Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:17, 20 June 2013

This page is used for the focused discussion on improving the Tea Party movement article. Requests for minor edits, general discussion on sources, individual queries about the article which are not related to the focused discussion, etc, should take place on the main article talkpage. In order to maintain focus, the aim is to discuss one editing aspect at a time. Currently we are looking at trimming the article, and moving some of the material into sub-articles. Following a discussion there is a show of hands to establish there are no significant outstanding objections, and to establish consensus, and then the edit can be actioned. Commenting on the contributors is not allowed, and while up to now such comments have simply been hatted, from this point, anyone making a personal comment will be formally warned, and if necessary will be blocked. Anyone who has concerns about a comment that has been made, should not respond here, but leave a note for me either on my talkpage or by email. I am not able to carefully read this page every day, so patience and communication to me about concerns is needed. Progress is being made, and though there are sticky patches, the article is improving. SilkTork 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC) The article has been unlocked, so I have amended the above notice. And add here: If someone new to the article makes an inappropriate edit, inform them of this moderated discussion, and discuss the edit on this page. If someone who is already aware of the restrictions in place makes an inappropriate edit, inform me, and I will deal with it. SilkTork 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This page and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions

Archives

(and other useful links) Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Tea Party movement Perceptions of the Tea Party movement

Closed discussions

/Closed discussions

Procedure

Copied over (and edited) from my talkpage:

...I want people to edit the article. But I want those who edit it to be trustworthy, and to only edit by consensus, not to revert or encourage or incite others to revert, not to remove or add content that alters meaning without first establishing that it is OK to do do, not to make edits based on guessing or assuming, but to follow the academic principles of doing research FIRST, and then supporting statements with citations, and to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines on building an article. This is editing basics, and should be done on every article. It is particularly important that it should be done on this article. This is not the article to be making bold edits, nor uncertain edits. This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then. So I want all edits to the article to be secure and agreed. And if there are editors who are not able to discern when an edit has been agreed or not, they should be discouraged from editing the article. If necessary, permanently. I can't make that clear enough. The article has suffered for years because editors have taken unilateral action on the article rather than seeking consensus first. On a contentious topic like this it is vital to discus and get consensus. Doubly so when there's a moderated discussion taking place. And triply so when there's an ArbCom case being held in suspension.... SilkTork 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone just made an extreme undiscussed change in the first sentence of the article. What happens now? North8000 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified that editor of the Moderated dicsussion User_talk:John_Paul_Parks#Tea_Party_movement_and_the_Constitution.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the appropriate approach. I will copy this over to the talkpage so people are clear. SilkTork 11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone is already fully aware of the restrictions in place on the article, and they make an inappropriate edit, they will be sanctioned. If someone is not aware, they should be informed of the situation, and directed to this discussion page. Their edit can then be discussed and consensus sought as to what is to be done with it. Only obvious vandalism (such as "Misplaced Pages sucks", "My balls are big", "Wombats are best") and BLP violations should be reverted on sight. If it's a possible BLP violation it's best to revert and to let me know immediately - I will allow a fair amount of leeway on reverting possible BLP violations. Somebody in good faith adding, removing or altering content is not to be reverted. However, somebody who adds, removes or alters content without consensus and after being informed of the restrictions in place, will be sanctioned. Notify me, and I will deal with it. I will revert the edit and sanction the editor. Anyone can inform an editor of the restrictions in place, but only an independent admin or myself can carry out reverts and sanctions.

Summary:

• If someone new to the article makes an inappropriate edit, inform them of this discussion, and discuss the edit here.
• If someone who is already aware of the restrictions in place makes an inappropriate edit, inform me, and I will deal with it.

I hope that is clear. SilkTork 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to work on one narrow item

The phrase "one somewhat personified by Ron Paul and the other by Sarah Palin. "Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach" which says or implies that Ron Paul, (the person who wants free trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. This says or implies that a living person has a belief/agenda that is opposite to his actual belief/agenda. An erroneous word in a source is certainly not enough to place/repeat the false statement/implication (particularly about a living person) in Misplaced Pages.

Also, although the source used the word/said it, there is no requirement that everything that every source says and every word used (right or wrong) must get put into the article.

The proposal is to reword (or delete the whole sentence if necessary) to remove any statement/implication that Ron Paul is a (neo)isolationist. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

well said! Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Jefferson's approach has conventionally been referred to as isolationist, but he was not against free trade or interacting with other nations, or even sending the military to deal with pirates.

good point and part of the problem, few people, including RS know the actual def of Isolationism, the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade... Darkstar1st (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if a reliable source says "Jeffersonian" neo-isolationist (does the quote include Jeffersonian?), then it should not be considered misleading, as there is a historical context for that discourse. If a more modern and nuanced parlance is preferred, find a reliable source that uses such phraseology. If it has been found to be sufficiently objectionable, then there should be corresponding sources.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just leave out calling Ron Paul an "isolationist". Simple. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the word "neo-isolationist" from the mainspace. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis of the presumption of consensus on that? I don't believe that the discussion of the sources had even been concluded. Note that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the terms removal, I just want to see a source-based rationale.

I haven't looked at the edit, but the term non-interventionist would be significantly more narrow in scope than "Jeffersonian neo-isolationist", which appears to have been cited from a reliable source, if I recall correctly.

I do not believe that the unlocking of the article is a license for anyone to make such edits without adequate discussion here, first.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Try reviewing the edit. The entire meaning of the statement has been well preserved. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the statement can be made without mislabeling Ron Paul as an isolationist. Doubly so since the statement isn't even about Ron Paul. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on what to work on next

It might be a good idea to open a section addressing the specific government programs the TP opposes and include the Social Security and Medicare programs which TP members depend on. Tea Party members and their supporters don't seem to be against them, yet these programs represent the same kind of huge government programs they are opposed to.

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would prove difficult. How do we delve into the complexity of Medicare which older Americans paid into their entire lives only to see cut for another entitlement (Obamacare), and social security which is backed by IOU's the federal government can only pay back with increased taxes or borrowing? Even saying they oppose these programs is troublesome. Opposition is more to the administration of such programs. †TE†Talk 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting dichotomy. Look at the demographic. They're all headed for retirement and will need these programs. I've mentioned this several times back in 2010 but nobody ever wanted to do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Malke, please feel free to write a couple of paragraphs on that topic and post them here for approval. If there's a reliable source which specifically addresses that "interesting dichotomy," it should be identified and cited like this:

Joe Blow, a political science professor at Wassamatta U., has examined the "paradox" created by the Tea Party movement's support for reform of Social Security and Medicare. Blow observes this support is not in the self-interest of many Tea Party members, since they tend to be over 50 years old and will be relying on these programs in a few years.

• There are three steps I'd like to take right away:

1. One thing I think we should take action on immediately is adding the word "grass-roots" (with the Wikilink) to the lede sentence. We were discussing it just before the moderated discussion started. I felt we had consensus for it, since there were so many reliable sources to support it. The allegations about Astroturfing have one or two sources, and are clearly a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT.
2. Another thing we should consider immediately is removing the Other events section. The removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section has kind of orphaned THIS section. I suggest we cut the length of the paragraph about the gas grill in half, and add both events to the list of bulleted incidents at the end of Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, in chronological order.
3. Also, there's a subsection at the beginning of the "History" section called Commentaries on origin. Nothing there is notable enough to remain in this top-level article. It should be moved to the spin-off article, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, after the bulleted list of incidents.

• Strongly support. Now that the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" roadblock has finally been removed, we can move forward with several other items that have been waiting patiently. The "grass-roots" edit, for example, has been waiting for two months. Let's get these three items done and move on. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First, I believe that we are to be focusing on one item at a time, not multiple items in a haphazard manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(A) There's nothing "haphazard" about it, and we have previously discussed more than one edit at a time — usually removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, plus some other edit. (B) I don't see any substantive objection, just a procedural one, which has just been addressed — see (A). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to get back yesterday, but I realized the first goal here is to reduce content. I will postpone the Soc Sec issue until the reductions have been completed. My suggestion for further reducing content that might take the tension off from that last edit, is to reduce the protest/rally sections. We already have Tea Party protests and the content could easily be transferred there. My suggestion for a remaining para, with a link to the main, is focus on the beginnings and then mention the spread to national, without too much detail. Just generalized. I'd be happy to write up a sample para if anybody is interested.

On the grassroots bit, because there's so much controversy about it (with editors), it is something that needs to be addressed here. We do have to take things one at a time. I just thought something easy, like reducing the protests section, might be something that is easy and could help foster a more collegial atmosphere. The race/bigotry section was stressful for all. (And I agree about the History section with it's "commentaries" subsection. I also agree with transferring the "Other events" section the subarticle.)

Malke 2010 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe leave "grass roots" for later. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that possibly the most messed up section in the article is the "polling of supporters". It's a wp:synth wp:or fest, about the worst abuse of primary sources I've ever seen, uses hostile op-ed pieces as a "source" of polling data, and has misleading or inaccurate summaries. Many "gems" in there. For example "predominantly white" (any group representative of US polulaiotn is going to be "predominantly white") A good candidate to take a close look at. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This article was loaded with gems like that when we started. It was like the home of a hoarder. Now that responsible Wikipedians have taken charge of the situation and we're trying to clean it up, we're going to be hauling rubbish out of here for weeks. Every time we open the door to a new section, there's going to be a little avalanche of garbage falling out. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits since the article has been unlocked

Not encouraging.

• An edit "boldly" removing sourced information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party. I am assuming this was done under the impression that if information is in the lead it does not have to be in the article. That is a misunderstanding of how articles are constructed - see WP:Lead. I had indicated earlier that "The lead should be a summary of what is in the main article, so there will be duplication of information". Following the edit removing that information, the main body of the article now does not contain key information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party; and there is material summarised in the lead that is not mentioned in the main body. These are basic errors that should not be taking place at this stage as we move toward improving the article. Please, nobody make any "bold" edits. Removing sourced material should not happen without a discussion here. To underscore the importance of this, Phoenix and Winslow is topic-banned from the article for one week for removing sourced content without first getting consensus. I will reinstate the information. If people are uncomfortable with the wording in the lead and the main body being so similar, that is a copy-editing solution in which the wording is altered, but the information remains.

• There has been a revert with the instruction "Please take it to talk". A significant part of the problem with this article has been the reverting. The approach to be taken is to approach the editor responsible for the questionable edit, and discus the matter with them first. If unable to resolve the matter, get a wider consensus on this talkpage. Nobody should be reverting unless the edit is clear and obvious vandalism or BLP violation, or there is consensus for the revert. Reverting because of disagreement over content should not be taking place, and any instances of that happening, the reverter will be sanctioned.

• There is a complaint on my talkpage regarding two edits by North, both of which are marked "Please revert me if you do not agree". If you are unsure about an edit, do not make it - come here for consensus first. Do not ask people to revert on an article with a revert restriction. This is tantamount to a honey trap. Reverting as a standard mode of editing needs to stop on this article. We should be aiming for an editing approach that does not involve reverting at all. I have looked at both edits. The first is acceptable as North was correcting a clear error. Such edits are encouraged. The second edit alters information without first having checked the source. We don't do that in any article. We don't guess. We don't make assumptions. We check our facts. A basic editing error. That is unacceptable in any article. It is particularly bad on this one. For making a revert without consensus. And for altering information without consensus. North8000 is also topic banned from this article for one week.

I am not comfortable that in less than 48 hours of the article being unlocked there have been such poor examples of editing. I don't wish to put a chill effect on this article. But I do want to send out the message that if your editing skills and judgement are not up to the job you should not edit this article. If your contributions to this article are more negative than positive, then you need to either stay away voluntarily, or you will be forced to stay away. In just over two weeks ArbCom will reconvene to decide what is to happen regarding this article and those editors involved in editing it. I really want this article to be in good shape and making progress. If that means cutting out some editors along the way, then so be it. Time is running out. Let's get some quality editing done please. No more reverting. No more making assumptions. No more "bold" edits that remove sourced content. No more making political statements. If you are more interested in grandstanding your political views, then this article is not for you. There is some serious encyclopaedic work that needs to be done in the next two weeks. I'd like to see folks focus on that. SilkTork 16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"I don't wish to put a chill effect on this article."

Well, that effect is already present. I've felt the inclination to remove editorializations of RS's and apply other corrections that would be proven non-controversial 95% of the time. Foresight of knee-jerk reactions have steered me towards inaction. Make of that what you will. Being said, North8000's removal of the 17th amendment was wrong. Both factually and procedurally. As for P&W's edit, there's a problem with the statement "...called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist." (which appears in the lead) not being supported in the body of subarticle, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, let alone the summary thereof in the body of Tea Party movement. So, what we have is a violation of WP:Lead in both articles. Perhaps, the best course of action would be removal in both the lead and body of TPM until it's supported in the body of "Perceptions." Lest we continue to support more "poor examples of editing." †TE†Talk 18:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I think Silk Tork's clarification of editing rules is brilliant and very clear and certainly easily followed from now on. So no excuses ever again. Second, I'm confused now about what the para is supposed to say, and I've asked P&W below to clarify his perceptions of what was to be included. We absolutely must all be on the same page here to prevent this happening again. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans

User:North8000 and User:Phoenix and Winslow are banned from editing the Tea Party movement article until this time on 21 June 2013. If they do edit the article they will be blocked. They may continue to join in the discussion on this page. SilkTork 17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was unnecessary. I did not remove sourced content from the article since it's still there, in the lede section of the article. I removed redundant material in an effort to proceed in a constructive way. That's all. Is trying to work constructively here going to be like a walk through a minefield every day? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm having a "Junior moment" (as opposed to a senior moment), but I was under the impression that the material in the perceptions section was to be moved to the subarticle once the remaining para in the main was agreed upon. Did we not agree to the version by Collect which you then changed? Or did we agree to the version you crafted earlier and did Silk Tork not action that edit? Please clarify, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for! It was a gnome edit, the edit summary asked anybody who disagreed to revert me'. Where is the controversy? Who is going to argue that a TPM agenda item is to prevent the states from being allowed to pick their Senators by an election? And I don't even see that rule that you are describing anywhere. Where is it? You are going to turn this article into a fifth rail that nobody is going to want to risk working on. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

FWIW: It might be best to just have Silk Tork 'hat' discussions rather than archiving. Especially in case of any misunderstandings, the previous discussions are readily viewed. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I recognise there is a desire to keep the discussion all on one page, and I did try to hat all the closed discussions, but the page was becoming unwieldy, so I have moved all the closed discussions to a subpage: /Closed discussions. I note there is an archive system in place, though there has been some disagreement over archiving, and how to do it. As part of the discussion on archiving, there should be consideration on how the archives of this page are to fit into the archives of the article talkpage. My moving of the closed discussions to a subpage is not ideal, as that subpage will need attention as it is not easy to navigate due to being very long, and the discussions are all hatted rather than being visible. So that should be seen as simply a temporary measure to free up editing of this page. SilkTork 10:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Add a paragraph at the beginning of the Perceptions of the Tea Party summary section?

While a copy editing solution has been put forth as an option, maybe each of the three characterizations in the opening sentence

The movement has been called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist.

should be explicated briefly one sentence apiece for a new paragraph to replace the verbatim repetition of the sentence in the lead.

The point, as Silk Tork has indicated, being that "...the article now does not contain key information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party". In fact, these three characterizations are more than likely more fundamental to the perceptions of the TPm than racism.

The general public probably recognizes that there are some unsavory elements to the movement as a whole while viewing the movement per se as something more than what is represented by the individual incidents. Furthermore, the fact that there are generally considered to be some inherent contradictions among each paring of the three aforementioned characterizations is one factor that has motivated study of the movement. The TPm has motivated some scholars to examine areas where there is overlapping commonality between conservativism, libertarianism and populism in the TPm, and how that relates to those categories in general. This is present in the discourse surrounding the Constitution, for example.

Even further, the perception that the TPm is astroturfed probably deserves mention a another minority viewpoint in this section. This is a prickly issue that straddles several points mentioned in different places in the article, including "grass-roots", Koch brothers, commentaries on origin, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is more correct to say, "It is a populist movement that is partly social conservative and partly libertarian." Do any reliable sources question that? TFD (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know.

I'd basically agree with your statement in the context of a copy edit for the opening sentence, but think the section should probably be slightly expanded--though I don't want to spend a lot of time on it.

The meaning of the statement that it has been described as encompassing elements of the three would remain largely unchanged even with your statement.

The same questions would remain, and could be explicated along the lines:

1. In what sense is it populist (and who has described it as such)?
2. In what sense is it conservative (and who has described it as such)?
3. In what sense is it libertarian (and who has described it as such)?

The details and specifics as to "and who has described it as such?" can be addressed in the subarticle. That gets into contentious territory relating to the extent to which the entire movement can be characterized along such lines verses factions that espouse different orientations, and the perceptions thereof, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems rather late in the process to make such major changes here ... I rather thought ST had considered this mainly completed at this point. I would also suggest the rather editoriail addition from Viriditas on the IRS actions should also require extended discussion here -- ot os a major change and appears on its fact to be argumentative (I do not follow the sub-article, but suspect my cavil holds there as well). Collect (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I should think rather that as it has been said that the paragraph was not perfect and would be subject to improvement, what has brought this to the fore was a premature deletion of the sentence in question. Refer to the reply I left on Silk Tork's talk page.

Regarding the IRS material, considering that there is a main article on that topic, wouldn't the description of that issue on the TPm article necessarily be largely derivative of that article as a matter of principle?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just did a little checking of the main article and the Perceptions article for mention of the three characterization terms populist, libertarian, and conservative.

There are two references to “populist” in the main body of the main article, as follows, but none in the main body of the Perceptions article.

Mead says that Jacksonian populists, such as the Tea Party, combine a belief in American exceptionalism and its role in the world with skepticism of American's "ability to create a liberal world order".

Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the last supplied in part by Charles and David Koch.

There is no mention of “libertarian” in the main body of the main article, except for the repetition of the sentence from the lead, or the Perceptions article.

There are a number of references to “conservative” and “conservatives” in both articles.

In light of the fact that the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the summary paragraph the Perceptions article, I think that more work has to be done on the articles themselves before adding more material to the summary.

Therefore, we should probably replace the sentence that has been removed with a copy edited sentence, such as that proposed by TFD. How about a vote? Is TFD's sentence (I've replaced the pronoun "It" with the proper noun, and removed the adjective "social" before conservative, as fiscal conservatism might fall outside social conservatism) acceptable?

"The Tea Party movement is a populist movement that is partly conservative and partly libertarian."

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Acceptable--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider the partly conservative and partly libertarian aspects to be informative, not only worthy of mention, but very worthy of expansion. I consider the populist, grass-roots and astroturfed to be less informative characterizations. Of course some folks would want only the positive or negative sounding ones of those three in or out. None are true of the whole movement. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I consider the populist description to be highly informative. Consider the fact that legal scholars have coined a neologism, "popular originalism" to describe the TPm's approach to the Constitution.

Perhaps the populist, conservative and libertarian characterizations could be treated as majority views and the others as minority views. In any case, since I found that there is too little discussion of any of the views, with the possible exception of conservatism, it doesn't seem that the summary paragraph would be the place to start elaborating on those views.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of calling the movement populist, but there was a consensus years ago to keep it. Agreed elaboration is missing and need to be addressed. Conservative is no problem and doesn't take much in addition to all the labels attached to supporters of the movement. Libertarian is trickier because of the Paulite exodus. I'm sure we can put something together to keep these descriptors in the lead. †TE†Talk 12:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Acceptable although I would prefer the term "social conservative." American conservatism is generally defined, following Frank S. Meyer, as a combination of traditional conservatism, libertarianism and anti-Communism. Formisano's book identifies the Tea Party movement as populist in the first chapter. There seems no doubt on this, only the nature of its populism. There may also be doubt about the relative weight of social conservatism and libertarianism, but not that it combines both. @ThinkEnemies, why do you have a problem with calling a movement populist? TFD (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, good points, but I think that the the TPM's widespread agenda (and it is defined by its agenda)is the overlap / common ground between USA-definition-conservatism and libertarianism. I think that to a great extent this specifically excludes social conservatism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD. I'm going back years ago before the label was applied so liberally, but I generally opposed it due to populism meaning so many different things to different people. It's contentious, albeit more accurate than 85% of the other loaded terminology in the article. †TE†Talk 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is contentious. See the article populism - it is basically seeing political conflict as the regular guy against the elites/parasites. It helps in comparing them with similar movements of the past and in other countries, and explains how they differ from traditional republicans, who also combine social conservatism and libertarianism, or to compare them with Occupy Wall Street. North8000, USA-definition-conservatism is social conservatism + libertarianism. The TP movement does not advocate anything that is conflict with social conservatism. TFD (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, since there are now two votes supporting the copy edited sentence as acceptable and none opposed to replacing the sentence that duplicates that found in the lead, when more than 24 hours since the last vote have passsed, I'm going to carry out that edit. The finer points regarding the specific brand of conservatism of the TPm should be taken up at a later date.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I don't really have an issue with the term. Not anymore. It's generally been accepted as fact. But it's still contentious, which is why there was an issue years ago. I'd avoid comparisons to other so-called populist movements. Lots of baggage there. †TE†Talk 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution, Agenda section, opening sentence of lead, etc.

Though the text of the second paragraph of the current Agenda section and the following sentence are interrelated, to keep this as simple as possible, I'm going to simply state that the content of the source does not support the statement

.The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,

Curiously, the text of the (ref) for that source contains a long quote. Why the quote is in the Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

And the quote embedded in the text of the (ref) is

It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership. But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation’s founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected.

I had edited the text after reading the source, with the edit summary (coherent and according to the source, to be precise), as follows

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism,

That edit was reverted exactly 6 minutes after I made it, with the edit summary (Undid revision The current wording of that sentence was the result of a huge mediation project.. Major changes need more than a one person preference, double so for such an obviously POV'd version.)

It is clear from the source cited and many other sources that the claim of "advocates strict adherence to the Constitution" is WP:OR. This was discussed on the Talk page to a limited extent, but immigration was the focus at that time. Regarding examples of other sourced support against the claim I've characterized as WP:OR, even the current Agenda section refers to proposals to repeal Amendments (14th, 16th, and 17th) to the Constitution and enact new Amendments, etc. Clear the TPm advocates substantially changing the Constitution.

And though I have used simply "a version of constitutional originalism", legal scholars have actually coined a neologism for the approach adopted by the TPm toward the Constitution as "popular originalism", but I had explicated that, based on the sources, in the Agenda section.

We could start with a vote on whether to restore the edit I made quoted above, or handle that after further review of some of the other sources currently cited in the Agenda section, as well as sources and sourced material that has been revert-deleted out.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support restoring the edit.Casprings (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone messed with it badly since. That should be reverted. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support restoring the edit.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think it's accurate, but it's synthesis to apply a definition of Constitutional originalism to apply it to the TPM. The source explicitly noted the "TPM's view" was not what the author called originalism, but a combination of textualism and originalism. If the author redefines a term within the article, it would be absurd to use the redefined term in our article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's not in the citation given. I think it's likely accurate, but the reference is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The comments somewhat unclear, please clarify. This previous version of the article contains other relevant sourcing in the Consitution subsection . Note the following passage, in particular

Rebecca E. Zietlow characterizes the overall orientation as a combination of two schools of thought on interpreting the constitution: “originalism”, and “popular constitutionalism”.

Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in “popular originalism,” using popular constitutionalism—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method.

Incidentally, the cited NYT article contains, for example, the following passage

Those arguments can and should have consequences, according to scholars who endorse what they call “popular constitutionalism.” “Basically, it’s the idea that final authority to control the interpretation and implementation of constitutional law resides at all times in the community in an active sense,” Larry D. Kramer, the dean of Stanford Law School, wrote in The Valparaiso University Law Review in 2006.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that more than 24 hours have passed with two in support and none opposed (a couple of comments, somewhat unclear), I have restored the reverted edit, adding another source in light of citation tags that have appeared recently, and reworded slighty in a manner facilitating retention of the reference to "the Constitution" and clarifying that it is an interpretive methodology, not an interpretation per se. The clause reads

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism for interpreting the United States Constitution

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have to say that the first source doesn't support the statement at all, but the second one is a reasonable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that edit. There's been no real discussion of anything here. This edit was made without the others weighing in. Silk Tork did not call for an ivote, nor did he say anything about making the edit if none opposed after 24 hours. That edit should be reverted and the issue discussed here. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been unclear. I oppose the recent rogue edit that started this mess, and also the version created by the subsequent edit. It needs to be returned to the last stable form and then a clear discussion started. North8000 (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page, moved comment to Silk Tork's talk page.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it is rare indeed that outside observers would ever view two supports as indicating a clear consensus on an article with so many problems and so many editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that edits have been actioned before from the moderated discussion with the same amount of support. There was also a third vote of support after I introduced another reference, the text of which had been revert-deleted out of the article.

I don't see the point of the comment, however, since all but one of those who are now objecting failed to participate in the discussion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the "constitution" part of the first sentence, "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" says it all, has been in for years (until a few days ago) and, I believe, was the result worked out in a long mediation process. That new POV mess has to go and we need to get back to the last stable version and then start a real discussion if someone wants to change it. North8000 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My comments on the agenda generally, and Constitution-related content specifically:

1) Ample reliable sourcing supports the fact that the TPm takes a Constitutional originalist view (and arguments that sources are referring to activists instead of "the movement" appear to be inapplicable semantic wordplay). Our article should convey this.

2) The Constitution is a major subject in relation to the movement; it's often mentioned as part of the few generally agreed-upon principles common to TP groups and organizations. It is significant enough to warrant a section covering this information.

3) Formisano notes (pgs. 52-54), "The Religious Right's strong biblical fundamentalism, meaning belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible, finds a parallel in Tea Partiers' constitutional originalism. They maintain that for much of the twentieth century and especially during the New Deal, Congress exceeded its powers and violated the Constitution. The federal government, especially Congress, must be held to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Like other Americans, however, Tea Party supporters are selective about which passages to ignore and which to revere." Skocpol (pgs. 49-54) echos Formisano's observations about selective use of the Constitution, "Just like other political actors, past and present, Tea Partiers stretch the limits of the Constitution, use it selectively, and push for amendments. Tea Partiers have argued for measures such as restrictions on birthright citizenship, abridgements of freedom of religion for Muslim-Americans, and suspension of protections in the Bill of Rights for suspected terrorists. Some parts of the Constitution are lauded over others." Skocpol also echos Formisano's observations about the strong "ties between the Bible and the Constitution" and Tea Partiers fundamentally religious understanding of the Constitution.

4) Both Formisano and Skocpol explicitely refer to the TPm as populist, and frequently refer to TP populism - that is as uncontroversial as describing the TP as "conservative".

5) To the editors claiming that the main article needs to be reverted to one version or another before that content can be discussed: HUH? Any version is going to be "the wrong version" to some editors, so ignore that and focus instead on resolving whatever disagreements exist about that content. It's also unproductive to pronounce "I oppose that edit, change it back!" without actually explaining why you oppose the edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The explanations are very clear. There was no discussion about changing the lede. There was certainly no discussion about making a major change that puts in constitutional originalism and to do so without sources to support such an edit. The sources there speak to something else. It appears the new editor's contribution was used as an excuse to change the lede altogether without discussion and without consent. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you have an actual substantive objection to either the Constitution-related content or the lede content? I can't find one on either this page or the TPm Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could define what you consider to be a substantive objection that would qualify? I'd say that making this change without discussion and without proper sources is a good start, not to mention taking advantage of the new editor's edit to revert stable content in the lede of all things. Also, there's an important difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism. Making a claim about an entire movement that ties them to constitutional originalism is WP:OR at best, and the way it was done certainly violates the rules on this page and the general wiki WP:DISRUPT. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's an actual, substantive OBJECTION — there is no RS support for the statement that the entire Tea Party movement is in favor of constitutional originalism. However, there is ample RS support (in the form of Rebecca E. Zietlow's article in the Florida Law Review for the statement that some Tea Party activists favor constitutional originalism. The passages quoted above from Skocpol and Formisano do not support such a broad, sweeping generalization about the entire Tea Party movement in the lede sentence of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What text from the Zietlow source gives you the impression that only "some" TP activists are being discussed, instead of "the movement"? I see nothing so ambiguous in, "The Tea Party movement is therefore engaged in “popular originalism”—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method." Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Xeno, there's a really enormous difference between "engaged in" and "part of their core beliefs." Furthermore, as Malke pointed out below, "There's an important difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism." Just as there's an important difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine. For example, we know from reading his books that Barack Obama "engaged in" the recreational snorting of a little powdered cocaine from time to time in his younger days. Does this mean that smoking crack is part of Obama's core beliefs, and that we can say so in his Misplaced Pages biography? No, of course it doesn't. To make that claim in Misplaced Pages's voice is an example of WP:SYNTH. In this section, we're talking about the Tea Party's core beliefs, Xeno, and we need some ironclad proof. No SYNTH. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To your and Malke's point. Would you consider: "Tea party supporters largely advocate an originalist adherence to the constitution." †TE†Talk 01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Further support from NYT source as REFUTATION to above-stated objection Though the text already quoted from the sources should suffice, I'm going to quote the entire paragraph of the NYT source that was cited as the basis for the WP:OR text that has been replaced, by consensus. The sentence left out from the quote in the text of the (ref) for the first source cited in the article has been bolded.

  It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership. But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation’s founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected. “I think it’s some loose, ill-informed version of originalism, but it’s plausible,” said Professor Kramer, the author of “The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.”

  Note that I have underlined the phrase "version of originalism", which is essential the same as the phrase "a version of constitutional originalism" appearing in the present text of the sentence in the lead. This is definitive insofar as the text refers to the "Tea Party movement", so the insubstantial objection to the second source on the basis that it refers to "activists" is fully refuted.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, but two of the scholarly sources defined "constitutional originalism", provided a new definition, and said the TPm met the new definition. That "trumps" the NYT, or, at least means we cannot Wikilink the term. I don't see what is wrong with the keeping the "original" stable form, rather than attempts to shoehorn the TPm doctrine(s) in regard the Constitution into the existing term "originalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that you are referring to the term "popular originalism" that legal scholars (lawyers and professors of Constitutional law, etc.) have applied to the specific version of originalism embodied by the TPm.

Nevertheless, an objection to the reliability of the sources on such grounds seems unfounded. The sources I and others have quote more than cover the objection.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey: Let's be clear about this

This is in response to Ubikwit's editing of the lede sentence and introducing the words, "constitutional originalism." Phoenix and Winslow (talk)

• Oppose until the lede has been returned to the stable edit and consensus has been reached regarding the next issue to be taken up. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The sources I've seen do not support the contention that the entire TPm favors constitutional originalism. As Arthur pointed out, it's WP:SYNTH. One would have thought, with all the topic bans that have been handed out recently for proceeding with less than perfectly clear consensus, Ubikwit would have seen Arthur's post as an objection. I certainly did, which is why I didn't find it necessary to speak out against Ubikwit's edit at that time. I support going back to the original wording for the lede sentence, that lasted for so long and was so stable before the article was unlocked. And rather than discussing this, which is clearly not a constructive edit, we should be discussing the three action items I suggested immediately after the article was unlocked. The fact that Ubikwit has chosen to completely ignore those proposals tells me a lot. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - as provided in reliable sources. In the two "opposes" listed above, the first gives no reason for opposing the content, and the second claims the sources are not discussing the movement, which, after having read the sources, I find to be an invalid objection. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Strict interpretation of the constitution" says it all, was in for years, and was a result of the mediation. The POV nightmare that was recently put in should go and it should remain "Strict interpretation of the constitution". North8000 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"was in for years" isn't really relevant, as much of our moderated recent efforts have been to address sub-optimal content that has existed for years. "Strict interpretation of the Constitution" is flawed wording, as evidenced by the Tea Partier's efforts to repeal some amendments, introduce new amendments, and "interpret" still other amendments in a controversial manner. Reliable sources have described how the movement strives for "originalism", yet in practice produces its own "popular interpretation" of the Constitution -- and that is what I believe editors have been trying to address here. How would you propose we remedy the vast factual descrepency between "Strict interpretation of the Constitution" and reality? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First, good point on your first sentence; I meant the "here for years" to say that it is the last stable version and should remain while we discuss. On to the other points:

• You can seek to amend while still supporting it.
• Can you point to an example of the TPM producing it's own interpretation?
• Your final question is faulty and unanswerable as it has a false or merely-asserted item (that there is a discrepancy) inserted as an implied premise.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - supported by WP:RS and is WP:NPOV.Casprings (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Those sources which refer to the TPm as supporting Constitutional originalism redefine the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To what, exactly, does "redefine the term" refer? That is a far remove from the supporting comment of yesterday to the effect that "acceptable, although the first source doesn't really support the statement either".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in addition to the sentence added above in refutation of certain other objections, there is this sentence, which directly follows the above quoted paragraph from the NYT source (first citation in the article)

“Originalism” has many flavors and levels of specificity, but in essence it says the constitutional text should be applied as it was understood at the time it was adopted.

Accordingly, the objection based on the unsupported claim that the sources "redefine the term" is hereby refuted.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Arthur - Misplaced Pages is not a place for Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of terms of art. Collect (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Strict adherence to the constitution" is POV. What they mean is "originalism", the belief among other things that the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Bill of Rights does not exclude punishments that were common in the late 18th century. TFD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The latter half of your comment is unproductive, if not terribly ignorant. Not a personal attack. I'll agree with the former. Strict adherence is more to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Why not just say, "Tea party supporters largely advocate an originalist adherence to the constitution," and be done with it? †TE†Talk 01:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD By "what they mean" do you mean that: #1 That is what this term means? #2 You feel that they mean something different than the term. The answer to EITHER is that that is an admission that "strict interpretation of the constitution" is correct. #1 is a direct confirmation of this, and #2 says "this term is correct but I don't think that they mean this term." So both say that "strict interpretation of the constitution" is correct. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Advocates of the natural law theory believe that strict adherence to the constitution means laws that were considered to be uncruel and usual may in fact be cruel and unusual. To them the Tea Party does not support strict adherence to the constitution. TFD (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The originalist understands that evolving social norms will decide what's cruel and unusual, and amendments can be enacted and repealed through the legislative process with democratic elections being the ultimate judge. †TE†Talk 01:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The decision written by Scalia in D.C. v. Heller clearly shows that the originalist position does not mean that interpretation of the Bill of Rights is left to legislators. And if the originalists had lost the case, they would have backed a constitutional amendment so that there was no ambiguity that the right to bear arms is an individual right. TFD (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This can better help you frame the argument. There is no perfect solution, just the lesser of two evils. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, honestly. Are we about to argue clauses in the 14th Amendment? Do you think originalism only applies to the Bill of Rights? †TE†Talk 02:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Popular constitutionalism versus Constitutional originalism

There's an important difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism. The current revert that is in the lede without consensus and without any discussion, is not supported by the sources it brings with it. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Lead

I note that editing the Lead is very contentious. I do think that editing the lead at this stage is not a good use of people's time given the level of dispute, and that the main body of the article still requires attention. The Lead does need attention, but that is best done when it is agreed what should be in the main body of the article, and the Lead can then be adjusted in line with what the article is about. The Lead should be a summary of what is in the main body. So - let's sort out the main body, and then pay attention to the Lead.

I propose that the Lead is wound back to the last stable version - , and that editors here concentrate on working on the main body. If an editor not aware of this discussion alters the Lead, their edit is to remain in place unless it is obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. Notify me, and I will inform that editor of the situation, and revert the edit. I will adjust the article editnotice in line with this changed situation.

It is important to stress that unless it is obvious vandalism or a BLP violation, that the edit is not to be reverted except by me. No matter how bad the edit is, there is no need to panic. Let me deal with it. More harm can be done by having a revert war, and by people being distracted from the main task by arguing on this page, than by a poor quality edit remaining in the lead for a few days. Think of the bigger picture here. When the main body has been agreed, the Lead is going to change anyway. And this article and the new Lead will remain here on Misplaced Pages for years to come - we don't know how long, but quite possibly after our lifetimes. A day or two of a poor quality edit in the Lead is nothing compared to that. Let's put things in perspective. The editors on this page have some serious and important work to do.

I suggest folks start working on the Agenda section. SilkTork 10:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Which folks? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Agenda section and subsection entitled "The Constitution"

First, because there is probably more material in print in RS about the TPm's approach toward the Constitution, I feel strongly that it deserves a subsection. Consider, for example, that the "Contract from America" subsection is almost as long as the main page on that topic Contract_from_America, with the entire list copied, while there is comparatively little discussion of that in RS on the TPm.

Meanwhile, the volume of material is perhaps too large to be adequate covered in the main article without completely dominating it, so there should probably be a subarticle on the subject, perhaps entitled <no wiki>The TPm and the Constitution</no wiki>.

Before getting started, some background work is necessary, which probably means that those who haven't followed the discussions and the like have some reading to do. I will temper that by saying that I myself have not even read through the sources in their entirety, and have only looked at three of at least four papers from legal journals. Here is a link to a text that I had posted in a subsection called "The Constitution", which was reverted out just before the article was locked. All references used to compose that text are available online, just check the links.

With regard to the issue of immigration in general, I think that the proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment are indicative of more than a simple opposition to illegal immigration. See the passages regrading the governor of Minnesota above from another source cited by the same sentence.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PHASE 1

Examining the present text with respect to the cited sources, and considering the content of the cited sources in relation to the Constitution as well as other points that have been raised in relation to the agenda, such as immigration.

First, a sentence from the present version of the lead of the Agenda section

Since the 2012 elections, many local Tea Party factions have shifted their focus to state nullification of the health care law, and protesting the United Nations Agenda 21.

Note that the sentence starts with a date, establishing a time frame; however, of the six cited references appended to the end of the brief sentence, no less than three of them (nos. 26, 27, and 28) are news media articles published in 2010, and one is an online encyclopedia. Some of the articles from 2010 do mention health reform.

Considering the length of the following selection of quotes, I've only made a few brief comments following entries, and bolded significant passages and notable mentions of relevant topics. Please discuss below the list, referencing the number of the cited source, etc., and refrain from breaking up the text.

Reference 24 - NYT US Politics, 12-25-2012

Mr. Cummings, who is the Midwest coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, a national group, said a major issue he would be focusing on now was Agenda 21, a United Nations resolution that encourages sustainable development. It has no force of law in the United States, but a passionate element of the Tea Party sees it as a plot against American property rights.

Reference 25 - No author,“Times Topics”commentary piece, 12-26-2012

In the wake of the vote, leading Congressional Republicans, though they remain far apart from Mr. Obama, have embraced raising tax revenues in budget negotiations, repudiating a central tenet of the Tea Party. Even more telling, Tea Party activists in the middle of the country are skirting the fiscal showdown in Congress and turning to narrower issues, raising questions about whether the movement still represents a citizen groundswell to which attention must be paid.

Grass-roots leaders said in December that after losing any chance of repealing the national health care law, they would press states to “nullify” or ignore it. They also plan to focus on a two-decade-old United Nations resolution that they call a plot against property rights, and on “fraud” by local election boards that, some believe, let the Democrats steal the November vote.

Reference 26 - NYT, US Politics, 2-15-2010

Urged on by conservative commentators, waves of newly minted activists are turning to once-obscure books and Web sites and discovering a set of ideas long dismissed as the preserve of conspiracy theorists, interviews conducted across the country over several months show. In this view, Mr. Obama and many of his predecessors (including George W. Bush) have deliberately undermined the Constitution and free enterprise for the benefit of a shadowy international network of wealthy elites.

At a recent meeting of the Sandpoint Tea Party, Mrs. Stout presided with brisk efficiency until a member interrupted with urgent news. Because of the stimulus bill, he insisted, private medical records were being shipped to federal bureaucrats. A woman said her doctor had told her the same thing. There were gasps of rage. Everyone already viewed health reform as a ruse to control their medical choices and drive them into the grip of insurance conglomerates. Debate erupted. Could state medical authorities intervene? Should they call Congress?

As the meeting ended, Carolyn L. Whaley, 76, held up her copy of the Constitution. She carries it everywhere, she explained, and she was prepared to lay down her life to protect it from the likes of Mr. Obama.

Yet for all her efforts, Mrs. Stout is gripped by a sense that it may be too little too late. Yes, there have been victories — including polls showing support for the Tea Party movement — but in her view none of it has diminished the fundamental threat of tyranny, a point underscored by Mr. Obama’s drive to pass a health care overhaul.

Reference 26 is focuses on affiliations with religious right and analysis of the fringe conspiracy theories embraced by TPm, but does include interesting discussion related to health care reform.

Reference 27 - NYT US Politics, 2-15-2010

The governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, a non-movement conservative, has embraced the Tea Party’s general anti-immigration posture; he actually endorsed changing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to bar citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants.

The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics. The Tea Party’s official 10-point agenda, called the Contract From America, is not so incendiary, though calls for a balanced budget, a single flat tax rate and lower taxes, including those on capital gains and estates, are a challenging policy prescription.

Some of the money behind the Tea Party movement or its offshoots has little in common with grass-roots populism. The New Yorker magazine recently detailed the movement’s ties with the brothers Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, oil and gas billionaires from Kansas who privately and aggressively pursue very conservative policies as well as provisions favoring their far-flung corporate empire.

And one Tea Party offshoot demands that “special interests be eliminated.” That would be enough to give heartburn to a Tea Party supporter like Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, formerly a rich and important Washington lobbyist.

Reference 27 contains substantial material that might be deemed negative by TPm activists, including material on immigration and astroturfing, none of which is mentioned.

Reference 28 - Encyclopedia Britannica

Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector.

Reference 28 contains a relevant mention of immigration that has been deemed negative by TPm activists.

Reference 29 - Independent, 1-22-2010

…the most significant recent development in US politics is the emergence of the Tea Party movement, a populist organization...

So they are conservatives? Basically yes, though of a very fundamentalist and angry variety. They are defined less by what they are for, than what they oppose: runaway government spending, high taxation, and large deficits, epitomised by Obama's healthcare reform and the $787bn stimulus package in February. It is also a cry of fury by the average Joe – ordinary Americans suspicious of pampered elites, and disgusted by bailouts of the undeserving. These range from those who stupidly buy homes they can't afford to greedy Wall Street banks and incompetent, eternally loss-making car companies. As Santelli said on February 19 last year, far better "to reward the people who carry the water, rather than drink the water". Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration. But there's a powerful libertarian, anti-establishment streak in the movement as well. In that sense it appeals to independents, who refuse to align themselves with either established major party.

So the Tea Party will remain a movement? That seems the most likely outcome. That way, it can portray itself as above the sordid political fray in Washington. Its lack of a detailed policy agenda will, if anything, broaden its appeal, while the establishment of a leader and an internal bureaucracy might create the impression that it is just another party – as corrupt, selfish and petty-minded as those that are so grievously failing the country now. Possibly, the Tea Party will end up like MoveOn.org, borne of left-wing anger at the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, but which is now a liberal ginger group – influential and important, but which does not run its own candidates at elections.

Reference 26 contains much relevant material that might be deemed negative by TPm supporters, none of which is mentioned.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Page break

"Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration."

Unattributed statements like this by commentators are a perversion of the position. Much like other inflammatory characterizations: Supporters of abortion are pro-murder! Traditional marriage supporters are homophobic! It's intellectually insulting. Tea Partiers would tell you it's illegal immigration they oppose. It's a bit embarrassing to the human race that some people can't recognize this distinction. Policy positions can be specific. We have the technology. We can still apply certain labels. Just not the more ridiculous ones like: anti-tax, anti-government, anti-compromise... Even nationalistic is loaded and could be used pejoratively. It's not difficult to just state the facts and let the reader form their own opinion. †TE†Talk 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your argument, and maybe that is why Silk Tork hatted the edit.

First, the article is RS as a news source. Moreover, the articled is cited as a source by the above-quoted sentence from the Agenda section. Do you have a problem with some parts of the article but not others?

How would such a statement be sourced in the context of a news article. It is a statement about the movement as a whole based on the expert knowledge of the author, who is a reporter who appears to primarily write on American politics, as well as sports and other topics, with 68 articles published since 2010 .--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clicking your links. If you say so and so is a good political writer, I'll take your word. Michael Wilbon, much accomplished and respected in his field spent last year defending Derrick Rose's decision to sit out the season based on "cautionary tales" of other athletes who injured their knees and returned "too soon" by his account. All of his examples just happened to have had microfracture surgery instead of acl reconstruction, which are completely different procedures on all accounts other than being surgery of the knee. It wasn't Wilbon's fault for not recognizing this fundamental flaw of his argument, and certainly doesn't diminish his status as an expert sports writer. Sometimes, we just need to seek out those with a better understanding of certain issues. †TE†Talk 16:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with his work, but believe his article to be RS as a news source.

A primary objective of "phase 1" is to examine the sources currently used in the Agenda section. They need to be looked at in terms of whether they support the statements in respect to which they have been cited, and with respect to other relevant content to the Agenda section, etc., in order to assess NPOV, etc.

I agree with Silk Tork that the Agenda section is in need of a thorough reworking, and have in fact made a number of edits to improve the section before the article was locked, some of which were reverted, particularly those addressing the Constitution. I have posted a link to the last version containing that series of edits above. Because there are so many sources, I found it attractive to work only with the peer-reviewed journal articles by legal scholars. Since then, a number of other editors have read books that also address the questions.

With respect to immigration, I think that the tone could be kept relatively civil if the topic were explicated in part, at least, with respect to the proposal to repeal the 14th Amendment. In fact, however, I don't want to focus this discussion on the immigration issue, that could be raised later. The only reason I have highlighted the statements in the above-quoted sources is because they are there, first of all, and because the statement regarding the 14th Amendment does directly relate to the Constitution, but the 14th Amendment is not mentioned in the Agenda section or anywhere else in the article. Only the 16th and 17th Amendments are.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agenda is easy. Just go with their stated agenda. Perceptions, i.e., "anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics," belongs elsewhere. With considerably more care to attribute those opinions. †TE†Talk 16:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal to repeal the 14th Amendment is not a perception, but an actual goal which TPm activists are working as part of their agenda, along with proposals to repeal other Amendments .--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an agenda of denying natural born citizenship to babies of illegal aliens would certainly belong in Agenda. Perception that it's anti-immigration, as opposed to anti-illegal immigration would fall under Perceptions. †TE†Talk 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re: "their stated agenda" - They who? Agendas differ widely between local groups, and even the several "national" umbrella organizations can't agree on a unified agenda or even a set of goals.

re: Perceptions - the reliable sources covering the generally anti-immigration sentiments of the Tea Party do not say it's a "perception". Also, no one is arguing "anti-immigration, as opposed to anti-illegal immigration", as if the two are mutually exclusive - they are not. The movement's activist stance specifically against "illegal" immigration should be covered in the article as well.

Good point that it's not an actual "agenda" point, however. The main article is in need of a concise "Overview" section near the beginning of the article to broadly define the movement for the reader, before delving into specific agenda points, policy positions and protest stances. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Who can be the prevailing positions of they as a whole. It can be stated agenda items. It can be legislative actions of tea party-backed politicians. It doesn't have to be fringe and local issues, if that's what you are asking.
• Anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration are mutually exclusive. There's a clear distinction between the two. I'm not sure what else to add to this fact. There is no "stance specifically against 'illegal' immigration" that can be added "as well" or in addition to a perceived "anti-immigration" position. No begs the question or "stands to reason". Not in Agenda, anyways. And certainly not without attribution.
• I'm open to suggestions on Overview. Don't believe perceptions should be included. There's a lead and summary of the sub-article already. †TE†Talk 00:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "nativism":

• There is a HUGE difference between illegal and legal immigration. Americans are not anti-legal immigration. Immigration is the backbone of America. And speaking for myself, the more of my relatives those nice people at the U.S. State Dept allow onto a 747, the happier I am.

• Oppose an "Overview section." It's not necessary. The history section should come after the lede. No more "commentaries." They are POV pushing. Not constructive in an encyclopedia. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I started reading this and was pleasantly surprised by Ubikwit's take on nativism by the link provided, then I looked down. LOL. This talk page will forever be a mess. †TE†Talk 02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An Overview section might be useful, but implementing one might prove prohibitively contentious, once again. I imagine it would have to encompass elements relating to origins, organization and agenda, at the very least, in order to provide scope.

The suggestion to keep material that could be regarded as subjective perception is something we should try to follow, focusing on explicating what concrete policy stances, proposals and actions that the TPm and affiliated politicos have supported and attempted to enact, etc. Incidentally, anti-Amendment 14 sentiment relates not only to the children of illegal immigrants, but also the phenomenon seen reported about the maternity hotel industry in Los Angeles, for example, which caters to mothers coming to the USA only to give birth and then return to their country of residence.

As there is little time, and the discussion is not focused on the above-listed sourcing, I suggest that we move on, coming back here as necessary for reference.

Silk Tork has pointed to the lack of sourcing with the first paragraph, so I think looking at that would be a good place to start, and might provide some insight as to whether an Overview section is feasible. I'm going to simply open a phase 2 subsection to start working on actual text.

The first sentence of the current second paragraph of the Agenda section reads as follows

While not uniformly so, the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation, and against political compromise.

Reference 22 is Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe Quotes from reference 22:

They are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent)…

You just never imagine any thing that could be Big Enough or omnipresent enough to take away the world we all have grown up in . But it is happening. I and others have seen it with our own eyes...The increasing numbers of "strangers" in my state who do not even speak English. In some areas of towns they have grown in large numbers and there is no attempt by Immigration Law officers or Maryland Police officials to stop this madness... ( I have heard the illegals are encouraged to get voting cards and to vote democrat in elections. But this is illegal...)

The source does not support the claim regarding “in favor of strict immigration legislation”. The entire paragraph is the same; that is to say, the text is not supported by the sources, and in some cases the sources are misrepresented.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support scraping that entire garbage sentence as stated above. †TE†Talk 10:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Phase 2

Here is the present version of the first paragraph, as well as a blockquote that I had appended immediately after it relating to the Constitution in support of the last sentence, which was something of a paraphrase of statements from a couple of sources, and as a presentation of the expansive scope that would serve as linkage to the subsection on the Constitution.

The Tea Party movement is not easily defined, primarily because it comprises hundreds of groups at the grassroots level, of varying size, influence and priorities. It is highly factionalized, with no clear leadership or centralized structure. This is highlighted by the fact that it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue. Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement.

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.

Does anyone have any input regarding the viability of that first paragraph as far as the substance of the content is concerned?

Any thoughts on the use of that blockquote in conjunction with the preceding sentence? Would such a combination allow for the paraphrased sentence to remain unsourced, based on the implicit support in sources?

Xenophrenic has mentioned disparities among various groups, so maybe he could provide some concrete input on that issue, and elaborate on the sentence or at least provide a couple of relevant sources to cite.

After at least sourcing each point of that paragraph, maybe the most efficient approach would be to proceed with trimming (of the Contract and Foreign policy sections, noting Silk Tork's comments), and then to composing the other sections of the Agenda section, starting with the Constitution, which would seem to be by far the topic related to the agenda that more reliable sources discuss than any other.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The following are paragraphs relating to the Constitution from the paper Cultures of the Tea Party, pp. 7-8.

The TPM’s cultural work begins with the name itself: a nostalgic connection to the American Revolution's protest against taxation without representation. It can further be found in the TPM’s recurring cultural theme of returning to the ideals of the Constitution. Like the Tea Party name, this theme is selectively nostalgic; it encourages TPM members and the public to “return” to values claimed to have been lost. According to one Tea Party volunteer: “We don’t want the big government that’s taking over everything we worked so hard for…the government’s becoming too powerful… we want to take back what our Constitution said. You read the Constitution. Those values – that’s what we stand for.”

In our followup poll, 84% of those positive towards the TPM said the Constitution should be interpreted “as the Founders intended,” compared to only 34% of other respondents. Other respondents were also three times more likely not to have an opinion on the issue, highlighting the salience of the question for TPM supporters. Support for Constitutional principles is not absolute. TPM supporters were twice as likely than others to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That TPM supporters simultaneously want to honor the founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on.

The TPM supporters’ inconsistent views of the Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document is animated more by a network of cultural associations than a thorough commitment to the original text. In fact, such inconsistencies around policy, whether on the right or left, highlight what many sociologists see as the growing importance of culture in political life. The Constitution – and Tea Party more generally – take on heightened symbolic value and come to represent a ‘way of life’ or a “world view” rather than a specific set of laws or policy positions.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A paper by non-doctoral writers (no degrees shown for any of them, in fact) covering two contiguous southern states is scarcely significant enough to make the sweeping claims you wish to ascribe to it. In fact, a non-editorial reading finds that similar numbers of TPM supporters are authoritarian and libertarian -- which makes it really, really hard to make the conclusions you draw from it. Sorry -- not a strong scholarly source, and not broad enough in scope to make sweeping claims about an entire nation where only two adjacent sourthern states are considered. Collect (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They are all professors at their receptive Universities. I am sure they have at least submitted it for publication. I will check to see if it is published yet today. That said, more then strong enough to provide some sources for this article.Casprings (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No c.v.s were given with the article (which is what is usually done with published articles) , and no indication that it was published in a scholarly journal. And a paper dealing with two contiguous southern states != a good source for national claims. Collect (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

First, Andrew Perrin, Associate Professor Ph.D, Unversity of California-Berkeley, 2001.

Second, I haven't made any claims. The text has been presented on another page, with a link to the pdf, so I read it and posted relevant passages here for consideration.

Why would you state that the authors are "non-doctoral" and ascribe claims to me that I haven't made?

Along with the sources quoted above by Xenophrenic and the sources I used in the revert-warred out version of the Constitution subsection, there should be ample material for drafting a solid section, without even resorting to news media sources, though such sources are not being excluded.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Checking out: Perrin is an "associate professor." Ditto Tepper. Caren is "assistant professor." Morris is a student. "All professors"? Not quite - and not submitted for publication that I can find. (noting that the above post was altered before I posted this in ec mode) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it appears that you have spoken too soon, before investigating the substance of the claims you make, this time in terms of publication. The article was published in a peer-reviewd journal called Contexts, in May 2001, and has been cited in two other articles appearing in peer reviewd journals .

Contexts, peer-reviewed and published quarterly

Any other strategies of exclusion? By the way, what was the point of the "ec mode" comment? There is a 23 minute difference between posts.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That edit took a minute or so to complete after I got the ec message (I have to cut from the "your text" box, then insert it above in the "current" box in oder to make the edit -- and 4 minutes is an eeensy bit less that your claim of 23 minutes ... or is that a problem here? was 4 minutes before my edit, the prior post was at 5 minutes before my edit - thus a double edit conflict for me - but your edits are not dated on the talk page) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Found it ... published by Sage ... but by Berry is likely a better source and much more nuanced in its wording. Although they seem not to recall the Prohibition Movement which shares a lot of the same nature as the TPM, IMHO. That movement also "took over" parties on a single issue basis.

We find that the lack of a centralized national organization with authority over chapters has had a profound impact on the ways in which state and local Tea Parties have mobilized and on the types of advocacy that have materialized.

Seems fairly on point here. And I suggest their findings that it is, if anything, a disorganization more than an organization is borne out by other sources. And not based on a study of two states. (after initial try to post -- you seem hell-bent on attacking here -- I thought that was "off-limits" for damn sure.) Collect (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have refuted the false assertions you've made, in succession. Not only did I address the content of the erroneous assertions, I asked you why you made two unfounded statements in your first comment, one of which falsely attributed me ascribing claims. After I asked that question, you made another false assertion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is undecipherable (with respect to proposed changes here). The last time that that happened, the inevitable lack of participation by others was interpreted as agreement. When this gets to a point of actual (specific) proposed changes, they should be clearly proposed and that would be conducive to re-involvement of additional persons.

IMO the only section that needs work under agenda is the foreign policy section. The rest of it is in better shape than the rest of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, a vote will be called to assess consensus once a text has been composed.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Working draft of Agenda section (partial) with section on the Constitution

The response has been sparse and input very limited, so I've cobbled together some references and statements that have been proffered recently.

There is a lot of salient material on the TPm and the Constitution, so this is fairly long. Maybe it needs to be condensed and a subarticle created. I found it necessary to mention the authors by name often and it is a bit of a quote farm...

Since no trimming has been done, I haven't included the Contract or Foreign policy sections, but have included a summary sentence for the Contract section in the opening section.

Agenda

The Tea Party movement is comprised of hundreds of organizations on the grassroots level, each with its own size, influence, and priorities. The movement is highly factionalized, with no clear leadership or centralized structure. It is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue.

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.

The Contract from America was an agenda that had been embraced by the Tea Party movement, but was not broadly embraced by the Republican party, which subsequently promulgated its own Pledge to America.

The Constitution

A variety of studies examining the positions advocated by the Tea Party movement on the Constitution have been published. Much of the agenda of the Tea Party movement, such as its opposition to big government, taxation, immigration, and so on can be explicated with respect to the corresponding stance on the Constitution.

The Religious Right's strong biblical fundamentalism, meaning belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible, finds a parallel in Tea Partiers' constitutional originalism. They maintain that for much of the twentieth century and especially during the New Deal, Congress exceeded its powers and violated the Constitution. The federal government, especially Congress, must be held to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Like other Americans, however, Tea Party supporters are selective about which passages to ignore and which to revere.

Skocpol echos Formisano's observations about selective use of the Constitution, and discusses goals they have sought to achieve through proposed amendments and other measures vis-à-vis the Constitution.

Just like other political actors, past and present, Tea Partiers stretch the limits of the Constitution, use it selectively, and push for amendments. Tea Partiers have argued for measures such as restrictions on birthright citizenship, abridgements of freedom of religion for Muslim-Americans, and suspension of protections in the Bill of Rights for suspected terrorists. Some parts of the Constitution are lauded over others.

The central tenets of Tea Party constitutionalism can be distilled down to four basic assumptions. One, the solutions to the problems facing the United States today can be found in the words of the Constitution and the insights of its framers. Two, the meaning of the Constitution and the lessons of history are not obscure; in fact, they are readily accessible to American citizens who take the time to educate themselves. Three, all Americans, not just lawyers and judges, have a responsibility to understand the Constitution and to act faithfully toward it. And four, the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to ensure that the role of government, and particularly the federal government, is a limited one; only by following constitutionally defined constraints on government can individual liberties be preserved.

There is, as observers and participants in the movement regularly note, something about Tea Party constitutionalism that is akin to a fundamentalist religious revivalism, with the text of the Constitution serving the role of scripture.

Referring to a book by Sanford Levinson called Constitutional Faith, Schmidt calls attention to “a basic divide between 'protestant' and 'catholic' approaches to constitutional interpretation” with respect to which he examines the particularities of the movement, aiming to “offer some historical perspective on the movement”.

The “protestant” constitutionalist believes that the written text of the Constitution is the exclusive basis of interpretation and that individual or community readings of the Constitution are legitimate acts of constitutional interpretation.12 A “catholic” approach basically reverses each of these elements. It places unwritten traditions alongside the written text as legitimate sources for constitutional interpretation, while limiting ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution to a single official institution, the Supreme Court.

Schmidt notes that the Tea Party movement is "proudly and thoroughly protestant in its posture toward the Constitution", and also describes passages from a recent book by academic Angelo Codevilla, who supports the Tea Party. Codevilla criticizes governmental authority and the Supreme Court. Schmidt describes the movements efforts to motivate individual activists to evaluate the constitution for themselves and revive its timeless teachings from a state of decline.

Tea Party literature portrays those who created the nation as having special insight into the nature of government and the necessity for vigilance on the protection of individual liberty... They left for posterity the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, works of genius, perhaps even divine inspiration, that have allowed subsequent generations of Americans to take their own measure, to see how well they have protected the essentials of the founding covenant.

Sociologists have also described a cultural dimension to the agenda of the movement with respect to its employment of the document as a cultural symbol. Perrin suggests that internal contradictions found in contradictory stances by the TPm indicate that the appropriation of the Constitution for symbolic value imbues the movement with a "way of life" quality.

Support for Constitutional principles is not absolute. TPM supporters were twice as likely than others to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That TPM supporters simultaneously want to honor the founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on.

The TPM supporters’inconsistent views of the Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document is animated more by a network of cultural associations than a thorough commitment to the original text... The Constitution – and Tea Party more generally – take on heightened symbolic value and come to represent a ‘way of life’ or a “world view” rather than a specific set of laws or policy positions.

Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in “popular originalism,”using popular constitutionalism—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method.

Zietlow goes on to discuss the relationship between “originalism” and “popular constitutionalism” in an effort to explore whether the combination of the two as “popular originalism” is feasible. The question arises due in part to the fact that:

…originalism is resistant to change in constitutional meaning, scholars who advocate originalism tend to be politically conservative or libertarian. On the other end of the spectrum are scholars who advocate popular constitutionalism. Perhaps because many of the successful political movements that have engaged in popular constitutionalism have been progressive, scholars who study popular constitutionalism tend to be liberal or progressive.

Another legal scholar, Elizabeth Price, has written on the Tea Party’s proclamations regarding amending the constitution or abolishing existing constitutional amendments.

Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment).

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Before we get into it, there should be clarity on what this is proposed to replace. Only the constitution-related items? North8000 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that basically that is the case. It starts from the beginning of the Agenda section, includes the first paragraph in its present form, adds a block quote that follows, adds a sentence on the Contract, and eliminates the current second paragraph, which is where the matter on the Constitution is at present.

I don't know whether there is anything to say in the opening regarding foreign policy, as it has been indicated that the main statements there seem to be of questionable significance, with the possible exception of Mead.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is entirely out of proportion for the article. The tea party movement is about fiscal reform. It did not begin with any issues with the constitution. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Working on Agenda section

Lead paragraph:

"The Tea Party movement is not easily defined, primarily because it comprises hundreds of groups at the grassroots level, of varying size, influence and priorities. It is highly factionalized, with no clear leadership or centralized structure. This is highlighted by the fact that it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue. Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement."

This paragraph is unsourced, and it is not clear what it is saying in regards to the agenda of the movement. Is it saying that opinions on the Constitution are common to different Tea Party groups?

The section then has two subsections: Contract from America and Foreign policy. How are these related to the opening paragraph?

The Contract from America subsection has a list of 10 items which appears to be more about Contract from America than the Tea Party movement. On looking at Contract from America, it appears that almost all of that article is copied into the Agenda section. This looks like the Contract from America subsection could be trimmed by summarising the Contract from America article, and that would help readers to understand the relationship between the two.

In the Foreign policy section, why is there a paragraph on Sarah Palin? I looked at the Sarah Palin article and it says there that she has "endorsed and campaigned for the Tea Party movement", but that is not clear in THIS article. You folks need to be aware that the purpose of this article is to explain the Tea Party movement to people who don't know much or anything about it. The reason people are coming to a general encyclopedia is to be provided with basic information on topics they know little about. Having discovered that Palin has endorsed the movement, I am still not clear why she is being quoted. There is a useful section in the Palin article: Sarah_Palin#Tea_Party_movement, but the impression that I get from that, is that she is speaking TO the movement, rather than FOR the movement. Am I mistaken?

There is a paragraph which consists almost entirely of a quote from Ron Paul. A paragraph with information gathered from a primary source - govtrack.us, rather than a secondary source. And a paragraph on an essay by Mead, which is the most useful paragraph, though is only one source on one aspect of the party, and leans too close to an editorial interpretation of the article.

There is, I feel, much work to be done on that section, and it may even be best to start from scratch. SilkTork 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Other concerns with the Agenda section

There will probably be further concerns that arise as we make our way through the material, but I have two concerns aside from the Constitution that I would like to list, for starters.

1. Trimming of the Contract for America subsection. That subsection is almost as long as the main article Contract from America, and does not appear to be discussed much in academic sources and the like, perhaps because it has been superseded by the "Pledge to America" issued by the Republicans, and with respect to which I corrected the reference and added a wikilink some time ago.
2. Adding a paragraph or two on Agenda 21, which is mentioned only once and then abandoned. There are a number of substantial examinations of the topic in mainstream news media, for starters, as per this google search . Here are two

Tea Party versus Agenda 21: Saving the U.S. or just irking it?

Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Contract for America was the most widely discussed /determined agenda within the TPM and thus I believe the most accurate and representative. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Contract from America. It's one of the only things in the article actually about the Tea Party movement agenda. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not called for the removal of the section, just trimming, summarizing it in accord with the above-posted paragraph by Silk Tork, which says

The Contract from America subsection has a list of 10 items which appears to be more about Contract from America than the Tea Party movement. On looking at Contract from America, it appears that almost all of that article is copied into the Agenda section. This looks like the Contract from America subsection could be trimmed by summarising the Contract from America article, and that would help readers to understand the relationship between the two. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the rules of Misplaced Pages and WP:INDENT. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case, to a certain extent I agree with Ubikwit. This is the top-level article and it is possible that summarizing the Contract from America is the best way to go. It's a fairly old document by Tea Party standards. One thing I must caution against is any attempt by people who are outside the Tea Party, including academics, to have the defining word on what constitutes the "Tea Party agenda." To illustrate, I'll use Ubikwit as an example, if I may. Nobody knows Ubikwit's agenda better than Ubikwit.

• I may be able to observe his behavior and read his writings for a while, and if I'm an expert in the study of human behavior and psychology, I might be able to offer a pretty good guess.
• Even if I'm not such an expert, if he's behaving in straightforward ways about the things he wants and how he's getting them, all I need is an opportunity to observe him and talk with him, and I can offer a pretty good guess.

Nothing's better or more reliable, however, than Ubikwit simply telling us what he wants. Ubikwit may have a secret agenda, or subconscious desires that even he's not fully aware of, and that's where both the expert (political science professors, etc.) and the layman observer (journalists) come in. But especially in the "Agenda" area, such accounts must be treated as no better than equals of what the Tea Partiers are saying about their own agenda. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The view from 30,000 feet

It seems like just a few hours ago we realized, as a group, that major changes to the article lede (lead section) would be too contentious and controversial, and we'd make each other mad as hell, and not get anything done. I respectfully suggest to all (particularly SilkTork and Ubikwit) that major changes to the "Agenda" section may be in the same category, at least for now. Ask North8000 about this. He was involved in a mediation a couple of years ago regarding this article, and a lot of the first half of this article (including not only the "strict adherence to the Constitution" bit in the lede sentence, but also the Agenda section) was hammered out at great trouble and expense (in terms of time and frustration) — and now they just want to tear everything up by the roots and start over. I've already offered a series of three minor improvements.

• Adding the word "grass-roots" to the lede since there are so many RS to support it, the handful of RS that say "Astroturf" are redefining the term "Astroturf" in order to use it, and we had consensus on this point before the moderated discussion started.

• Cutting the "Other events" section at the end and adding it to the bulleted points in the Perceptions spin-off article, and cutting the paragraph about the gas grill incident in half.

• Cutting the "Commentaries on origin" section and moving it to the Perceptions spin-off article.

These are changes that would actually be supported by consensus.

Here we have all the trivia that so many editors have been complaining about. It's trivial. It's been annoying people on the Talk:Tea Party movement page for years. It has generated 20 pages of archives. It does not belong in the top-level article about a complex topic. It belongs in the spin-off article. And the sourcing about the word "grass-roots" defines that opinion as the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT, therefore the word belongs in the lede sentence of the article. This is what we can work on to get something accomplished quickly, with a minimum amount of argument. This is offered in the spirit of wanting to get the ball rolling and get something finished. SilkTork has twice expressed the desire to move things forward and get some real improvements done to this article, since he feels the end of the month is a milestone. I have always felt that we should move things along as expressed by my frequent use of "move the ball toward the goal, get the ball rolling" analogy. Let's do this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Grassroots should be an easy fix. The tea party movement is part grassroots and part astroturf. It should be in the lede because the history section has examples of grassroots organization that came about spontaneously after Rick Santelli's rant and people like Keli Carender.

• The order of the article is all upside down. We should then be focused on making sure the article reads like an encyclopedia entry. The history section should come after the lede, and it should not have the "commentaries on origin," at all. That's like having the president get ready to speak and some guy jumps up and yells, "This is what he's really all about." Let the reader decide who the tea party are by reading what they say about themselves with quotes from tea party leaders and a summary of what they say they're all about.

• Protest rallies should be sent off to the Tea Party protests article.

• Foreign Policy: What foreign policy? And Sarah Palin? She talks about the tea party, she's not a tea party member or leader.

• The article should be a general overview. The wording about the constitution that is in the article right now is stable and should be left alone. Scholarly claims and arguments about popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism don't belong in the article and would read as undue weight for an overview. There is already an article about "constitutional originalism" and perhaps a section could be opened up in that article.

Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

98% agree. The 2% is that I think that the protests are a core TPM item and should have coverage in this article, albeit more condensed/ summarized here. Also there is association of Sarah Palin with the TPM, but Malke's overall sentence on that is correct because it is certainly not enough to consider here foreign policy to to be the TPM foreign policy. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems good and thoughtful. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the proposed Sarah Palin edit is beyond the scope of my proposal, I understand all three of these comments to support my proposal. The Palin edit and other matters raised by Malke can be discussed next, after we action this edit. Thanks for your support. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all three "edits" proposed by P&W You need provide a source-based rationale, citing the sources for your proposed edits, and then call a vote on consensus, at the minimum. In my view, your proposals would serve to remove a substantial amount of well-sourced material related to astroturfing, for starters, as well as other negative coverage. The section on commentaries of the origin of the TPm are not subjective perceptions, they are statements that embody a degree of interpretation, but they are substantiated by research and analysis.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You need provide a source-based rationale, citing the sources for your proposed edits ... Seriously? Regarding the addition of the word "grass-roots" to the lede sentence, it seems like we just had this discussion, and I presented my source-based rationale not just once but twice. We had this discussion around April 23 at Talk:Tea Party movement and a record of the discussion can be found at Archive 23. We also had this discussion around April 26-28 here in the moderated discussion and it can now be found at /Closed discussions.
• Here's a partial sampling of the eminently reliable sources that define TPm as a grass-roots movement — three from the New York Times, two from the Washington Post, one from Reuters, one from National Public Radio, one from Huffington Post of all places, a very interesting 30-minute webcam round-table discussion hosted by the Huffington Post, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..."
• Here are a few more: one from ABC News, one from Politico, two from the Dallas Morning News, one from the Boston Herald,and one from the Houston Chronicle. To this list we can also add the scholarly, peer-reviewed work of Elizabeth Foley. In response, you and Xeno have always cited the same two sources. Two. Count them. Two. I've demonstrated that Formisano is a member of the Barack Obama Fan Club by posting links to his op-ed columns: Formisano clearly likes Barack Obama very, very much, and speaks from a progressive perspective. And he only claims that some organizations that are affiliated with TPm are Astroturfing. The other source, Skocpol, never actually says the Tea Party is Astroturf, or even part Astroturf. She says that the arguments that TPm is 100% Astroturf aren't accurate, and that the arguments that it's 100% grass-roots aren't accurate either. She says that the TPm is "something in between," but never uses the word "Astroturf" to describe any part of that "something." So there are roughly 20 reliable sources saying exactly what I need to support me, and you have two sources, one of which may be biased, and neither of which actually says what you need to support you.
• Regarding the other two edits I've proposed, yeah they're already sourced. We're not arguing about sources regarding that material. We're arguing about whether these events and criticisms are notable enough to take up space and WP:WEIGHT in the top-level article on a complex subject, when we have a nice spin-off article where they would fit quite nicely. It's trivia, Ubikwit. Seldom has there ever been trivia that was so trivial, that trivialized an article for so long. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing. Source actually purports to show how Tea Party is not astroturf.

• In an April 2009 New York Times opinion column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey. Published: April 12, 2009. Appears to be knee-jerk opinion by heavyweight partisan. Has he continued with this assertion? Maybe backed it up. Explaining how organized events (other than union, OFA and ThinkProgress) are considered astroturf. Are there not more encyclopedic sources available? Past the scrambling to answer this uprising in 2009.

• The same month, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." Pelosi, 2009: "They're not real, my side is real. Really, just look at the polls. No, not that poll. Not that other poll, either."

Where is the NPOV? Intellectual analysis? Are we to believe this is the best we can do? †TE†Talk 15:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be more analysis and more encyclopedic presentation in terms of tone and organization. We should be working on one item at a time, and that is supposed to be the Agenda, one would imagine. The reason why these dual parallel threads have been started is unclear to me, but maybe something can be gleaned from the comments.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We can multitask. I was just looking over the Koch section and it's purpose seems dubious to me. Truly an POV-laden overstatement of their role in the Tea Party, going further than the sources. Even editorializing them. And what's the deal with: Main article: Political activities of the Koch family That's not a subarticle. The Koch content is not a summary of it. Not even close. One mention of the Tea Party. Whoever added this has some explaining to do. †TE†Talk 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to be focusing on one item at a time, and that issue has come up before.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Every issue has come up before and look at where it has gotten us. Well, not exactly "us." I'm actually removed from what has brought us here. †TE†Talk 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So am I, insofar as I didn't start editing this article before the Arbcom case was convened. Nevertheless, this discussion has a moderator, who happens to set on that committee, so it is not the same as the Talk page of the article before the Arbcom case, but I digress.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion of 'grass-roots'

ThinkEnemies, that's a very good point about the Koch brothers edits. They set up FreedomWorks, Citizens for a Sound Economy. That's where their money goes. Those aren't tea party groups. We should include that edit, too. These should be easy fixes with reliable sources:

• Add "grassroots" and "astroturf" to lede

• Re-order the article

• Merge "Protest rallies" with Tea Party protests article.

• Remove Foreign Policy/Sarah Palin (and the picture)

• Remove Koch brothers

P&W, you should write a sentence that adds grassroots and astroturf to the lede for everyone to decide on. I'll write up a suggestion for the order of the article.

Malke 2010 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Astroturf" doesn't belong in the lede. It's a minority opinion. See, for example, the article on Waterboarding. A majority of legal experts who have expressed an opinion on the matter have agreed that waterboarding is torture, and a minority have said that in some cases it isn't. What does the lede sentence say? After a lot of arguing and an ArbCom (if I'm not mistaken), it says, "Waterboarding is a form of torture." No exceptions. No qualifications. No hesitation. We go with the majority opinion in the lede and the majority opinion is that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the above comparison doesn't work. There is a different between a minority opinion among academics regarding the interpretation of established facts and a minority opinion among rogue intelligence officers that have now been deemed to have broken the law, but not to have been culpable for their behavior. Sources say both grassroots ad astroturfung, and both are considered contentious, so populist, libertarian and conservative should be considered the majority views and grassroots and astroturf the minority.

Second, the point is moot, because the main body of the article has not been revised in a manner such as to more coherently address the question. Moreover, editing the lead has basically been specifically postponed by Silk Tork until the body of the main article is complete, as the lead is supposed to summarize the article, but I digress.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First, apparently you believe that two academics outweigh 18-20 stories by fact-checked news organizations plus one academic. Please review WP:RS. They're all reliable sources. On the Waterboarding article, it wasn't just rogue intel officers, it included the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General, and two deputy attorneys general. The kind of people who, when they're not taking a leave of absence for a few years to work for the Justice Department, have permanent careers as law professors at places like Harvard and Stanford.

Second, SilkTork is a moderator, not chairman of a committee. He has stated on multiple occasions that he does not want to direct content. He was making a suggestion, not issuing an order, and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks the "agenda" section should be left alone for now. Clearly it's a minefield. Adding one abundantly well-sourced word to the lede sentence is not the kind of major surgery that SilkTork suggested we should avoid, particularly since it's so well sourced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

FreedomWorks is part of the Tea Party movement, as are other astro-turf groups. Even if we decide, contrary to what reliable sources say, that they are not part, we need to mention them. TFD (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, calling even FreedomWorks an "Astroturf" group requires a redefinition of the word "Astroturf," which is a commonly used and long-standing term in the political science lexicon, meaning political or corporate operatives who pretend to be several ordinary people at once, to create the appearance of a grass-roots movement. Read the WP article on Astroturfing. It's quite good and it sets the bar very high. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is even making any kind of allegation that those activities have taken place, let alone offering proof. Political adversaries like Pelosi and Krugman, who are trying to discredit the Tea Party movement, tossed out the word "Astroturf" like they were flinging crap at a wall, hoping some of it would stick, and are trying to redefine it to include any acceptance of any money from any corporation. But under the commonly accepted, long-standing meaning of that word, it just ain't happening. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The technique was used, the only discussion is the extent to which the movement is astroturf or grassroots. Informed adversaries of the Tea Party movement btw acknowledge the grass roots aspect. Both are essential for it to survive. TFD (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please post a link to just one reliable source — just one will do, TFD — which specifically states that any organization that is part of the Tea Party used paid political or corporate operatives, who pretended to be several people at once, in order to create the false appearance of a grass-roots movement. I look forward to your prompt response since you so confidently stated that "the technique was used." The fact of the matter is that partisans like Pelosi and Krugman tried to redefine the word to discredit the Tea Party. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Formisano and others have described the TPm as partly astroturfed, and that is more than enough. The attempt to use statements from a Misplaced Pages article as a source is against WP:RS, and amounts to WP:OR. No viable grounds for questioning the statements made by the authors of the reliably published academic sources have been presented.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Formisano and others have described the TPm as partly astroturfed ... Formisano's bias has been demonstrated, and the "others" are named Krugman and Pelosi. They have already been quoted in the article. They are the minority opinion.
• ... and they are more than enough. They are not enough to overcome 18-20 articles by fact-checked news organizations, plus one academic named Elizabeth Foley. "Grass-roots" is the majority opinion, it should be stated unequivocally in the lede just like "Waterboarding is a form of torture," and that's really all there is to it. Please stop beating your dead horse, Ubikwit.
• The attempt to use statements from a Misplaced Pages article as a source is against WP:RS ... Please stop mischaracterizing my arguments. I am not trying to insert my personal opinion of constitutional law into the article as you claimed on the main Talk page, nor am I trying to insert the Misplaced Pages definition of Astroturfing into the article. Perhaps you'll believe Molly Ivins. She clearly writes from a progressive perspective, inventorying every bogeyman of 1990s progressives from Rush Limbaugh to Ralph Reed to the health insurance industry. And how does she define Astroturfing?

For example, John Davies of Davies Communications, quoted in the commendable publication PR Watch, explains how to "make a strategically planned program look like a spontaneous explosion of community support." Using mailing lists and computer databases to identify potential supporters, he described how telemarketers turn "passive supporters" into what appear to be advocates.

"We want to assist them with letter writing. We get them on the phone, and while we're on the phone, we say, `'Will you write a letter?' 'Sure.' 'Do you have time to write it?' 'Not really.' `Could WE write the letter for you? I could put you on the phone right now with someone who could help you write a letter. Just hold - we have a writer standing by.' "

The call is then passed on to another Davies employee who creates what appears to be a personal letter sent to the appropriate public official. Davies said, "If they're close by, we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it out on 'little kitty stationery' if it's a little old lady. If it's a business, we take it over to be photocopied on someone's letterhead."

Hand-written letters on "little-kitty stationery" are, you see, so much more real than the hundreds of form postcards sent in by the old-style astroturf specialists.

Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That technique of applying for permits, organizing events and utilizing the interwebs to promote them was certainly used. Hard part is finding non-hacks to call it astroturfing. †TE†Talk 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory, 64 Fla. L. Rev., p. 483 (2012)
2. Schmidt, Christopher W., The Tea Party and the Constitution (March 18, 2011). 39 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 193 (2011); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper, p. 194 (2011)
3. Formisano pp. 52-54
4. Skocpol, p9. 49-54
5. Schmidt, Christopher W., The Tea Party and the Constitution (March 18, 2011). 39 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 193 (2011); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper, p. 194 (2011)
6. Ibid., p. 198
7. Constitutional Faith; Princeton University Press (1988)
8. Ibid., p. 199
9. Support for the Tea Party from an AcademicBoston University Today, 12-1-2010
10. America's Ruling Class: how political elites hijacked America: by Angelo Codevilla, An American Spectator Book, 2010
11. Schmidt, pp. 201-2
12. Perrin, pp.7-8
13. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory, 64 Fla. L. Rev., p. 483 (2012)
14. Zietlo, p. 485-6
15. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1904656Foley, Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011]