Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:59, 16 August 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Tea Party movement, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tea Party movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[REDACTED] The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.contractfromamerica.org/the-contract-from-america. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010102610010161. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Attention: This article is on probation. Do not edit until you've read the notice below. Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction: No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large. This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning. For more information, see this page.

There is a moderated discussion taking place on this sub-page which is aiming to get consensus on a broadly stable and balanced version of the article. The discussion is open to all, and more participants are welcome. SilkTork 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

dates of origin are incorrect

the origins, dates and information referring to koch bros are incorrect. The koch bros started a tea party website in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party has been used as symbol by various people throughout history. The current movement began in 2009. TFD (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disingenuous nonsense. The clear relationship between the movement of the 21st century and the koch bros is blindingly obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.128.227 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling that organization part of the TPm is disingenuous nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Roll call

I have it on good authority there's a whole slew of editors just waiting in the wings to fix up this article soon as an arbitrarily constructed list of previous contributors to TPM and/or current participants in moderated discussion of TPM are topic-banned. Can we get a head count, please. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get a head count on how many of them are the same editors while Checkuser evidence is still available to verify. (I am not naming names, but some of them seem to have previous incarnations, and ArbCom needs to be informed of future incarnations.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Agenda of the Tea Party movement

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the Agenda of the Tea Party movement be merged back into the Tea Party movement article? Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This article's content is not sufficiently different from the Tea Party movement article except that it approaches the subject with a different political slant. It appears to be a POV content fork which is against policy as described at WP:POVFORK. The essence of the problem is that "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article," but this article splits its POV away from the main article on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that this talk page has quite a bit of discussion about what should go in the Agenda section of this article. It appears that User:Phoenix and Winslow, in creating the "Agenda" article, has bypassed the work toward consensus to implement his own vision of what should be said about the TPm agenda. He has also side-stepped page protection here in doing so. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Before making any rash merge, I suggest editors read the moderated discussion which led to the development of the subarticles. It is not a "POV fork" by any stretch of the imagination. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet is welcome to proceed with the formal merge proposal he has suggested. I look forward to discussing that proposal in the proper venue whenever he finds it. And Collect, you are welcome to participate. Binksternet would have to demonstrate consensus for the merge, including an argument for the merge based on Misplaced Pages policy (and an opportunity for me to reply with a policy-based argument of my own opposing the merge), and I suggest that proving it's a WP:POVFORK would be a genuine challenge. As Collect indicated, the creation of the Agenda spin-off article was discussed at the moderated discussion page. And it was discussed at significant length. Ubikwit announced that he was going on an extended Wikibreak, then he announced that he was abandoning the moderated discussion. I posted links to the sandbox page where the Agenda article was being created, as I was working on it. Nobody seemed interested except me, so I went ahead and created the article. I'd appreciate it if Binksternet would stop acting as though I did something wrong, and like I said, if he wants to proceed with a formal merge proposal, he is welcome to do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please show diffs or links to the discussion of starting an article about the Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Please show a diff of you telling others about your sandbox page. What you say about Ubikwit does not appear relevant. By the way, this discussion is the formal merge proposal. You are currently taking part in it. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please show diffs or links ... No.
• Please show a diff of you ... No.
• As I said in the DYK discussion, I participated fully in the moderated discussion (MD). I carefully created and frequently updated MD archives so that editors like you, who have consistently refused to participate in MD, could catch up on your own time, not mine, whenever you realized that a full understanding of what happened in MD is essential for any editor who wishes to participate in any substantive editing here. (By "substantive," I mean anything beyond copyediting and other gnomish tasks.) Find your own diffs and links. I am not your errand boy. You've already humiliated yourself once in the past 72 hours by demanding that my sandbox page on Xenophrenic be deleted, when it's an evidence page linked to an active ArbCom proceeding. On that occasion, I did post a link to demonstrate that I was right and, more importantly, that you were wrong. After you've found the diffs for yourself, feel free to acknowledge that yes, I did discuss starting a spin-off article on the agenda, and yes, I did announce creation of the sandbox page and post a link to it.
• What you say about Ubikwit does not appear relevant. Oh, it's very relevant. I'll use a deer hunting analogy. Ubikwit built a very nice deer stand in a perfect spot near the pond, where entire herds of deer stop by for a drink, but then he abandoned it for weeks. So I moved in, modified the deer stand a little bit, bagged myself a massive buck with an awesome rack of antlers, and did all the work to field dress it and haul it out to the side of the road. Now he's back with a mob of his friends, announcing that the kill is rightfully his, and demanding that I hand it over.
• By the way, this discussion is the formal merge proposal. You are currently taking part in it. The proper venue is WP:AFD or perhaps the MD page. A rather weak alternative would be Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. This is the wrong place. Both the proposed merge and the proposed title change to "The Tea Party movement and the Constitution" can be handled at AFD, since both merges and title changes are explicitly listed in the potential remedies there; and we'd get a lot of participation by previously uninvolved editors, which would be refreshing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is the venue selected automatically by Twinkle. It is the right one. The merge will be determined right here.
• Your attitude toward Ubikwit is startlingly selfish, and your story has nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Neither Ubikwit nor yourself built consensus to create a sub-article.
• I went searching for your diffs and did not find anything showing you working on a sandbox, or of you announcing that you would be working on a sub-article. My search of your contributions for diffs and sandbox resulted in me finding the Xenophrenic evidence page, the one without any other page linked to it. In addition to your diffs, I searched the moderated discussion pages and did not find any evidence to support the idea that you had consensus for creating this page. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong places; perhaps I am wrong about my conclusion. Please prove your case. If you do not show me diffs of your sandbox work, or diffs of your announcement of the 'Agenda' sub-article, I will not respect your unsupported claim. To me, this looks like a POV fork, taking material from the protected article and working with it out of bounds, to give it your desired slant. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you do not show me diffs of your sandbox work, or diffs of your announcement of the 'Agenda' sub-article, I will not respect your unsupported claim. You've never respected me, or anything I've ever done or said. Why should you start now? And if I posted the diffs, would it change your "vote"? Of course not. So why bother? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the thing is, I looked through your contributions myself, and I found nothing to show that you built consensus for taking the "Agenda" portion of a locked article and bringing it outside of protection, which resulted in your giving it your personal slant. In the absence of diffs, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the thing is, I've got seven legs to stand on. The current "vote" is 7-2 opposed to your merge proposal. And the fact of the matter is that you and your good friend Ubikwit are the ones who have been pushing a POV: one that is rather negative, and eager to assign far too much WP:WEIGHT to one obscure history professor from Kentucky and one obscure law school student from Connecticut, because they trash the Tea Party. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of top-quality reliable sources are a lot less negative, so that's what I chose to go with. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• By "obscure history professor" I imagine that you are talking about Ronald P. Formisano who taught at Kentucky and also in Florida and New York. He was the editor of Journal of American History, won awards, etc, etc. Formisano does not "trash" the Tea Party but he ascribes greater importance to the astroturfing element which you would like to see greatly reduced. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a POV fork, as there has never been a need for a subarticle on the Agenda. there is only a need for a subarticle on the Constitution as it relates to the TPm agenda, in light of the fact that there is a voluminous amount of reliably published academic sources specifically on that topic.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments in the future. The agenda revolves around the Constitution, and is derived almost entirely from the Tea Party's perception of which government actions are constitutional, and which ones are not. So the two topics, "agenda" and "Constitution," are inseparable. The sporadic but persistent attempts to separate them appear to be violations of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's amusing, I was the editor that started pushing for greater discussion of the Constitution vis-a-vis the agenda, which was met with persistent resistance in the form o revert wars and tendentious Talk page conduct of the sort to which your assertions would correspond.

The TPm agenda does not revolve around the Constitution, the way I see it (my POV). There are many cases in which the TPm has attempted to subvert the Constitution--such as eliminating the federal governments ability to collect income tax--as a means to achieve their agenda. Another example is the attempt to repeal or revise the Amendment on birthright citizenship as a means to curb immigration. The agenda is anti-immigration, but the position vis-a-vis that agenda represents only one means among other proposed in an attempt to achieve the agenda.

The way I see it, that represents anything but a "strict adherence to the Constitution". The Constitution is seen as a guarantor of rights and obligations conferred on the government and citizens of the USA that the TPm sees as obstructing its agenda. That is my interpretation of a substantial amount of the material in RS such as legal journals, and I state it here in accordance with WP:YESPOV.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not merge. Agenda of the Tea Party movement was a subject matter form (not POVFORK) from Tea Party movement under the auspices of the moderated talk page. If you don't want to check through the history of the split, your opinions as to whether it's POV. should be disregarded. Additionally, If it's POV, it was POV before it was split, and this article should be redirected to TPm without merge. (P&W, this is the proper venue for a merge discussion if all the tags are in place. I don't think they are, though.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not merge I think that a merge is wp:snow bad DOA idea. Both immensely notable topics, "agenda" is clearly a sub article of the other, and sub means much narrower scope. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not merge (in case that wasn't already clear). I created the spin-off article, and actions speak louder than words. However, we have an editor here who would probably interpret any participation in the discussion as support for his position, unless I explicitly spell out my opposition. This is me, spelling it out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This article contains both supportive discussion and criticism from reliable sources. The greatest weight is given to the most reliable, most notable source: Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University, and frequent guest on CNN, providing expert opinions on the law and politics. Most of these experts are blockquoted, including Theda Skocpol, a professor of political science at Harvard University, who criticizes the Tea Party movement. All of this is fully compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like four opposed to the merge (Collect, North, Arthur and me), and two in favor (Binksternet and Ubikwit). I think the only chance for this merge to succeed would be to discuss it at AFD, where there are some previously uninvolved editors who haven't heard the same old song and dance 100 times. But Binksternet never listens to me ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I "listen" to you? No, I do not have text-to-speech engaged on my computer, so I do not listen to you. Do I read what you wrote in reply to me? Yes, I do. I often find you combative and controlling, but I do not ignore you. The poor 'lil ol' me attitude is not going to fool anyone familiar with your fractious style, which drove the moderator away from the moderated discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do not merge The main goal of the moderated discussion was to trim this article. We were working on the agenda section when SilkTork quit the project. The purpose was to create a subarticle. P&W has simply carried out the last goal. Why has this even become an issue? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The main TPM article has gotten quite long, so splits are appropriate as a remedy. The Agenda article has mainly become problematic because of a title dispute. Maybe it could be merged back in as a last resort, but the main article is about 120k bytes as is ("Almost certainly should be divided"). --BDD (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read through as much of the related discussion that has taken place in the past--reams... There is more material in RS on the Constituion than anything else by far, too much to be covered in the main article, which is why I initially suggested the subarticle.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • See also the active RM about renaming Agenda of the Tea Party movement to The Tea Party movement and the Constitution.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Meanwhile, there's still no Shadow Party article on Misplaced Pages, even though it's a hundred times more important story than the TP ever was or will be. (But I digress.) *ahem* Oppose but Rename. (Do any articles involving liberal or socialist movements have "Agendas of..." splinter articles? IMO, "Policy positions of..." would be much more neutral in tone.--Froglich (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment A movement is defined by it's agenda more than anything else. And this is a complex, huge, interesting, confusing and of-interest area, and of course meets wp:notability hands-down. To me it seems like a no-brainer. I really don't understand opposition to it, and I really don't see arguments against the merits of it above. The arguments above seem process and controls related (rather than on the merits/non merits of it being a sub-article), some allegations about motive, and just hanging negative labels ("POV fork") on it which obviously aren't applicable (A POV fork is of duplicative scope, not a much narrower subset scope) And Ubiqwit seems to be arguing that an even narrower sub-article within this sub-article would be preferable (=OK) which to me seems to lend support that a broader sub-article is OK. With this post, I'm not trying to bolster the "don't merge" case, I'm really trying to understand what any substantive reasons/concerns are for not having it as a sub-article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• My reasons for starting the merge discussion are twofold: I was concerned that this article was calved off of the TPm article without approval by the moderators of the moderated discussion, calved for the purpose of escaping the editing strictures of a locked page, and thus akin to block evasion. (My good faith requests for diffs pointing to consensus to start this article have met with stonewalling, with no direct answer.) I was also concerned that this article was being used to push a particular aspect of the TPm, one which reduces the viewpoint of respected historian and journal editor Ronald Formisano, for instance, because he does not see the TPm as a pure grassroots groundswell. Of course I can see that most of the editors here approve of the existence of the Agenda article, or at least approve of a similar sub-article. If the proposed decision is enacted, many of these folks will be unable to edit the TPm page and any sub-article including Perceptions and Agenda. I wonder whether the !votes here represent the desire by these editors to work on an unlocked portion of the TPm page before the topic ban starts. And I wonder why the moderator left the moderated discussion; was it too difficult to ride herd on the warring editors? Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was concerned that this article was calved off of the TPm article without approval by the moderators of the moderated discussion, calved for the purpose of escaping the editing strictures of a locked page, and thus akin to block evasion. That's fascinating. I created the sandbox version of the article, announced its creation, stated my intention to use it as an incubator for a spin-off article, and linked it at the MD page, several days before the article was locked — and several days before the current disposal motion at ArbCom was proposed or even mentioned. At that time there were no specific sanctions proposed against me and there still aren't. But now we have the Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own motion. When the sandbox page was created and announced, that motion hadn't been proposed yet.
• Binksternet is claiming that I used my amazing powers of clairvoyance, looked several days into the future, anticipated not only that the article would be locked but also that this completely unprecedented motion would be proposed at ArbCom and gain a majority, and started laying the groundwork for avoiding a page ban that hadn't even been suggested yet. When I announced creation of the sandbox page and my intention to create a spin-off article, SilkTork was still active as our moderator, but he said nothing.
• Strangely, I am being accused of something "akin to block evasion" for starting the creation process for Agenda of the Tea Party movement before the page was locked and before the motion was proposed, but Ubikwit is not being accused of something "akin to block evasion" for proposing there should instead be a spin-off article called The Tea Party movement and the Constitution, to be retitled (and, I presume, completely rewritten by Ubikwit) after the page was locked and after the motion had obtained enough votes that its passage was virtually assured. Binksternet's carefully selective accusation of something "akin to block evasion" is very revealing regarding his own partisanship, and how he plans to steer article content after the page ban takes effect.
• And I wonder why the moderator left the moderated discussion; was it too difficult to ride herd on the warring editors? If you had invested the time to participate in moderated discussion, you'd know that ST was planning to travel for a week or more, and would have unreliable access to the Internet. Also, originally it was not his plan to recuse from the ArbCom proceeding, but he felt it would be improper to serve as moderator and engage in ArbCom deliberations at the same time. So he appropriately started looking for a replacement who could monitor the MD page every day and serve effectively as moderator. According to the statements he made, which were easily read by anyone who bothered to participate, any difficulties of "riding herd" were not a factor in his decision. But thanks for the parting shot. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess it serves a purpose of yours to refrain from fulfilling my good faith request for diffs, the which would have nipped in the bud any questions about timing and motive. You still have not shown the diffs in this point-by-point response of yours which discusses chronology and would normally be linked to some discussions or editing actions. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I guess it serves a purpose of yours ... Yes, it does. The whole process demonstrates in detail that WP:AGF is a completely alien concept to you. In fact, you do the opposite: you assume bad faith (ABF). Then, after your accusations have been proven false and you've humiliated yourself (as you did with your MFD attempt on the Xenophrenic evidence page), you ABF again ... and humiliate yourself like this again ... and again ... and again. I consider your false accusations to be the price of admission for the entertainment that follows. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the chronology shown below (assembled largely by Xenophrenic), I see no consensus for having a sub-article, just tentative discussion about it, including substantial opposition from TE, and technical opposition from Ubikwit who wished to have a different name and focus. You created the article in moderated discussion sandbox space (I was looking for it in your own user space) but this page was not created by SilkTork who was the moderator of that space, so it was created out of process. You chose to ignore TE's opposition when you brought the article to mainspace: "There have been no objections on the Moderated Discussion page..." Also, you brought the sub-article to mainspace during a time when the TPm article was fully locked. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of your jaundiced analysis of the past, what's your understanding of the current consensus? I think the seven days are up for the name change discussion over at Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement, so if you don't mind, I'll go and get that one closed and the templates taken down. This one has about 21 days left, and it doesn't look good for you either — the current "vote" is 9-3 opposed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The motion, if passed, will prohibit named parties from editing the "Tea Party movement article, the article talk page, and all subpages", but not sub-articles, as I read it. It's a page ban, not topic ban. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, that points out a real legitimate complication of this complicated mess. But even that is based on a hypothetical. And it still is not about the merits or policy-compliance of existence of such a sub article. This is complicated, I don't know what to say except to say that it would be a shame to base the existence/non existence of articles on such things. Since I'll be mostly off wiki for over a week, I guess I don't have to worry about what to say. :-) North8000 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. There appear to be enough RSs for the subtopic, and it's one worth its own article. If the Tea Party was a conventional national party, we would be discussing a "Platform of ..." article; but as a movement of loosely bound parties, it's titled "Agenda ..." instead.
  While it does seem to meet the notability criteria and there are a few good sources in the article's references, it's poorly written (not to mention missing the entire foreign policy section). What it needs is an improvement drive. A few good editors over a few days could do it wonders.  —Sowlos  11:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support a merge of 'Agenda' content, which is minimal, from the subarticle to the Main article; and also support the creation and expansion of a Constitution-specific subarticle to cover in detail the current, expansive scholarly debate (suggested name, something like: Tea Party Constitutionalism). Reasons based on above discussion:

— Main article length (presently 41K Readable Prose), which indicates splitting is not justified. Previous 120K estimate is incorrect, and also fails to note that 'Agenda' is a smaller section than many others, so likely wouldn't be the first target of splitting anyway.

— The subarticle was created during heated debate and disagreement over what to include in the main article 'Agenda' section, and positive consensus agreement to its creation was not explicitly expressed, so its creation is justifiably suspect.

— Per North8000 above, "A movement is defined by it's agenda more than anything else" - and I agree; therefore it deserves to be comprehensively covered in the main article. Even when well covered in the main article, the 'Agenda' section still would not be large enough to warrant a spin-off article (this may or may not change in the future, time will tell). It only grows too long when content specifically about the movement's Constitutionalism is expanded, hence the suggested spin-off article for that subject matter. Also causing unnecessary section bloat is content not specificly about the movement's agenda, such as:

— The Foreign Policy material, which describes world views, beliefs and ideology but does not indicate specific 'Agenda' content. Likewise, the content on TPer's 'karma-like' concept of fairness, which is excellent information and meshes well with other scholar's observations about TPer's feelings about the "undeserving", is more about beliefs and ideology and not about actual agenda. This content would make a great 'Overview' section about the movement's ideology, motivations and beliefs, but the 'Agenda' section should remain about what the movement is doing, or intends to do, about issues.

Xenophrenic (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that interested editors, as well as the closer, compare Xenophrenic's comments to the actual discussion. You will find little similarity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to give an example to substantiate your statement, Arthur? (I already know the response, but thought I'd ask anyway.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to find one of your comments which correctly interprets other comments, including your own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One example, Arthur. Just one. I suspected it was a waste of time to ask, and now you've proved my point. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Xenophrenic.　Many of the well-intentioned new comers would benefit from reviewing some of the previous discussions and editing. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment With Xenophrenic the "vote" is now 8-3 opposed to the merge. Ubikwit's "support vote" was already counted. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Since we all know votes are meaningless in this discussion, let's take a look instead at reasons. "Reasons" given against the merge so far are:

(1) Because it's not a POV fork (2) Because it was created "under the auspices of the moderated talk page" (3) Because 'Agenda' is notable (4) Because I created the spin-off article (5) Because the purpose was to trim the main article and create a subarticle (6) Because the main TPM article has gotten too long (7) Because there is still no Shadow Party (8) Because there are enough RSs for the subtopic, and it's one worth its own article (9) Because the Constitution is the "centerpiece" of the Tea Party agenda

Did I miss any? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Nice strawman. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Strawman"? Please learn the definition of terms before throwing them about; thanks. (Apologies for sounding like a broken record in responses to P&W.) Which one did I miss? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've thought long and hard about this over many moons. Also remember much talk about the Constitution being the "centerpiece" of the Tea Party agenda so I'm certain it has found a proper home at Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Only makes sense, IMO. †TE†Talk 23:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If the "centerpiece" is the Constitution, and the Constitution-related content is likely to be the main, and most expansive, content -- wouldn't it make sense to name the subarticle to reflect that? The total information on the Tea Party's agenda (from all sources we've discussed thus far) nicely fits into a concise section in the main article. That section only grows beyond reasonable summary-style size when we try to also stuff in the varied scholarly works on the Tea Party's Constitutionalism - and it is quite expansive, because experts are not yet in 100% agreement. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic - "If the 'centerpiece' is the Constitution, and the Constitution-related content is likely to be the main, and most expansive, content -- wouldn't it make sense to name the subarticle to reflect that?"

No. It most certainly would not. Not sure how to elaborate on such an obvious response. †TE†Talk 12:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Obvious"? What is obvious about it is that it appears to be a dismissive, facile attempt to circumvent the issue of the title, on the one hand, and the need for an article duplicating the same scope of a substantial section in the main article, on the other hand. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article title and had little idea I was commenting on a request for title change. †TE†Talk 15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TE, what do you see as the purpose of the "Agenda" subarticle? When the "Constitutionalism" subject matter is removed from it (with a concise summary left in its place), the remaining 'Agenda' content would neatly fit into the main article, making the subarticle rather useless and redundant. The TP Constitutionalism content (including how it influences some Agenda issues), however, would easily fill a subarticle. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Then write the article. What's stopping you? What's stopping anybody? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here's what's stopping him, and stopping Ubikwit. At this point, if anyone creates an article called The Tea Party and the Constitution, it should be merged into Agenda of the Tea Party movement. That's why Ubikwit, Xenophrenic and Binksternet are reacting this way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So suddenly you are the authority on why I have reacted to the appearance of the Agenda article? No, I don't think so. I have already stated clearly why I called for a merge with the main article. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bink, why aren't you doing something to improve the Agenda article? Why all this drama? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2013‎ (UTC) (Signature added by P&W as a courtesy)

• The way I see it, there are three significant facts here that perhaps should be considered in combination.

(A) There are three editors here who are pushing very, very hard to get rid of the "Agenda" article and replace it with an article that focuses solely on the TPm's views of the Constitution.

(B) When viewed as a whole, the agenda of the TPm is primarily focused on reducing spending, preventing tax increases, and reducing the national debt. These goals, when spoken in such broad and non-specific terms as these, have really huge popular support and tended to focus on such big-spending, not-so-very-popular legislative initiatives as Obamacare. In this sense, the Tea Party really has its finger on America's pulse, and that's how it gained enormous voter support very quickly — in time to do amazingly well in the 2010 election cycle.

(C) If we focus strictly on TPm views of the Constitution, however, it becomes very easy to portray the Tea Party as inconsistent and even hypocritical. They seek "strict adherence to the Constitution" and the "original intent of the Founding Fathers," but they either want to repeal or eviscerate three amendments, and ratify two or three new ones. Option (B) is more neutral and objective, and explains how the young upstart Tea Party spanked the 170-year-old, immensely powerful Democratic Party like a red-headed stepchild in the 2010 election cycle, after being in existence for a mere 21 months. Option (C) starts out being much more negative, and can be made intensely negative by presenting Formisano as the world's leading expert on the Tea Party, with a blockquote in the first three or four paragraphs. Formisano is an outlier.

• These three facts should perhaps be viewed in combination. The three editors in question have a laser-like focus on procedure. They claim that procedural issues are the real reason why they're fighting so hard, and that the more negative tone of the anticipated change to a "Constitution" article is just a coincidence. I have found that genuine coincidences are extremely rare when we're talking about politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, I'm sure Binksternet will be very pleased to learn that the disposal motion at ArbCom has a final vote of 5-5. A majority is required, so the motion failed, and a six-month page ban for a long list of people (that includes me but doesn't include Binksternet) appears much less likely. What appears much more likely is an indefinite topic ban for a much smaller number of people. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see your neutrality on full display in the above comments. From watching many of these arbcom cases I don;t see any indefs likely, but I do think there will be a few holidays from editing and I think you are probably one of the strong candidates there. ----Snowded 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

page break

Here is a timeline of comments and events regarding subsections and subarticles for content related to "agenda" and "constitutionalism". In summary: There was at least 1 voiced objection to proposed creation of both subarticles (Agenda and Constitution). There was no consensus for creation of either subarticle (Agenda or Constitution). Disclaimer: This may not be an inclusive list. Quotes are excerpted.

Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

List of downloadable pdf sources on TPm and Constitution

The following list is only of sources from legal journals, not books, of which there are a number, including, for example, one written by Price-Foley, who is on the following list.

1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, Richard Albert
2. THE TEA PARTY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE REPEAL AMENDMENT, Randy Barnett
3. The Tea Party and the Constitution Christopher, W. Schmidt
4. Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments, Elizabeth Price Foley
5. Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory, Rebecca E. Zietlow
6. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND THE PERILS OF POPULAR ORIGINALISM, Jared A. Goldstein
7. Profiling Originalism, Persily, Greene, Ansolabehere
8. CAN POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM SURVIVE THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, Jared A. Goldstein
9. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM, Ilya Somin

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Add merge request to article

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{mergefrom|Agenda of the Tea Party movement|discuss=Talk:Tea Party movement#Proposed merge with Agenda of the Tea Party movement}}

I don't think the merge is appropriate, but it's being discussed without the necessary pointer on this article in place. If this is not done, the merge discussion (above) should be closed as "inappropriate while the article is locked". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Items with VRTS permission confirmed
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment