Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 3

Images

(CC) Photo: Sage Ross
Tea party protest in Hartford CT.

(CC) Photo: Sage Ross
Tea party protest in Hartford CT.

Howard, are either of these useful for you? Chris Day 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris, good question. Certainly, they show real protests, but I would like other opinions if featuring such images gets away from neutrality. This isn't to say that the Tea Party Movement isn't largely a protest group, but should we be presenting such images for every protest group? I honestly don't know.

There aren't policy papers or headquarters to show. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess I think of it as a protest movement and certainly it is closely related to their origins. I didn't really think of that as a slur, but if you think that lacks neutrality then better safe than sorry. Chris Day 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to err on the side of neutrality, not being a Tea Party supporter -- not that I'm terribly happy with either of the U.S. political parties. Your pictures are quite even-handed; I've seen some from the news media that zero in on the generally accepted lunatic fringe.

As far as "protest movement" — the reality is that they are trying to figure out what they are. Protest alone just can go so far, without programs. There were massive protests in the Civil Rights Movement, but they were usually associated with actionable goals. Of course, this is a very young movement, and, while some is absolutely spontaneous and genuine, there are also political and commercial interests involved.Howard C. Berkowitz 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party - duplicate page

I have moved the duplicate page "Tea Party" to Talk:Tea Party Movement/Archive 1 Archive 1 an its talk page to Talk:Tea Party Movement/Archive 2 Archive 2. Some material may be useful for merging with this page.

By the way: Shouldn't this page be moved to Tea Party movement?

--Peter Schmitt 16:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a Politics Editor, who happened to write much of this article, I had no prior knowledge that the "Tea Party" page was to be moved, and was discussing merger with its principal author -- but had in no way determined that the merge was to be made. I have asked for reversion of the changes while the Author-Editor discussion continues.

No, I do not believe it should be lower-case movement, any more than there should be an entry for U.S. Republican party. One of the matters in active discussion is whether the Tea Party Movement meets the criteria for political party. If it did, it clearly would be a proper name. My general experience in both political science literature and U.S. news media is that upper-case M is more widely used. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, clearly it has to be lower case. I will move it now (as a Politics editor). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Post Script: since there is already a page of the correct name, it cannot be moved. i will ask the Constabulary to do it (by deleting the other page history). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also as a Politics Editor, and one perhaps a bit more familiar with American English naming, I object to moving this to Tea Party. Get a third politics editor.

I am most honored that you have come to help, in the truly difficult content aspects of this controversial article where even Mary and I seem to be working together. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody suggested moving to "Tea Party", but only to "Tea Party movement".

Thank you, Mary, for considering me as fair (on the other talk page). In fact, I do believe that what I did yesterday was not unfair, either.

As already said by others, I did not make any changes to content (well, I had made an edit the day before to indicate clearly the meaning of the numbers) but only made some moves (in accordance with the title you agreed upon) to clean up the organisation of the pages concerned. (I am sorry if this caused some -- not intended -- confusion, but I still think that they were the correct action to be taken because they serve to keep the issue at one place. Unfortunately, Howard has reopened the "other" talk page adding to a possible confusion.) These moves do not influence (in any way) how and what to merge, but it seems that Howard considers them as infringement of his Editorial authority.

--Peter Schmitt 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I support your actions, Peter. That is why I commented here, as an independent Politics Editor (ie not one who has contributed to the page). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Politics Editor may be providing an opinion in the near future. Please do not move anything anywhere; please do not unilaterally rename. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Friedman column on Tea Party and "Tea Kettle"

Those of you working on this article (or articles; life imitates punditry?) might be interested in Thomas Friedman's column in a recent NY Times on what he sees as the two Tea Party movements: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/opinion/29friedman.html Bruce M. Tindall 18:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I read that article but will follow the link to make sure. My initial response is "only two?"

Ideologically, there's a mixture of more formal fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and social conservatives. From my experience, libertarians and social conservatives do not mix well. There's also a significant component of frustrated and angry people, who may not easily fall into any ideology.

Structurally, there's a lack of clarity if it's an interest group or a political party, and, for that matter, if it can reasonably be considered nonpartisan rather than a schism in the U.S. Republican Party. I've tried to discuss a broader perspective in restructuring of the U.S. political right, although I haven't touched that in a while. Your comments there would be welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting discussion for merge

Formation

"Formation" is the heading that was in this article, while "Origins" seems to be the equivalent in Tea Party. I think we have to agree on what defined the start, and then be consistent in the timeline.

In this article, I used the dates of the first major physical protests. The Tea Party article, however, seems to use dates of organization of groups, and to some extent different, more local groups than the national sponsors. In either case, by the very distributed nature of Tea Party groups, there is no one single event. There appear to be conflicting national and local claims. How should this be resolved? As a start, I think we have to know the exact date, not just 2009, in which the organizations in the Tea Party article were first visible.

My personal leaning, after 40+ years in Washington, is not to give organizations, especially after the advent of the Web, much credibility for existence merely from making announcements. I wait for them to do something, or at least get significant endorsements. Like it or not, there's a difference between Liz Cheney or John Podesta announcing it, and someone previously at the grassroots announcing it. When Dick Armey sets up a national organization of grassroots, where does this fit? If the New Yorker is correct on the funding of Americans for Prosperity, is that truly grassroots? Incidentally, I absolutely agree there are true grassroots groups.

Incidentally, it's Rick Santelli (two L's). His statement on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange has been called a "rant", and he doesn't regard himself as a Tea Party leader or necessarily aligned with it. [1]

--Howard C. Berkowitz 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have copied Mary's three sections on particular organizations into this article. As I mentioned above, though, we need to figure out the timeline of the very first organization, and probably go back to put precise dates on existing text (e.g., Armey, AFP).

We will need, I'm sure, some flow editing in this section. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Demographics and positioning

Since it has more recent data, I merged Mary's entire section on demographics, to appear before the Positioning section. From the existing Positioning, I moved the earlier Rasmussen poll.

The Positioning section, then, can be the place for discussions of the TPM working within the Republican Party, running independent candidates, or forming a third party. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask that this complaining be moved to another section? This first- and second-level header section is concerned with article content, not capitalization. Please do not hijack it. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Various groups? All the more reason not to capitalise 'movement', then. Ro Thorpe 22:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism. i have never seen Movement used in a text, unless it is the formal title of an organisation. So, this has to go. I will ask the Constabulary to arrange it.

Constable comments

This subject is obviously in a state of flux that is actively being decided in a workgroup fashion involving several editors, User:Howard C. Berkowitz, User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards, and User:Roger A. Lohmann. Some work appears to be on Roger's talk page, but Martin does not seem to be involved there. Ultimately, the workgroup talk page would be a good place for these discussions, but that is up to you (I can see how that doesn't work well). There seems to be elements that might end up being site-wide (naming conventions), so the Editorial Council may be the place to get the final answer. That's not really a viable alternative here, nor is a future Managing Editor interim decision. So, in the meantime, the working solution that is enforceable by the constabulary will be for the workgroup editors to make a decision concerning the naming of the article and the constabulary will back them up. Please keep things professional as we continue to find the optimal solution for this and other similar challenges. D. Matt Innis 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

May I plead that people focus on the substance of the article? Mary has collaborated reasonably. Hint: I'm not especially wedded to the capitalization of M or not, but I am not willing to stop working on content while people who have not contributed to content go on about titles, capitalization, etc. The article has been here with "M" for some time,and the world did not stop. The world will not stop if it doesn't get resolved until the EC is in place. Redirect to both cases and move on. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Howard, you may plead that people continue to work on content. People, whether author or editor, should also continue to work on title by adding additional information (concerning the potential options) that might help the editors make the decision. This may not be the place to continue the discussion on title. However, if it is going on somewhere else, then everyone should be privy to that location so they can add their input as necessary. Otherwise, this has to be considered the default location. D. Matt Innis 01:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Until there's a better place, see [2]. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Googling, I note that the NYT, Guardian and Wikipedia don't capitalise 'movement', but NPR and the group themselves do. Now what does this tell us? Ro Thorpe 01:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In case of doubt, I'd follow the group's lead. If they want to be known as the Tea Party Movement then I'd follow that. You could also check the AP Stylebook or their web site to see how they are handling it.Mary Ash

Lookin' Good!

Love the edits and how the article is fleshing out. Lookin' good! Thanks, Mary Ash 04:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The case of the title is still wrong, and looks silly to everyone who knows the literature. This HAS TO GO. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)