It seems to me on Wikipedia edits to delicate subjects like this the best way is to first broach the subject on the article's discussion page. If you can form a consensus there first the edit will go up with no problem.
For example, you could say something like: "Since the article gives credit to Ron Paul as the "intellectual godfather" of the movement, wouldn't it be appropriate to have his photo on the page somewhere? If not, then how does it improve the article for Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, who are not Tea Party founders, to have their photos featured?"
Or something like: "I notice the article is weak on its' coverage of the early history of the movement. Here are references to some articles from that time period. Does anybody have any ideas on how we can improve the early history section with these?"
Many of the news stories mentioned in this thread would be solid references if a linkable transcript or companion story can be found.
Always talk about edits in terms of "improving the article."
If nothing else you start a dialog on the subject. Keep in mind some visitors looking for information read not just the article but also the discussion page (I do).
I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I've spent a lot of time reading there, and have observed how things work.
