released, journalists rushed to analyse and interpret the information about this political phenomena, which in turn shaped public opinion. Flaws in the design and wording of initial polls, as well as their interpretation, led to several misperceptions regarding the size, popularity, prejudices, goals and organizational strength of Tea Party. Later polls would produce far more accurate and detailed information on core participants in the Tea Party. (Skocpol; pgs. 138-146) For more information, see: Perceptions of the Tea Party

That text could be placed in the present main article, in the "Media coverage" section. This assumes, of course, that the sub-article is eventually intended to be about "perceptions" as it is titled, and not just a dumping ground for unpleasant bigotry-related material. The section titled "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" in the main article can be removed, with the afore proposed "Race and racial attitudes" header (and the "expand section" tag) placed in that location instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the sub-article is going to end up being just about bigotry, racism and the interaction between the Tea Party and the Media only as it specifically relates to that, then that sub-article should be renamed to something more appropriate. The summary paragraph could then be written more appropriately. Based on comments above, it appears that some would like to push the theme that, "From the beginning, the media has attacked it and given undue weight to fringers who show up, and then promoted that as the focus of the tpm. But it has not been the focus of the tpm and the article needs to reflect that and it should quote tea party leaders on this." That narrative mixes fact (the media does tend to home in on the fringy stuff, the more sensational or unusual the better) with synthesized conspiracy theory (the media doesn't promote that as the focus of the TPm). The sub-article appears at present to be pushing the conspiracy point of view. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Query Wikipedia policy is that the main article has basically a summary of the subarticle. If you feel this is a proper summary of the subarticle, might you explain how? At this point it looks rather like a mini-essay for a currently non-existent subarticle, alas. If you would like to create a subarticle to be an expansion of your "summary". I rather think it is up to you to create such a proposal and to obtain a consensus on it - having a "summary" be fully unrelated to the subarticle does not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a discussion of the sub article should be included in this discussion. A modified sub article, as put forth by X, seems logical.Casprings (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above text is a proposed summary of a sub-article about Perceptions of the Tea Party. The fact that my proposed summary doesn't resemble the content presently in the "Perceptions of the Tea Party" sub-article is exactly the concern I expressed. That's why I asked, are we going to 1) expand the sub-article to really cover "Perceptions" of the TP (not just bigotry-related), or 2) rename that subarticle to something more representative of the content, like "Incidents of bigotry and the media"? Looking at the proposal by P&W below, it appears he's now trying to make a case that the media is consciously manufacturing a false perception of the TPm as violent extremists. Is that accurate? You can see why I've been pressing to have the scope of that sub-article more clearly defined. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

References

references

Race and racial attitudes (working title)

I also feel that a more nuanced summary of the racial attitudes of the Tea Party members might be helpful. Looking at the sources (the Skocpol book published in 2012, and the 2011 study on which the book is based and Parker's study), the summaries appear to be saying that the members are not overtly racist, but that they are racially resentful, hold low opinions of people of different races, and have unrealistic expectations. News sources such as NewsWeek are also reporting on these nuanced studies. --SilkTork

That is a very valid assessment. Skocpol's declaration that Tea Partiers are "generally not racist", and her admonition against using such a "global and loaded word" to describe the movement, are often taken in isolation and misconstrued to mean that the Tea Party and "race" (or related prejudices) have no business appearing in the same discussion. I've been collecting more recent reliably sourced information on this topic with the intent of writing up a section for the main article. (By section, I mean more than just a "summary" -- something more comprehensive and representative of the available reliable sources, which is considerable. Every reliable scholarly source on the Tea Party movement has sections, or sometimes chapters, examining racial issues in relation to the movement.) That's why I've recommended placing an "expand section" tag in the article in that section. Another editor has expressed a concern that it's not the goal of this moderated discussion to expand the main article, and that we're trying to reduce it instead. I should clarify that I didn't suggest that we start working on that expansion right now as part of this moderated endeavor; it's in the queue for later along with new IRS stuff, Constitution stuff, etc., hence the tag.

The list of bigotry incidents and the associated commentary that has been moved to a sub-article never really served as encyclopedic treatment of the more nuanced subject matter. It is problematic content, but no more problematic than trying to mischaracterize it as "trivia" in order to delete it. "Trivia" doesn't generate millions of search engine hits, spark public declarations by politicians, prompt a civil rights organization to issue resolutions, move the TPers to form a 'Federation' to facilitate responses, cause Sunday news analysts and a major newspaper ombudsman to perform extensive hand-wringing... and "trivia", if it really is trivia, certainly isn't moved from one article to another on Wikipedia. I'm still not clear on what the real intended scope is for the "Perceptions" sub-article; there are far more perceptions about the TPm than just those related to racism and other bigotry. Comparing the content in the sub-article to the original content in the main article, it appears to be morphing into a rebuttal forum to respond to poll results, incidents and commentary. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new section

SilkTork, Xenophrenic and now Casprings have all voiced various concerns about the paragraph we've proposed to replace the section called "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" in the main article. In response to all those concerns, I propose replacing that entire section with "Public perception of the Tea Party." Particularly in light of the concerns raised by Casprings and Xeno, one paragraph just isn't going to do it. Of course the section should start with the hatnote about the main article on the topic being /Perceptions of the Tea Party. But then the text should go like this:

From the beginning, accusations of racism have been made against the Tea Party movement. A number of incidents by individuals have been cited as an indication that the movement is, at least in part, motivated by bigotry and intolerance. Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement. A pair of widely-reported early polls have contributed to the "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers." These early polls were also criticized because they surveyed people who self-identified as Tea Party "supporters" and not actual members.

A recent study by Theda Skocpol, a political science professor at Harvard University, based on extensive interviews with Tea Party members found that individual Tea Partiers may harbor some racial resentment, but the Tea Party movement is not a racist organization:

"Racism" is such a global and loaded word, and not appropriate to apply to an entire social protest effort, in my view, unless the evidence is massive and unequivocal, which it certainly is not for Tea Partiers. I am not sure what is to be gained by going global in such characterizations.

Some news media coverage of the Tea Party movement has been questioned as to its objectivity. Also, several notable media figures and prominent Democrats have been accused by the Tea Party Patriots and other conservatives of suggesting or implying a Tea Party connection to various acts of violence, where no connection was found to exist. These incidents included the 2011 Tucson shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings:

* In 2010, after the firebombing of Democratic congressman Russ Carnahan's campaign office in Missouri, a reporter from a St. Louis alternative weekly, The Riverfront Times, wrote about the suspect: "Given what we know of him — 50, white, angry — he certainly fits the demographics of a Tea Party member. ... On second thought, maybe he's not a Tea Party member. Firebombing your opponent's office seems a little too, um, sane for that group." The reporter later said that his statement was a joke, and the the Tea Party "can't take a joke." The person eventually arrested for the bombing was a liberal blogger and former paid campaign worker for Carnahan’s campaign.

* In the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Jacob Weisberg of Slate wrote of the suspect, Jared Loughner, "[T]he Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did. At the core of the far right's culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government — a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995." Many other commentators on the left, in blogs and social media, were quick to blame Tea Party rhetoric and imagery for inciting the violence. Loughner turned out to have no apparent political motive.

* Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote of the Tucson violence that it should not "be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate ... Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be 'armed and dangerous' without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P. ... [It's] the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

* The editors of the New York Times followed with, "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people."

* Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a member of the House of Representatives, linked Tea Party rhetoric to the Tucson shooting: "We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago ... I have noticed [political discourse] takes a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the tea party movement ... [In] the time that I’ve been in my state Legislature and in Congress, I’ve never seen a time that was more divisive or where discourse was less civil."

* Shortly after the Aurora shootings, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that a man with the same name as the 24-year-old suspected shooter, James Holmes, was listed as a member of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots. Ross said, "There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colo., page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado." George Stephanopoulos called this apparent connection "significant." Jason Worley, a spokesman for the Colorado Tea Party, remarked, "The mainstream media's handling of this situation is reckless, bordering on journalistic malpractice. I can't help but wonder if the very common name had been listed somewhere on an Occupy [Wall Street] website if the media would have been as quick to beg the question." The man Ross referenced turned out to be 52 years old and unconnected to the shootings. ABC News later apologized for Ross's remark.

* David Axelrod, former campaign advisor and White House advisor for Barack Obama, and currently a senior political analyst for MSNBC, mentioned after the Boston bombings that "It was Tax Day." The Tea Party Patriots group immediately criticized Axelrod, observing that Tax Day is "the day often associated with tea parties[.]" Jenny Beth Martin, the group's national coordinator, said, “Now that the Boston bombers have been identified as Chechnyans, it is time for the media and top Obama insiders to apologize, once again, for trying to blame another national tragedy on American patriots."

* Peter Bergen of CNN, when discussing possible Al-Qaeda involvement in the bombings, also stated that the bombers "might be some other kind of right-wing extremists." The Tea Party Patriots website identified Bergen's statement as an attempt to link the Tea Party to the bombings.

* Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, "I knew it was Tax Day ... But of course, it's Patriots Day. It's also the Boston Marathon. And would you as an expert be thinking domestic [terrorism] at this point? I don't think Tax Day means a whole lot to ... Al-Qaeda in terms of their world. It doesn't have any iconic significance." Matthews also observed, "Domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right." Bob Weigel of The Washington Times identified this statement by Matthews as "a rather obvious hint: These bombers were probably tea party participants or at least kindred souls[.]"

* Liberal political commentator David Sirota wrote in Salon, "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American." "If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack." Weigel pointed out that in an earlier column, Sirota had closely associated the Tea Party with "white people seeking to hold on to power," mentioning a 2010 column in which Sirota wrote, "The article does a commendable job showing how the Tea Party demographic ― according to polls, predominantly suburban, upper-middle class and white ― has in the past 'only been able to maintain a sense of their own power by their place at the top of the heap' and that today a 'sense of lost privilege is stoking the drive toward [tea partyers'] ethno nationalism.' "

* Stephanie Johnson, a public affairs official with the U.S. Forest Service, posted the following "tweet" on the social website Twitter regarding the Boston bombings: "I fear nutty logic goes like this ... Patriots Day. April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let's show 'em."

* Nida Kahn of The Huffington Post also tweeted, "We don’t know anything yet of course, but it is tax day & my first thought was all these anti-gov groups." Michael Moore, liberal activist and producer of the anti-war film Fahrenheit 9/11, also tweeted, "Tax day. Patriots Day." The Tea Party Patriots website also identified the tweets by Johnson, Kahn and Moore as implying a possible Tea Party connection to the bombings.

Weigel wrote in The Washington Times,

Many of my personal friends ... sincerely believe the tea party is guilty of violence. This is because they hear the name constantly in connection with horrific crime. Even when the source of the rumor retracts his statement, the stallion has already left the corral. By the time anchors or pundits admit to a mistaken guess, by the time we learn who really did the shooting or the bombing, a suggestion is forged upon the mind. Add in the many times this same insinuation pops up with additional news reported violence, and a subtle pattern emerges. Brainwashing takes place, even if unintentionally.

Continued, diligent efforts in good faith to hold this summary of the "Perceptions" spin-off article down to a single paragraph have been rejected.

Fine.

This new section should replace "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" in the main article. Furthermore, the bulleted list and the two sentences preceding it — starting with "Also, several notable media figures and prominent Democrats ..." plus the blockquote by Weigel at the end of the bulleted list — should be added to "Perceptions of the Tea Party" article as a new section, immediately below the "Media coverage" section. The title of the new section should be, "Accusations of violence."

Yes, the material is being duplicated, but I see that as a good thing. There will be no more claims like this one: "I have a problem with the last few sentences in particular. If we are going to say a person made false claims, than each claim should be attributed to a person and cites. These are living people and we need to ensure the text is accurate in dealing with each. Not a list of people and a list of events." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you put a bit of work into compiling the above information, it seems only fair that I give it some consideration. Some initial observations, in no particular order:

• a reporter from a St. Louis alternative weekly, The Riverfront Times, suggested that the Tea Party had been involved: "Given what we know of him — 50, white, angry — he certainly fits the demographics of a Tea Party member. ... On second thought, maybe he's not a Tea Party member. Firebombing your opponent's office seems a little too, um, sane... Those ellipses always make me suspicious, so I dug up the rest of what the writer said: Perhaps, he joined his fellow "patriots" earlier this year when they burned Carnahan's photo in effigy or placed a coffin on the sidewalk outside his home. Wikipedia can note that the writer speculated, but his full speculation should be conveyed accurately. His comment was based on past recent Tea Party actions against Carnahan.
• Many other commentators on the left in blogs and social media were quick to blame Tea Party rhetoric and imagery for inciting the violence. That is incomplete; it would be more accurate to note, as your cited sources do, that the speculation was based on more than just TP "rhetoric and imagery", but also on written threats of violence, a brick thrown through her office window, etc. Weisberg also noted, "Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening."
• Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote... ...a whole lot about the rhetoric coming from the "right" and the "G.O.P", but not the Tea Party, which is certainly a subset, but not the specific target of his rant. Inappropriate for this section.
• The editors of the New York Times followed with... While that article says it's a mistake to blame the TP "directly", it does correctly sum up the environment to which the TP has contributed. It would probably improve clarity of the NYT's point to add from that source: "Last spring, Capitol security officials said threats against members of Congress had tripled over the previous year, almost all from opponents of health care reform. An effigy of Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Maryland Democrat, was hung from a gallows outside his district office. Ms. Giffords’s district office door was smashed after the health vote, possibly by a bullet."
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a member of the House of Representatives, linked Tea Party rhetoric to the Tucson shooting... No, she did not. And your one cited reliable source doesn't say she did; it says Republicans were trying to accuse her of linking them. You'd need to use an awful lot of deceptive ellipses to push that meme. She definitely blames the TP for an environment lacking in civility.
• George Stephanopoulos called this apparent connection "significant." No, he didn't - he hadn't even heard about the apparent connection yet, as he simply did a "toss" back to Ross who "might" have had additional significant information. And your only cite for this is to an opinion piece by a tea partier, not a RS.
• Brian Ross of ABC News reported that a man with the same name as the 24-year-old suspected shooter was listed as a member of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots... Yes, he did. And he apologized, no scoop for him. Since we're quoting Weigel, "this is why the outrage over Ross's on-air smearing of an innocent man is hard to apply to 'the media' as a whole. Ross is interested in scandal, not partisan teams ... Again, this assigns too much credit to a scandal-hungry, bumbling Ross. He wasn't the only reporter (or blogger) hunting online for any political information about Colorado-based 'James Holmes.' Breitbart.com asked whether he was the 'James Holmes' who was registered as a Democrat in California, and later retracted the question. Multiple blogs asked whether Holmes had gone to any Occupy gatherings."
• David Axelrod, former campaign advisor... - never said anything about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH. The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government association, regardlesss of how much they want to play the victim.
• Peter Bergen of CNN, when discussing possible Al-Qaeda involvement in the bombings... - never said anything about the Tea Party. More WP:SYNTH. The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government association, regardlesss of how much they want to play the victim.
• Chris Matthews of MSNBC said... - nothing about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH. The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government association, regardlesss of how much they want to play the victim.
• Liberal political commentator David Sirota wrote in Salon... about white government extremists and said absolutely nothing about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH. The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government association, regardlesss of how much they want to play the victim.
• Stephanie Johnson, a... completely unsourced nobody tweeted a speculation about the bombing. Cited to Tea Party Patriots and "Twitchy.com"? This indicates to me that we've really reached the bottom of the barrel.
• Nida Kahn ...and Michael Moore tweeted... stuff about tax day, Patriot's day and anti-government extremists, but nothing about the Tea Party. The NRO.com cited as the source for several of the afore-mentioned individuals doesn't mention the Tea Party once, and instead correctly says they all blamed right-wing extremists. (Added after my initial post.)

I'm honestly not seeing a case being made against either "the media" or "Democrats" as having demonized the TP movement. It looks more like the usual idle speculation that happens after these events, with the usual "suspects" being mentioned, including "right-wing extremists" -- and then some Tea Party sympathizers responding, "Hey, we're right-wing; they must be talking about us!" Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia can note that the writer speculated, but his full speculation should be conveyed accurately. Well, already a mere paragraph has been expanded to more than 1500 words in response to the self-contradicting demands of Casprings. He wants summary style, but he also wants the media figures and prominent Democrats quoted. Each and every one of them. Now you join in to demand complete quotes, with not one word left out. I can see this going to 2500 words or more. But I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below.

• That is incomplete; it would be more accurate to note, as your cited sources do ... Ummmmm, no. The cited article in The Los Angeles Times used those words. It's just far enough away from a word-for-word quote that I don't need to put it into quotation marks. To make it even more complete, I can see this going to 2500 words or more. But I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below.

• "... Paul Krugman wrote..." ...a whole lot about the rhetoric coming from the "right" and the "G.O.P", but not the Tea Party, which is certainly a subset, but not the specific target of his rant. I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Leave out that bullet point exactly the way you want it.

• It would probably improve clarity of the NYT's point to add from that source ... Like I said, I can see this going to 2500 words or more. But I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below.

• No, she did not. Yes, she did. Both the cited source (Politico, edited by a couple of former executives from The Washington Post) and Newsweek [36] demonstrate that she really did blame Tea Party rhetoric for inciting the Tucson shootings. In the Newsweek interview, it's clear that the interviewer reminded Wasserman Schultz that RNC chairman Reince Priebus accused her of blaming the Tea Party for those shootings. Here's her nonchalant response: "Wasserman Schultz makes no apologies. Nibbling a sandwich in her House office, she says: 'I make strongly worded statements so people pay attention a little to what I'm saying.' Former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe admires her feistiness: "You've got to throw punches every single day. That's the job, to get the base fired up." So she's not denying that she linked the Tea Party to the shootings, even when a reporter for a major news magazine repeats an accusation from the RNC chairman that she made the link. But I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below.

• "George Stephanopoulos called this apparent connection 'significant.' " No, he didn't. Yes, he did. Read the cited sources. But I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below.

• Since we're quoting Weigel, "this is why the outrage over Ross's on-air smearing of an innocent man is hard to apply to 'the media' as a whole." But we're not applying the outrage to "the media" as a whole. We're only applying it to news media FIGURES, in response to one of your multiple previous sets of demands. Here is exactly what you said on the matter:

I'm finding it difficult to believe that every utterance from Matthews is actually scripted beforehand by the "mainstream media". Or that Brian Ross' tidbit about a TPer with the same name local to the tragedy was actually intentionally "produced" by the network, rather than simply handed to him moments earlier by a careless newsroom researcher.

You said that only news media individuals were saying these things, and wanted to carefully insulate the news media organizations from the statements of the people they put on the air every night. So that's what I did. Therefore it's completely unnecessary to add a 92-word quote from Weigel here. I also note that in this bullet point, you try to throw in the bloggers who asked whether James Holmes (the actual shooter) had been to any Occupy meetings, etc. Bloggers are not the major, notable, professional news media individuals I've cited here, such as Chris Matthews, Peter Bergen, and David Sirota. The scope of the section is defined by the statement at the top: "several notable media figures and prominent Democrats."

• David Axelrod ... never said anything about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH. And we do. Wikipedia does not make the connection between the Tea Party and Axelrod's statement, "It was Tax Day." A reliable source makes the connection and we just quote it and cite it. Casprings demanded that we quote Axelrod, and we did quote Axelrod without using Wikipedia's voice to paraphrase him or accuse him of anything. We attribute that accusation to its source.

• Peter Bergen ... never said anything about the Tea Party. More WP:SYNTH. No, it isn't. Again, Wikipedia does not make the connection between the Tea Party and Bergen's statement about "some other kind of right-wing extremists." A reliable source makes the connection and we just quote it and cite it. Casprings demanded that we quote Bergen, and we did quote Bergen without using Wikipedia's voice to paraphrase him or accuse him of anything. We attribute that accusation to its source.

• Chris Matthews of MSNBC said... - nothing about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH. And we do. Wikipedia does not make the connection between the Tea Party and the statements by Matthews about "Tax Day" and "Domestic terrorists tend to be on the far right." A reliable source makes the connection and we just quote it and cite it. Casprings demanded that we quote Matthews, and we did quote Matthews without using Wikipedia's voice to paraphrase him or accuse him of anything. We attribute that accusation to its source.

• David Sirota ... said absolutely nothing about the Tea Party. We should abide by WP:SYNTH.And we do. Wikipedia does not make the connection between the Tea Party and the statements by Sirota about "white privilege." A reliable source makes the connection and we just quote it and cite it. Casprings demanded that we quote Sirota, and we did quote Sirota without using Wikipedia's voice to paraphrase him or accuse him of anything. We attribute that accusation to its source.

• "Stephanie Johnson, a..." completely unsourced nobody tweeted a speculation about the bombing. Cited to Tea Party Patriots and "Twitchy.com"? This indicates to me that we've really reached the bottom of the barrel. Since Johnson deleted her tweet, no doubt after a smoldering phone call from Valerie Jarrett, we're left only with secondary sources, such as The Examiner, (examiner.com) which you've failed to mention in your disparagement of my sources for that bullet point. You failed to mention it because it's a reliable source, and doesn't conveniently fit in with your narrative. At the U.S. Forest Service, Johnson is the official spokeswoman, similar to the White House press secretary and performing a similar function. She is hardly a "nobody." The U.S. Forest Service is about the same size (in terms of the number of people) as the 1776 Tea Party. If the official spokesperson of the 1776 Tea Party said something outrageous, or held up a crudely hand-lettered sign saying something outrageous at a Tea Party rally, both you and the news media would be on it like white on rice. But the 1776 Tea Party isn't a government agency, spending your tax dollars and mine. And Stephanie Johnson said something outrageous.

You'll notice that about halfway down the list of concerns and objections, I stopped saying, "I'll do whatever it takes to get your support for this new section. Rewrite that bullet point exactly the way you want it, and post it below." The result is that you get to rewrite the first half (roughly) of the bullet points exactly the way you want them, but the second half (roughly) stay exactly the way I want them. We call that a "compromise." Unless, of course, you refuse to compromise. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderfully unique exercise and loads of fun, but I'll pass. I prefer to stick with conventional Wikipedia article editing procedure. I gave you my input, hoping it would be useful to you. I've pointed out some sourcing problems, but you disagree - that's fine, there is a proper venue we can use to clear that up. Same with the BLP problems I indicated. It's true that I don't even mention some of your "reliable sources" because, quite frankly, they aren't. I certainly won't be "rewriting the bullet point the way I want it" after looking at it and seeing there is no "point" there. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating to everyone that you're unwilling to compromise, or even attempt to discuss a compromise and work toward a solution. Sourcing isn't that hard to find for the Stephanie Johnson tweet. [37] That's MSN.com, Xenophrenic.

Meanwhile, others seemed to direct blame at right-wing extremists, including a U.S. Forest Service representative who suggested possible ties to the Tea Party, citing the fact that the attack took place on Patriots' Day in Boston. "I fear nutty logic goes like this ... Patriots Day," Stephanie Johnson, a public affairs representative, reportedly tweeted. "April 15. Tax Day. Bad government. Boston. Tea Party. Let's show 'em," she wrote. The tweet has since been deleted.

Filmmaker Michael Moore seemed to suggest a similar connection in some cryptic tweets. "2+2=" he tweeted, and later "Tax Day. Patriot's Day."

Here's another reliable source, Xenophrenic. [38] You've previously indicated that you consider The Daily Caller to be a sufficiently reliable source. Look, I just want to give all the idiots on both sides, left-wing and right-wing, an equal chance to say something notable and stupid, and be mentioned in a Wikipedia article if a reliable source reported it. But it's clear that you'd rather just walk away from an attempt in good faith to negotiate a reasonable compromise. Again, thanks so much for proving it to everyone. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No one has walked away, P&W. I've just declined to participate in your strangely defined editing project above (i.e.; you get to rewrite the first half but the second half stay exactly the way you want them). If you were serious when you said that is "compromise" to you, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what compromise really entails. I should also note that certain policies aren't subject to compromise. If Wikipedia policy says "Editors are strictly prohibited from X, Y and Z in articles", we don't then propose to do only X and Y, but not Z, and call it compromise.

You say you just want to give all the idiots on both sides an equal chance to say something notable and stupid and be mentioned in Wikipedia, and I completely understand the urge to do so, but I don't see that as very encyclopedic. We've already been struggling to replace an unencyclopedic bullet-point section of content related to supporting bigotry/race concerns and now it looks like you are pushing for the creation of another bullet-point example list to support ... what? The notion that media and Dems accuse/blame the Tea Party for violence? I'm not seeing that as a supportable assertion; and it certainly isn't conveyed by the bullet-point list you've apparently struggled to expand above. Are there any reliable secondary or tertiary sources that explore that concept in any depth or meaningful manner, or is this just about mentioning a handful of "stupid" things said (most of which aren't actually about the TP)? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, I can't figure out who is who in this thread, but Paul Krugman got my attention so I fired up the google machine. From June 8, 2011:

A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot. We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

That seems rather to the point, don't you think? †TE†Talk 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think both X and collect have offered superior alternatives.Casprings (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Vote on new section in main article and spin-off

Please indicate below whether you support, or object to these new sections in the main article and the "Perceptions" spin-off article.

• Support. All of the objections and concerns expressed by Xenophrenic and Casprings have been exhaustively addressed. The identification of several statements as implications about a possible Tea Party connection have been properly attributed to Bob Wiegel or the various Tea Party reps. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I reserve the right to study the rest of the paragraph in better detail, but the portion on the comments is still problematic. It seems the statements (or the sources you provided) come in two basic flavors. One are statements before a suspect is caught in an event that are speculative concerning who did the act. The second are statements that blame the tea party for an environment that could have caused the attack. It seems to me, you need a paragraph that actually states what these individuals are saying instead of a broad statement that they are connecting the tea party to the events. To do otherwise is to distort what they are actually saying.Casprings (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me, you need a paragraph that actually states what these individuals are saying instead of a broad statement that they are connecting the tea party to the events. That is exactly, precisely what each bulleted point has done. Each of the media figures and prominent Democrats listed here was directly quoted, without any paraphrasing, and each direct quote is directly supported by at least one link to a reliable source. You complained about providing "a list of people, and then a list of events." So I invested an enormous amount of time and effort giving you exactly, precisely what you wanted. This is as though (A) you had asked for a chocolate ice cream cone with sprinkles, (B) I drove to the grocery store and bought a quart of chocolate ice cream, a box of cones and a package of sprinkles, (C) I made a a chocolate ice cream cone with sprinkles and handed it to you, and (D) you threw it on the carpet and screamed, "No, no, no, I want a chocolate ice cream cone with sprinkles."
• It's either the Tea Party Patriots, Weigel, or both who have accused these people of trying to connect the Tea Party to these acts of violence. And I have very carefully attributed those accusations to the named accusers, complete with links to the reliable sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I totally misunderstood what was to be included with your suggestion. While I shouldn't have (the whole section was green), I read it as including the first section and the rest was evidence for including. That said, I would still have to oppose it. First, collect is right it isn't summery style. Second, it isn't WP:NPV. For example, we are stating that "no connection was found to exist" Well if someone is arguing that the tea party created an environment in which the acts could happen, that is something is highly subjective. Much evidence could be found either way, based on ones point of view. The idea that the tea party did not create such an environment is not WP:Fringe, and should not be treated as such. As such, all points of view on the subject should be represented fairly and impartially. in this example, Wikipedia should not declare, "no connection was found to exist." Casprings (talk)

• First, collect is right it isn't summery style. You can't have it both ways. Either you can have summary style, or you can have something 500-1000 words long that "actually states what these individuals are saying instead of a broad statement that they are connecting the tea party to the events." What you're saying, if I may extend the previous analogy, is that you still want a chocolate ice cream cone with sprinkles on top, but now you want it deep-fried in canola oil at 350 degrees. The portion of the new section that deals with the current content of the Perceptions spin-off article is still written in summary style. The rest of it is new content that the previous owners of the article have carefully ignored for three years, and it's also exactly the way you wanted it: it "actually states what these individuals are saying instead of a broad statement that they are connecting the tea party to the events." You're getting, once again, precisely what you demanded.
• Well if someone is arguing that the tea party created an environment in which the acts could happen, that is something is highly subjective. Much evidence could be found either way ... Ummmm, no. This claim is disingenuous at best. In every case, the perpetrator was found to have absolutely zero political motive, with the exception of firebombing Russ Carnahan's office (a left-wing political motive, if any at all) and the Boston Marathon bombings (a Chechnyan political motive, definitely not an American one). Even if the Tea Party had been saying, "Make homemade bombs and shoot every Democrat on sight," it's clear that these perpetrators weren't listening to them. So no, it isn't subjective, and no, there isn't any evidence that "the Tea Party created an environment in which the acts could happen."
• ... is not WP:Fringe, and should not be treated as such. Sure, the theory isn't WP:FRINGE but as several reliable sources have pointed out, there's absolutely zero evidence to support the theory, and the theory is given its due amount of WP:WEIGHT. In fact, that theory is given the first half of each and every bullet point dealing with the topic of "creating an environment." So it's clear that it's being given plenty of weight. As WP:WEIGHT indicates, weight is provided not just by the amount of space provided for a particular theory, but also by the positioning of that space. The closer it is to the first word of the article, the more weight it has. In this case, each and every time, the TPm's critics and detractors get to explain their theory first. There's no shortage of weight being given to that theory.
• ... in this example, Wikipedia should not declare, "no connection was found to exist." Yes it should, since "no connection was found to exist" is supported by multiple reliable sources. If a connection HAS been found to exist, please post it. It should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country, Casprings, because evidence of this alleged connection has never been disclosed before. To make a long story short, as demonstrated so many, many, MANY times before on this page, the concerns expressed amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Goes far beyond a summary of the subarticle. Let's stick to "summary style" instead of writing a new subsrticle here. BTW, when an accusation is made, it is customary to write about the accusation, and the responses thereto per WP:NPOV - I do not quite grasp what Casprings is suggesting we ought to do. Collect (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that to fix the last two paragraphs, one needs text that somehow tells the reader that individuals have made speculative statements concerning involvement of tea party members in attacks and statements regarding the tea party creating an environment for such attacks. To say "connection" could mean a very wide range things. And accusing a living person of some of those things within that spectrum is a violation of WP:BLP.Casprings (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your post is a reply to my position that only a summary in the main article is needed? BTW, what is the nature of the accusations you are concerned with? Wikipedia does not generally consider quotes iterated in secondary sources to be "contentious claims" so I am certain that is not what you could be referring to ... which contentious claims do you them refer to above? I am a fairly strict follower of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Goes far beyond a summary of the subarticle. Let's stick to "summary style" instead of writing a new subsrticle here. I wish that were possible. But SilkTork isn't going to action the edit or unlock the article until Xenophrenic and Casprings are satisfied. So I am offering this as an alternative: replace the problematic section with an entirely new section that summarizes all the bullshit trivia in the old section (using the summary style you've referenced, and I really do prefer), directs the reader to the spin-off article where the bullshit trivia could be found, and then directly quotes each and every one of the media figures and prominent Democrats who have used everything from a direct, plain-as-day, false accusation to a clever innuendo, to blame the Tea Party for the most horrific acts of violence that have occurred in America in the last four years.
• BTW, when an accusation is made, it is customary to write about the accusation, and the responses thereto per WP:NPOV - I do not quite grasp what Casprings is suggesting we ought to do. I share this concern. Please see my "ice cream cone" response to the latest objection by Casprings. I invested an enormous amount of time and effort late last night, giving him exactly what he demanded, and he claims that I didn't give him anything resembling what he demanded. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature, but possibly would support the suggested new title I believe that Silk Tork's instructions were to deal with one issue at a time. Granted, the issues are related, but the focus should probably be on the summary paragraph. Xenophrenic's proposal, especially in light of P&W's suggestion for a new title (etc.), would seem to require some consideration before moving to action the earlier version (or anything else), at any rate. Xenophrenic's proposal already addresses the question of scope (which relates to title, etc.).

The introduction of the term "public" in the new title ("public perceptions") would require some reassessing of the content. I have raised some peripherally pertinent issues related to the notion of "public" earlier in the moderated discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the vote

My understanding of this moderated discussion was to improve the Tea Party movement article while the ArbCom case proceeded. The first item on the agenda was to reduce content. The race issue seems best handled with a simple paragraph, that generalizes issues per WP:UNDUE and be done with it. Nothing specific should be mentioned as that will only invite later expansion which is counterproductive for us here. The subarticle that will address the race and tea party issues will change over time. That is why a succinct, very generalized paragraph in the main article, with a link, is needed. The added problem here is the behaviour issues, and I'm speaking generally, not particularly so I'm not violating any rules here. Not all the editors are subject to the threat of the ArbCom case and consideration needs to be given to their being taken advantage of because of it. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility

Sticking to being a summary of the subarticle - which should be titled "Perceptions about the Tea Party movement" removing the ambiguous "of":

The Tea Party movement has been called partly conservative,[4][5] partly libertarian,[6][7] and partly populist.[8][9][10] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[11][12][13] Since its inception, it has seen charges of racism and intolerance. Opponents have cited incidents as proof that the movement, is in part, propelled by various forms of bigotry. Supporters say the incidents are isolated acts attributable to a small fringe that is not representative of the movement.[15][16] Accusations that the news media are biassed either for or against the movement are common, while polls and surveys have been faced with issues of the population surveyed, and the meaningfulness of poll results from disparate groups.

This is concise, neutral, and, with a link to the subarticle, should be sufficient for the main article. The cite numbers are lifted from the current subarticle, making adding the cites as needed fairly simple. Collect (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement, but doesn't the opening sentence simply recapitulate material from the lead? I'm assuming that this is the summary paragraph to go into the main article, correct?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The lede of the main article certainly is supposed to summarize the content of the main article, which includes this section - so I am unsure that this repetition is a problem here. The idea is to tell readers what they will find in the subarticle - and I think this does a reasonable job thereof. Do you mind the retitling of the subarticle? Collect (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph resolves a number of the concerns that I had. I would be willing to action that if there are no significant objections. Copy-editing and fine-tuning can take place when the article is unlocked. As regards the info also being in the lead - that is as it should be. The lead should be a summary of what is in the main article, so there will be duplication of information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first two sentences are redundant. This paragraph is going into the main Tea Party movement article. It repeats the information in the first few sentences of the "Perceptions" spin-off article, which in turn were copied from the first few sentences of the main article. I think the statement and quote from Theda Skocpol are important, and this version doesn't mention any of that. We've seen a lot of concerns and objections raised regarding the absence of academic, peer-reviewed sources, and Skocpol is an academic. Putting her observations back into the paragraph would address those concerns and objections. The material about notable media figures and prominent Democrats trying to blame the Tea Party for every horrific mass murder that has occurred in America since 2009 needs to go into the main article, and into the "Perceptions" spin-off article. If there's going to be no mention of it in this summary paragraph, then it will have to be in a separate new section. The fact that none of it has ever been in this article is an encapsulation of the miserable, pathetic wreckage this article used to be, and still is, and why it is. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• SupportCasprings (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - and the title suggested also. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Darkstar1st (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think that many of P&W's concerns are valid, but this is a step forward. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• If you remove the two redundant sentences at the beginning of the paragraph, you will have my support. And I will also accept another change in the title to Perceptions about the Tea Party movement, if that will get the ball to start rolling in the direction of the goal. Take a look at this version please.

Since its inception, the Tea Party has been accused of racism and intolerance. Opponents have cited incidents as proof that the movement is propelled, in part, by various forms of bigotry. Supporters say the incidents are isolated acts, attributable to a small fringe that is not representative of the movement.[15][16] Accusations that the news media are biased either for or against the movement are common, while polls and surveys have been faced with challenges about the population surveyed, and the meaningfulness of poll results from disparate groups.

This version removes the redundant sentences, changes the word "charges" to "accusations" (which will make Malke a little more comfortable with it, I'm sure), corrects a spelling error, cleans up the punctuation a tiny bit, and "challenges about" replaces "issues of" in the final passage about the surveys, since "issues" is a bit vague. I'd like to see a source demonstrating that "the news media," rather than just Fox News, Breitbart and the rest of the conservative-leaning portion of the media, have been accused of bias FOR the Tea Party. In fact there are several source citations that need to be added. But that's easily classified as "fine tuning" and it can wait.

This version is a bare naked bones paragraph, picked clean. I would have preferred a version with at least a bit of muscle and sinew on those bones. But I'm willing to Support it so that we can move on. There's still an enormous amount of distance to travel, if we are going to take this article all the way from "bad" to "acceptable," and we have been discussing this baby step for weeks. Let's get it done, and get it out into the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The "redundant sentence" is in the lead of the subarticle. If it were removed from that subarticle, then you would have a point - but as long as the "redundant sentence" is in the subarticle, it reasonably belongs in a summary of the subarticle, IMO. Cheers. I rather think this is not the place for a "goal ine stand" really. Collect (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think P@W works better. I understand it is in the subarticle, but it is also in this article. I don't think one needs to tell the reader again the first two sentences, even if it is in the sub article. By the nature of sub articles, there is some duplicate information. However, that isn't a good reason to put duplicate information in the same article. That said, either one is supportable, at least in my view.

Some points on issues raised above:

1) Agree with changing "biassed" to "biased" (but it's not a "spelling error", "biassed" is proper British English).

2) Agree with changing "faced with issues of" to "faced challenges about"; still not perfect, but an improvement. More accurate would be to insert "the earliest" before "polls and surveys", and change the sentence to convey that concern was raised not about "the population surveyed", but about how the relationship between those surveyed and the Tea Party was defined (supporters -vs- participants). Something like: ...while the earliest polls and surveys have been challenged for not distinguishing between supporters and participants.

3) Disagree with changing "it has seen charges of racism and intolerance" to "has been accused of". Also, neither wording mentions the more notable, "has been asked to more actively repudiate racist elements in the movement" (see the NAACP resolution, and the ensuing media firestorm).

4) Agree that the first and second redundant sentences are not very necessary.

5) Where, exactly, is this paragraph to be placed? The reason I ask is because another editor has referred to, "The subarticle that will address the race and tea party issues..." which we do not have. We do, however, have a "Perceptions" article into which we have moved some non-encyclopedic material.

Xenophrenic (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's very clear we're all talking about the Perceptions article. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm more a fan of the Krissah Thompson way of addressing it: In the summer NAACP members called on tea party groups to "repudiate" what they called "racist elements" in the movement.

It's a good read if anyone is interested. †TE†Talk 13:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Too much

This needs to be cut down to a level of readability. Hard to focus. †TE†Talk 00:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I tried to create an archive page with all the discussions and surveys that were completed 30+ days ago. Like everything else that actually looks like it might be constructive, it's being reverted and concerns are being expressed. Like I said, the strategy is obviously to obstruct everything, until the people who actually want to improve the article give up and go away. And it's working. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, don't know what that's about. It's to the point when trying to respond to something I was reading, I can't even find where it was in edit screen. †TE†Talk 15:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC) This is not needed. Phoenix and Winslow - if you make another oblique negative reference to other editors on this discussion page you will be blocked. If you have concerns, raise them on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)