Talk:Tea Party movement

Trump not "President" in 2015!

A sourced sentence near the bottom of the article refers to President Donald Trump. The source was written in Aug. 2015 when he was one of numerous candidates. Even saying "future president" would not be a correct usage of the sourced material as he was a third-generation real estate investor at the time. If anything, it would only be correct terminology to say "businessman Donald Trump". 173.23.42.9 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. 173.23.42.9 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why "was"?

The related organizations – e.g., Tea Party Patriots – still exist. Why are past tenses used in the article? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Even that isn’t very active right now, the movement as a whole was effective succeeded by MAGA, nor does any politician still identify themselves with the tea party. Gamingbrohehe (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Rand Paul should be changed to Ron Paul

It says that the movement came to national prominece following "Senator Rand Paul's" presidential campaign, but Rand Paul didn't run for president until 2016. It should refer to his father and say "Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign. 2001:2042:5E33:7500:85FD:47C:7642:68B0 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

History Paragraph

@Uhtregorn I've undone your removal of the following paragraph. Your edit summary called it "coatrack" and "OR" but I don't see where those apply, as the sources are talking directly about the history of the Tea Party and possible origins.

Historian Matthew Dallek notes that the "conspicuous continuities with the [John Birch Society] of the 1960s", including similarities in conspiracy theories, anti-government views, aspects of Christian nationalism, funding from far-right moguls, and broad coalitions of libertarians, "Christian moral agitators", and "sometimes...violent individuals and groups". Similarly, in 2010, historian Sean Willentz stated the movement "marks a revival of ideas that circulated on the extremist right half a century ago, especially in the John Birch Society and among its admirers." Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

One historian's opinion does not reflect reality or general consensus. Editing the history section to roughly say "some people think the movement is a lot like the John Birch Society" is so clearly making the section - and therefore article - something that it is not supposed to be about - hence Coatrack. It is also a leap to go from "this guy made this connection between these groups" to "these groups are basically the same because some people said so" - OR. Uhtregorn (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This is two historians, but I think I understand your concerns of saying the two groups are "basically the same." However, I think removing the paragraph entirely is unnecessary. Their statements are qualified as quotations of the individual historians. Perhaps an opening like, "Some historians have noted that there are similarities between the John Birch Society and the modern Tea Party"? Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Even two is so tangential. It also serves no purpose to provide flimsy comparisons like that unless the intent is to create a coatracked criticism section. Uhtregorn (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I disagree, it's in the section of commentary on origin, and it's 2 historians talking about the origin of the party, in that it's similar to an earlier party. Perhaps a third opinion would be helpful here? Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere in the movements history did they ever claim to be a successor to anything John Birch, and thus any claim is a yet-unproven fringe theory.Uhtregorn (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Hello, I'm here from WP:3O. Having looked through the discussion here and the page itself. I agree that we probably need to streamline the history paragraph a bit. Dallek and Willentz are definitely prominent historians, but their takes have often been, let's say, novel. I'm not sure the full flavor of this paragraph really represents historical mainstream. The connection to the Birch Society is probably in there, but I would be wary of adding the the more negative opining in that paragraph. Squatch347 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)