Talk:Tea Party movement

To do. Please write a brief definition or description of this article at Tea Party movement/Definition.

Metadata here

I've archived the full page to Archive 3 for those interested. I chose to move the entire contents of the page in order to move the history of the discussion intact with the page. If there are discussions that need to return, please feel absolutely free to copy and paste them here. D. Matt Innis 00:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting discussion for merge

Formation

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)

Exact dates added to beginning, establishing there were rallies well before the Tax Day protest. Did these, however, use the term "Tea Party" at the time? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:06, 4 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)

Advancing the article

One way the article can be improved, a little at a time, is to keep filling out the Related Articles entries, even as lemmas, or expanding some of the topics there into full articles. In particular, the background of activists, candidates, and funders are important.

It would be nice, indeed, if the people who were so concerned about the capitalization of the title might join in this effort, which can take as little or as much time as you want to give it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Those working on this article might be interested in a recent column by Chris Good of The Atlantic magazine, "A Guide to Tea Party Infighting," discussing various TP organizations and their differences: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/a-guide-to-tea-party-infighting/63389/ Bruce M. Tindall 19:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly, that has to be a Good article. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sunday NTY Public Editor on caps

from the Sunday NYT of October 10, 2010 -- the "Public Editor" is the equivalent of Ombudsman. One of the letters to him today, with the answer from someone at the NYT:

Party With a Capital P

Is there some good reason for capitalizing “tea party?” Is it an officially registered party? Isn’t this giving a small, disaffected group more importance than it deserves? Just as both sides of a debate are often given equal importance in your publication (whether deserved or not), this seems to favor a marginal and uninformed group and gives it much more ink than is justified.

Mardine Davis,Manhattan

Philip B. Corbett, standards editor: Uppercasing “Tea Party” isn’t a political judgment, or really even a substantive one — just a style decision, a question of clarity and appearance. In my view, it looks odd and distracting to refer to a lowercase “tea party.” As a common noun, a “tea party” is a gathering where tea is served, or something Alice would attend. And of course, the intended reference is to the Boston Tea Party, which we uppercase as a specific historical event.

Granted, it’s not a formal organization like the Republican Party. But I would think of “Tea Party” as more akin to, say, a nickname than to a generic, common noun. Or you could compare it to an artistic movement — we uppercase “Impressionism,” though it’s not a legal organization or even a proper noun, strictly speaking.

Some other news organizations put Tea Party in quotes, or use phrases like “so-called,” etc. I think uppercasing is the simplest stylistic solution.

Hayford Peirce 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the NYT. 'Tea Party' is a proper name. In Britain, we referred to the previous government as 'New Labour' even though they had not officially changed their name from being 'the Labour Party'. Technically, perhaps we should have said 'new Labour'. Although not officially recognised as such, there was a pretty significant difference between New Labour and old Labour. A similar situation holds here I think: the Tea Party is a thing, although compared to an actual political party like the Republican or Democratic parties, it is a loose network or movement. Naming movements will always be a tough thing to do: think of 'the green movement', 'the animal rights movement', 'the civil rights movement' - all lower case. The difference is that with the Tea Partiers, there actually is some kind of loose coalition of brands which people within the label are policing the borders of. –Tom Morris 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Leftover extra definition page

Although "Tea Party Movement" with a capital M is now a redirect to the same phrase with a lower-case m, there is an orphaned "Tea Party Movement/Definition" (capital M) file that contains a different definition from the one with a lower-case m. The old, ungrammatical one (which begins "A loose affiliations" [sic]) shows up, for example, in the "tea party (disambiguation)" page because that page contains an r-template mention of upper-case M "Tea Party Movement." I'm not about to start poking at this hornets' nest, but those of you who've been working on the article may want to take some action to get rid of the old definition, or do something else with it. Bruce M. Tindall 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. D. Matt Innis 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)