Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 2 October 2013 (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 30d) to Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 24.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Proposed merge with Agenda of the Tea Party movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to keep the article, not merge it. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey and 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, there's still no Shadow Party article on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...and several days later, still no response. That has become the predictable routine. Personally attack a fellow editor, then when called to substantiate the attack, disappear. Deplorable. Even more so, coming from an Admin. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Yes, you did. Nice strawman. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended discussion

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • ... I see no consensus for having a sub-article, just tentative discussion about it ... Well, any doubts about the existence of consensus supporting the existence of the article have been cleared up at this point. The "vote" on your merge proposal is still 9-3 opposed with two weeks to go. Perhaps if you had listed this discussion at AFD as I suggested, you might have been able to convince enough uninvolved editors for your merge proposal to succeed.
  • ... including substantial opposition from TE ... You chose to ignore TE's opposition ... No, I didn't. At some point, TE withdrew his objection as demonstrated by his "vote" here on your merge proposal. I really can't recall when or how I became aware that he had withdrawn his objection.
  • ... technical opposition from Ubikwit who wished to have a different name and focus. Ubikwit announced that he was abandoning the moderated discussion. Then he vanished for several days with no indication that he would ever return. I understood that to mean that it didn't matter that much to him. I suppose that 20/20 hindsight wins again, but with such a large group of editors, one technical objector — or even two or three — doesn't prevent a finding of consensus by a closer. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Xenophrenic - "If the 'centerpiece' [of the Tea Party agenda] is the Constitution, and the Constitution-related content is likely to be the main, and most expansive, content [within the agenda of the Tea Party] -- 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)[reply]
"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 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then write the article. What's stopping you? What's stopping anybody? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Malke - To answer your common sense and very obvious question, "Then write the [Constitution sub] article. What's stopping you?", speaking only for myself: lack of time. What little time my family and other obligations will allow me to volunteer here has been consumed by the moderated discussion (which kept steering focus away from such new content generation, and back toward the Main article content), as well as drama-fest activities like AN/Is, RfCs, ArbComs, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Thanks for your "The way I see it..." summary, P&W. I agree with a few things you said, but there is quite a bit that either doesn't make much sense to me, or with which I disagree completely. Take, for instance, your perception that editors are "pushing very, very hard to get rid of the "Agenda" article". Speaking only for myself as one of those editors, let me assure you my position requires no "trying", no effort whatsoever. I see the 'Agenda' of the movement as both important enough, and brief enough (presently), to be handled entirely within the main article. That makes your spin-off article unnecessary, and that is the only reason I support melding whatever accurate "agenda-specific" content exists in it with the main article. If you'll recall, when the bunch of us were proposing agenda content for the main article, the proposals (versions 1 through 17d and beyond) kept getting longer and longer, almost exclusively because of addition of more Constitution-related content. That's when a spin-off article was suggested specifically for TP Constitutionalism. Not because "it becomes very easy to portray the Tea Party as inconsistent and even hypocritical", as you claim, but simply because there is too much content specific to that subject matter. By the way, the only thing that can make it "easy to portray the TP a certain way" is the prominence of reliably sourced information describing it as such, regardless of what Wikipedia article in which it appears.
Your description of the agenda "viewed as a whole" is too broad to be an accurate or informative portrayal. Reduction of spending, taxes and national debt is the goal of nearly everyone, regardless of political stripe, and thus says nothing about the actual agenda of the movement. The best indicators of actual agenda are what stance they take on specific issues, and what specific issues they protest or support. Your opinion that the TP "has its finger on America's pulse", and that it "spanked the Democratic party" is popular among TPers, while those outside of the movement argue differently, acknowledging that while the movement had some impact on the general elections, the "spanking" they did was on the moderate Republicans in the primaries. The Republican party would have accumulated the same general election gains as every minority party gains during midterm elections, regardless of the existence of the Tea Party. (You might find "Tea Party Effects on 2010 U.S. Senate Elections, edited by William Miller and Jeremy Walling to be an interesting work covering all arguments on the Senate-side of the matter.)
"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..." Now you are just plain assuming bad faith. You need to come to grips with the reality that the movement, taken as a whole, is not as single-mindedly monolithic as you would like to portray. The rosey picture you consider "more neutral and objective" is not at all close to what reliable sources on the subject convey. There is conflict and disagreement between groups within the movement, and also between the movement's professed beliefs and it's actions. Conveying these realities as they are conveyed by reliable sources is not some plot to disparage your Tea Party; it's simple NPOV article construction as required by Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P&W - You ought not be poking the partisans, fun as it may be.
Xenophrenic - While I understand your contention, claiming 2010 wasn't special is a joke. Citing opinions that repubs were just taking back their rightful districts also pisses in the face of democratic gains in 2006. Sure it was largely an anti-war vote, but it still meant something. That sentiment followed through 2008, even after Pelosi did nothing. Obama surely would end the wars we thought, until he claimed Bush's SOFA in Iraq as his own and escalated the violence in Afghanistan, enacting new ROE which tied our other hand behind our backs. But I digress, the 2010 shellacking wasn't due to the Tea Party. That we can agree on. It was the response to an absolute turd of a bill called Obamacare. Never popular, never acceptable, never more than a 1000-page mistake. Democrats were in trouble regardless of their vote. Much like repubs in 2006. †TE†Talk 05:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I was poking them. But I suppose that when they have an emotional attachment to a political party that was so deeply humiliated in 2010 — when a former Cosmo centerfold took the Senate seat of their patriarch and heir of their most honored clan, and they lost more House seats in a single election than any incumbent president's party since the early 1930s — then an emotional defensive reaction of some sort is to be expected, when we discuss the manner of that party's humiliation. Let's face it. It was epic. I mean, I'm a Democrat, but I'm able to view events objectively and 2010 was an ass whupping. That's the sort of story that gets made into movie scripts. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 TALK 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Snowded, I suppose that for you, the word "neutrality" depends on your perspective. I tend to value all top-quality sources, rather than the tiny handful of academic sources that have focused on and magnified aspects of the subject that aren't very pretty. As a result, the portrait I paint is accurate, and the subject's unpleasant features are in proportion with its more admirable qualities. For those editors who are incapable of seeing any redeeming qualities in the subject of an article, perhaps they might achieve greater satisfaction working on some other subject matter. Wikipedia is a very diverse place and I'm sure that for such editors, a comfortable place can be found.
  • Regarding your allegations about me, there is no proposed sanction against me on the proposed decision page, nor even any proposed sanction on the workshop page. Perhaps you're the one with the amazing clairvoyant powers who might be the next target of Binksternet's false accusations, Snowded. But somehow, like Ubikwit, I think you'll avoid his attention. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chronology of events regarding the creation of subarticles
(Silk Tork fully protects the page on April 12, 2013, the protection scheduled to expire August 20.)
(Silk Tork lowers the protection of the page on June 12 to allow autoconfirmed users only, this level of protection to be of indefinite length.)

[1] First, because there is probably more material in print in RS about the TPm's approach toward the Constitution, I feel strongly that it deserves a subsection. Meanwhile, the volume of material is perhaps too large to be adequate covered in the main article without completely dominating it, so there should probably be a subarticle on the subject, perhaps entitled <no wiki>The TPm and the Constitution</no wiki>. --Ubikwit 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

[4] There is a lot of salient material on the TPm and the Constitution, so this is fairly long. Maybe it needs to be condensed and a subarticle created. --Ubikwit 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[5] The Foley text is relatively short and I would imagine that your interested in her focus on Federalism and states rights, which is legitimate, but I have mentioned the Repeal amendment as well as limitations on the powers of Congress. The section is already rather long, and there is much material that I have left out. With respect to the Repeal amendment and the libertarian/federalist agenda, there is this Repeal_Amendment#Repeal_Amendment and this Repeal_Amendment#Bill_of_Federalism, both of which I have referred to previously in the course of this discussion. If you are willing to propose a way to integrate something in relation to that subject matter, I am waiting to hear the proposal or see some text. Also, note that I have further suggested that a subarticle may be in order due to the amount of material published on this topic, which is substantial and more than on any other specific aspect of the TPm, as far as I can see.--Ubikwit 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[6] Splendid idea, mate. Make the new "Agenda" section as I've described above into the nucleus for a new spin-off article, Agenda of the Tea Party. Put all of the material you've left out into that spin-off article. Please make certain that the summaries of the Tea Party Patriots agenda statement and the Tea Party Express agenda statement are at the front of the new "agenda" section, and at the front of the spin-off article. I look forward to seeing another draft of the "agenda" section and a first draft of the spin-off article. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[7] On the other hand, that would not obviate the need for a subsection in the Agenda section on the Consitution in any way shape or form. Accordingly, as far as subarticles are concerned, a subarticle on The Tea Party movement and the Constitution is probably what is in order. The task then becomes determining the scope of coverage in the main article. As I've indicated above, there is substantially more information in RS than what I've included in the working draft.--Ubikwit 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[8] I strongly disagree with a Tea Party and the Constitution article. Let's not get crazy. I also disagree with a Commentaries section that is outside of Perceptions. TE 11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[9] As the foregoing comments seem to primarily address the Constitution subsection, as opposed to the opening of the Agenda section, I've cut a few paragraphs from that section which could suitable be treated elsewhere. More specifically, the passages from Zietlow, which focus specifically on the Constitution and the interpretive approach thereto, could be included in a subarticle specifically on the TPm and the Consitution, as she and others have much more to say on the topic. --Ubikwit 04:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[10] In fact, there is so much information, especially on originalism and the newly coined term "popular originalism", that I think there should be a section on The Tea Party and the Constitution separate from the agenda section. The specifics of the Amendments, state-federal power, etc. could also be addressed there for readers that wanted more in depth inforamtion on those; furthermore, the sociodynamic of the movement in relation to its popular originailsm as well as the relationship of the movement to previous past popular constitutionalist movements in the USA could also be addressed. --Ubikwit 11:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[11] Despite the varied analysis on how to define the movement's Constitutionalism, there appears to be wide agreement that the movement has raised constitutional issue awareness in both academic circles and in the general public. I think having a more comprehensive section on constitutionalism outside of the "Agenda" section is a good idea. If there is popular support for a "Constitution" section, we could save a lot of the specifics for that section and that should help us keep the 'Agenda' section more concise. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[12] My concern is that a section on the constitution will grow into a large mass that will require an ArbCom admin to help remove it. My suggestion has been, at least I hope I've mentioned it, is to create a subarticle on the topic with a para in the main with a link to it. I'll support any paragraph that does not use block quotes, does not point exclusively to scholarly articles which are nothing but opinion with a graduate degree attached, and seems reasonably neutral. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[13] On the Constitution section -- Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I see no reason for an Agenda and the constitution section. TE Talk 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[14] Most importantly, I think this version is strikes a balance between being adequately informative and not excessively detailed, which I believe is possible to do in light of: first, tacit agreement regarding a separate section--outside of the Agenda section--or a subarticle dealing with the massive amount of published text focusing on the Constitution; --Ubikwit 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[15] This version is good enough for now. Your other concerns would best be addressed in the proposed spin-off article, where I certainly would not object to blockquotes from several academics. In fact, as I mentioned, I'm already working on a first draft of that spin-off article. Let's see. For now, it should probably look like this: /Agenda of the Tea Party movement. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[16] P&W's Agenda sub page created on June 30:[1]

[17] Incidentally, the subarticle was to called "The Tea Party and the Constitution", not the title you mentioned above.--Ubikwit 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[18] On a different note, since a movement is defined by it's agenda, we should not be concerned that this all-important section it is longer and more detailed. It needs to be pretty well-covered here, not just in a sub article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[19] Putting this possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at the front end of the first section of the top-level article in a series gives it a huge amount of weight, and the whole thing is a bit too long, considering that it's currently being envisioned as a summary of a potential spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[20] Where has there been discussion of the Agenda section being a summary of a spin off article? A diff or two would suffice. There has been suggestion and discussion regarding a couple of implementations have been discussed for the Tea Party and the Constitution subarticle and corresponding summary.--Ubikwit 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[21] Finally, there had been discussion of a "Tea Party and the Constitution" section in the article or a subarticle, and the inclusion of more detail would seem merited. Ubikwit 03:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[22] SilkTork resigns as Moderator July 3

[23] In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today. Good for you. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. On the other hand, you could just work it into that /Agenda of the Tea Party movement spin-off article I was working on, because that would be brilliant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[24] On July 6, Phoenix and Winslow links his Agenda of the Tea Party sandbox to the Moderated Discussion page [2]

[25] I suggest all this time and effort should be directed into /Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a new spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(Silk Tork fully protects the page on July 16, the protection to be of indefinite length.)

[26] On July 20, P&W creates the Agenda mainspace article; acknowledges that he is doing it solo, but mistates that there have been no objections (see North8000 and Ubikwit above) with this edit summary: (Creating article. There have been no objections on the Moderated Discussion page at Talk:Tea Party movement, and no one seems to be interested in this except me ....)

[27] That sub-article was not one I created, so it is possible there was no consensus for its creation. I suggest that folks have a discussion about it on the talkpage of the new article. That would also be the appropriate place to have a discussion about a new name. SilkTork 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove merge request from article

I closed as "keep" the merge discussion I started last month. See Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Proposed_merge_with_Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 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. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This page got full protection pending the outcome of the Arbcom case, and because the case has concluded, I've reduced it to the previous level of semiprotection. Please remember that vandalism like this, if continued, will quickly cause the return of full protection. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Thanks for your watchfulness. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, the expiration date on the protection says "August 20, 2013). What should it say?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I set it to be indefinite; 20 August 2013 was SilkTork's protection related to the content dispute. Everything's as it should be, unless you're suggesting that the protection be for a different amount of time. If you don't think that it should be indefinitely semiprotected, I'll be happy to set an end date, but nothing about the duration should be changed unless we decide against indefinite semiprotection. The only problem I can see is the feedback; the protection log says that I set some sort of protection on the feedback, which was unintentional, so I'd appreciate it if another admin would remove it for me — don't know how I set it, so I don't know how to unset it. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Air Tour

The AFP's "Hot Air Tour" was organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a cap and trade program. I suggest we remove this passage as insignificant. the Americans for Prosperity article does not mention Hotair nor Tea Party. WP:undue Darkstar1st (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A connection between the TPm and the tour is made in the source.[3] That the AFP article does not mention it is irrelevant to whether or not it is significant. TFD (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
connection? line 25 of page 150 of the source you linked reads: attracts tea party activists, sounds like they mean two different groups. A attracts B, not A attracts A. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rolling Stone makes the connection explicit in this piece about AFP leader Tim Phillips. It says that "Phillips launched a 'Hot Air Tour' of America last year [2010], staging faux-populist protests against climate legislation." The article connects AFP and Koch Industries money with the Hot Air Tour, and it connects AFP and Phillips with the Tea Party. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the tea party/Americans_for_Prosperity link has failed on the Americans_for_Prosperity article page, perhaps it should be debated there. AFP is accused of supporting the tea party, if such an allegation cannot survive there, it certainly doesn't belong on an unrelated article. [4] Darkstar1st (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I surfed over to that article using your link but I don't see anything resembling a consensus there to avoid mentioning Koch money in relation to TPm or AFP. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using the term "accused?" TFD (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "teabagger"

See also: Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion § The_term_.22teabagger.22

I can't recall having been involved in this article until right now, and would like to point out an error. The following sentence in the article is unsourced, it has two separate Wikipedia tags on it, and it is erroneous:

The term ''[[wikt:teabagger|teabagger]]'' was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives{{who|date=September 2013}} used ''tea bag'' as a verb on protest signs and websites.{{cn|date=September 2013}}

According to the article by Alex Koppelman that's already in the footnotes:

[W]hen used as a verb, the words “tea bag” and “teabagging” have nothing to do with a hot, soothing drink....I’ve traced the meme’s birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent’s David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: “Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!” (sic).

Those first uses on websites were not by conservatives at all, so the unsourced sentence in the Wikipedia article is false. And the origin seems to have been a single protest sign, not a plurality of them. Surely we can make this article a fine upstanding place to visit, instead of, um, a fleabag. Any objection if I take a crack at it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence does not say the first uses were by conservatives but that the term "teabagger" was used "after conservatives used "tea bag" as a verb." Presumably the term "teabagger" was coined by non-supporters. TFD (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, i agreed it should be trimmed/merged or removed, having a sub-section devoted to a slur seems excessive per wp:due. is the average reader searching wikipedia for information about tea party interested in learning about a sex act? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four Deuces, the first uses on websites were apparently not by conservatives, right? Those first website uses were based on a use by a conservative protester's sign. Darkstar, I only have ambitions here to correct an error, not to restructure the article. The latter may or may not be desirable, but it's not what I'm suggesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove "on websites." IIRC, Jon Stewart picked up on the sign. It is worth noting because the term is in popular usage, although it does not deserve its own section. TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about: In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words "tea bag" as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing teabagger as a term for Tea Partiers. Cite: Koppelman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me -- though I'm not familiar with the sourcing of the assertion that the protestor was conservative. If that's not rock solid, it could say "person at a tea party rally" or the like.William Jockusch (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sourcing for the assertion that the protester was conservative, I would add this source, which is the photographer asserting that the protester was from Free Republic, which is a well known conservative group (and the photographed sign also says "Free Republic").Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I propose to replace this:


with this:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&oldid=575388250"