This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Other talk page banners
Tea Party movement received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
[[Healthcare reform in the United States#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010|healthcare reform legislation]] The anchor (#Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
