Talk:List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Endorsed?

I don't believe there's any one official Tea Part group, so I think this list needs to be more clear as to what "endorsed" means in this case (along with proper citations, of course.) Yaksar (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There were three lists in the media of TPM candidates. Those can serve as sources for this article. [1][2][3]   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived versions of two, in case they disappear. foxnews msnbc The NYT page was too fancy and couldn't be archived, but I've got a PDF version as a backup.   Will Beback  talk  09:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Colorful

This table is too colorful. I suggest only using color where it serves a purpose to distinguish entries in a meaningful way.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of simply alternating the colors it would be more helpful to use the color bands to designate which candidates won in the general election.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Let's get to it. J390 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

We need to be careful to follow NPOV here. I see entries that say things like:

• Defeated "RiNO" for nomination, ...
• Beat Establishment candidate,...
• ...beat Establishment-endorsed candidate for nomination
• Outspoken member of the Tea Party, ...
• Shares the moniker Dr. No with Ron Paul, both for their refusal to vote for unconstitutional legislation

I think it may be best to avoid over-characterizations of both the candidates and their opponents. No politician is going to admit to being a "RiNO", so it's probably something like a defamatory description. Also, we should limit these comments to neutral facts that are directly related to their membership in the movement or their electoral success.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed some of these.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I just put a POV tag on and cleaned house. Ftc08 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning to move over the commentary from Tea Party movement#Effects on the 2010 election cycle, which may require further cleanup.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll also be adding a complete list of all the TPM candidates from the lists at the links in #Endorsed? above. I don't see any reason to restrict this list to notable politicians. A complete list would be more valuable. Notable politicians will appear in Category:Tea Party movement, or a subcategory.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding scope, maybe it'd be better to focus the article on a more definable criteria, like "2010 Tea Party movement-endorsed candidates". Since that and the other suggestions I've made would amount to a new list, it could be simpler to start from scratch. However I don't want to make a POV fork. Any thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not self-identified

The table includes a column to denote self-identification. It would seem logical to exclude people who do not self-identify as TPM politicians, or something to that effect. Just because a person receives, accepts, or even (perhaps) solicits support from a faction does not mean they belong to it. This list includes several people which it indicates are not self-identified TPM politicians: Jeff Landry, Anna C. Little, Scott Brown, Ken Buck, Chuck DeVore, Paul LePage, Carl Paladino. We should check their status and delete the entries if their lack of affiliation is clear. Looking at one example, Paladino, I see his name on only one of the three sources linked above.   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paladino definitely identified himself as a tea-party candidate, and so did his supporters. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. We should get that corrected. More broadly, should we include people who don't self-identify even if they've received TPM endorsements or support? I don't mean where we can't find evidence of self-identification, but where the lack of self-identification is a known fact, like a news report saying, "though Smith does not identify as TPM, he has been receiving TPM support." Of is it better to include all variations, including those who self-identify but haven't received endorsements?   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party politician

The intro of this list needs to make clear what makes one a "Tea Party politician." Also, we need to come to a consensus on what it means to be tea party endorsed, and what the criteria are to make it onto this list.Yaksar (let's chat) 08:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen three lists in online news sources: [4][5][6] As I've suggested above, we could include all names on those lists. In the case of the NYT list, they include people endorsed by any one of three TPM organizations, and they specify which. Another route would be to include only those candidates who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as proven by the presence of a biography.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with that decision, it just needs to be mentioned on the page. Yaksar (let's chat) 09:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria should be described in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party candidates and incumbents

How can these be Tea Party candidates and incumbents when they are all registered with the Republican Party? I believe stated more accurately, these are Republican candidates and incumbants who support the Tea Party movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an exclusive categorization. In the case of people who should be on the list, they are people who support, and are supported by, elements of the Tea Party movement. Their other political affiliations are interesting, but that's not the topic of this list.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing the page

I've added a lot of examples to help contribute to the article, but they don't show up. J390 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate editing tables. There are tools to convert Excel files into Wikimedia mark-up, but once it's here we're on our own. Aside from that problem, perhaps we should agree on the best way to construct the table before investing much more effort on it. I've suggest above using the color bars to designate winners or losers, instead of just alternating them. Also, I've suggested dropping the "self-identified" column, but I'm not sure that's the best idea or not. Any other thoughts on the table structure?   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals, except removing the self-identified column. J390 (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, let's get around to doing that. This page needs cleaning up. J390 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "self-identified" column is quite important. I'm pretty sure a few tea party darlings are don't actually claim to be members of the tea party, saying something to the effect of "I appreciate the support, but that's not me." I'm pretty sure Rubio and Noem are in that boat, actually. But I don't actually know without citations, which this page sorely lacks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul mention in lead

A user has repeatedly added this content:

Paul is considered to be the "intellectual grandfather" of the Tea Party movement[7][8], as the first modern-day Tea Party was thrown in December 2007 to raise money for his 2008 political campaign.

I do not think it is necessary, as Ron Paul is already listed in the table with some of this information, but will see what others think. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for an elaborate intro. The most relevant material here would be a discussion of how people get labeled as a Tea Party politician, estimates of their numbers, and similar material.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent elections

How do we handle future elections? Repeat the name for each separate election?   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob Turner (politician)

There is no evidence that Bob Turner is a Tea party candidate. I want to see some references on this, because it should be supported on his page or in a link.--Screwball23 talk 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see references for many of the claims in this article, particularly those of supposedly self-identified tea party politicians where no citation is provided to support the claim. N2e (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

Anyone object to my overhauling the layout to use standard WP/MOS formatting for tables? What (if anything) does the pink vs white background mean? DMacks (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Post-AfD clarification and possible slimming down

Are people interested in working to define the scope of this article, in light of concerns expressed at the AfD? Having recommended deletion, I've yet to make up my mind on what my second choice might look like, but I think there was a fairly broad sense that the article as it stands is unsustainable and/or undesirable, so I think we should try to arrive at a consensus on what an improved version might look like. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a way of getting around the problems of weight, original research and biographies of living persons issues. The Tea Party is not an organization but a movement consisting of organizations and persons who belong to no organization. Whether or not a person who does not belong to a Tea Party organization is a Tea Party politician is not clear. We could break up the list into individual organizations, e.g., the Tea Party caucus and list members and candidates endorsed by them. TFD (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my requesting comment on this? It seems like no one has a coherent idea of what to do the article – there's certainly no one with such an idea who wants to execute it – but opening it up to as-yet-uninvolved editors might remedy that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

At a recent AfD discussion, there seemed to be consensus that the current inclusion criteria are too broad and that clarification is needed regarding who should be listed in this article. Should it be limited to notable individuals? Elected politicians (excluding candidates for office)? Those who have self-identified as belonging to the Tea Party? Could it be split into multiple lists? etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection to a broad inclusion criteria as long as the criteria is clearly stated. We seem to have a mixture of individuals who self-identify as Tea Partiers and others who may have supported tea-party candidates, along with a few who are presumed to be sympathetic to the movement. All could be viable members of the list, it's just hard for the average reader to know which of the criteria used to justify their inclusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who isn't notable in their own right should not be included (Otherwise the list could be indefinitely long and utterly unencyclopedic). Some kind of citation should be provided for every entry. Thom2002 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I too believe that minimum level of having contested at least Panchayat election should be the benchmark for being considered in the list of Tea Party politicians. All members of legislative assembly, members of legislative council, members of Parliament, members of Rajya Sabha and elected members of upper and lower houses should be included. There may be politician of repute like Mahatma Gandhi who never participated in any election yet the world knowns his contribution. In fact such politician should have reference material of at least 200 word count on net — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIRBHAYKARPA (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete all entries without citations - As useful as this list may be, the WP:VERIFIABILITY requirement does not permit lists like this without citations. For an example of how a list should be cited, see - to pick a random example - List of atheist authors. Note how every individual has a citation demonstrating that they belong in that list. All persons should be removed from this Tea Party list unless a citation is given from a WP:Reliable source which clearly states that the person is a Tea Party member. I will not personally delete any persons right now, but any editor would be within WP policy to do so: see WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW: there is a "verification needed" tag on this list, apparently 8 months old. That is plenty of warning for contributors to find citations. Editors interested in this list should promptly start supplying citations, or else risk that the contents will be blanked. See WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGED. --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This, while absolutely true, isn't really relevant to this RfC. I don't think anyone would deny the importance of verifiability; what's holding us back from implementing that is the lack of clarity on who ought to be listed. The primary purpose of this discussion is, in a sense, to determine what a source would have to say in order to justify inclusion here. I could've made that clearer in the opening statement. (For what it's worth, there's really no such thing as a "Tea Party member" – rather, there are politicians "backed by the Tea Party" or "with links to the Tea Party" or who are "a Tea Party favourite".) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is directly relevant to the RfC, because under any rule adopted for "who should be in the list", the rule will be applied against what the sources say. A rule might be "Person self-identifies as TP" or "person ran on TP ticket in an election" or "Major news source refers to person as TP". In every case the inclusion rule must refer to what a source says. As you say, the primary purpose of this discussion is to determine what a source would have to say in order to justify inclusion here. My point is that most of the persons have no source at all (yet), so under any rule, they would need to be removed. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course it's relevant. As a Wikipedia policy it needs to be considered in every discussion and every article. So does every other policy. But no, under any rule, rather than removing an unsourced entry, an editor would hopefully try to find a source; and what they should look for in that source is the topic of this discussion. Anyway, it's not a big deal; sorry for bugging you and thanks for your input. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

2.0

I've given the article a complete overhaul with what I believe to be a more logical, readable format. While I agree that unsourced entries should be removed—and certainly redlinks for anyone not currently running—let's use WP:COMMONSENSE. Figures in the Tea Party navbox, like Sarah Palin, can safely be included without a citation here. Any member of the Tea Party Caucus can get by unsourced here due to the references on that page. Be sensible with your {{cn}} tags by checking the politician's page first. There are still a few issues to iron out here, such as politicians involved in races for more than one office, such as Rehberg, McCalister, and Lamontagne. In my overhaul, I just left them where they were. I suggest a preference ranking of current office, current candidacy, past office, past candidacy. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer some more radical changes. Why a table? Why not a bullet list? It'd allow for some explanation, which the current format is unable to give, except in terms which seem both too vague and too specific. (Does anyone know what the "endorsed" column means?) And why does it have to be split up by office – surely lots of politicians will have run for more than one office? I've tried redrafting along these lines before though, and given up without saving anything because it seemed such a gargantuan task and so dependent on arbitrary judgements. I'm going to have another go but I can't guarantee it won't result in the same abandonment on my part. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@BDD: You write "Any member of the Tea Party Caucus can get by unsourced here due to the references on that page. Be sensible with your tags by checking the politician's page first." I must disagree with that. Every article/list must contain its own citations, particularly when the topic is somewhat contentious, or the persons are living.

Update: I've begun a draft at my sandbox. The main purpose for the format I went with is to demonstrate exactly what it is that makes us able to declare each person a Tea Party politician – whether they're a member of the caucus, were endorsed by Tea Party Express, or whether it's just that journalist x in publication y said they were a "Tea Party favourite". Any input and/or questions are welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to supply citations for each person in your revised list. That is the important thing. The format (table vs bullets) is secondary compared to compliance with WP:Verifiability. Footnotes are not very glamorous, but are essential. I recommend that the current List be replaced with your Sandbox immediately, since this article has been tagged as needed citations for a long time. --Noleander (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Currently far from a comprehensive list, but I'm going to keep adding names from the old version and encourage others to do the same. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the major rewrite, and for ensuring that each and every claim is sourced. The previous article was riddled with unsourced original research. Good work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Leftovers

I've added all the names from the most recent pre-rewrite version that I could find sources for; however there are few left for whom I couldn't find sources:

• Maggie Brooks
• Chris Collins (county executive)
• Doug LaMalfa
• Matt Salmon
• Richard Tisei
• Daniel Bongino
• John Raese
• Jan Brewer
• Bob McDonnell
• Debra Goldman
• Barry Smitherman
• Steve Troxler

Obviously sourced readditions are very welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What is criterion for inclusion in this list?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this discussion per a request at WP:AN/RFC.
The consensus is to adopt the criteria proposed by Noleander. These criteria require reliable sources to confirm that "that the politician is affiliated with a tea party organization or movement", and list several points of clarification. These criteria should be clearly set out at the start of the list article.
However, I note that this discussion did not consider how to determine what is "a tea party organization or movement". The head article describes the Tea Party as "a loose affiliation of national and local groups" (although that description appears to be unreferenced). I cannot see any list of such groups on Wikipedia, and I fear that unless that unless the list clarifies this point, there will be ongoing difficulties in determining the inclusion of some politicians. There is also a risk of synthesis: "A,B, say that X is affiliated to organisation Y, and Y is described by C,D sources as a Tea Party organisation ... ergo X is a Tea Party politician".
I am not an expert on this topic, and those points may already have been resolved. If so, should the criteria reflect that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the following policy be used for inclusion in this list:

• A politician can be in the list only if a reliable source states that the politician is affiliated with a tea party organization or movement. The source must use wording which clearly means membership or affiliation, but the words "membership" or "affiliation" are not required. With the provisos that:
  • If the politician supports some tea party goals, that alone is not sufficient.
  • If a tea party organization endorses the candidate (e.g. donates funds to the candidate), that alone is not sufficient.
  • If the politician participated in a tea party event (e.g. spoke at a tea party forum), that alone is not sufficient.

...--Noleander (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Above proposal amended at this signature time: --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

amended a second time (formatting only ... not substance) to make it clearer; at this time: --Noleander (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not too sure all the persons in the list belong here. To pick the first one I looked at: Rick Scott, it says: "Republican Governor of Florida (2011–present). Scott was elected in 2010 with the support of the tea party movement.". The source does not say that Scott is a member of the tea party, or even affiliated with any tea party organization. The Rick Scott article doesn't even mention "tea party" and says he is Republican. It appears that some tea party groups endorsed/supported Scott, but that is certainly not sufficient to include him in this list. I would think the minimum threshold for being in the list is if the politician, by their own actions affiliated themselves with the tea party. Surely the tea party cannot "adopt" a candidate unwillingly, and cause that person to appear in the list. --Noleander (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan Coats is another one: again, "tea party" appears no where in his article, and the source does not say he is affiliated. It merely says "Mr. Coats was originally opposed by Tea Party leaders, though he picked up their support after winning the Republican nomination." I understand that some editors may want this list to be as broad and inclusive as possible, but a person cannot be in this list simply because some tea party organization donated money to the candidate's campaign, or endorsed the candidate. --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess, but you've yet to really propose a solid alternative. Your minimum threshold would be an uneven one: it'd include, presumably, lots of people about whom all we can say is "John Doe spoke at a tea party rally in April 2009", and exclude those who were endorsed by FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express et al but never came out and said "yeah, I'm a tea partier". (If we don't consider speaking at a rally sufficient, I honestly think we'd have to cut the list down to about five or six names, plus the Tea Party Caucus. I was genuinely surprised yesterday to stumble upon a ref in which a politician actually definitively identifies as belonging to the tea party. It's just not something they tend to do.) I guess I think the list should be broad just because doing it any other way would be a bit of a nightmare. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The title of this list is "Tea party politicians" not "Politicians endorsed by the tea party". How about this rule:

1. A politician can be in the list only if they (a) self-identify as "member of" or "affiliated with" a tea party organization or movement; or (b) a reliable source states that they "member of" or "affiliated with" a tea party organization or movement. [added "movement" after initial draft].
2. It is not sufficient that a tea party organization donates funds to or otherwise endorses the candidate.
3. It is not sufficient that the politician participated in a tea party event (e.g. spoke at a tea party forum).

I understand that this rule may shrink the list. But getting an endorsement from the tea party is not sufficient. There must be many races where there is a Dem and a Rep candidate, and a tea party group endorses the Rep simply because they are more conservative than the Dem. That doesn't make the Rep a tea party affiliate. --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted a note at the OR noticeboard to get more input on this. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still plenty of shades of grey in those criteria, and few politicians who'd meet them if applied strictly. I mean, I assume your first point isn't intended to restrict us to sources which contain the actual phrase "member of" or "affiliated with". If it is we could have a source saying "John Doe is a tea party politician" and we wouldn't be able to list him. We could also have a source reading "John Doe is a member of the tea party movement", which, since it doesn't mention any organisation, we'd have to discard. There are plenty more cases that might or might not satisfy the criterion – for example, here's the first three I found:

• ABC News says Jeff Denham campaigned "under the tea party banner".
• Elton Gallegly says he agrees with many of the tea party's goals.
• Time says "Tea Party activists have an ally in" Devin Nunes.

Unless we determine exactly what phrasings are acceptable and which aren't there are always going to be borderline cases; and on a hopelessly broad and somewhat contentious topic like this it'd take a lifetime to judge them on a case-by-case basis. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but we have to start somewhere. The current situation is way too inclusive. Taking those 3 examples: (a) "campaigning under the TP banner" - would go in the list: the source is saying the politician self-identified; however, probably need more details or other sources to confirm. (b) "says he agrees with many of the tea party's goals .." - Definitely not. Many independent or Democratic candidates may identify with some of the TP goals. (c) "Tea Party activists have an ally in ..." - Not sufficient. Could simply mean they have common cause to unseat some liberal incumbant. Indeed, "allies" implies they are distinct parties, but just share some goals (Russia and US were allies in WW II). --Noleander (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems increasingly arbitrary and subjective. Those three weren't chosen to be representative of especially difficult cases or of typical ones: a scroll through the article shows there are plenty more people who are listed for reasons completely different from those above, and more problematically, lots whose circumstances are broadly similar but differ slightly. What we need isn't an individual response in each instance but a broad rule that can be applied objectively. You offered one earlier, but I think we can agree it's not perfect – can I ask for a new one? (Also, I don't think we're going to get much further with just the two of us commenting. I'm going to go ahead and notify the Conservatism Wikiproject, but if there's no influx of new thought from there do you think it'd be worthwhile to notify editors who participated in the above RfC?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do think the above proposal is pretty near perfect :-) What criterion would you suggest? But, yes, more eyes are needed. I've generated an RfC. Let's hope it attracts some attention. --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it'd still seem to exclude Jeff Denham who you advocate including just below. I'd personally prefer to continue with as broad criteria as possible, but I know the consensus at the AfDs and the first RfC isn't really behind me on that, so I'm happy to work towards some sort of compromise. I guess there are two things I'm mostly concerned with: that we have a set of criteria that allow us to objectively determine whether a given politician should be included, and that it not constitute original research. My interpretation of OR seems stricter than most though, so I don't really expect that concern to be met to my satisfaction. And yeah, fingers crossed this RfC goes better than the last one. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Jeff Denham: I said "the source is saying the politician self-identified; however, probably need more details or other sources to confirm.". For example, if the source says "JD campaigned under the banner of TP: he said he was a Tea Party adherent in his campaign brochures and TV ads" then that means he self identified. But if the source says "JD campaigned by supporting issues that many TP groups also support" that would not be sufficient. So the Jeff D situation is consistent with the proposed criterion. --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I understood the quote marks around "member of" and "affiliated with" to mean you'd require one of those exact phrasings. Is that not the case? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I intended the quote marks to mean that the source must use a wording that clearly means "member" or "affiliated", but doesn't have to use those specific words. The key point is that there is some action that the politician took to say "I should be considered part of the tea party movement". Which is different from merely saying "I support some of the tea party goals". --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll update the RfC proposal above to clarify that intention. No one else has comment on the RfC yet, so there should be no harm in changing the RfC text. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC question text has been updated. --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliably sourced verified self-identification appears to be sufficient criteria for inclusion in this article. That being said, I would see no problem as long as it is reliably sourced and verified if mention of Tea Party supports subject X is included in that subject's biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support #1: if reliable sources don't agree on one's membership, [s]he should not be included regardless of other factors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusing wording in the RfC question at the top. I've re-worded it to be clearer. All four points were part of a single, four-part proposal. It was not meant to be a choice of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. I've updated the wording in the RfC comment to clarify that. You may want to update your comment. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support #2: I believe that unless a politician says they are a member of the Tea Party or attend a Tea Party event, they should not be considered a Tea Party politician; simply being supported by Tea Party members is not enough to be on this list. Grammarxxx (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusing wording in the RfC question at the top. I've re-worded it to be clearer. All four points were part of a single, four-part proposal. It was not meant to be a choice of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4. I've updated the wording in the RfC comment to clarify that. You may want to update your comment. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree As with any list, we need to define the criteria for conclusion. Unfortunately there are no external sources to guide us. I suggest dividing the list into which Tea Party group politicians belong. For example one section could be for members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. TFD (talk)
  • What other groups do you have in mind? Are there any other groups that politicians are publicly known to be members of? I'm not aware of any. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • There are a number of organizations, such as the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Patriots, although there may be few politicians that belong to these groups. How do we handle list articles for liberal/conservative/moderate/progressive/libertarian/constitutionalist/environmentalist politicians in the United States? TFD (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Based on the lack of any information about how to join on its website, the Tea Party Express doesn't seem to be a membership organisation. The Tea Party Patriots is, but glancing over the first ten pages of Google results for "member of the tea party patriots" I found only one page referring to a notable politician. We don't really have any other articles of the kind you describe, except for List of libertarians, created three days ago and as yet lacking any clear inclusion criteria. (I don't think we should have this one either, but that proposition seems unlikely to ever gain consensus.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Needs to include self-identification. If a politician self-identifies as a tea-partier, that alone should be enough to include him/her on the list. Who are we to disbelieve the politician? Propose a change to:

“ A politician can be in the list only if a reliable source states that the politician is affiliated with a tea party organization or movement, or the politician self-identifies as such. The source must use wording which clearly means membership or affiliation, but the words "membership" or "affiliation" are not required.

Note that:
-If the politician supports some tea party goals, that alone is not sufficient.
-If a tea party organization endorses the candidate (e.g. donates funds to the candidate), that alone is not sufficient.
-If the politician participated in a tea party event (e.g. spoke at a tea party forum), that alone is not sufficient.

”

FurrySings (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Noleander's argument below, I fully support the proposal with the understanding that self-identification is sufficient. FurrySings (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that self-identification is sufficient. But isn't that already included in the original proposal? If the politician self-identifies by saying "I am affiliated with the tea party", and that quote is published by a reliable source, then the RfCs original wording at top already includes that situation. Adding more words about self-ID would just complicate the guideline unnecessarily. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Support the phrasing of the proposal, as of 2012-08-26T18:50UTC, including all three of the "this alone is not sufficient" explanatory bullets. Bottom line, only support from a reliable source that clearly means membership or affiliation is sufficient. Implication: if consensus is achieved, then it means clearing out a few names where this criteria is not met, whether temporarily until a reliable source is found to support some present WP editor's contention, or permanently should no source or subsequent membership or affiliation support be found. This won't be non-contentious, but then WP:V is a core policy, and editor-provided orginal research is unacceptable in this encyclopedia. (If the proposal does not achieve consensus, and the somewhat revised proposal by FurrySings becomes the one we are discussing, then someone ping me with a TB and I'll come back here and offer a view on that. In my view, the current proposal allows for politician self-identificatin, just as long as that self-ident is supported by a reliable source.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Support the proposal in principle, with the added stipulation that self-identification be made a requirement. Self-identification is the only way to make inclusion anything other than a matter of opinion, be it the opinions of editors or the opinions of sources. Belchfire-TALK 17:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of other political party membership lists that require self-identification. Self-ID is a very restrictive requirement, that is usually only used for categories like religion & sexual orientation. I suggest that we permit any reliable source to be used for inclusion in the list; but if the source is somehow biased or suspect, that fact can be noted in this List so the reader understands that there is some question. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're making a bogus distinction here. As I'm sure you are well aware, the TEA Party is not a "political party". There are no membership rolls, it does not appear on any ballots. Thus, without self-identification, it is unknowable who considers themselves to be a "member" and who does not. If we try to assign membership based on some other criteria, it would be nothing more than a matter of a source's opinion. Thus, as a matter of simple encyclopedic accuracy, we need to rely on a politician's own declaration. Belchfire-TALK 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Polite request: can people please clarify what "self-identify" actually means? The discussion above contains some detail on how it's vague to the point of uselessness, but in brief, the issue is that it's very rare for a politician to say "I'm a member of the tea party." A large part of what we need to clarify is what constitutes self-identification – if we're still unclear on that then we may as well just be saying "to be listed here you have to be a tea party politician." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Self-identified" is a key principle in the WP:BLPCAT policy, and that policy has been heavily vetted, so we can refer to it to see how self-ID is interpreted in WP: "Self idenfitication" means that the person made the assertion that they belonged to some group; contrasted with another person (analyst, reporter, biographer) making that statement. Applying that to Tea Party, if politician Joe Smith says "I am affiliated with the tea party", that is self-identification. But if a pundit says "Joe Smith is affiliated with the tea party" that is not self-identification. That said, the original proposal at the top of this RfC does not require self-identification. Self-identification is usually reserved (see WP:BLPCAT) for sensitive or controversial attributes. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• support the requirement of self identification per Belchfire it is not a "real" political party with "official" membership lists or registration at the state or national level; and so like we do with religion, we need to require a reliable source showing the person has self identified. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

wow - whats particularly horrendous about this list is that it has contianed items like this one [7] where the source used to claim "an affiliation to the tea party" is a story focused on the fact that the politician WAS BOOTED FROM SPEAKING at an official Tea Party event. This list has clearly been created by someone with an axe to grind. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What axe would that be? I'd like to know so I can get on with grinding it. (Is it the one against people who can't use capital letters properly?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the particulars of the creation to know what axe is being ground, but the misuse of sources in the above example is clear evidence that "presenting an appropriate encyclopedic article with contents supported by reliable sources" is NOT the intention. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "the particulars of the creation" means, but you obviously haven't looked at the discussion above or the two AfDs, either. I'd suggest you go away, and if you really must come back then only do so when you know what you're talking about. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly know what I am talking about in stating that the only way the Taitz entry could have been added to this list is either with a complete and careless lack of regard for what the source actually said, or with a purposeful intent to push a POV by actively misrepresenting what the sources said. You may also wish to brush up on WP:NPA and WP:CIV and WP:OWN-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know why I'm bothering to engage with you, but the source says "Taitz was scheduled to address an April 15 Tea Party gathering in California, but organizers of the event balked at the last minute". The article said "Taitz was scheduled to address a tea party gathering in April 2010, though her invitation was later rescinded." That isn't a misrepresentation, and it isn't grounds to enter a four-month-old conversation throwing embarrassingly baseless accusations at the only editor to have put any time or effort into the article over those four months. If we're throwing three letter acronyms about then WP:AGF might be appropriate, but frankly I don't have much faith in your ability to understand or abide by it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus - A request has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved admin to come to this RfC and assess the consensus. Or, we could just close it ourselves if there is consensus amongst us. Arms & Hearts: Can you live with the proposal at the top of this RfC? Or do you object to it? If you can live with it, we probably have consensus and can close this ourselves. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to see people have a go at it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.