Talk:TeaParty.org

Removal

Removal suggested by David Finn 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Editorial Council: Case 2011-012

Opened: Peter Schmitt 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed: Dropped. Article has been revised. --Peter Schmitt 10:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Comments

I am not sure that the content of this article can easily be made encyclopedic as it is very disjointed and has no references and the original author is no longer with us, but for such a small political group in this case it might be better reducing the article to a definition. David Finn 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The title suggested that this was the 1776 Boston tea party. I've never heard the current Tea Party movement associated with the name '1776 Tea Party', but I am certainly not fully aware. D. Matt Innis 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to research, write and edit this article, if you like. You can move the article to my Sandbox, if you wish. Mary Ash 19:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick search and discovered the correct name for this article should be Tea Party as the name the Tea Party seems to be using is Tea Party.org. Does CZ already have article by that name? Mary Ash 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly associate the name with the Boston Tea Party, so I don't think its accidental that the people who founded the current movement chose it. No doubt their intentions are honourable, but I find it misleading for an encyclopaedia, and they themselves seem to be dropping the '1776' as Mary notes, probably because it's cumbersome.

I do remember rather a lot of discussion on the subject of the Tea Party about a year ago; we certainly don't need to repeat it.

It's a bit tricky if their official name is, nonetheless, '1776 Tea Party' and I can't confirm or deny this.

@Mary: I've no problem at all with you expanding this and putting it at Tea Party (please note the Capital Letters! :)

@Matt: there is a note regarding archiving at Tea Party, probably relating to the earlier discussion I mentioned. Does anything need to be done about preserving this before Mary starts typing?

I would suggest that this present title redirect to Tea Party (though I have no objection to reducing this article to a definition, with a note to see the article Tea Party, I think a simple redirect would work best.

Does this suit everyone?

Aleta Curry 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses. It seems that 1776 Tea Party is a regional organization of the broader Tea Party movement. The current article (1776) is but an outline and needs to be spruced up, but the Tea Party movement article has a sub-section that directs to this article as the "main article" for this group. Apparently, there are quite a few of these regional Tea Party groups. See this list. In short, the higher-level article for this article (1776) is Tea Party movement, not Tea Party Russell D. Jones 01:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Russell. --Peter Schmitt 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Horse held.

Okay, my only real point was that Mary is correct that these people seem to be using the name 'Tea Party' as their own. There's no suggestion on their website that it's simply one faction of the larger Tea Party movement, and I don't see references to founder Dale Robertson in standard Tea Party articles, but I do see one [[1]]

That notwithstanding, I am by no means an expert in this matter, so if you fellows are confident, have at it.

Aleta Curry 03:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)
It seem's that they have dropped to use the "1776" since Howard created this page. This should (eventually) be reflected on the page, of course. The following are a few links I found and store here so that they don't get lost:

Founder (at teaparty.org)

Action (at teaparty.org), uses logo showing the full name (with "1776")

Listing, showing full name and founder

Listing with full name.

Video at YouTube with full name

Perhaps TeaParty.org would be a better name (with a redirect from 1776 Tea Party? --Peter Schmitt 10:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Demoting status

I'd recommend dropping the status of this cluster from "developing" to "stub" Russell D. Jones 01:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I'll do that now under the spirit of EC:R-2011-001, even though this has more than 100 words. It can always be upgraded when it's expanded. Aleta Curry 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to the status downgrade to stub. Yes, to Peter's suggested name change except I'd leave out org. I'll check but I think the official name is Tea Party. I'd forgotten the controversy ahhh the joys of being older, but I am still willing to work on this article after Christmas. I'm kicking into full holiday mode with cleaning and cooking. Also, am trying to finish formatting my next e book. Mary Ash 04:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mary, you forget that this is not THE "Tea Party" and that there is no "Tea Party" at all. It is only one of many organizations of the Tea Party movement. According to their "About" an alternative could be "Tea Party, Inc.". Perhaps "TeaParty" (sic") would also be possible, but I doubt it. --Peter Schmitt 11:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party should actually be a disambiguation page because we ALSO have the Boston Tea Party and the Tea Party movement. So if the title of the article is going to "Tea Party" it should be something like Tea Party (org) or Tea Party (group). Russell D. Jones 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've filled out the list at Tea party (disambiguation). See also Tea Party movement/Related Articles. There are a couple more (not started) on the RA page, but every article on CZ is now listed on the disamb page. Russell D. Jones 20:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Did some editing tonight

I did some editing tonight and will try to look up more information about this subject. I hope to find some sources about populist movements and how they compare to the Tea Party movement. To me this group sounds like a populist movement born out of frustration. Mary Ash 04:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought CZ was anti-list and the information is now repeated

May I ask why the list was returned especially so since CZ is anti-list. Also, the list information has been neatly edited to make a coherent paragraph so the list is unnecessary. Mary Ash 22:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "list" in this sense: It is an authentic quotation (in form of a list) that shows the character of the group much better than any glossed-over summary can do. --Peter Schmitt 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is why repeat the list? I very carefully edited the article to include everying you added back. I thought you wanted a neatly edited and coherent article? I have requested Constable assistance as it seems I can not edit the article without assistance. Mary Ash 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Constable comment

I have been asked to stop in here. I see is a healthy collaboration on the article and good discussion here on the talk page. It does look as though there has been some reversion of previous work, but it appears to be adequately discussed here once questioned. Content issues such as "lists", style and article construction are not part of the constable concern even though they can cause some hard feelings. The action in this case is to call in your editors and ask them to help you decide. D. Matt Innis 00:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)