Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 2

Tea Party movement

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4

This is the talk page of an article titled "Tea Party" that was later merged with "Tea Party movement". Archive 1 is that article, archive 4 its second talk page started after the move was performed.

Off to a good start

The article is off to a good start but I must quit for today. Have to go do mundane things like clean out cat litter boxes, clean house and pull weeds. The joys of domestic homekeeping! :-) Have fun everyone!Mary Ash 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate topic to existing article

There already is an article, Tea Party Movement, to which several Citizens have contributed. The material here should be added here; there's no point to a new article. I have carefully not looked at the contents of this article any more than to verify the subject, so this is not a criticism of content.

Also, there is tea party (disambiguation). Howard C. Berkowitz 17:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I did a general search for Tea Party at CZ and nothing showed up. I started writing. Mary Ash 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dratted search engine. Hmmm...maybe we need Tea Party (disambiguation) as well as tea party (disambiguation) Howard C. Berkowitz 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"The material here should be added here;" - we're missing a 't'.

Let's decide which one the article should live at and place a redirect at the other. My gut feeling is Tea Party Movement, with appropriate disambiguation, but I do not have strong feelings either way.

And I hope that was tongue-in-cheek Howard, only one disambiguation page, I'm begging you! :)

Aleta Curry 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aleta, I was serious: let me explain. Mary might have found the existing article if the search tools weren't so case sensitive. This is something that could go to the tech forum, but I was thinking of a short term fix for the case-caused ambiguity. Mary, I suspect, hasn't been here long enough to fully appreciate the evil search engine and the way it can mislead.

Redirects are good.

Now, we may have to disambiguate at least some California Tea Parties, where they smoke it rather than drink it. (Cannabis, if that usage of "tea" isn't AuE).

Seriously, we can think carefully about some original synthesis with some issues here, such as the history of populist movements in the U.S. Speaking as a Politics Editor, the Tea Party Movement has a core of fiscal conservatism, but potentially conflicting libertarianism, paleoconservatism, and social conservatism. Also see restructuring of the U.S. political right. It may have been there that I put some material about the reality versus perception of several perceived "conservatives" (Reagan) and "liberals" (Clinton). Howard C. Berkowitz 00:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, we just don't need several tea parties floating around, so to speak. I'd completely forgotten about that other type of tea party! You guys have fun with the political tea party, just come to an agreement about where it should live, and I'll be happy. Aleta Curry 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)
A technical remark: Usually it is not necessary to have redirects for lowercase/uppercase variations. While capitalizatinon makes a difference in links, the page is found by "Go to page" even if capitalization is wrong. Tea Party nation does not exist but going to it finds Tea Party Nation (even with our search engine). Thus it is better not to have the redirect: It shows when the link should be spelled differently.
By the way: Ist "Tea Party Movement" correct, or should it be "Tea Party movement"? --Peter Schmitt 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this has not the right format for an article I suggest to move it (and its talk page) to a Talk page archive of Tea Party Movement. This preserves the history and allows to easily copy material from it. --Peter Schmitt 12:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the Tea Party Movement. It is about the Tea Party. A movement is a group of people who are loosely organized. The Tea Party is a recognized entity. This is why there are several well known and probably the most established organizations listed. As there is an article about the Tea Party already at CZ, I support the merge.Mary Ash 20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask some questions as a Politics Editor. Recognized by whom? The media? If you believe there is a Tea Party, distinct from a Tea Party Movement, please produce citations where a Tea Party has placed candidate, endorsed by "a" Tea Party, on a real ballot. That is the hard test of whether something, in the United States, is a political party rather than an interest group.

When Michele Bachmann endorsed Rep. Roy Blunt (R) for the Republican Senate nomination in Missouri in July 2010, she endorsed Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri)'s Senate candidacy. 28 separate "Tea Party" organizations disavowed her and suggested she go back to her own state and let local conservatives decide what they wanted. I fail to see a recognizable political party when:

• The focus of these 28 organizations was on the Republican nomination
• They didn't have a single candidate, but just didn't like Blount
• 28 of them exist and, as far as I know, have not registered with the state Secretary of State (or whoever the appropriate official may be in Missouri) as a political party.

While I'm willing to see evidence that there are Tea Parties (i.e., political parties) distinct from a movement of many loosely affiliated groups, at this point, I would make an Editor Ruling that "Tea Party" has no meaningful political existence other than the Tea Party Movement. The majority of Tea Party supporters still focus on the Republican Party (United States). In generally accepted political science terms, they would have to form a third party movement before being considered a political party. Here and there, groups may have done so, but it is certainly not characteristic of the movement. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am waiting for evidence that the Tea Party is:

• Distinct from the Tea Party Movement
• Monolithic
• A political party rather than an interest group.

There is some useful material here, but it needs to be merged with Tea Party Movement; I'd hate to call for this article to be deleted.

The Federalist Papers do not belong in the lede unless strong evidence can be shown that they are a routine guide to Tea Party decisionmaking. If they are so important to them, then what is the Tea Party position on unitary executive theory, generally accepted by political scientists as significantly derived from Papers 69 and 70? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you still waiting? The content of this article is, in it's entirety, within the history of the sandbox of the original author, from whence it came. It is unlikely that we should need two separate articles to cover this movement, so why don't we put a speedy delete tag on this version of the Tea Party Movement and let the original author work on the article that already exists, should they wish to. David Finn 06:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not support speedy delete but do support merge as there is supporting (new and different too) information for the original Tea Party article. We are splitting hairs here: truth be told the Tea Party has endorsed candidates but the "party" has not formed as an "official" political party with an official party slate or platform. It is by default a movement and NOT a political party. As to my slowness in responding: We are all volunteers here and we contribute when we can. If I were a paid employee, which I am not, then I would have a responsibility to respond at the request of my boss. As we are all volunteers there are no "bosses" and no requirements to respond to anything. Truth be told I've been busy this week taking care of my own sick cat and that's kept me pretty busy. Mary Ash 14:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For principal reasons (preserving CZ history) I want to avoid deletions whenever possible. I see no reason why this page should not moved to a talk page from where material can be transferred to the main page. --Peter Schmitt 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)