On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that "we" fail
to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't
write with 100% precision, and they certainly don't use Wikipedia
terminology.
It may be literally true that we don't claim to understand anything, but
that
doesn't make the complaint invalid. It just means that you need to apply
a
bit more intelligence to understanding the complaint beyond literally
parsing
the words. (And there's *far* too much literalness among Wikipedia
policy
wonks).
I would guess that a complaint that we don't understand something is a
claim
of undue weight and unreliable sources. Almost any claim about the Tea
Party
has been made by someone; whether it has been made by someone who we
ought to
pay attention to is another story.
I note Fox News is excluded from this list:
External links
* Collected news and coverage at The New York Times
* Collected news and coverage at The Guardian
* Collected news and coverage at CNN
* Tea Party Movement at History News Network at George Mason University
* Tea Party Movement at SourceWatch
I can make a good faith argument that it is not a reliable source, as I
could for any other news source with obvious bias, but I don't think
there would be consensus on that point.
Fred