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)

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)

12 May edit request

If you would please be so kind:

• In the "Leadership and groups" section, IMHO the organization "non-section" headings should be in sentence case (e.g., "501(c)(4) non-profit organizations" and "For-profit businesses" for the current "501(c)(4) Non-Profit Organizations" and "For-Profit Businesses", etc.).
• In the same section "The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition" external link should be converted to a reference.
• In the "Public opinion" section's subsection titles ("2010 Polling" and "2012 Polling"), change the word "Polling" to "polling" (sentence case, as above).
• In the "Use of term "teabagger"" subsection, delete the double quotation marks bracketing A Way with Words, as the title is (properly) already italicized.
• Lastly, I suggest changing the {{Portal}} template to a {{Portal box}} template and moving it to the bottom of the "See also" section, as it currently is impinging on the "References" section (at least, in my browser).

—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I made a mistake. -_-;;; When I wrote "{{Portal box}} template", I meant "{{Portal bar}} template"; also, portals belong in the "See also", not the "External links" section, per WP:ALSO.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello?—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article will be unlocked soon. I will take a look at the situation tomorrow, and if it looks OK probably unlock then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah—okay. Thanks. ^_^—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

hemming and hawing

instead of that, say that there's ...no officially sanctioned central leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.6 (talk) 18:21, 3 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)

Influence of Koch Industries

Main article: Political activities of the Koch brothers

Only one(1) mention of Tea Party movement in main article, and it's how organizations founded by the Kochs before the Tea Party movement, have become part of the movement.

Does this deserve a sub-section, really? †TE†Talk 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to explain in the article the influence of corporate interests in some Tea Party organizations. It might be helpful to combine them, and then there would be no need to link to the other article. TFD (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny, corporate and union dollars need to be out of politics. No argument there. †TE†Talk 01:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)