Talk:Tea Party movement

Confirmation of permission to use copyrighted material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Targeting by IRS

I saw the breaking story today about the Internal Revenue Service improperly targeting Tea Party groups for scrutiny (Washington Post. New York Times). In what section of the article should this be covered - "Commentary by the Obama administration"? Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be under a section "Relationship with the IRS" to be absolutely NPOV, I suspect. Collect (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More news today that senior IRS officials were aware, from the Associated Press. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

doesn't really seem significant.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Major coverage indicates it should be covered here -- see the NYT columns on it. This is not a trivial event. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that someone has created an article - IRS Tea Party investigation. Should it be summarized into a section here? Kelly ^hi! 23:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We are conducting a survey of editors to determine consensus for adding a section to the article mainspace to cover this. Survey is here: [1] below. Your participation would be appreciated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I propose adding the following section to the main article mainspace, directly beneath the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section:

===IRS 'harassment' of Tea Party groups===

In May 2013, the Associated Press and The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately "flagged" Tea Party groups and other conservative groups for review of their applications for tax-exempt status during the 2012 election. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency, and triggered multiple investigations.

Some groups were asked for donor lists, which is usually a violation of IRS policy. Groups were also asked for details about family members and about their postings on social networking sites. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized on behalf of the IRS and stated, "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate." Testifying before Congress in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied that the groups were being targeted based on their political views.

Tom Zawistowski, who served as president of an Ohio coalition of Tea Party groups, said, "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted." Zawistowski's group applied for tax-exempt status in July 2009, but it wasn't granted until December 2012, one month after the election. Lerner stated that about 300 groups were "flagged" for additional review, and about one quarter of these were due to the use of "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, called on the Obama Administration to apologize to these groups for "harassment by the IRS in 2012," and "ensure this never happens again."

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, rejected the apology as insufficient, demanding “ironclad guarantees from the I.R.S. that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.”

• Strongly support. Very notable, still unfolding, could be a major scandal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support With wide coverage in all the major nespapers - thus not rug-sweepable at this point. Collect (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support and it should include the comments by Axelrod that the government is "too big" for Obama to be aware of everything. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It would have been helpful to provide links to the sources sited. Also it is not necessary to provide in-text mention of sources of facts. Words in 'scare quotes' should not be used in headings, since they raise the question of who is using the term. Comparing the text with a summary provided by the CSM,[2] I find a few apparent inaccuracies in the text. The IRS did not flag the 75 groups for review of their tax-exempt status. Instead they flagged new applications for tax-exempt status for new Tea Party groups formed in the run-up to the 2012 election. Groups whose main activity is support of political candidates and parties are ineligible for tax-exempt status. The CSM does not say that asking for donor lists is a "violation of IRS policy", just that it is not typically required. I do not see either the need to quote so many people. Just citing Republican and Tea Party sources makes it appear that they are the only ones who hold that opinion. Why not just summarize the general reaction to the story - that the IRS has abused its power by failing to be "nonpolitical, nonpartisan and neutral." TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, inline citations were provided; quotes from conservatives and apologies from IRS executives are the only quotes I can find, although Axelrod's statement that "the government is so big, Obama can't be aware of everything" would be appropriate, don't you think? That seems to be the only quote from a notable progressive that's available. And according to the AP, asking for donor lists is a violation of IRS policy. In the first paragraph, I've added the words "applications for" (boldfaced above) so that it reads, "applications for tax-exempt status." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are "popped out" links to the three sources cited for TFD to review: Associated Press — The New York Times — TIME magazine. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Major and prominent, more major and prominent than 80% of the material in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The preceding was copied from the moderated discussion. Additional "votes" may be added below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support as this has received tons of coverage. But I don't think we need scare quotes around harassement. Even left-of-center sources seem to agree.[3][4]William Jockusch (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose harassment? res ipsa POV just in the wording there. not seeing much in the way of mainstream RS backing up the rightists' harassment/targeting/conspiracy theories. 'columns' (editorials, opinions) in RS newspapers don't count the way an objective article would. and POV commentators like glenn beck and sean hannity aren't WP reliable sources. it remains to be seen if this was ideological 'targeting' or if it was (as irs staff have said) due to the flood of political-activist organizations suddenly filing for 501(c)(4) status --which is the human services / social welfare organization classification. such leaping to strongly support so soon smells like POV. find some RS that show that there's really a there in there. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

It's been nearly two weeks since there was any activity in the preceding discussion regarding the proposed new section on "IRS harassment," so I suggest that we have consensus and the proposed edit is uncontroversial. Please add the material to the article mainspace, below the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section. Also: We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, with no prejudice against further tweaks if there is consensus for them. Thanks for your work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - dubious phrase in Use of term "teabagger" section

I looked at the first part of this section and came across:

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.

References

Now, looking at that and the sources given, this part of that section is true: "conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites"; but nowhere is there any evidence for this sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers." They used the term (one article says "innocently embraced the term"), but nowhere do these articles say they referred to themselves as teabaggers; they used teabag as a verb to refer to others and as a form of protest (e.g. "sending tea bags to elected officials", "Tea bag the fools in DC").

I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has some editors who will intentionally game the system as a means to disparage their political opposition. They will waste hours of your time protecting their properly sourced additions while totally disregarding notability, NPOV and weight concerns. Eventually, this pattern of disruptive behavior leads to edit-warring and the article becomes even more damaged in the fog of war. It's a sad thing, but what can you do? †TE†Talk 11:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, those are edits of mine to which you have linked. In what way is there "gaming of the system"? The edits were made in compliance not only with WP:RS, but also with "notability"{sic}, NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I'd really like an answer to that. I have no "political opposition", by the way - I'm not a politician. Your use of terms like "opposition" and "disparage" don't make sense here (although I do find it informative when you, and certain others, repeatedly use such verbiage). Instead of trying to assign some nefarious hidden motive to my edits, why not just look at the edit that preceded mine by just minutes? It adds this text to the "Teabagger" section: Conservative members of the party do not use term, rather the left has adopted the term as a joke. I saw that edit and immediately knew it contradicted the cited sources, so I added clarifying text and sources that TPers did use the phrase, do use the phrase and even want to reclaim the phrase. So I wasn't pushing a POV, I was undoing someone elses POV edit to bring the article back into NPOV compliance with what reliable sources convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, I don't know what y'all are bickering about, but my concern still stands. (And I don't care who put it in or why, or who does or doesn't have an ax to grind. User:Xenophrenic, the diff User:ThinkEnemies linked to doesn't have you sticking in the phrase I find offending, so I don't know why he referenced that diff.) The sources are correct for the other sentences, but, as it stands the "Members of the movement ...referred to themselves as teabaggers" part is false. They never referred to themselves as teabaggers, though they did use the verb. So can we get back on point and stop pointing fingers. Either find a reliable source or remove the un-factual sentence. (The part "Members of the movement adopted the term" can stay, I guess, though I think it's unclear, but I still can't find a reliable source that shows "Members of the movement ...referred to themselves as teabaggers.") TuckerResearch (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that text was considered supported by the "The Week" piece. If not, it shouldn't be hard to dig up other sources. [5], [6] It's also possible that editors consider use of "teabag/teabagger/teabagging" in its sexual connotation to be generally the same thing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, you found a source. Could someone then put one of those sources in after that sentence? And, to forestall any future problems, could someone make the sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and some referred to themselves as teabaggers."? (If this page was unlocked, I'd've stuck a "citation needed" tag on the sentence.) TuckerResearch (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When this article is unlocked, much will be fixed. †TE†Talk 14:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with that one sentence I thought dubious. The two new sources User:Xenophrenic found (listed above) are proof enough to me that some Tea Partiers at first used the term to refer to themselves. (And, I think it's apparent that some Tea Partiers used the term as a verb, cognizant and incognizant of its disparaging meaning.) I do agree with you, however, that most media outlets and liberal commentators who use the phrase aren't doing it innocently, and not just humorously, but in a derogatory manner.

I would thus recommend the following for this section (if some damned administrator will ever do it or unlock the page—the length of this "protection" seems egregious to me):

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as "teabaggers." Shortly thereafter, however, news media and progressive commentators outside the movement began to use the term mockingly and derisively, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the derogatory joke. It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors. Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed. Grant Barrett, co-host of the A Way with Words radio program, has listed teabagger as a 2009 buzzword meaning, "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".

References

How's that? Fair enough for all sides? (I've also spruced up the citations, using proper citation templates.) TuckerResearch (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not just say that the term "teabagger" is sometimes used as a disparaging term for Tea Party supporters? None of the rest of it seems important. TFD (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well TFD, it seems all fringe opinions need their place. Encyclopedic value is in trivial details. †TE†Talk 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuckerresearch Those sources don't even try to make a case that Tea Partiers first called themselves "teabaggers." Using "Tea Bag" as a verb definitely opened them up to ridicule and should be noted. †TE†Talk 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, I think it's best to talk about the origin, evolution, and use of the term, rather than just mention it. User:ThinkEnemies, I don't believe this is trivia. And, I believe that the section as it now stands is incorrect, and the change I am proposing makes it correct. As it stands now, there is no source and it seems as if all Tea Partiers once called themselves Tea Baggers. This is demonstrably false. But User:Xenophrenic has found proper sources for the contention that at least some Tea Partiers called themselves "Teabaggers." Now, I do agree with your contentions that liberals mock Tea Partiers with the term, and they are trying to absolve themselves of blame for being sophomoric name-callers by pointing out it's prior use, but I think the section as I've re-written it is factually correct. If you have any sources or suggestions for ensuring people know that most Tea Partiers do not use the term, I welcome that and I'd incorporate it. Also, how about I change the sentence, "Shortly thereafter, however, news media and progressive commentators outside the movement began..." to "News media and progressive commentators outside the movement began..."? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, those sources show a knee-jerk reaction by a conservative to own the derogatory term less than a week later. It should go something like cons used verb, libs ridiculed them, cons offended, few on both sides tried to spin it, nobody cares in the long run. Done. †TE†Talk 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies, find me some sources showing the timeline as you surmise. As the paragraph stands as I've re-written it, it's factually correct, even if your proposed timeline is correct. And you really can't dispute that. (And before you accuse me of anything, I'm a conservative; and, remember, I started this section because I believed there was no proof any Tea Partier ever called themselves a Tea Bagger. I was mistaken. And, PS, you're right, there is a systematic liberal bias on Wikipedia, because most of it's editors are liberal. I mean, just compare this article to the Occupy movement article, or the Obama article to Bush's....) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuckerresearch, Sentence 2 is factually incorrect. Never happened. Not before David Wiegel snapped the 'tea bag them before they tea bag you' picture and Maddow, Olbermann, Cooper, etc., started with the double entendre stuff a week or two later. That's when "teabagger" was born. Everything after is based on reactions to the usage of the slur. What's notable. Then it's pretty well dead and on next section. I haven't looked for sources. Maybe once this page get unlocked I'll find the inspiration. No pending changes for me. †TE†Talk 02:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies, I just decided to tell you what side I'm on since you seem to jump all over people for being on the other side. (So don't get all high-and-mighty with me.) And, I'm sorry, but "Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as 'teabaggers'" is a correct sentence whether you like it or not, whether Wigel snapped a picture or not and whether Maddow is a bitch or not. Did "some members of the movement adopt the term"? Yep. Whether wittingly or unwittingly. Did some "refer to themselves as 'teabaggers'"? Yep. Whether they were cognizant or incognizant of the term's sexual connotation; and whether they were using it ironically. So, I'm sorry: the second sentence as I've suggested it is factually correct. In deference to your entirely plausible (and probably factually correct contention) with the timeline of events, I took out the "shortly thereafter" bit. And, finally, if you don't care about this, and you don't care about that, and if you're so uninspired, why are you picking fights with me about about something you don't care about? TuckerResearch (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Still factually incorrect. I'm just telling you. "Teabagger" was first used to ridicule. Maybe a few cons tried to spin it, "yeah I'm a teabagger, what of it?" "Yeah, they call it Obamacare. I like that. Obama CARES." You will not find a source to say otherwise. If it existed, the echo chamber wouldn't need a sign and "Tea Bag DC" campaign as "they started it." †TE†Talk 03:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Still factually true. Even if a liberal used teabagger first, when some Tea Partier used it ("Yeah I'm a teabagger, what of it?"; "Tea bag DC before DC tea bags you!") mockingly, ironically, unwittingly, trying to own it, whatever, then "Some members of the movement adopted the term, and a few others referred to themselves as 'teabaggers'" is a true sentence. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if notable enough to add the "own it" people, that comes after media established it and cons condemned it. I'm sure Breitbart is part of both, first condemning and then trying to rally behind it. Still, as it stands, sentence 2 is factually incorrect. †TE†Talk 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I just checked Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Movement. Not protected, not even semi-protection. Does that show how civil liberals are or how civil they're not? I'm going with the latter. †TE†Talk 03:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. To quote William F. Buckley: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." TuckerResearch (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

True. †TE†Talk 03:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In light of all the above comments, and the limited notability of the term (except as a derogatory attack or form of mockery by opponents), I suggest cutting down the length of that paragraph and moving it to the sub-article we are creating. [7] It should be added at the end of that article, in a new section.

The term "teabagger" was used after a protester was photographed with a placard using "tea bag" as a verb, referring to the practice of mailing tea bags to legislators as a form of tax protest. Those opposed to the movement started using the sexually-charged term "teabagger" shortly thereafter.[33][34] It is routinely used by opponents as a derogatory term to refer to conservative protestors.[35] The New York Times describes the word as "a derogatory name for attendees of Tea Parties, probably coined in allusion to a sexual practice".[36]

Thoughts and comments, please. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It should resemble something close to that. †TE†Talk 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well... I tried, but someone changed it back to the previous wording, even though it is incorrect. I tried. Good luck everybody. This article is atrociously biased against the Tea Party. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request -- add a picture of Allen West to the "racism" section

For example this one. It makes a key point quite eloquently.William Jockusch (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Favorite Allen West

The more I think about this, the more I like it. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, umm, I'm a little unclear on the edit request template. Am I supposed to put that in here somewhere?William Jockusch (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All of these gentlemen shown immediately below are mentioned in the racism section, and any or all of their images would improve the section and article.

Minority figures who defend Tea Party from allegations of racism

• 
  Herman Cain, 2012 national candidate.
• 
  Ward Connerly, chairman of American Civil Rights Institute
• 
  Allen West, former Congressman from Florida

Again, these are Minority figures who defend Tea Party from allegations of racism

--→gab 24dot grab← 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Legoktm (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The "racism" section has been removed from this article, and currently resides in a spin-off article called Perceptions of the Tea Party movement. If no one objects during the next couple of days, I'd like to add the three photos there, since the article currently is rather sparsely populated regarding photos. Understanding all statements here as statements of support, except for Legoktm who spoke as a neutral admin. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't object, but I think at least one of them should go into this article, if the accusation is mentioned at all here, which it currently is.

Edit Request - Misleading sentence not in citation

In the intro section last paragraph states 'By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of mailing tea bags to legislators and other officials as a symbolic act.[25]'

This is referenced as from http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/23/news/mn-25661

From the article itself this is the part that spawned the above sentence:

Phil Valentine, 42, is a sometime actor, sometime singer and a guy who likes to dress up like Elvis and pass out doughnuts on the streets of Nashville. His afternoon talk show on WLAC is ranked No. 1 in the market. The two use unorthodox methods--like steering protesters to lawmakers' homes and telling listeners to mail their legislators used tea bags. (The Boston Tea Party, get it?) They see themselves as a conservative counterweight to a typically liberal media.'

...

Not sure why this sentencebelongs in the intro section, but even if its kept, lets at least change the sentence to something that remotely resembles the source.

My suggestion:

An Elvis impersonator and radio talk-show host in Nashville encouraged listeners to mail used tea bags to their legislators in 2001 to counterweight the typically liberal media.

Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

the King has nothing to do with this article, thank you very mush. Phil is many things, no reason to include them all here. It would be like describing Elvis as a Federal Agent and singer. Elvis Meets Nixon. the article title, Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax. [8], not pretend Elvis goes to Washington... Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that:

A Nashville radio personality in 2001 suggested that listeners mail tea bags to local legislators.

Appears to be about as much as we can reasonably say. Yes? Collect (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of duplicated sentence

I see your point. But this overview is also an overview of perceptions. Also, the lead should summarize the article, and so being in the lead does not preclude it from being in the article. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wording

Can we please get rid of the statement " Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement"? It's uncited and has POV written all over it.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 22:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The statement is an introduction (and partial paraphrase) to a substantial body of material addressing the Constitution that had been posted to the agenda section from three papers by legal scholars. And there are one or two other such papers by legal scholars on the same topic that hadn't even been mentioned. That material had been revert-warred out, leaving only that sentence.

The issue of the Constitution will be addressed in due time, but I'm too busy at the moment to devote sufficient time to it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party is not the only political group that is "committed" to the US Constitution, and the way this article is currently worded implies that it is. That's my issue.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is somewhat incoherent. To what does "committed" in quotes refer? Meanwhile, there are a number of sources that support the statement. The very first source cited in the article includes the following paragraph, of which a part is quoted in the text of the (ref) for that source.

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.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would accept that the TPm (I can't find the right word for a many-many correspondence of views) a version of (Constitutional) originalism. ("Ill-informed" seems inappropriate, even if it were accurate.) Saying that it/they espouse originalism would be wrong. This is not much different from the stable text, and we can probably provide a number of sources, if necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Notte: As "strict adherence to the Constitution" is not found in the body of the article, I removed "strict" as requiring actual sourcing. "Adherence" appears quite sufficient, and is in accord with the body of the article. Collect (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You might be right but (not sure if you saw it) there was talk on the other page where SilkTork indicated to go back to the last stable version. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, talk about incivility Ubikwit. And your sources may make the argument that the TPM is a constitutionalist movement, but it is not the only one and neither the TPM, nor their area of the political spectrum has a monopoly on support of the constitution. I will not sit ideally by while a handful of authors push an article that implies such a thing. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You have made a personal attack by accusing me of being uncivil, and there was obviously no consent on your deleting that sentence. Furthermore, you have misrepresented my statements, and not responded to questions seeking clarification your unclear statements.

You are acting in a unilateral manner in support of an unsupported POV, and I would suggest that you self-revert that edit. The fact that there are sources that support the statement has been demonstrated to you in no uncertain terms, and has been recognized by at least one other participant in the discussion.

I have notified you of the moderated discussion, which has been mentioned several times recently here, and have informed Silk Tork of the non-consensus POV-pushing edit and remark about incivility.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It was uncivil. You called my statement "incoherent". And seeing as how you've been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, I'm not entirely surprised. No offence.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, there's nothing POV about my edit. The TPM is by no means the only political group in the United States that identify as constitutionalists. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is incoherent, as it doesn't seem to relate to the textual issue you have raised. First, where does it say that the TPm activists "identify as constitutionalists" in that text? Second, this article is about the TPm, not other political groups, so your assertion that the TPm should not be described in terms of one attribute because other groups share that attribute is inadmissible sophistry.

The fact of the matter is that several commentators have pointed out the the TPm lacks a detailed agenda, and that the Constitution is the one subject to which they repeatedly make recourse. That makes them very different from other political groups, which general promulgate a platform to inform the public and attract adherents.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Different from other political groups, or in your opinion more special? Because your description of the TPM reeks of POV. Ok, I'll simplify all this. I'm assuming most of you are significantly older than I am, so I'm sure you remember the Bush years. During the Bush years, it was the liberal democrats that believed they were more in line with the US Constitution. Associated groups like the ACLU sounded the alarms regarding the Bill of Rights for years up until 2008, as since then, the US has had a DNC government. So what happened then? The conservatives took that post. But instead of civil liberties, they claim to be defending the more economic aspects of the C (i.e. in their opposition to Obamacare). Conservatives, after all, care about their rights just as much as liberals, but they care more about economic freedom and gun rights more than they care about civil liberties. My point is that ever since about 2003, whoever was in opposition at the time claimed to be the movement that better adhered to the Constitution. The TPM really isn't all that different, except that each group has portions of the USC they like better. Liberals are more likely to defend the First Amendment, particularly the "establishment clause". Conservatives, like many members of the TPM, are more likely to worry about violations of the "free exercise" clause and especially the Second & states rights amendments. There is no political group that is committed to the defense of the constitution equally across the board and to say that the TPM is somehow this exceptional group that has taken the role as the first is just bananas.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 04:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

weight of anonymous

A democrat releases a potion of an interview with an anonymous conservative republican who says the white house is not involved. what does this have to do with the tea party? [9] Darkstar1st (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. I would elaborate on why certain editors give undue weight to content which pushes their preferred narrative, but I'm all about AGFing in the name of self-preservation. †TE†Talk 12:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

17th Amendment

It's in the specified source, but it's completely implausible. If this article weren't subject to sanctions, a rational approach would be to question the reliability of the source, based on the obvious mistake. It certainly doesn't seem to be a core position of the TPM, unlike the others mentioned in that sentence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you think it is an important policy? Last December TeaParty.org called for the repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Tea Party Nation supports the repeal of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Tea Party backed Mike Lee supported repealing the 14th and 17th amendments during his Senate campaign as did at least three other Tea Party backed politicians. The NYT, LA Times and CNN have all mentioned it is a Tea Party policy. Then we have "The 'Repeal The 17th' movement is a vocal part of the overall tea party structure"; that's from the Tea Party's own Talking Points Memo. Or how about "the two constitutional reform proposals that have gained the most support in Tea Party circles: the Repeal Amendment and the effort to abolish the Seventeenth Amendment". Now that I've checked sources I'm puzzled why there is no mention of the Tea Party's support for the repealing of the 14th amendment in the article. Wayne (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a few proposed it in 2010 and the main TPM response was against it. The article says that the TPM proposed it. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

[10] seems pretty much accurate:

the Tea Party movement, whose members in several states have been calling for repealing the amendment — and making something of a political mess in the process. And yet, as the blog Talking Points Memo reported, the proposal recently became an issue in pivotal House campaigns in Idaho and Ohio, where two of the Republican Party’s most highly recruited candidates got caught up in the moment and declared themselves for repeal, only to try to back off from it later. ... To be fair, on the to-do list of the Tea Party types, the idea ranks well behind calls to curtail spending and roll back taxes.

Thus we might end up with

A vocal group of TPM activists in several states has supported repeal of the 17th Amendement, though it ranks well below curtailing spending and tax reduction as an issue.

Sounds about right. Collect (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We should be having this discussion at the moderated discussion page, as the Constitution is up.

Meanwhile, though the text of the reverted subsection "The Constitution" in the Agenda section has been based almost exclusively on legal journal sources, there are numerous others. With regard to the seventeenth Amendment, there are numerous articles in the NYT alone, not just one. And one such article has led to the discovery of another recently published book (2012) that addresses the TPm in depth, by a historian published by Oxford University Press, described at the end of the following.

Here are the results of a NYT search for regarding repealing the seventeenth Amendment [11], which include the article cited aboveTea Party’s Push on Senate Election Exposes Limits

Another NYT search for seventeenth amendment and tea party yields[12]

Among which there is thisEnlist, but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution

And thisHistory vs. the Tea Party

Which includes these passages:

This is all the more puzzling because the Tea Party movement did not lack for useful precedents or operating models. On the contrary, it is “the latest in a cycle of insurgencies on the Republican right,” as the historian Geoffrey Kabaservice writes in his new book, “Rule and Ruin,” a chronicle of half a century of internecine Republican warfare. “Even the name of the movement was a throwback to the ‘T Parties’ of the early ’60s, part of the right-wing, anti-tax crusade of that era.”

Of course, the Tea Party faithful also claim that theirs is a movement of ideas, in many cases the same ideas that Goldwater and Reagan espoused. But they tend to emphasize quixotic crusades — the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established the election of United States senators by popular vote, or Representative Ron Paul’s mission to abolish the Federal Reserve. Beyond this, “candidates who claimed the mantle of fiscal conservatism had no real plans for reducing government expenditures beyond the conservative pursuit of politics-as-warfare,” Mr. Kabaservice writes. They favor “cutting programs that benefited Democratic constituencies while preserving programs that benefited Republican constituencies and avoiding any serious reform of defense spending or middle-class entitlement programs.”

Kabaservice is the author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party (Studies in Postwar American Political Development), Oxford University Press, USA (January 4, 2012)

Geoffrey Kabaservice is the author of the National Book Award-nominated The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment. He has written for numerous national publications and has been an assistant professor of history at Yale University. He lives outside Washington, DC.

Aside from that body of sources, the article in Salon Repeal the 17th Amendment! sets forth many direct quote from Senators and other politicians affiliated with the TPm speaking in support. One could easily turn up more sources by googling each of those quotes, etc.

It could hardly be limited merely to "a vocal group", as it comprises TPm leaders from across the spectrum and across the country; moreover, it is only one of several issues directly relating to the Constitution, including the repeal of other Amendments.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not some in the TPM espoused it......some did, many opposed. The issue is the wording which essentially says that the (overall) Tea Party proposed it. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Amending the 14th and repealing the 16th seem to be core positions of the TPM and/or of most TPM groups; the 17th seems a minority position, if not fringe, among TPM groups. (For what it's worth, a friend of mine, who seems to be left of all presidents since FDR, has come out in favor of amending the 14th. I don't know if the position is exactly mainstream, but it would be irrational to say that it's far-right.) And I'm afraid I don't believe it rational to expect legal scholars to understand the difference; law review journals are generally reliable sources as to the consequences of proposed legal changes, but not as to who has the opinion that the law should be changed, and what groups they belong to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And I don't agree that the moderated talk page is the appropriate venue; Constitutional issues have come up, but this wording is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion regarding the Constitution at the moderated discussion, and I would suggest that you stop by there and read Silk Tork's recent posts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):That's an unsourced assertion. Where are the sources to support that statement? A good deal of the discussion here has sounded like WP:OR. I'm no expert on the TPm, but considering all the people mentioned in the above sources (I don't actually know how many of them are activists, supported politicians, or simply sympathetic with the TPm), and in light of the fact that as of yet I haven't seen a statement anywhere of TPm expressing opposition to repealing this or any of the other Amendments, I need to see sources produced in the course of discussion.

In addition, since many of the politicians and others, including Supreme Court justice Scalia, who have voiced support have done so in the name of states' rights vis-avis the federal government, so it sounds part and parcel of the generally hostile tenor of the TPm policies toward the federal government and promotion of so-called federalism. Which brings me to the next point, that being the libertarian law professor that is sympathetic to the TPm and has drafted proposals aimed articulating aspects of the agenda as he perceives it Repeal_Amendment#Repeal_Amendment and Repeal_Amendment#Bill_of_Federalism. The sixteenth Amendment seems to be his main target as far as repealing goes.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding whether the discussion should go here vs. the moderated discussion, I really don't care except to note that that would involve spitting the thread.North8000 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Bolding added later. North8000 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Uncourced" actually applies three times over in reverse to the way that you seeking to apply it. First, it applies to article space, not the talk page, and something that is in article spaces is being challenged. Second, per wp:ver, wp:nor and wp:burden, the sourcing requirement is for retention of material, not for removal of it. Third, the far-reaching statement that is currently in the article (that the (overall) Tea Party proposed this) is NOT in the source provided and actually conflicts with the source provided. The sentence that mentions the Seventeenth states TPM agenda items, and repeal of the 17th is NOT included in that. It gives efforts to repeal the seventeenth merely as reflecting on the listed agenda items. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First, let me say that the entire paragraph containing the sentence that has been raised here is in need of revision, and the Constitution needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Incidentally, I did not write the sentence at issue.

Meanwhile, the sentence

The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments[30] to the Constitution.

does not contain the statement (or inference) that the far-reaching statement that is currently in the article (that the (overall) Tea Party proposed this). Are we talking about the same sentence?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the Tea Party a movement or an uncoordinated rabble? If it is being promoted then it is irrelevant how many of the members opposed repealing the 17th. We can no more say "a vocal group of TPM activists in several states has supported repeal" than we can say "a vocal group of Democrat activists in several states has supported universal health care" in the Democrat article. Wayne (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection: the source does not say that

Ubikwit, I object to the edit you've just made. The source you've cited (Florida Law Review) does not say, "The Tea Party movement has invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. The Tea Party movement is engaged in 'popular originalism' ..." What your source actually says is this: "Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in 'popular originalism' ..." The distinction is subtle but it's extremely important. The author took great pains to avoid painting the entire TPM with a broad "constitutional originalism" brush. Therefore Wikipedia should take great pains to avoid it as well. I encourage you to not only self-revert, but remove all of the "its own view" material that has been added, restoring this far less controversial version of the lede sentence:

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.

Before undertaking any changes at all to the lede of the article, or any substantial alteration of the rest of the article, I encourage all participants to seek and obtain consensus for the edit prior to making the edit in mainspace. There's been too much editwarring on this article, and it's under discretionary sanctions. Tread more lightly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the cited source says exactly that. From the introduction: "The Tea Party movement is therefore engaged in “popular originalism”—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method." I doubt Ubikwit was citing just the abstract in support of his edit. As for the lede sentence you prefer, that is problematic, as the movement's actions contradict what it claims to advocate. A more accurate wording is certainly needed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Engaged in" doesn't necessarily mean "adopted as a core belief across the entire movement." To claim that these two statements mean exactly the same thing is WP:SYNTH. This section, at the beginning of the article and with so much WP:WEIGHT, needs to contain precise language that is clearly supported, in a rock solid way, by multiple reliable sources. I've heard that the wording in the lede that says "strict adherence to the Constitution" was worked out during mediation a long time ago. Let's just leave that alone, at least for now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article beyond just the quoted sentence you'll see that it does indeed describe the movement. No WP:SYNTH involved. If you feel different wording would more precisely convey what reliable sources say, please propose it. The "strict adherence to the Constitution" wording is inaccurate as shown above, and was never the subject of mediation. Since as far back as 2010, the lede stated that the movement adheres to an originalist view of the Constitution. In 2012, that text was watered down starting with this edit, and "originalist" was eventually edited out. The mediation you "heard" about was over the "grassroots/astroturf" descriptions, and the result was that both descriptions would appear in the lede: Mediation result. Note the "originalist" description that remained untouched before, during and long after the mediation. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources

In terms of additional sources, it seems a bit curious that Perrin 2011 isn't cited in the article (as best I can tell). It's one of the more prominent academic studies of the movement, so insofar as independent, reliable, scholarly sources are valued here it seems worth including. In particular, it bears on the movement's relationship to the Constitution, a topic of recent debate here. I don't regularly edit or read this talkpage, so forgive me if it's already been discussed. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a relevant book. If you have read it or have it, take a look at the related discussion at the moderated page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Agenda_section_and_subsection_entitled_.22The_Constitution.22, where the debate on the Constitution is ongoing.

There are a lot of sources, including several academic studies, and more input from those would be useful, no doubt. I don't have the book, and wouldn't have time to read it even if I did have a copy. This is something of a monumental task, and needs to be a joint undertaking.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's actually not a book, but rather a scholarly article in Contexts, a fairly well-regarded sociology journal. I hesitate to quote from the article, for fear of cherry-picking, but the authors have the following to say about the movement:

• "[W]e determined that there are four primary cultural dispositions among people in those states who feel positively toward the TPM: authoritarianism, ontological insecurity, libertarianism, and nativism."
• "The TPM is best understood as a new cultural expression of the late-20th century Republican Party, reinforcing pre-existing strands of nativism and ontological insecurity, while highlighting libertarian and authoritarian strands."
• "In our follow-up poll, 84 percent of those who felt positively toward the TPM said the Constitution should be interpreted 'as the Founders intended,' compared to only 34 percent of other respondents. But this support is not absolute. The Tea Partiers were twice as likely to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That they 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 suggest they are animated more by a network of Constitutional cultural associations than a commitment to the original text."

The last quote, in particular, seems to bear on the question of "strict adherence to the Constitution". As to participating in the discussion, I've seen enough of the Arbitration case and some of the associated personalities and dynamics to conclude that I'd rather poke my eyes out with a spoon than get drawn in. I'll limit myself to mentioning this scholarly source as potentially worthy of inclusion (conversely, I'd be interested to hear rationales for not including it). MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. How one can be both libertarian and authoritarian is puzzling. As is proclaiming a position that the constitution should be interpreted "as the Founders intended" somehow stands in stark contrast with believing in the legislative process of repealing and enacting new amendments. They actually go together quite well. Nativism and ontological insecurity also seem like fun times. †TE†Talk 01:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not exactly unheard of that people hold contradictory or internally inconsistent beliefs - cognitive dissonance. The concept of authoritarian libertarianism is quite old and well described.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on cognitive dissonance, but WTH is authoritarian libertarianism? Oxymoron comes to mind. †TE†Talk 01:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[13], free link. ButButNo! (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The term "libertarian" is often used in the U.S. to refer to an extreme form of neoclassical liberalism which indeed may be authoritarian, especially when it is threatened. Tea Partiers believe that the courts have misinterpreted the Constitution and hence new amendments are required. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights for example that says one may burn a flag, but Supreme Court rulings mean that a constitutional amendment is necessary to allow legislatures to enact laws which Tea Party supporters believe they already have a right to enact. If you do not like the term "nativist", can you suggest another? TFD (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I am not too keen on this type of source. It is an original study, and we need to see that it has become incorporated into the literature to see what weight it has. TFD (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

thats pretty much nonsense - not allowing academic sources and relying on news papers and popular press instead? Thats completely backwards- we use the academic sources as they are published and try to present those views in accordance to the weight they are given. with limited academic coverage, the ones that are there represent the mainstream academic view. And its not like the Perrin is "hot off the press" - if it were going to be countered, there would be something else out there.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, not primary studies and neutrality says we should only include views according to the acceptance they have received. Unless you are clairvoyant it is impossible to know what weight experts have assigned a study without reading what they have said about it. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

even more nonsense. the article was published May 2011 - over 24 months ago. if we cannot use any sources that have been published less than two years then you might as well strip away the whole article and about a quarter of Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." See also WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." If you think this is nonsense, then argue your position on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's where Perrin goes astray: how does he define the term, "original text of the Constitution"? Does it include just the original document, without any amendments? (I doubt that very much, since that would exclude the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.) Does it include that plus the Bill of Rights? Does it include everything up to and including the Fourteenth Amendment, but no more? What about the Seventeenth Amendment? If Perrin's fidelity to the "original test" includes any amendments at all, then he acknowledges that a little bit of amending now and then can be a good thing.

I think the apparent paradox between the desire for "strict adherence to the Constitution" and the desire for a new amendment or two is being seen by critics as an opportunity to bash the Tea Party for being a gang of hypocrites — and hypocrisy is one of the worst sins in the entire belief system of the progressive left. Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The "apparent paradox" is in what Tea Party supporters believe and say, not in what Perrin writes. As he says, they show "selective nostalgia." TFD (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments such as "hypocrisy is one of the worst sins in the entire belief system of the progressive left" are tendentious and counterproductive.

The statement "Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning." is WP:OR, as is the statement "advocates strict adherence to the Constitution".

I like that "selective nostalgia" quote. Maybe we can use that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "Being faithful to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution, as one understands that intent, is 100% consistent with wanting an amendment or two — to restore the document to that original intent and meaning." is WP:OR ... What makes you think I want to put that in the article? That's just my impression of constitutional law and belief. I used Perrin as an example. If he believes in strict adherence to the Constitution as it was originally drafted, does that mean he's opposed to the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and feels they should be repealed?
• ... as is the statement "advocates strict adherence to the Constitution." Ummm, no. No, it is most definitely not WP:OR. That is a false statement, Ubikwit. The words "strict adherence to the Constitution" are a direct, word for word quote from the Mission and Statement of Principles of the Tea Party Caucus,[14] a news story from National Public Radio,[15] the Mission Statement of the "High Desert" local chapter of the Tea Party Patriots,[16] and statements of their mission or principles by other local Tea Party chapters, such as the Lake Jackson, Texas chapter.[17] Ubikwit, please stop trying to present every statement you want to remove from or keep out of the article as WP:OR. It is simply inaccurate to make that claim. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

These aren't mutually exclusive. Our article can say: "The Tea Party movement describes its principles as X. Sociologists analyzing the movement in the scholarly literature describe its principles as Y." That's NPOV 101. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I said on the moderated discussion page, using Ubikwit as an illustrative analogy, there is no better source for the agenda of a particular organization than that organization's agenda statement on its official website. If an organization has a secret agenda — if they're saying one thing in their mission statement, but doing something completely different in terms of what candidates and legislative initiatives they support or oppose — that's one thing the scholarly literature is for, to expose something like that. But the Tea Party seems to be pretty straightforward about what they want, and how they're going about trying to get it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty simple. They don't want creative new meanings for what's written in the constitution, and want it to be applied fully and strongly. And advocating actual changes is entirely consistent with this. So, changing it is OK, ignoring it is not. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As your personal understanding of the Tea Party movement conflicts with analyses published in the reputable scholarly literature (like that of Perrin et al.), which do you believe our article should prioritize? MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, did Perrin actually interview Tea Party members? Or did he simply study a poll of "people in those states who feel positively toward the TPM"? Because those two groups are not the same. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Perrin et al. did both, as I'm sure you'll see when you read the source. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started to peruse the two-state poll. Authoritarianism is believing children should obey their parents and ought to be learning respect and obedience over their own childish wants. Libertarianism is believing in less authoritative censorship and regulations. Navitism is a harshness towards illegal immigrants. Ontological insecurity seems to be the level of concern respondents had to current "changes" occurring in this country. For this I'd assume one side showed ontological insecurity during the Bush years and probably lost it in 2009. So far, I'm a bit disappointed. †TE†Talk 11:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So let me make sure I understand: this paper was published in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature by reputable academic sociologists, but the decision as to whether to cite it depends on whether two pseudonymous Wikipedians agree with the authors' methodology? This isn't journal club, and the goal of this talk page isn't really to armchair-quarterback the way that sociologists design studies. I can imagine a variety of policy-based reasons not to cite this source, and I'm not insisting that it be included, but the framework of this discussion is disappointingly off-base. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I suggest you read something about legal theory. It is very difficult discussing anything with you if you continue to pretend that the Tea Party presents the only possible interpretation of the Constitution. In fact the Tea Party position is seen by most informed observers as a gross distortion of the Constitution. TFD (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD Please... Don't... Not with what you've posted on this subject. It's also counterproductive to improving this BLP. †TE†Talk 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

TE, please avoid personal attacks, which detract from a collegial atmosphere. TFD (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact the Tea Party position is seen by most informed observers as a gross distortion of the Constitution. Really? Which ones? Would you please post some links that say, "gross distortion"? Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Perrin paper refer to "inconsistencies" in the TPm's stance on the Constitution, for example, and not an "apparent paradox". With respect to taxation, which is related to efforts to repeal and Amendment to the Constitution, the paper points to the contradiction between the original Tea Party's motivating stance of "no taxation without representation", which to some extent would seem to imply that representative government itself is what appears to be under siege by the TPm stance on taxes. Shall I translate that?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Read for example William Hogeland's review of Glenn Becks Federalist Papers for the Broadside Books imprint of Harper Collins: "“America is special because our rights come from God”: Glenn Beck, Joshua Charles, and their readership think Alexander Hamilton, of all people, not only believed in that bizarre formulation — derived from what can only be their utter and deliberate misunderstanding of the Declaration’s preamble and the old English theory of natural rights — but also went out of his way to explain it in his introduction to the Federalist. Like I said: weird."[18] TFD (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the sources and what the sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The route espoused by some above was one of the main ways that brought this article down to junk status. Find anti-TPM writers who write about the TPM in a disparaging way, present that they meet the "floor" of wp:rs criteria, and then present them as being a "source" (rather than what they actually are which is a participant) and say that we should let them define the TPM because they are a "source".

In the area of "agenda", the way that a public movement (or its leaders) puts the troops to work on an agenda item is to define it as an agenda. If you don't say it, they won't work on it, if they do say it they will work on it. So for a public movement, self-statement of agenda tends to be accurate. Especially if it came about via a broad organized process such as the contract. 1,000,000 times more accurate and reliable than what a detractor writes. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So you think that for political groups - Democrats, Republicans, Occupy Wall Street, Communists, Fascists, the Weather Underground - we should ignore what sources say about them and just let them speak for themselves? TFD (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For the first 4 examples that you gave, (and depending on the details of the group, possibly the 5th) I'd say yes, with respect to what their agenda is . The sixth not, because they are not a public group. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's always the adage, "Actions speak louder than words".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Very true. Although in this case they both say the same thing. Look at all of the political clashes where the TPM was identified as an element and see what the action was. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So then it would fair to describe the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as supporting "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly", of religion, privacy, freedom from arbitrary searches and seizures, security of private property and democratic election of government.[19] TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've said at least three times in the moderated discussion that as long as they're fairly straightforward about what they want and how they go about getting it, the organization is the best source for its agenda. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was an implement of mass murder and even greater oppression, and was the precise opposite of straightforward. As it engaged in mass murder and oppression, it professed to pursue all these wonderful democratic ideals. The Tea Party, on the other hand, hasn't starved millions of Ukrainians to death, run a chain of slave labor camps across Siberia, or conducted a purge of the army. Not to my knowledge. They're very straightforward. They hold rallies and conventions, chat with each other on the Internet, and do their best to get their candidates elected. As Ubikwit said, "Actions speak louder than words" and the Tea Party's actions are thoroughly consistent with their words. I'm not saying we should ignore what academics are writing. I'm saying that the Tea Party sources are the most reliable sources, in this limited content area per WP:SELFSOURCE, and they should be given the most weight. Not all the weight. Just most of it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the TPM cannot be the "best" source for its own agenda. Many political organizations have a disjunction between what they say and what they do. Far better to have outside observers judge the TPM agenda. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the Tea Party has not come to power, we cannot know what they would do. But your argument seems to be that because we support the Tea Party, we can take their words at face value, whereas because we are not Communists, we cannot take their words at face value. That is not a neutral approach. Incidentally, this same discussion comes up in articles about far right groups - BNP, EDL, Golden Dawn, Sweden Democrats, etc. TFD (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If the TPm is straightforward about what they want, and their actions match their words, as you say, then academic scholarly sources should be just as reliable and capable of conveying what their agenda is as a TP spokesperson. More qualified, in fact, because your average spokesperson likely can't speak on such matters with the precision and clarity that an expert in economics, the Constitution or political sciences can. In addition, you keep speaking of "The Tea Party" as a monolithic entity, when it is actually made up of numerous groups with widely divergent agenda and priorities. Detached academic scholars can give analysis of the big picture goals whereas a spokesperson for one specific group is only going to give a piece of the puzzle. One final note; WP:SELFPUB sources (yes, that's the actual Main article that contains the rule you are citing) will never be preferred over reliable academic sources. See how those sources are listed under the header: Sources that are usually not reliable? They can be used in limited circumstances, if they meet a half dozen criteria, but they are never the first choice and certainly not given more weight than higher quality sources. Even for a group's professed agenda. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Addressing a few thought above, please note that my statement about self-statement being the most accurate source had two conditions on it.....#1 was that it be a public phenomenon/ organization. The second is that it is limited to matters of agenda. The point is that it does not rely on them being trustworthy, it is reliant on the fact that a public phenomenon/ organization has no way to forward their agenda other than to state it.

Second, addressing Xenophrenic's comment, in the ongoing mess at this article, there have never been "(actual) reliable academic sources." That term has been often used to refer to anti-TPM writers (who are actually participants, not sources) who meet the letter of the "floor" of wp:rs (which has no criteria for actual reliability) and people have been misrepresenting the "r" in wp:rs as meaning real world / actual reliability. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

I disagree (with X) on two points. The one that directly counters your statement is that "Water is wet" (or, for that matter, "libertarians are opposed to (some) government") may be obvious, but is not likely to be published. "Water can be dry" (at appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure) may be easier to publish, but unsophisticated readers may not see the caveats. The fact that most academics are "left" of center might make it more difficult for them to notice that the core statement that "TPm members are angry, and some are justifiably angry" is more significant than scholarly interpretation of the goals.

North's comments that a group's stated agenda is more significant than the agenda as read by political opponents, may not be exactly correct, per Wikipedia guidelines. Still, scholarly comments on the TPm's stated agenda are probably more appropriate than scholarly comments on the "actual" agenda as interpreted by political enemies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

North and Arthur, you are both still speaking as if there is a single centralized, authoritative source for what the TP's agenda is. Also, North mentions "anti-TPM writers" and Arthur mentions "political enemies" -- in a discussion about reliable academic sources. Care to be more specific? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC) *Crickets?* Neither of you are going to specifically name these "political enemies" and "anti-TPM writers"? So, the claim is not true afterall that "there have never been (actual) reliable academic sources" raised for consideration in these discussions? It would be beneficial to know who these anti-TPM enemies of the movement are - the ones posing as academic reliable sources - so we don't waste additional time with them. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)